February 24, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

“The liberal baby bust” is an article by Phillip Longman that was published June 2006 in USA Today.  I comment on it here and today because the article relates to concerns that are quite similar to those addressed by other authors that fell victim to comparable fallacies that I had commented on recently. (E. G.: Dwindling Populations)
A footnote to the article explains that Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It and states that “this essay is adapted from his cover story in … Foreign Policy magazine.”

In short, Phillip Longman explains that the birth dearth is nothing much to worry about.  He stated:

The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and ’70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children….

In the conclusion of his article he stated:

Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born….(Full Story)

Phillip Longman is quite correct in stressing by various means in his article that the correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility is an evolutionary dead end, that it will therefore spell the end of the growth of liberalism and mean a return of conservatism, but he ignores very important aspects of that tidal change in cultural trends.

Firstly, do we have enough time to wait for the change to conservatism to happen and, secondly, what sort of conservatism is it that we can expect to emerge?

There seems to be little doubt that within about at the most four generations the indigenous populations of the developed nations will have shrunk so much in size that they will no longer matter demographically or even culturally.  The differences in the demographic trends between Seattle and Salt Lake City are neither representative nor controlling in the USA.  It is important in the USA and elsewhere to recognize the cultural changes that are happening where the birth rates of so-called “conservative” families exceed by far the birth rates of liberal and progressive Whites and Blacks.

It is curious that Phillip Longman did not address the ethnic, racial and cultural origins of the populations that will replace the rapidly shrinking sector of the liberal and progressive Whites and Blacks in the USA (and in Canada), and of the comparable populations that will replace the corresponding and rapidly shrinking indigenous population sector in other developed nations.

In the USA it will be primarily Hispanics who will direct and dominate the cultural tidal change, at least in those states that were formerly part of the Spanish Colonies.  In Europe the replacing will be done by Muslims.  In the eastern parts of Russia it will be done by Chinese and Muslims.  It seems doubtful that Japan will remain empty.  Nature abhors a vacuum, even a demographic one.  Something will always rush in to fill a vacuum.  Japan will have to import increasing numbers of guest workers.  Just as that was done in Europe and ultimately resulted in the cultural and demographic upheavals that European nations are currently trying to cope with.

The liberal interest groups that eradicated the western cultural heritage will not be around to see that they quite literally eradicated the traditional western population.  Unless a change in the means by which that is made to happen occurs soon, it seems that the West will not go out with a whimper but quite possibly in a steadily increasing number of blasts caused by suicide bombings and urban warfare.

–Walter Schneider

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

January 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Country Comparison > Total fertility rate (unless indicated otherwise, the figures shown are as of January 2007)

There was a time, about 30 and more years ago, when the promoters of population control called for Zero-Population Growth.  Zero-population growth requires a total fertility rate of 2.2 children per average woman of fertile age in a given country.  Total fertility rates of less then 2.2 are indicators of population reduction, in effect not of Zero-population growth but of negative population growth.

As the list of total fertility rates for 217 countries shows, there are now 117 countries (all developed nations are amongst them) that have total fertility rates of 2.2 or less.  That means that the population in the countries with total fertility rates of less than 2.2 are seeing declining populations, the more so the smaller their total fertility rates are.  Nations with total fertility rates of about one are designated 4-2-1 countries, countries in whom one worker needs to support two non-productive parents and four non-productive grandparents.

More and more nations have declining total fertility rates that cause them to expect population reductions of 30 percent or more with every successive generation, with population shortfalls to varying extents compensated for through legal and illegal immigration from lesser-developed and underdeveloped nations (e. g.: in France and Germany through immigration from Islamic nations, in Canada through immigration from Asia, Africa and South-East Asia, and in the USA mainly through immigration from Mexico).

Still, the desired objective, the reduction of the world population to between 300 million and a billion people is a few generations off, perhaps a 150 years in all.  It is hard to imagine what it will be that by then constitutes a developed nation, as by then there will insufficient numbers of people left that are able to keep them operational by the methods we have become accustomed to.

The question is whether the populations in the developed nations will get the chance to vanish in peace.   The collapse of social safety nets (pension plans, old-age security and health-care systems) and of the infrastructure (utilities, sewers, road, rail and airline networks, and even of buildings) will become unavoidable.  There will simply not be enough people working anymore to be able to pay the taxes required -let alone do the required work - to maintain them.  The developed nations already increasingly suffer from shortages of workers, engineers and other skilled professions.

See also:

• World Population Control — U.S. Strategy and UN Policy Program
• World population reduction by 80%

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

January 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

From:  LifeSiteNews

Mainstream Media Systematically Misreports Attendance Figures - Reuters, Associated Press deflate official figures

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

MADRID, January 2, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)–Between one and two million people gathered in Madrid’s Colón Plaza and surrounding streets on December 30th to affirm the values of marriage and family, and to protest the socialist government’s attacks on the institution…. (Full Story)

See also: “Spanish leaders want bishops’ apology for pro-family rally“

Posted in Abortion, Health, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 28, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

How to Take the Chill Out of Demographic Winter

A speech by Don Feder to the New Generation Church, Riga, Latvia, November Nov. 15, 2007

….In half-a-century or less, Europe will be populated by strangers — who will wander by the continent’s cathedrals, museums, statues and battlefield monuments wondering what it all meant.

This catastrophe in the making can be most clearly seen in Russia. What Lenin, Stalin and Hitler failed to accomplish, the Russian people are doing to themselves. You might call it auto-genocide.

In Russia, the fertility rate is 1.17 (down from 2.4 in 1990, a decline of over 50%). Russia is losing three-quarters of a million people a year. Its current population of 145 million is expected to be reduced by a third by 2050. In Russia today, almost as many children are aborted as are born alive (1.5 million to 1.6 million)….

In terms of population replacement, Europe is going out of business. Of the 10 nations with the lowest fertility rates worldwide, 9 are in Europe. No European nation has anything approaching a replacement-level birthrate.

Overall, the European fertility rate is 1.3. (Remember, a fertility rate of 2.1 is needed just to maintain stability — no growth and no decline). Italy’s fertility rate is 1.2 — meaning that in the not-too-distant future, absent immigration, Italy will lose almost half of its people in every generation.

The average Italian child born today won’t have brothers or sisters. Most also won’t have cousins, aunts or uncles. Demographic winter is a lonely, as well as a chilly, place….

Full Text: HTML format; PDF format (43kB)

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

December 23, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

The upgrading of the remaining web pages at Fathers for Life that had to be changed to the standard page design for the website is just about complete now.  It appears that only a single web page still needs to be updated.

During the process of doing that I came across a number of things that had escaped my attention.  One of those was the mysterious absence of a table of contents for web pages relating to the topic Shared Parenting (that has now been corrected; see http://fathersforlife.org/ToC_shared_parenting.htm)

Another one was that a number of links in the index of a web page that discusses the concept of “Fatherlessness, in the best interest of the child” were not changed when the file name of one of the web pages containing that discussion had been changed some time ago.

That web page seems to be an important read for anyone who believes that case law can be used to reverse the evolution of case law pertaining to the changing nature of the legal right to paternity that took place during the past 200 years or so.

If you think that today’s fathers have a right to their children, that “in the best interest of the child” children have rights to have fathers in their lives, and if you wish to find the answer to the question,

Does a child have the right to have its father in its life and to bond with him?,

you may wish to read the discussion pertaining to Fatherlessness, in the “best interest of the child”.

It would truly be appreciated if anyone who feels that the conclusions drawn in that discussion can be disproved were to post his response as a comment to this blog entry.

Thanks, and once more a Merry Christmas to all,

Walter

Posted in Men's Issues, Child Murder, Abortion, Shared Parenting, Family, The New World Order, Feminist Jurisprudence, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

November 21, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

Joe (not his real name),

About your comment on the bonding and arresting of judges and their
collaborators.

It won’t work.

Aside from the fact that we always get the government we deserve (the politically-correct “majority” in power wants exactly that sort of government), it won’t work because that has already been tried a number of times. Just to mention a few of those times:

1. The evolution of laws in Ancient Sparta that favoured women and brutally indentured, oppressed and exploited men, and that in the end brought about the demise of Sparta. (Link)

2. The assassination (that is what it was) of Socrates by the sophists of Ancient Greece and by its lawyers and politicians.

   —-quote—
   There is an excellent essay that illustrates such a parallel, the demise of ancient Greece that followed within about a hundred years after the Cult of Apollo deliberately began to teach sophistry to the young men of Athens, for no other reasons than to destroy the superior Greek culture from within. Socrates opposed sophistry as a state- or cultural aim. On account of that he was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens, and he was made to execute himself by drinking the poisoned cup.

   Read the following:
   
   From Plato’s Theaetetus to Gauss’s Pentagramma Mirificum: A Fight for Truth, by Bruce Director

   Socrates was the last to oppose sophistry for a long time before anyone dared to do that again. Sophistry was victorious then (as political correctness and relativism are today). The rest is history. Aristotelian “logic”* ruled for more than a thousand years, causing cultural evolution  to stagnate, and causing much death, poverty and other suffering in the process. History repeats itself. This time the outcome will be similar; now only the scale of the social catastrophe differs. (*Aristotle was not a sophist, but sophists love to pick and choose from Aristotle’s explanations of logical arguments, thereby giving themselves the appearance of wisdom and their assertions, which are nevertheless false, the appearance of being true. See “On Sophistical Refutations,” by Aristotle)

   —end quote— (More at The depopulation crisis is real)

3. The fall of the Roman Empire for the same reasons that are causing the West to collapse now: Excessive taxation, corruption of government and the courts, low birth rates and the immigration of “Barbarians”. The result of that one was a dark age that lasted for about a thousand years.

4. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 that produced the English Bill of Rights (1689) from which important portions of the American Constitution were copied. I. e.: You ought to compare the passage that declares the right to bear arms. (Link)

5. The banishment (under pain of death) of all lawyers from Canada under Louis XIV. The French colonies were lawyer-free for about 150 years. (I forgot the exact time and length of the interval and don’t want to look it up right now)

6. The American War of Independence was fought for the very same reasons that motivate you to call for bonding and arrests and that were some of the major reasons for all other demises of governments before: corruption, taxation…, whether those government fell through revolution or under their own low productivity and excessive weight.

   That war gave some freedom, but not a heck of a lot of it and most definitely not for very long. That freedom didn’t last any longer than it did in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

7. The French Revolution. The freedom ostensibly brought by that never really came about, aside from transferring wealth from the nobility and from the Church to the state (at the cost of the lives of a lot of the French nobility, and of the lives of anyone else who didn’t toe the party line).

   That ended in totalitarianism and Napoleon. Napoleon attempted and almost succeeded to give all of  Europe a new code of law, the Code Napoleon. The Code Napoleon is still very much in existence in much of Europe and in Quebec, and so are the lawyers that feed and grow on it.

8. The Bolshevik revolution. That brought no freedom at all, only totalitarianism; until that ended and collapsed under its own weight (but the lawyers are still around). However, the lawyers in the USSR were a big part of it all. For one thing, they created the first system of People’s Courts under a modern totalitarian regime.

9. Hitler’s rise to power, which brought “freedom” for workers, industry and capitalists, and an industrial/military complex under the rule of a dictator.

   That “freedom” was gained in order to bring order into the freedom of the Weimar Republic (born in 1917, at the same time as the Bolshevik revolution, died in 1933 when Hitler came to power). The interesting aspect of that is that the Weimar Republic was a model for the new world order. It had brought corruption of the economy and corruption of moral standards that caused people to clamor for Hitler to bring order into the morass. The government of the Weimar Republic was on a national level what the UN - the government of the new world order - is now on a global level.

   Mind you just as in the USSR with the communist party, so in Germany. Hitler would never have gotten into power if it would not have been for women voters. A lot of them swooned when they came close to him, to within a few hundred feet (even within only a few feet of the newsreel screens or the loudspeakers of their radios). But even at that, Hitler did not get the majority of the votes he required (in our totalitarian times that is no longer true for the regimes to hold on to their power). He did the rest through stealth, cunning and brutality.

   David described some of the tactics that were used against him. There are others who experienced the same. The scale of the torture isn’t yet as big as it got under Hitler, but Hitler started on a small scale, too. There are now about 800 cases on record in the US where torture was used to extort from men confessions of guilt, men who are guilty of nothing more than being fathers or husbands (see: Totalitarianism, Terror, Torture and Corruption in America).

   As soon as Hitler got into power, he allowed the German judiciary to construct a parallel system of justice, the People’s Courts. Today’s equivalent are family courts and human rights tribunals. You in the US haven’t got human rights tribunals yet but they will surely come, too; and in the U.K. they are just coming into existence (in Germany as well) - persecution of hate crimes is the first step). Don’t ever forget that judges are first and foremost social engineers, but that they are lawyers, too.

   It took a lot of nations and their efforts to bring Hitler down, but what did that get anyone? Today’s totalitarianism in the “free West” is just about as bad as it was under Hitler, and a lot more lives are being systematically exterminated each year.

   Aside from all of those 45 million to 55 million children killed in the womb each year, close to 40 million people died in military conflicts since the UN brought us eternal peace and Paradise on Earth in 1946. The second world war caused 60 million people to die and far fewer children in the womb to be killed.

Now we come to your feeble efforts for bringing order, freedom and democracy by attempting to put an end to the corruption of the courts through force (whose force, who is strong enough?).

Why do you want to bother? That has been tried in vain a few times already during the last few years. It always ended the same way: the objectors were crushed, incarcerated, tortured, even killed. Whether killed or not, they were defamed. Remember Ruby Ridge, the Freemen - who tried and did exactly what you advocate - and Waco?

I could list at least another fifty such instances in history, but there is little point in that. Maybe the endless repetition of the cycle of democracy, corruption, totalitarianism and demise into chaos at many different levels of details is part of the human condition. It certainly had much to do with the repetitive rise and fall of civilizations. They generally come about with some regularity and then last from about 800 to about 1200 years. The  important thing to remember is that for virtually all of the time in the evolution and history of civilization it was totalitarianism and corruption that ruled.

Freedom and democracy hardly ever grew into more than a gleam in anyone’s eyes.

Perhaps that is why history is no longer being taught under the new world order. To deny the facts of history, to deny history itself, and to substitute social studies for the teaching of history is a totalitarian tactic. Social studies is a tool for indoctrination through focusing on a few selected warts and blemishes of history used to vilify a selected sector of the population (in our case that sector is the men). It is part of totalitarianism.

Who needs to rewrite history (read “1984″ - by George Orwell) as it happened in Nazi Germany and in the USSR when it is so much more efficient to ignore history, to ignore what history teaches us, and to abrogate even the teaching of history as a subject in our schools?

Look at yourself. You already forgot the lessons of Ruby Ridge, of the Freemen and of Waco. Maybe you feel that you can safely forget those lessons, but you cannot forget that our police forces are equipped for urban warfare - and that is for a very good reason.

At any rate,

It is a characteristic of any decaying civilization that the great masses of the people are unaware of the tragedy. Humanity in a crisis is generally insensitive to the gravity of the times in which it lives. Men do not want to believe their own times are wicked, partly because they have no standard outside of themselves by which to measure their times. If there is no fixed concept of justice, how shall men know it is violated? Only those who live by faith really know what is happening in the world; the great masses without faith are unconscious of the destructive processes going on, because they have lost the vision of the heights from which they have fallen.

Attributed to Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

We are falling. The only reason why few cry out in pain is that our fall isn’t yet hurting the masses that are still falling. Our fall hasn’t yet come to its end, and even religion - a sector of history - is now being prohibited and stymied, eradicated more thoroughly than it was during the French and the Bolshevik revolutions. Religions are history, they are not social studies. The history we get to learn is the one written and published by those in power.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

(Attributed to Lord Acton)

Walter

Posted in Censorship, Abortion, Education, Family, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

November 15, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

A great and valuable article:

How the Feminists’ “War against Boys” Paved the Way for Radical Islam
By Fjordman

12 November 2007

….Fjordman is a noted Norwegian blogger who has written for many conservative web sites. He used to have his own Fjordman Blog in the past, but it is no longer active.

http://globalpolitician.com/articleshow.asp?ID=3722&cid=1

The preceding reference is to a fairly long article published in Global Politician. The article is required reading.

It is remarkable that the sentiments and observations relating to population and family politics in the West that the article by Fjordman presents appear like a fairly accurate summary of the themes presented at Fathers for Life.

However, Fjordman’s article contains one misperception that must be corrected.

Barbara Boyle Torrey and Nicholas Eberstadt write about a significant divergence in fertility between Canada and the U.S.: “The levels of Canadian and American long-term trends in age of first marriage, first births, and common-law unions are consistent with the divergence in total fertility rates in the two countries. But the divergence in none of these proximate variables is large enough to explain the much larger divergence in fertility.” “Changing values in the U.S. and Canada may be contributing to the fertility divergence. The stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion. Women in Canada enter common-law unions more often, wait longer than American women to marry, and have children later and less often.”

The significant divergence exists on a national (where it masks its true causes) but not at a detailed demographical level. Moreover, the divergence is between the US and all developed nations, not just the ones in the West, and not just Canada.

The main reason for the national divergence in the US is not, as the quoted excerpt speculates, due to the “stronger notional role of men in U.S. families and the greater religiosity of Americans are positively associated with fertility, and the latter is also a strong predictor of negative attitudes toward abortion.”

The Caucasian population sector in the US experiences the very same deadly decline in total fertility rates experienced in all other developed nations, especially in those that prosper and are more culturally and racially homogeneous than the US is. The deadly decline in total fertility rates of Blacks in the US is even worse than that in the Caucasian population sector in the US.

However, the Hispanic population sector is the major influence on national fertility trends in the US. Hispanics’ fecund birth rates compensate for the deadly decline of total fertility rates in the Caucasian and Black population sectors in the US.

It is therefore not traditional American moral standards that contribute to the US holding its own with respect to maintaining population levels. It is the massive replacement of the declining population in American traditional population sectors with legal and illegal immigrants from Mexico that does so.

Moreover, per capita, the abortion rate in the US differs little from that of other developed nations. For instance, for every Canadian resident there are ten US residents, and for every Canadian abortion there are ten abortions in the US (roughly 120,000 per year in Canada vs. about 1.2 million each year in the US). Of course, nationally, the number of live births per capita exceeds the number of abortions to a far greater extent in the US than it does in other developed nations. On a per capita basis, US abortion rates are as high as those in Canada and in other developed nations. However, the high birthrate of Hispanic residents and immigrants in the US more than compensates for the relatively high abortion rates in the US that prevent 1.2 million much-needed children each year from being allowed to live and to continue the social and moral traditions of their parents.

Perhaps the moral and social traditions of those dead children’s parents are not worth perpetuating, it is just as well that they are not being perpetuated. That is a manifestation of the fact that birth control by choice and through killing is an evolutionary dead-end. To foist the culture of death and infertility on the American population and on the populations in other developed nations does nothing other than create a demographic vacuum that is being invaded by foreign populations and foreign cultural values.

That is what the article by Fjordman more than adequately illustrates, except for indicating that the US is an exception. It would be more accurate to state that the rate of population replacement through foreign cultures is the same in the US, in France, in the Scandinavian countries and in all developed nations, but that the invading culture that dominates all other growing foreign influences in the US is Mexican, not Islam; but even that may only be a matter of time.

Posted in Abortion, Health, Feminism, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2007 by Walter Schneider.

In 2006, Mike S. Adams, at Townhall.com, wrote a series of articles under the title “Why I don’t take feminists seriously”.

The series addresses a fair portion of the full scope of feminism (feminist Marxism, feminist humour, feminist sexuality, feminist masturbation, feminist racism, feminists on abortions, feminist logic, feminist men (e g.: husbands or boyfriends of feminist women), and much more). You need to read the series. Here are the links:

• Part I
• Part II
• Part III
• Part IV
  

Part IV of the series contains a link to an article on a Grinnell masturbation Workshop sponsored by the Feminist Action Coalition.

When I followed that link to Grinnell’s website, I got to a page at Grinnell telling me:

Note: The Article entitled “How To Love Your Body” has been removed due to it being used without permission, an infringement of copyright. If you would like the article, please contact the webmaster

Mike Adams noted in one of the articles in his series that the feminists butcher the English language (that is also true of other languages). So it is in that simple statement at Grinnell College: Individuals may and can be “entitled”, but the article cannot be and never was entitled to anything.

Moreover, as is customary with so many other things asserted by feminists, Grinnell’s assertion that the article of interest has been removed is not entirely true. Here is the link to a web page with the archived article:

“How to love your body: An S&B reporter observes Tuesday night’s masturbation workshop, sponsored by Feminist Action Coalition,” by Lola Garcia, Scarlett & Black, Volume 120, Number 05, October 3, 2003.

• Part V
• Part VI
• Part VII

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

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.

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 »

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 1.5 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 further. 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 »