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 »

October 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Link to original article (in German)

A translation of the article into English is appended after the following comments.

It is worthwhile checking out the photos relating to the article.  They provide a few ideas for the wording and formats of placards that can be used on placards at other demonstrations elsewhere.

The photo in the main article shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.  Fulda is a German city with a population of about 60,000.

The slogans visible and legible in the photos related to the main article translate as follows:

13 photos in the related photo series:

1. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
2. “Children’s Rights on Paper –
   Their Fathers are here today” (Link)
3. “Family-splitting
   instead of
   Splitting of Partners in Marriage”

   “You too have a right to both parents“”Both Parents for all Children” (Link)

4. “…and when do I get to see Dad?” (Link)
5. “Shared Custody”

   “Visitation that happens”
   (Sorry, that doesn’t make much sense to anyone who is not initiated, unless the absence of any other information implies that the visitation that happens is nil.) (Link)

6. The placard shown is of the Frankfurt Branch of the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children“. In addition to address details, the placard states “Two Parents for all Children” (Link)
7. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
   Custody-Right from Birth” (which says nothing about paternal rights after conception, but that exclusion is quite possibly deliberate — after all, would it be wise for anyone to deny mothers the exclusive right to kill unborn children?) Link)
8. “…and when do I get to see Dad?“(Link)
9. “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children”

   “Men’s Commissioner”
   That implies that there is none, alluding to the fact that every developed nation has a government department for the “Status of Women” or for women but nothing comparable for men.  Sorry, but a sign like that is not of much help in promoting the causes of men, women and families.A discussion of why that is so would take too much space here.Let’s just say that only some of the initiated-few understand what the sign is getting at.  The philosophical complexity of the placard violates a few of the fundamental requirements for successful propaganda.  Hitler, who without a doubt was an expert when it comes to designing successful and effective propaganda, explained it like this:

   All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction. … (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI)

   “Shared Custody”

   (Link)

10. “www.AktiveVaeter.de [active fathers] demand now:
    Custody-Right from Birth”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter [Saar-] Pfalz“(Link)

11. “Men’s Commissioner“”Shared Custody“(Link)
12. Photo (used in the main article) shows expunged fathers writing (with chalk) the names of their children on the pavement in front of the Fulda Court Building.(Link)
13. “Men’s Commissioner”

    “Fathers Decampment [as for an uprising] for Children
    Local Chapter Saar-Pfalz“(Link)

Translation of the article in the Fuldaer Zeitung  (Fulda News):

120 Demonstrators in the Inner City

2008 10 05

FULDA “We are here and quite loud, because they steal our children!” That is how it resounded through the Inner City of Fulda.

With that slogan the organization “Fathers Decampment [as for getting an uprising underway] for Children” demonstrated for the strengthening of the position of fathers who after separations want to take over responsibility for their children.

About 120 demonstrators walked in connection with that through the Inner City.

And because the critique aimed mainly at politics, church and courts, the demonstrators went past the City Palace, the Cathedral and the Fulda District Court.

In front of the main gate of the Court Building, the fathers used chalk to write on the pavement the names of their children with whom they they may not and cannot have any contact.

The demonstration finished with a closing rally on the University Plaza.

The aim of the organization is for the implementation of more equal rights [sic] in child-access and -custody.
___________
Comment by Fathers for Life: Compulsory divorce (ostensibly “no-fault” divorce, almost exclusively imposed on fathers and husbands, almost always against their wishes, in about half of marriages that form) is the primary cause for the escalation of the systematic destruction of the fundamental building block of society, the family.  It is thereby virtually the sole reason why fathers are expunged from the lives of their children.

To restore the respect that society once had for fathers and families and therefore to promote respect and love between fathers and mothers and harmony in families would provide for a stable and productive society; as it once did before the family became deliberately deconstructed.

One gains the strong impression that the aim of demonstrations, such as the one in Fulda, held by expunged fathers is not to promote the reconstruction of families and society, thereby to re-establish the esteem in which society once held fathers, but it is to give complaining fathers an opportunity to promote social changes that will eliminate their being discriminated against when they are forced to live with the consequences of separation and divorce.

It appears that such expunged and complaining fathers want to have rights that are equal to those held by women in sharing the loot that can be gained by scavenging amongst the ruins, rubble and ashes produced by the war against  families and society.

Equally-shared parenting still gives children on average only half of the parenting that they are entitled to.

Only two parents who live for their children and cooperate with one another to raise their children to the best of their abilities while sharing the same roof with their children will produce the best outcomes for their children.

From the perspective of a child of divorce, two parents living apart and equally sharing custody still add up to only one whole parent.  The reality of that is reflected in the results of the measurement of the outcomes in children from families.  In general, children that are not raised by two married parents living under a common roof with their children display more than twice the level of undesired outcomes than do children in married families.

Under the sponsorship of the Heritage Foundation, Patrick Fagan produced a good number of reports that provide irrefutable evidence of the extensive destructiveness of divorce and fatherlessness with respect to outcomes in children of single-mother “families”.

Posted in Abortion, Divorce, Organizational News, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

September 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Full Comment; the blog of the National Post comment section

Andrea Mrozek: Abortion, in plain English

Posted: September 23, 2008, 10:26 AM by Kelly McParland

When pro-choice social commentator Camille Paglia wrote that she sanctions “murder” when it is called “abortion,” pro-lifers were horrified. They should have cheered.

Her article — published recently on Salon.com– only briefly touched on abortion. But the offending comments were made as part of an attention- grabbing one-two punch. Paglia wrote that she is “a firm supporter of abortion rights,” but then went on to say: “I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful … which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.” Almost every pro-abortion activist lives in a zone where they conceal what abortion really is — though they know that the procedure involves killing a person each and every time. The difference between them and Paglia is that they don’t come out and say it….(Full Story)

Posted in Abortion, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

September 18, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The election of Maurice Vellacott, incumbent MP for electoral district Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, for a new term in the House of Parliament appears to be a given.  He won his seat with substantial majorities of the votes in four previous terms.

Maurice Vellacott recently tabled a Private Members Motion (PMM-483)  which  proposes changes to the Federal Divorce Act to enshrine the principle of Equal Parenting during and after divorce (see Maurice Vellacott (MP) on F4J Crusade for Equal Parenting).  It was fairly safe to do so.  There was little chance for that bill to pass and that it would raise any controversy before the Parliament was dissolved for the current election.

Still Maurice Vellacott’s stance on the rights of fathers during and after divorce received attention in a newspaper article from Saskatchewan.

The StarPhoenix

Sep. 17, 2008

Challengers not deterred by long odds

By David Hutton

….Taking out incumbent Conservative Maurice Vellacott in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin is going to be a formidable task….

In the past, those opposing Vellacott have run on the notion he has done little for the riding since he’s been in office other than promote his socially conservative views. In the last election, the campaign became heated after a Liberal campaign worker phoned a call-in show on cable television and made accusations of Vellacott that prompted a lawsuit.

This time, though, his opposition seems less willing to resort to personal barbs and name-calling. “I won’t attack Mr. Vellacott,” Zipchen said. “There are a lot of other issues.”

That suits Vellacott just fine, he says. He hopes to shift the focus to promote his campaign to change divorce laws to enshrine the principle of equal parenting. Currently, divorce laws are stacked against fathers, Vellacott said. “Every candidate for every election I’ve ever had has crabbed about Vellacott didn’t do this or that, it’s stock and trade. … But that hasn’t worked. Everyone has tried to use it and it’s time to try something else.”….(Full Story)

The odds of Maurice Vellacott being elected again will quite likely not be harmed by his pro-father stance, that is even though the Canadian Conservative Party proved itself, at best, to be apathetic to fathers and family rights, and to the rights of “fetuses”, that is, children waiting to be born, in what once was the safest place to be for them, their mothers’ wombs. The CPC’s election platform, as was apparent even as some of its members gained their seats in the House of Commons when neither the CPC nor the Canadian Alliance Party were yet in existence, varies very little from that of the Liberals in many of the major issues that matter most.

Stephen Harper quite clearly and intensively engaged on the path of political expediency.  That leaves little room for the promotion of the restoration of the rights of the traditional nuclear family that had made Canada as great as we had once become accustomed to, before the dismantling of such rights was begun in earnest by Liberals as well as by Conservatives, in the 1960s.

No, I am afraid that there are now few reasons why one should choose between one or the other of the two leading political parties in Canada.  As I wrote a few elections ago to the Reform Party of Canada, by the time Conservatives gain a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, their trend towards populism will have molded their election platform so much that most differences between the declared intentions of the two leading parties will have disappeared.  The two parties will then be distinguishable only by their respective party colours and spelling of their names.

Being for fathers rights will not hurt Maurice Vellacott, other than to make fathers expunged from their families to be more likely to vote for him.  However, his Private Member’s bill to that extent appears to have little chance of being put into law.  It quite simply does not fit his Party’s agenda.

As Ralph Klein, former long-standing premier of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta indicated a couple of elections ago, when he explained the secret of his success in his speech to the National Convention of the CPC, “That is not rocket science.  One does not have to lead the parade.  The people know where they want to go.  All it takes is to put oneself at the front of the parade.” (Quoted from memory)

Now, in a nutshell, that is populism, and Stephen Harper learned his lessons well.

The problem with that is, of course, that what passes for public opinion are the sentiments of vocal minorities but not the sentiments of the masses.  The masses do not have a voice in the media, but the vocal minorities do, and many journalists are merely the spokesmen for the latter. That is what drives Canadian politics and those in all developed nations.

As to Ralph Klein’s opinions on expediencies in politics, at the beginning of his political career, a reporter once asked him, as they were walking across the parking lot of Ralph Klein’s favorite watering hole: “What made you choose a career in politics?” to which Ralph Klein replied: “You slide farther on B.S. than on gravel.”

Not that I am a friend of the Liberals, I cannot ever forgive them for the social and economic destruction they wrought on Canada, in their all-out drive to turn it into a socialist nation in which half of ever dollar spent goes to pay for government “services” (i. e.: government-funded abortions in excess of 100,000 a year, while Canada manages to compensate for its shrinking population only through massive immigration from underdeveloped nations) and diktats of one sort or another, the vast majority of whom I neither want, need nor receive, and for whom I have to pay anyway and must live by, but Stephen Harper and those under his direction are sliding a long way.  They do much of what the Liberals did, only more so and more oppressively, but ostensibly for different reasons.

As to what our options are in this election, David Warren from the Ottawa Citizen said it best.  See his article, The unprincipled cynic and the honest fool (Sep. 13, 2008).

David Warren figures that only Stephen Harper and the CPC are able to form a functioning government, but he provides no answer to the question of whom one should vote for: “But how does one choose between an intelligent unprincipled cynic, and a relatively honest fool?”

That leaves the dilemma unsolved, but does it?  I cannot vote for either party.  One of them legalized not only the whole-sale “terminating” of unborn children but even made it the law to have the taxpayers fund it.  The other condoned that crime against Humanity by not only doing nothing but by nodding its approval of that ghastly government-sponsored practice through bestowing Canada’s highest award, the Order of Canada, on the main promoter and performer of government-funded abortions: Henry Morgentaler.

Yes, I know, our governor general is politically independent and merely the representative of the Queen, but you don’t seriously believe that the Queen told her representative to Canada to honour Henry Morgentaler, do you?  But this I firmly believe: Canada’s ship of state has a figure head for a captain who actively averts his eyes so as not to find what he needs to avert looming disaster: a moral compass.  To find and use one of those would hurt political expediency.

Posted in Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Family, Abortion, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

August 20, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Population control through government-sponsored (that is, tax-payer-funded) abortions is the norm for developed and developing nations (it can be expected that we will see that in short order in the US as well).  At least one government established compulsory abortions to control its population: China, with its one-child  policy (a maximum of two children per family in rural areas).

Many people do not realize that voluntary abortions, motivated by the wish to escape punitive taxation aimed at families with children (especially, as in Canada, by providing tax cuts and subsidies for day-care expenses available only to families in whom both parents are income earners) and to gain other, mostly illusory, economic incentives are just as effective as are compulsory abortions to make population control and -reduction reality.

All abortions in the world now account for about 50 million terminations of pregnancies, annually.  The total number of fatalities caused through abortions per year in the world is close to the total number of fatalities caused by all military actions in all theaters of war throughout the second world war.  It can safely be stated that abortions cause in a single year more fatalities than any single of the totalitarian regimes of the last century caused throughout the duration of its existence.

However, the deadliness of government-sponsored and -promoted abortions is not all that meets the eye when contemplating the obvious extremes that the population-control measures promoted by the New World Order manage to bring about.  There is also the issue of governments’ use of stealth in bringing about abortions and sterilization (the latter for women as well as for men).

A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.

Excerpt quoted from: “Doomsday Seed Vault” in the Arctic : Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t, by F. William Engdahl, Centre for Research on Globalization (Deutschschprachige Version)

Given that the acceleration of global population reduction works quite well without bringing about another world war, any sane man (as well as any sane woman) would be a fool to support the instigation of another world war such as through the creation of the circumstances now being brought into existence in the Caucasus.  Still, seeing that such a war now hardly requires the massive numbers of military personnel we saw being used as cannon fodder during the previous world wars, profits that can be earned through military actions are now vastly greater than those that were earned through the governments’ expenditure of $16,700 for every casualty of the 60 million casualties of the second world war.

Profit and consolidation of power and control, that is what it is all about.

See also:

• World population control (F4L article)
• United States Funding Sterilizations of Philippine Women, Friday July 14, 2006, By Gudrun Schultz (off-site)
• Vaccines and the Akha People of Thailand. Tetanus Toxoid and spontaneous abortions (off-site)
• Genocide in a vaccine: Pantheism’s moral Chemistry, by Suzanne Rini (off-site)
• Vaccine fertility control: the last mass control weapon of the establisment   (off-site)
• Genocide via vaccination (off-site)

Posted in Abortion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Health, Men's Issues, Family, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

August 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The other day my wife and I had a discussion with someone.  The topic of the discussion was “world population control.”  The other side in the discussion mentioned that war was used to drive and control, or had an impact on, demographic trends.

I stated that wars are quite inconsequential in regard to that, without going more into the details and reasons for my assertion.

I will now put things into perspective.

World War II caused the deaths of about 60 million people.  Moreover, since 1945, about 40 million more people died in military actions.  Ever since then, in anyone year, at least about two major wars were being fought somewhere in the world.  World War I caused the deaths of about ten million people, for a total of about 110 million people during the last century, or an average of about one million people each year.

That is a lot of deaths, but it doesn’t even come close to the number of “potential” people being killed each year now, many of them through “voluntary” government-sponsored abortions, many more through compulsory abortions (e. g.: China’s one-child policy - two children in rural areas in China).

Government-sponsored abortions alone (by force, or through stealth - without women or men being aware that they are being sterilized, or through persuasion) in the whole world now number about 50 million a year.

There is much more in relation to the systematic world-wide program for population reduction.  Some of that is illustrated and identified at Fathers for Life.

The preceding link identifies a lot of reading material, especially if one wishes to follow all of the links identified in the individual articles.

The following links will make it a little easier to determine whether one wishes to read any or even only a small portion of those articles.  Read this summary by someone who spent a fair portion of his life to check into the program for world population reduction by about 90 percent, to reach and maintain a world-population level of about 500 million to a billion people:

The Population Control Agenda, by Stanley K. Monteith, M.D.

To understand how all of today’s social engineering fits into and promotes all of that, have a look at this:

The Devil’s Work: Feminism and the Elite Depopulation Agenda, By Henry Makow Ph.D., February 20, 2002

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

August 6, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Canada’s National Post commemorated Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who passed away August 3, 2008 in his home near Moscow.

• Once, the bravest man in the world
  Robert Fulford, National Post: Front Page, Tuesday, August 05, 2008
• Shining a light on the communist darkness *
  Ian Hunter
• A soldier for morality *, **
  Father Raymond J. de Souza
• Russia’s Literary Patriot
  George Jonas

___________
* Article contains a reference to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Commencement Address, Delivered At Harvard University, June 1978: A World Split Apart.

** Quoted from the article:

“I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed,” he [Solzhenitsyn] said in his famous address at Harvard in 1978. “But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man’s noblest impulses.”

The argument that Solzhenitsyn made at Harvard -the argument he brought with him into his American exile — was that it is not merely enough to be free, but that freedom must have a purpose. A society that seeks to secure freedoms in law, but nothing more than that, is aiming too low. To be sure, it is better to have freedom than not, but the mere capacity to choose freely does not correspond to our noblest aspirations. It matters what we choose — that we choose wisely that which is good, and just, and worthy and beautiful.

Much of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s criticism of the moral and social decline of the West is also expressed by others, such as Milton and Rose Friedman,

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

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

Solzhenitsyn’s and the Friedman’s are justified in their criticisms.  In his Harvard Commencement Address, A World Split Apart, Solzhenitsyn stated,

As humanism in its development was becoming more and more materialistic, it also increasingly allowed concepts to be used first by socialism and then by communism, so that Karl Marx was able to say, in 1844, that “communism is naturalized humanism.”

It is curious that Solzhenitsyn did not mention one of the major causes of the move towards the totalitarianism of materialism in the West that is now making inroads in Russia and also in China.  Perhaps, given that he went through some divorces, he did not consider it important, even though in 1978 the West had already experienced the loss of the protection of individual freedoms through the abrogation of the social institution capable and designed to offer that protection, the traditional nuclear family.  Nothing other than the sovereignty of the family is able to offer that protection throughout all of society.

The family teaches about the profound differences between two fundamental concepts, equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes, of which the government-sponsored and -enforced implementation of the second one is one of the worst forms of totalitarianism by governments and other social agencies.  In the words of Solzhenitsyn, in his Harvard Commencement Address, A World Split Apart,

When the modern Western states were being formed, it was proclaimed as a principle that governments are meant to serve man and that man lives in order to be free and pursue happiness. (See, for example, the American Declaration of Independence.) Now at last during past decades technical and social progress has permitted the realization of such aspirations: the welfare state.

True freedom is the exercise of free will to explore equality of opportunities, to achieve excellence that, if one has the capability and drive to excel, equals that of the best.  Against incredible odds, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn achieved excellence that equaled and even exceeded that of many literary giants.

The totalitarianism of materialism (Karl Marx’s “communism is naturalized humanism”) results in mediocrity, in serious handicaps for those able and willing to be productive or excel, through forcing them to transfer ever larger portions of their wealth to strangers (rather than to family members) who are either not capable or willing to provide for themselves and others.  That is happening in our society to such ever greater proportions that we rank the importance of asset and income equalization to benefit strangers over the importance of providing for the loved ones in our families, so much so that now ever-increasing numbers of people even find animals (pets that is) to be more important than their own offspring.  They opt out, in ever larger numbers, from having children of their own, and, if failing to prevent conception of children, to use abortion as a deadly form of birth control that terminates the lives of about 50 million children (euphemistically called “fetuses”) each year in the World.

That no longer is charity but the most deadly outcome of totalitarianism there is and ever existed.  It makes little difference whether that comes from ideological indoctrination or through government diktat.  How much deadlier can any totalitarianism be than to make people to become unable to maintain their existence and to have them kill unborn children to be able to achieve that objective?

Perhaps, if Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn would have been able to deliver another commencement address, 30 years after the one he gave at Harvard, he would have focused more on the ultimate deadliness of totalitarianism by means of materialism, but he did not.

Not all journalists are entirely uncritical of Solzhenitsyn:

Reasonline
Traditional Prejudices
The anti-Semitism of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Cathy Young | May 2004

Of all books I ever read throughout my life, Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1963) is amongst a handful of books that are the most moving and most powerful I came across.

Posted in Divorce, Abortion, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

July 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/7/2008 6:00:00 AM

A pro-life activist in Illinois says Barack Obama has repeatedly mischaracterized his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act while he was a state senator.

The Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was signed into law in 2002 after receiving unanimous support from the U.S. Senate. The measure that forces hospitals to give medical care to abortion survivors — if warranted — even received the backing of liberal senators Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts ), Barbara Boxer (D-California), and Hillary Clinton (D-New York).

Obama now says he did not support the Illinois measure because it “lacked the Federal language clarifying the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.”….(Full Story)

Posted in Abortion, Child Murder, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »