February 6, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

smh.com.au
Sidney Morning Herald, Australia

Go ahead, Grandpa, make my grey day

Miranda Devine
February 7, 2009

My GP says every second patient he sees is 90 and they all have the following ailments: “Every joint is gone; all have heart disease, insomnia, bladder problems, incontinence, cancer.” They are “wearing out”. A lot are on 20 different pills and no one really knows how they interact. Some patients shuffle into his office and say they are simply tired of living….(Full Story)

_____________
F4L: Miranda Devine review of the movie “Gran Torino” gives full credit to the feat by Clint Eastwood, who made the movie “Gran Torino” in 32 days and turned it in a #1 box office hit that is even now, after running almost two months, still in number three position.

It is hard to deny success like that, but success in the box office does not mean a tidal change in social attitudes towards the elderly.

Miranda Devine recounts how Walter Kowalski (played by Clint Eastwood, age 78) saves “a young South-East Asian neighbour from local gang members. Like Eastwood’s Dirty Harry, Walt has some memorable one-liners, such as: “Get off my lawn!” - said with a rifle in his hands. Walt sits on his verandah drinking beer and muttering racial slurs at the immigrants who have taken over his Detroit suburb….”

I have not seen the movie yet, but I have seen a fair bit of life.  Unlike what is insinuated in the movie, namely that a 78-year-old Grandpa can succeed in saving his neighbourhood, in real life it is far more likely that he would be neutralized.

He would be neutralized as surely as the sun rises in the East, not by the neigbourhood gangs but by the local SWAT team of the police. A 78-year-old man with a rifle is no match for a SWAT team with body armor, armed and trained for urban warfare.

In real life the end of the story would have come fairly early on, right after Walt Kowalski delivered the Dirty-Harry-like one-liner, “Get off my lawn” - rifle in hand.

Miranda Devine closes her review of “Gran Torino” with:

Why, if old age is all insomnia, worn-out organs and crippling medical costs, does society bother with it? Alford cites an old African saying, “the death of an old person is like the burning of a library”. Old guys remind us there are other ways of being human.

That, too, is a wishful thought, but it is no more influential than to celebrate emerging life at the other end of the range.

Such celebrations are necessary to make the pruning of life at both ends of the age range less acceptable, but for now it is quite alright to kill children not yet born at the rate of about 50 million each year in the world.  The day does not seem far off when the killing in such numbers of those about to die of old age will bother no one any more than the killing of children about to continue life outside their mothers’ wombs does.

Humanity declared children to be a luxury, a luxury we can’t afford and must therefore kill.  Children grow out of being unproductive.  Still, it is doubtful that it is wise to kill children regardless of an age-limit for culling them.  The children we cull don’t fight back.  They are not only innocent but powerless as well.

There are far more compelling reasons for the killing of the elderly.  The elderly are not likely to regain their productivity once they have lost it due to any health reason, even if it is nothing more than the feebleness that comes with old age.  Still, they can, just as Clint Eastwood did in “Gran Torino”, pretend that they have enough power to resist whatever is being done to them. It may make them feel better.

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Health, Child Murder, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

January 25, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

OneNews.com
2009 01 24

Obama condemned for expanding taxpayer funded abortions
Matthew Lee and Liz Sidoti - Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - As he promised during the election campaign, Barack Obama on Friday struck down a ban against taxpayer funded abortions abroad.

Obama’s move was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by defenders of unborn children.

The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office….(Full Story)

_________________
F4L: There are in the order of about 55 million abortions a year in the whole world.  Roughly 70 million unborn children, conceived but not yet born, are being permitted to live, to be carried to term and to be born in the world each year.

The consequence of that is that in all of the developed nations and in ever more of the developing ones there are now declining populations that add up to as much as 30 percent reductions with every generation.

Barack Obama in essence resumed the exporting of a culture of death.

The web page Abortions - Deadly Politics contains more information and detailed statistics that illustrate the history, extent, development and the impact of the culture of death - an American export intended to safeguard the continued existence of the USA but that is in effect one of the reasons why the world market for goods manufactured in the USA falters.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Abortion, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 14, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Australian - Blog
14 January 2009

Rights charter is from 2009 BC
By Janet Albrechtsen

Here I am in Canada again. And once again I am receiving a few free lessons about a charter of rights. Just about every time I am in this otherwise great country, its Charter of Rights and Freedoms is making headlines for all the wrong reasons. Reasons that Australians should be digesting as the push for an Australian charter of rights unfolds this year.

This time in Canada it’s a cracker of a story about a preacher man who has had 26 wives and more than 106 children. Clearly a sucker for punishment, 52-year-old Winston Blackmore, from the aptly named town of Bountiful in British Columbia, was arrested last Wednesday amid much media hoopla and charged with breaching BC’s criminal prohibition on polygamy.

Not taking a backward step, Blackmore says his fundamentalist Mormon beliefs on polygamy are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the charter overrides BC’s criminal code….(Full Story)

______________

F4L:  Polygamy has been illegal in Canada since many years before Pierre Elliot Trudeau “brought the Constitution home” in 1982.  That no cases prosecuting polygamy by some in a few Mormon communities were ever brought to bear is for a good reason.  The authorities wanting to launch such an action always feared that they would run the risk that they would lose such a case.

The time is now ripe to bring such a case against polygamy into the court system, where it will most likely make it up to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), whereupon it stands a good chance to be lost and for polygamy to become legal, as that appears to fit in with the agenda for social engineering that the SCC actively promoted since 1982.

SCC justices had always had large powers to engage in social engineering, but they did not have the legal power to do so and to be necessarily successful in trying.  Since 1982 they assumed the legal power to usurp the power to legislate (that is, the power to make laws) from our lawfully elected legislators (lawgivers) in provincial and federal elected bodies of government.  Since 1982 there has also been a great escalation of rulings by the SCC that illustrate what its agenda for social engineering is and will be.

Since 1982 the SCC justices assumed the power to overrule, by hook and by crook, the wishes of our elected representatives.  Ted Byfield, the publisher of the now defunct news magazine, The Report, extensively commented on the growth over the powers of the SCC justices over the years and was given to call the SCC justices “judicial activists” and the “nine kings in purple robes.”

There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone in Canada holding conservative opinions that the SCC is out to re-engineer Canadian society, so as to extinguish and replace the set of moral standards we once held sacred and adhered to.  Going by the evidence of the SCC’s decisions since shortly after 1982, the SCC’s agenda promotes: world government; socialism; equality of outcomes; income equalization regardless of the merits earned by achievements; the abolition of the traditional nuclear family; Atheism; Paganism; the abrogation of individual rights for men; supremacy for women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities; the abrogation of traditional moral standards based on the code of ethics of Christian churches, and of the right of men to own and enjoy property and to be able to be the fathers and teachers of their children.

In short, the SCC is the major force driving the conversion of Canada to a socialist state that is to be incorporated into the global socialist world regime.  Igor Shafarevich, a Russian and world-renowned mathematician who became a historian in the absence of the historians that were exterminated through the purges that took place in the USSR, summed up the agenda of socialism as follows:

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. (Igor Shafarevich, in The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200)

In writing that, he aptly described the goals for the agenda of our SCC justices.

Our Supreme Court of Canada justices do not consider our Constitution to be a set of laws that they must live by, administer, interpret and apply, but that the Constitution is a living document to be changed as required so that it can be used as the tool by which to implement their agenda for social engineering. Seeing that most of our Supreme Court justices promote judicial advocacy for social changes such as those indicated above, one is forced to ask: By what law did the SCC justices assume the right to become judicial activists and to impose their world view on the Canadian people? (E. g.: SCC Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin’s speeches identified below.)

1. The [Canadian] Charter — a judicial coup d’etat
   By Joanne Byfield, 2003 03 03
   If voters don’t support change, government can pay to take it to court

2. Speech by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, “UNWRITTEN CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES: What is Going On?” (Dec. 1, 2005, NZ), in which she argues that the rights of judges must transcend common law, constitutions (it follows that the principles to be overcome by judicial advocacy also include the supremacy of God) and parliamentary principles.
3. Remarks of the Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin, P.C.
   Chief Justice of Canada:  Reaction and Pro-action: Bringing Family Law Advocacy Into the 21st Century (Family Law Dinner, Ontario Bar Association, Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, January 24, 2002)

Beverley McLachlin is by no means the only SCC justice who promoted the role of SCC justices as being the purveyor of radical social change in Canada, with the aim to impose socialism.  Nevertheless, neither the people nor their elected representatives ever gave the SCC justices such powers.  Our Constitution most certainly never gave them those powers; other than that the SCC justices busily engaged themselves in writing the consequences of their judicial activism into the Constitution.

Given that the SCC justices of Canada are re-writing our Constitution, thereby turning it, step by step and cut by cut, into something the Constitution was not meant to be, the conclusion appears to be unavoidable that our SCC justices are revolutionaries and traitors to our country.  They are captives and apostles of the ideology they promote and are no longer the servants of our country but made themselves its masters and tyrants.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Child Support, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Feminism, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Gay issues, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

January 10, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

 ”Golden years are looking grim” was the title of a January 7, 2009 article in the Edmonton Journal (A13).  The subtitle of that article in the Journal was, “Countries around the globe face massive social upheaval and financial hardship as their populations are slowly, but surely, getting older”

That article was a copy of an article that was published Jan. 4, 2009 in the Washington Post, under the title: “The World Won’t Be Aging Gracefully. Just the Opposite.”

The title that the Edmonton Journal gave that article is somewhat misleading.  The fate of the elderly population sector is an important part of the discussion on the consequences of the culture of death with the deliberate goal of shrinking the world population down to between 500 million to a billion people.  The important aspect of that is not so much the shrinking of the resources for the elderly as is the cause of that problem symptom, the rapidly shrinking size of the working population sector.  That population sector will reach the point where it must and will decide whether the elderly can be allowed to live.

Yes, you understood that correctly, compulsory euthanasia is just a few years off.  It is either that we do it in an orderly fashion or that we let the elderly live in squalor and have them starve to death without adequate health care services.

That is not stressed in the article.  Other things in the article are assumptions based on pure speculation and not on an objective evaluation of alternatives.  For instance, Neil Howe and Richard Jackson state in their article that “In 2030, young people will have the future on their side. Elders will have the votes on theirs. Bold new investments in education, the environment or foreign assistance will be highly unlikely,” and that “With each new birth cohort smaller than the last, the typical workplace will be top-heavy with graybeards.”

It seems quite likely that in a market in which demand is falling due to rising taxes for those who work and due to seniors not being as eager or able to pay for what they don’t need, as working people are forced to pay ever higher taxes to support the elderly, while the size of their work force is shrinking due to falling birth rates as well as increasing unemployment rates, the workers supporting the retirees could easily come to actively resent the controlling voting power of the elderly as well as seeing them as robbing younger people of jobs.  Working people could easily begin to feel that they are serfs and indentured to non-productive elderly parasites.

After all, the inconceivable, abortion - the deliberate killing of children about to be born, was made to become acceptable, desirable, legal, then government-funded and even compulsory through peer pressure and government decree.  It is a logical progression that, if children about to be born are seen as an inconvenience and preferably killed, the killing of the old and feeble at the other end of the age range will appear to be a desirable solution to an ever more oppressive tax burden and a declining standard of living.

But the article does address a large variety of other issues that will become just as important as time goes by.

Washington Post

The World Won’t Be Aging Gracefully. Just the Opposite.

Sunday, January 4, 2009; Page B01

» Links to this article

By Neil Howe and Richard Jackson
The world is in crisis. A financial crash and a deepening recession are afflicting rich and poor countries alike. The threat of weapons of mass destruction looms ever larger. A bipartisan congressional panel announced last month that the odds of a nuclear or biological terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the year 2014 are better than 50-50. It looks as though we’ll be grappling with these economic and geopolitical challenges well into the 2010s.

But if you think that things couldn’t get any worse, wait till the 2020s. The economic and geopolitical climate could become even more threatening by then — and this time the reason will be demographics.

Yes, demographics, that relentless maker and breaker of civilizations. From the fall of the Roman and the Mayan empires to the Black Death to the colonization of the New World and the youth-driven revolutions of the 20th century, demographic trends have played a decisive role in precipitating many of the great invasions, political upheavals, migrations and environmental catastrophes of history. By the 2020s, an ominous new conjuncture of these trends will once again threaten massive disruption. We’re talking about global aging, which is likely to have a profound effect on economic growth, living standards and the shape of the world order.

For the world’s wealthy nations, the 2020s are set to be a decade of hyperaging and population decline. Many countries will experience fiscal crisis, economic stagnation and ugly political battles over entitlements and immigration. Meanwhile, poor countries will be buffeted by their own demographic storms. Some will be overwhelmed by massive age waves that they can’t afford, while others will be whipsawed by new explosions of youth whose aspirations they cannot satisfy. The risk of social and political upheaval and military aggression will grow throughout the developing world — even as the developed world’s capacity to deal with these threats weakens….(Full Story)

______________
F4L: Still, although the article by Howe and Jackson discusses many important and worrying issues, it does not cover enough of those (e. g.: the article brings up China’s one-child policy, but the far more important influence of US National Security Study Memorandum 200 is not mentioned at all).  The most important omission in the article is that it does not mention that the calamity of the world-population reduction is not a natural and inevitable process.  It is the consequence of a very deliberate plan for systematically depopulating the world by 80 percent or more.

For more on that check:

The Demographics of Death, or, The Decline & Fall of the Human Empire

World Population Control — U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program

An overview compiled from various sources, based on various opinions relating to the consequences of the U.S.-promoted culture of death resulting from National Security Study Memorandum 200, by Henry A. Kissinger, National Security Council, Washington, D.C. 20506, April 24, 1974.

U.N. projects a significant population shift by 2050 (2001 article)

United Nations Population Information Network (POPIN), UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, with support from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)

Population Trends: Rapid Growth in Less Developed Regions (2008, UNFPA)

(The preceding links are from Patriarchy — Was there ever such a thing?)

Still, there is one more issue that the article by Neil Howe and Richard Jackson does not address adequately.  Their article closes with,

All told, population trends point inexorably toward a more dominant U.S. role in a world that will need us more, not less. For the past several years, the U.N. has published a table ranking the world’s 12 most populous countries over time. In 1950, six of the top 12 were developed countries. In 2000, only three were. By 2050, only one developed country will remain — the United States, still in third place. By then, it will be the only country among the top 12 with a historical commitment to democracy, free markets and civil liberties.

Abraham Lincoln once called this country “the world’s last best hope.” Demography suggests that this will remain true for some time to come.

Yes, the region presently occupied by the USA experiences population increases.  However, the optimism expressed over that by the authors of the article may not be justified.  The USA relies for its population growth on the fertility of its Hispanic population sector, while the Black and Caucasian population sectors are experiencing fatal and accelerating decline.  That means that at the very least the nature of the USA will by 2050 no longer resemble much of its present character, just as a predominantly Muslim Europe no longer will resemble much of anything that Europe had become accustomed to by the 1950s.

There is another consideration that is even more important when contemplating the future of the USA in 2050.  If the USA will still exist then, it will quite likely be that its name will stand for something like the United Socialist Aggregation.  That is of course a little awkward and it will more likely be called something like USSA, for United Socialist States of America.

Moreover, the USA is an empire, very much split along the lines of ethnic aspirations.  Given the rapid growth of the population of Hispanic origin and background (much along the lines of the former Spanish colonies that existed not all that long ago (the southern and western states that were usurped from Mexico), the chances that the empire of the USA will still be in existence by 2050 are little better now than those of the former USSR were in the 1950s that it would still be whole by 1990.

No, it is a distinct possibility that by 2050 the name of the most populous developed nation on Earth will be that of the empire of the predominantly Islamic European Union, with the much expanded empire of the predominantly Catholic EUN (Estados Unidos Norteamérica) being a close second and the shrunken and still shrinking empire of the predominantly Atheist USSA (United Socialist States of America) being third.

A related article looks at some of those issues within the context of the deaths and the dying of rural communities in Canada.

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Health, Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Obama planning billion-dollar ‘bailout’ for abortion industry
Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 12/18/2008

Money 2A pro-life group in Washington has launched a campaign to oppose what it calls president-elect Barack Obama’s planned $1.5 billion “bailout” of the abortion industry.

Last week, the Obama-Biden Transition Project posted a report on its website that calls for dramatic policy reversals on abortion, including $1 billion in taxpayer money for international abortion groups like Planned Parenthood. The report, titled “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration,” also calls for a 133-percent increase in funding for the Title X program, which funds Planned Parenthood clinics across the country….(Full Story)

Posted in Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

RenewAmerica

December 16, 2008

Hillary Clinton, feminist-at-large
By Carey Roberts

Remember Whack-a-Mole? The theme park game that features insouciant plastic rodents popping out of the hole — Whack! Here comes another one — WHACK!

That’s the image that comes to mind as I ponder Hillary Clinton’s controversial career: Staunch defender of a wayward Commander-in-Chief. Achievement-free senator from New York. Once-inevitable presidential candidate.

And just when you think the drama has thankfully drawn to a close, the curtain rises on yet another act….(Full Story)

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

December 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

OneNewsNow.com

2008 12 15

Planned Parenthood protecting child rapist … again

By Charlie Butts

….”Counselors in Washington, DC, encountered a 13-year-old girl going into a Planned Parenthood in the downtown DC area [who] was accompanied by her mother and her aunt,” Walker explains. According to the pro-life activist, following the abortion the aunt shared some information with sidewalk counselors outside the clinic.

“[S]he informs them that this little girl has been raped by the mother’s boyfriend, and the mother wants to keep the boyfriend,” says Walker….(Full Story)
_____________
F4L: Where was and is the natural father of the girl?  Just as important, what will that girl be like when she becomes an adult?

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Abortion, Men's Issues, Family, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

November 28, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The website of Fathers for Life (affiliated with the blog of dads & things) contains a number of web pages that discuss various aspects of world-population control, such as the concerns raised by politicians, social engineers and the media about the specter of the world-population “explosion.” It seems that the argument is raised for the purpose of creating unreasonable fear, which fear is then used to rationalize population control though voluntary and compulsory means that bring about, and have done so for more than two decades already on an unprecedented scale, the killing of children about to born, thereby to prevent those children from being born, and to do that at the rate of about 50 million children a year in the world.

Given the relatively small size of the world population and the relatively insignificant amount of biomass that humanity presents (e.g.: the biomass of insects is many times larger and that of the planet’s vegetation many more times larger yet), why is there any concern about the size of the world population, and why do we hear so much and so often about it?

The answer to that is fairly simple.  People consume things: food, materials, goods and resources.  The fear is that if the world population grows unchecked, the consumption of the things “needed” by humans will increase so much that it will exhaust the capacity of the earth to make them available. Nevertheless, that is a somewhat dumb argument.

Even though there appears to be no limit to humanity’s greed for Paradise on Earth, consumption by humans is limited by the availability of resources.  If we run out of things, we will automatically stop increasing our consumption.  Not all natural resources are limited.  Some are renewable, such as food crops, but many others that are ostensibly limited, such as mineral resources, limited only by how much we are willing to pay for them — therefore virtually unlimited.  There are not enough people alive now or later to permit anyone to accurately estimate whether any of earth’s natural resources can truly and definitively become exhausted for as long as earth will support human life.

Some people smarter than I am calculated that the earth could easily feed 50 billion people and more, and I don’t doubt that at all, although that would require substantial changes to lifestyles and eating habits for many.

The food stuffs we can produce on our farm would sustain three good-sized villages, but we can’t afford to produce crops.  There is insufficient market demand for what we can produce.  Therefore the prices we can get for what we can produce are so low that it is not worth for us to try to produce them.  Besides, not only are we unwilling to spend a lot of money to be able to carry on, money that we may never be able to pay back to the lenders, but we are plainly too old to carry on with making a living off our farm.  So far none of our children and grandchildren have had the urge to prove us wrong by showing us that they can make a good living off the farm.

Therefore we leased our farm to someone who thinks that he can stay on top of things because of the economy of scale.  He has much more land, larger machinery and less input of work per acre.  Unfortunately, anyone in his position knows what problems he faces.  The major cost inputs that he has to recover with what he can sell are for fuel, fertilizer, herbicides and machinery.  He has no more control over the rising costs of those than he has over the price trends for the crops he sells.

He is not in trouble, but that is only because he has a full-time job with which he supports his farm operation.

At any rate, it is obvious that not just our farm but all of humanity is a long way from reaching maximum efficiency and rate of agricultural production, perhaps just as far away as we are from the need to have to feed 50 billion people or more.

Are we running out of land surface for people?  If so, why?

Is the world overpopulated?

If all of the world’s people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world’s people would have 98.6m² of land to live on.

Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft²) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

• Alberta land area: 661,565 km², 255,541 miles²
• World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

The availability of land, even the little bit more that would be required to feed all of those people and to provide them with the basic necessities of life other than food, doesn’t seem to be a limiting factor.  If a small garden for each family is not big enough, well, have people live in apartment buildings and thereby reduce the size of their footprint on land used for food production.  Besides, Alberta constitutes an insignificantly minuscule fraction of the total land surface of the world.

You may feel that I am over-simplifying the problem, and that the world is far more complex than I make it out to be?  If so, please demonstrate where I went wrong and what must be done instead.

Regardless of the arguments anyone will produce to prove me wrong, I bet that the problem is not as much one of limits on basic necessities as it is one of limits to what are largely luxuries that consume disproportionately large shares of available natural resources.

Certainly, we can all agree that we should strive to prevent anyone from going hungry, that no one should walk around naked or freeze to death without a roof over his head.

We can afford to have a chicken in every pot and enough bread to go with that to make it a full meal, so as to prevent anyone from having to go hungry.  That doesn’t take all that much, and what little it takes is easily done.  It seems that we run into real serious limitations if we wish to give everyone more than those basic necessities.  Some of us drive a 1½-ton car for two blocks to pick up nothing more than a package of cigarettes at the nearest corner store.  The limitation in this case may be nothing more than that humanity cannot afford to give everyone on earth that privilege.  Should that be legislated or decreed by government, or should we allow the free market full play: whoever can afford to drive a car let him; let the others walk?

Yes, maybe, let the one who can afford to drive also pay for the road that he drives on.  The others only need a footpath and to walk on it only when the sun shines.  However, the medical industry pretends that it can give everyone an unlimited number of organ transplants in attempts to extend his life indefinitely or even by an undefined number of years.  That is most definitely limited by what we can afford to pay, but not only that.  Organ transplant recipients have the nasty habit of dying on average about ten years after after receiving major donor organs.  So far there appears to be no solution to that, and as of now we do not know enough to be able to determine whether that will ever change.

So, if you don’t agree that 3,200 sq.ft. is enough land for every family of three to be able to fully sustain itself, how much land for that would be necessary and for what reasons?  What lifestyle should Joe Average have, and how do we make sure that everyone in the world can achieve it?  The attempts to reach that goal will most certainly not stop in our evermore increasingly socialist global civilization.

The question is why it should be necessary to kill children about to be born to make it possible to sustain the lifestyle that a few people reached in a few nations but that not all people in any or all nations can possibly become accustomed to?  If we must exterminate 50 million children a year, why not 122 millions a year, and why not kill off all of those children that are being conceived?  If fewer children is good, then no children must be best, right?  That would fit the full deadlyness of the world-wide rush towards socialism identified by Igor Shafarevich.  There is no doubt in my mind that a global socialist state will result in the extinction of mankind; result at the very least in a very intensive and very long dark age for our civilization.

 3. Socialist doctrines preserve the notion of the medieval mystics about the three stages in the historical process, as well as the scheme of the fall of mankind and its return to the original state in a more perfect form. The socialist doctrines contain the following components:

a. The myth of a primordial “natural state” or “golden age,” which was destroyed by that bearer of evil called private property.

b. A castigation of the way things are. Contemporary society is pronounced incurably depraved, unjust and meaningless, ready only to be scrapped. Only on its ruins can a new social structure be built, a structure that would guarantee people every happiness of which they are capable.

c. The prophecy of a new society built on socialist principles, a society in which all present shortcomings would disappear. This is the only path for mankind to return to the “natural state,” as Morelly put it: from the unconscious Golden Age to the conscious one.

Igor Shafarevich, The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 130

I often read in The Socialist Phenomenon (its file can be very conveniently searched).  The book confirms my impression that the prescription for the success of world-wide socialism calls for the creation of all-pervasive, absolute, total and global social chaos (including the loss of our respect for life, especially for the lives of the innocent and helpless). The problem with that is that it will most likely take an almost infinite interval of time before order can emerge out of chaos. By that time all of humanity will most likely be dead.

It is not in the best interest of humanity to attempt to save the globe by killing off humanity, especially not if humanity is not putting the globe into danger.

_____________
There is a related discussion on this at Laigle’s Forum:
Eyewitness accounts of the dying of the West.

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Health, Family | Print | No Comments »

November 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Catholic Insight

Why Stephen Harper should be retired

By Fr. Alphonse de Valk

Issue: November 2008

After the election of October 14, a number of political observers concluded that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s time is coming to an end.  Don Martin in the National Post ( Oct.14), still argued that Harper had won the election and now is secure in the saddle. Half a dozen others, however, saw his third failure to obtain a majority in the House of Commons as a sign pointing to the exit. Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail wrote that Harper will be gone before “the next vote” (Oct. 16)….

After the election of October 14, a number of political observers concluded that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s time is coming to an end.  Don Martin in the National Post ( Oct.14), still argued that Harper had won the election and now is secure in the saddle. Half a dozen others, however, saw his third failure to obtain a majority in the House of Commons as a sign pointing to the exit. Lawrence Martin of the Globe and Mail wrote that Harper will be gone before “the next vote” (Oct. 16)….

In general the commentators emphasized similar failures in analyzing why Stephen Harper did not get his majority. As the only spokesman for the Conservatives, all other MPs having been silenced once more, the blame, they said, falls squarely on him, mostly because of his autocratic personality….

Yes, the Harper government has made some improvements, such as the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, the appointment of judges opposed to judicial activism, and extending child support directly to families instead of spending billions on centralized daycare.

However, none of this makes up for the most grievous flaw of all, Harper’s outright and brutal rejection of the pro-life ethic in defence of the dignity of all persons, newly re-iterated in the most blatant way possible….(Full Story)

Posted in Judiciary, Civil Rights, Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

October 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best.  See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).  In that article he explains, amongst many other things describing the state of the non-existence of Canadian democracy, that, “Our parliamentary system degenerated many decades ago into a form of elected dictatorship, ruled from the Prime Minister’s Office.”

As to what the options are in this Canadian federal election, he stated in that article, after providing numerous reasons (with whom I whole-heartedly agree) for reaching it, the following conclusion,

To put it plainly, while I have great respect for many of the “nobodies” on the Conservative back benches (and several in the other parties, too), Mr. Harper disgusts me.

But the alternative is Stéphane Dion. He appeals to me because, natural loser as he appears to be in the game of politics, he is not as cynical. I think he actually believes in his policies, including centrally his ridiculous “Green Shift,” and the climatological buncombe that lies behind it. But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?

Harper’s and his Conservative’s lead in the opinion polls is evaporating.  It has taken a nose-dive during the past six weeks. There is little doubt in my mind that the drop in the ratings is due to people catching on to the fact that Harper increasingly often shows that political expediency repeatedly caused him to discard promises he had made to his supporters, but don’t just take my word on that.  Here is how many of his former supporters see him and his party with respect to key issues that concern Canadian conservatives:

On the right to life for a child yet in his mother’s womb

Harper Would Have to Personally Kill an Unborn Baby to Avoid the Hidden Agenda Charge (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 8, 2008)

Harper’s bid for the sake of political expediency clashes with reality:

Pro-Abortion UN Petition Falters; Pro-Life Initiative Numbers Surging

By Samantha Singson

NEW YORK October 9, 2008 (C-FAM) - A month after the campaign was first reported in the Friday Fax, pro-abortion group Marie Stopes International has removed the ticker keeping track of names for their web-campaign calling for “Global Safe Abortion.”

The Friday Fax reported last month that after a year of campaigning the Marie Stopes abortion petition had garnered fewer than 600 signers. A month later, a count of campaign signatures reveals that only 50 more people have added their signatures to the Marie Stopes petition.

Conversely, a pro-life initiative that began less than two weeks ago as a counterpoint to the Marie Stopes campaign has yielded more than 26,000 signatures.  The “International Call for the Rights and Dignity of the Human Person and the Family,” launched by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), has generated a massive response from concerned pro-lifers from around the globe….(Full Story)

On movies depicting extreme pornography and violence

Harper Ditches Plans to Pull Tax Credits for Extremely Offensive Films (LifeSiteNews, Oct. 9, 2008)

Again, Harper’s bid for the sake of political expediency clashes with reality:

THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, 2008 (REAL Women of Canada)

On pulling the fangs of Status of Women Canada

The website of Status of Women Canada states on its home page that,

Status of Women Canada (SWC) is a federal government organization that promotes the full participation of women in the economic, social and democratic life of Canada. SWC works to advance equality for women and to remove the barriers to women’s participation in society, putting particular emphasis on increasing women’s economic security and eliminating violence against women.

To advance equality for women, SWC works with federal departments and agencies to ensure that the gender dimensions are taken into account in the development of policies and programs - by conducting gender-based analysis and supporting research.

“Gender-based analysis and supporting research” is a euphemism for outright pro-feminist advocacy and activism.  It becomes increasingly difficult to understand why a taxpayer-funded organization that has done more than any other government organization to create massive discrimination against Canadian men still exists.

The serious discrimination against men is quite literally a question of life and death. Canadian men had life expectancies that were at the beginning of the last century equal to that of women.  Today, the life expectancy of Canadian women is on average seven years larger than that of men.  Still, with taxpayer funding provided largely by men, SWC wants and works hard to achieve that Canadian women be more “equal” yet than Canadian men.  There is no comparable taxpayer-funded organization for the Status of Men.  Yet, it is obviously men who need saving.

Although Leon Benoit (Conservative MP, Vegreville-Wainwright, Alberta) adamantly denied at a Sep. 19, 2008 visit to the Bruderheim Seniors Club that SWC exists, Stephen Harper nevertheless announced with great fanfare on Sep. 25, 2006 that a $5-million budget cut for SWC was amongst those announced on Ottawa’s $2-billion hit list.

That was a step into the right direction and welcome news.  Of course, Canada’s feminist-dominated and -controlled media roared at the perceived outrage that was an affront against everything radical feminists had been working on for so many decades.  Stephen Harper caved in.  He not only nixed the $5-million cut to the budget of SWC but in March of 2007 quietly allocated an extra $5-million for SWC’s 2007-2008 budget.

Status of Women Canada

News Releases

March 7, 2007
Canada’s New Government Increases Funding to the Women’s Program
OTTAWA — On the eve of International Women’s Day, the Honourable Beverley J. Oda, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Status of Women, announced an additional $5 million in new funding for 2007-2008 for Status of Women Canada and a new funding mechanism for the Women’s Program….(Full Story)

Courtesy of our Federal Government, it is easy to determine what that money was spent on.  It appears, just as all along, that a major portion of that tax revenue was spent to promote the causes of radical feminism not only in Canada but throughout the whole world.  The itemized list of expenses spans expenditures for several years, but it may not include (at least I have not been able to find an expense claim like it, as the list does not appear to include a list of all grants that were made) items such as the following.

Edmonton’s Prostitution Awareness and Action Foundation…. received a $600,000 grant from Status of Women last spring to give at least 100 hours of crisis and outreach training to former sex-trade workers. — “Empathy at core of Project Hope“, Edmonton Journal, p. B1, Oct. 8, 2008

Is there anything else to say, other than that one should wonder what the rate of recidivism of those “rescued” prostitutes will be? After all, no matter how much SWC huffs and puffs with our tax dollars that the CPC so lavishly hands to them, prostitution is a goldmine for many of the prostitutes (just check the Yellow Pages for “Escort Agencies”), no matter which way you cut it. Either the Johns or, thanks to the symbiosis of SWC and CPC, the taxpayers (or both) pay.

It would not surprise me if some of those prostitutes to be so rescued will now work two jobs, one of them being paid by SWC. Two gold mines are better than one.  To paraphrase the key message of a popular Country and Western, “They’ve got the mine, and men got the shaft.”

We do not need a “Conservative” government that caves in to every hue and cry by feminists.  After having been discriminated against for years by the Liberals, why should any Canadian man in his right mind vote Conservative, only to have the Conservatives continue - with a vengeance - the all-out and deadly discrimination against men?

Posted in Civil Rights, Abortion, Health, Men's Issues, Feminism | Print | No Comments »