August 3, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

It is difficult to find a better introduction to the issues addressed in this Facebook album on Justice for Men than the following YouTube video (7 minutes, 37,468 views as of 2011 08 03) http://www.youtube.com/wat​ch?v=57EWApOypIQ&feature=p​layer_embedded

Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, whether you have or are a husband, father, brother, son, uncle or granddad, you need to watch the video.

From the introduction to the YouTube video: “…Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide and protect have been having the unfortunate consequence of obscuring the needs of men. This short video will give you an introductory glimpse of some men’s issues.”

Men’s Issues

www.youtube.com

What are men’s issues? Watch this short flash video to get a beginning idea. Societal forces like chivalry, misandry and the onerous male sex role of provide…

Posted in Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Suicides, Media Bias, Civil Rights, Judiciary, Single-Parent, Marriage, Books & Films, Men and Women Work, Abortion, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Child Abduction, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

June 6, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

I am a bit late with opening my e-mail, but I got a pleasant surprise when I did, a message from Dr. Warren Farrell:

Dear Fathers for Life, As you know, I’ve listed you on my web site for years to let people who know of me also know of you. Father and Child Reunion has just become available as an e-book via Amazon’s Kindle. I’ve been touched to hear from many of the thousands of dads who were inspired by Father and Child Reunion to fight for their child’s right to their dad. I am sure you have helped many of these dads and their children. I’m pleased with the book’s availability as an e-book, since many dads are more comfortable reading e-books than wandering through book stores’ self-help sections! To jump start the book’s availability as an e-book and simultaneously celebrate Father’s Day, I will make a contribution of $50 to your organization if ten or more people from your organization purchase it for $9.99 any day in June. In essence, I will be giving you $5–or half the book’s price–for each of the ten e-books purchased. The only thing I will need from you is the name, city and email address of the ten people who have told you that they have made a purchase. In the meantime, I’d love to hear how things are going for your group; feel free to send me an email so we can catch up. Warren

Posted in Books & Films, Organizational News | Print | No Comments »

May 28, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Orphans in the USSR

Do not be surprised at the prevalence of abortions in communist- vs. feminist-dominated nations. Both live by the same doctrines, the planned destruction of the family and women’s liberation as to the burden of child bearing and child raising.

What that means with respect to abortions is that if unwanted children will be aborted, then through that deadly process of elimination, ostensibly, every child carried to term is a wanted child.

That goes one step farther, and the solution to the perceived problem applies equally in feminist as in communist regimes. If children are born outside of wedlock, they are illegitimate children. We cannot have illegitimate children in either a class-less or egalitarian society, because their very existence would be discriminatory. It is not the fault of the children that they are born with that label. It is the fault of a system that labels anything outside of moral norms or standards either illegal, objectionable or illegitimate. The solution to that is to abolish the moral or social standards that cause such illegitimacy to come about.

Therefore, in the minds of communist and feminist social engineers alike (remember that both use the same “bible”) it is merely necessary to eliminate all families, and all illegitimate children will have vanished. That is what both promptly called for and set out to bring about.

That had unintended consequences in the USSR, under Lenin.

It also had unintended consequences in the “free” West, under feminism.  More about that at the end of this posting.

I do not have statistics that summarize the orphan problem in the USSR, either in total or as a trend over time. There were millions of orphans.

Already under Lenin, the USSR suffered serious consequences on account of the policies of “free love” (a.k.a. “sexual freedom”) that Marx and Engels had called for. While later, under the quota system of eliminating unwanted sectors of the population, orphans were sent in large numbers to Siberia; and they were even executed by the tens of thousands (provided they were of the age of 14 or older). [You can find more about that in “The Soviet Story”, a DVD obtainable through amazon.com.]

Igor Shafarevich states in “The Socialist Phenomenon”:

At the end of the preceding chapter we sketched the “ideal” socialist society as it appears in the classical writings of socialism. Of the features enumerated, we shall consider only one: state upbringing of children from infancy so that they do not know their parents. It is natural to begin with this aspect of the socialist ideal, if only because it would be the first thing that an individual born into this society would face. This measure is suggested with striking consistency from Plato to Liadov, a leading Soviet theoretician of the 1920s. In the 1970s, the Japanese police arrested members of the “Red Army,” a Trotskyite organization, which was responsible for a number of murders. Although this group numbered only a few dozen people, it had all the attributes of a real socialist party–theoreticians, a split on the question of whether revolution should occur in one country or in the entire world at once, terror against dissidents. The group established itself in a lonely mountain region. And the same trait surfaced here: they took newborn children away from their mothers, entrusted them to other women for upbringing and fed them on powdered milk, despite difficulties in obtaining it.

Let us quote from a book by the modern ethologist Eibl-Eibesfeldt, which will help us evaluate the biological significance of this measure:

“It is especially in the second half of the first year of life that a child establishes personal ties with its mother or a person substituting for her (a nurse, a matron). This contact is the precondition for the development of “primary trust” (E. H. Erikson), the basis for the attitude toward oneself and the world. The child learns to trust his partner, and this positive basic orientation is the foundation of a healthy personality. If these contacts are broken, “primary distrust” develops. A prolonged stay in the hospital during the child’s second year may, for example, lead to such results. Though the child will try even there to establish close contact with a mother substitute, no nurse will be able to devote herself intensively enough to an infant for a close personal tie to be established. Nurses constantly change, and so the contacts that arise are constantly broken. The child, deceived in his expectations of contact, falls into a state of apathy after a brief outburst of protest. During the first month of his stay in the hospital he whines and clings to anyone available. During the second month he usually cries and loses weight. During the third month such children only weep quietly and finally become thoroughly apathetic. If after three to four months’ separation they are taken home, they return to normal. But if they stay in the hospital longer, the trauma becomes irreversible.. ..In one orphanage where R. Spitz studied ninety-one children who had been separated from their mothers in the third month of their lives, thirty-four died before they reached the age of two. The level of development of the survivors was only 45 percent of normal and the children were almost like idiots. Many of them could neither walk nor stand nor speak at age four. (148: p.234) “

[Source: “The Socialist Phenomenon”, by Igor Shafarevich, pp. 270, 271, http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html ]

The following contains more information on orphans in the USSR, but that document is not in text form and cannot be searched. Quoting text from it is too laborious.

“Victims of the Soviet Penal System in the Pre-War Years:
A First Approach on the Basis of Archival Evidence”
By J. Arch Getty, Gabor T. Rittersporn and Victor N. Zemskow
http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf (4.2 MB, PDF file)

No spectacle in Soviet cities more troubled Russian and foreign observers during the first postrevolutionary decade than the millions of orphaned and abandoned children known as besprizornye.[1] Whether portrayed as pitiable victims of war and famine or as devious wolf-children preying on the surrounding population to support cocaine and gambling habits, they haunted the works of journalists, travelers, and Party members alike. “Every visitor sees it first,” noted an American correspondent, “and is so shocked by the sight that the most widely known Russian youth are the…homeless children flapping along the main streets of cities and the main routes of travel like ragged flocks of animated scarecrows.”[2] Averell Harriman recalled them as “a particular tragedy of the time…, begging or stealing and living as wild animals unconnected with the normal community life.”[3] The very fact that no one could remain indifferent to their travail made them tempting ammunition in the ideological charges and countercharges exchanged in these years. On one side of the battle lines, critics of the Bolsheviks featured the children as “proof” that the new regime had failed even to care for its own young. In reply, Soviet officials pointed to the problem’s origin in disasters largely beyond their control and insisted that the Party had assigned far higher priority to rehabilitating homeless juveniles than “bourgeois” governments allocated to the care of their own downtrodden….

We will focus primarily on youths who spent all, or at least most, of their time in the street. Our gaze thus takes in juveniles who drifted out of families, as well as the more obvious millions orphaned, discarded, or otherwise separated involuntarily from parents. Those who remained at home will not be included, regardless of the abuse or neglect they may have experienced there….

The homeless wave crested during the famine of 1921–1922, with estimates ranging typically from four to seven and a half million orphaned and forsaken youths.[69]

Source: Ball, Alan M. And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918-1930. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1994 1994. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft700007p9/

Do a “Find in Page” at that URL for terms such as “orphan”, “children”, “deported” or “execution”.
There is another source of information on orphans in the USSR, that is “The Gulag Archipelago” by Aleksandr I Solzhenitsyn, http://www.amazon.ca/s?_encoding=UTF8&search-alias=books-ca&field-author=Aleksandr+I+Solzhenitsyn

I read the volumes of “The Gulag Archipelago” and and should have copies but can’t find them. I do recall orphans being mentioned. I don’t know where those books went. Maybe they got lent out, but I seem to recall some numbers and a subject index relating to orphans.

In one of the volumes there was a chapter that described the problem of orphans in the labour camps. If I remember right, Solzhenitsyn considered the orphans to be one of the biggest problems faced by the other inmates, as the orphans had no rules or standards to live by. They had no civility.
Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom.
See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926   (See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws) [More at http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2010/09/06/dont-marry ]

Semi-orphans, a big part of the absurd legacy of feminism

Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family
By Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS

For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in: the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.

— Rebecca O’Neill

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Books & Films, Child Abuse, Abortion, Health, Feminism, Family, Child Murder, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 25, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Many feminists allege that testosterone is more dangerous.  For that reason they assert that men hurt women more often than the converse, therefore “Men are bad, Women are good.”

Are things really that simple?  The objective reality of inter-personal violence is that women are somewhat more often violent against men than men are violent against women.  All hype aside, domestic or family violence between spouses or “partners” is just a very small portion of interpersonal violence.  Children who are victims of that sort of violence comprise a large sector of that, and most violence against children, by far, is committed by the children’s mothers — an inconvenient fact, which is why feminist propagandists never mention it or at best rarely touch on it.

Still, regardless of whether women or men are more likely to be violent against the other sex, only a minuscule fraction of women or men engage in it.  The vast majority of women and men are quite peaceful, harmless and live in peace with one another, if only the feminist propagandists let them do that, and even though the feminist propagandists do their very best to incite open war between them.

Some feminists go so far that they assert that women can be safe from men’s violence only if the sexes are completely segregated.  To their chagrin, they have difficulties coping with the reality that “domestic partnerships” by lesbians are the ones that experience on average far greater incidence rates of domestic violence than do all others. (Re: Female DV)

Just the other day, a woman insisted that it is a well-known fact that men are more violent than women are, and that men’s violence is caused by testosterone.

I promised that I would provide her with a few facts on what the truth is about that.  The following is from what I sent to her.

What she had asserted reflects the consequences of a considerable extent of feminist indoctrination.  Therefore I can’t resist setting the record straight.

I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage.

— Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001

Professor Howard Schwartz once explained to me the difference between objective and subjective reality, between absolute and relative moral standards, with the radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminists) using the latter to destroy the truth.

That was about a dozen years ago, when Prof. Schwartz was working on the book that is mentioned in the following.  As profound as the quote I showed above is, it would be better to identify not only brilliant thoughts and sayings but also the context in which such things were expressed or published.

Howard Schwartz’ opinion on the crime of the feminist distortion of the truth in the latter half of the twentieth century was expressed in his book, “The revolt of the primitive: an inquiry into the roots of political correctness,” p. 15 (in the beginning of the fifth full paragraph on that page, accessible via this link).

With respect to the ideas the woman had expressed, here is the truth in relation to that, as reported by Prof. Howard Schwartz; and let me assure you that he is reporting it accurately.  I am fully aware of the details of every one of the incidents he describes, including having been in touch with some of the individuals he mentions (especially Drs. Lupri and Dutton and their respective research mentioned by Dr. Schwartz — for obvious reasons — as their research was done right here in Alberta), but here go the details of the research by Lupri and Dutton and how it was spun by the feminists.

That is as far as the excerpt shown on Google Books goes, but I should receive a copy of the book within a few days.

I told the woman that I will be happy to lend the book to her, whereby she will be enabled to address some of the impact that feminist propaganda has had over the years.  Of course, that will work for her only if she wishes to learn about the absolute truth and not just the edited, feminist version of it.

Here is another item that will interest you.  It is a copy of a draft for an article that the Report Newsmagazine had asked me to write for them (for reasons explained in the introduction to the article — the Report Newsmagazine stopped publishing at that time — the article did not appear in print, although the Internet version that you can access via the preceding link has been read many thousands of times and has been accessed 108 times at my website during the past 30 days alone, while it has also been posted at or linked to from a total of at least 77 web pages on the Internet).

Last, but not least, you may wish to have a look as well at this: “The big list: Female teachers with students: Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus,” WorldNetDaily Exclusive, May 17, 2011.

I told the woman furthermore that in case she thinks that the people I mentioned and whose work the cited material identifies present just isolated and distorted views, I have a book here that she may wish to read, “When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence,” by Patricia Pearson (a feminist, by the way), 1997, Viking.  Here is a book review.

It has happened that some people asked me “Why should I believe you?“.  The commentary at the preceding link explains that no one has to take my word for anything, but that the truth is out there whether I tell it or not.  Unfortunately, feminist sources of information on the sexes and on what they do to one another are most often anything but truthful.

–Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, False Allegations, Child Abuse, Censorship, Health, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, Men's Issues, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

May 11, 2011 by Walter Schneider.

Another book that should be on your book shelf is Stephen Baskerville’s “Taken Into Custody: The WarAgainst Fathers, Marriage and the Family“.

The book covers considerably more than just family law. It is primarily about the systematic deconstruction of our society, but it does show the consequences of using family law to achieve that through the criminalization of fatherhood.

I have known Stephen Baskerville for many years. since he first made contact with fathers rights activists. He differed then already substantially from many other FR activists, in as much that right from the start he was not just angry about what had been done to him and to other fathers who had been expunged from their families.  He asked not only what had happened but why it had happened.

That soon led to the question of whether it was by accident or design that it was happening. Stephen Baskerville at first thought that the criminalization of fatherhood had to be an error in judgment, even though it was real, because no nation in its right mind would deliberately destroy what made it function well, namely to have fathers within families, rather than having families without fathers. However that was only a fleeting thought, and he did not dwell on it.

Many FR activists helped with the book over the years, even though there was at first not even a thought of producing one, but there were discussions, identification of facts and sources, suggestions for clarifications on many of the articles by Stephen Baskerville that were published over the years, and eventually Stephen Baskerville did more than just thank people “too numerous to mention” in the Acknowledgments of his book when it got published, by listing the names of all who had contributed over the years. I am proud of the fact that my name is on the list and that it is in good company.

Years ago, many of the people mentioned in the Acknowledgments of “Taken Into Custody” actively networked. If there was ever a moment in modern times during which a functioning FR movement was in the process of emerging, it was then, during the years “Taken Into Custody” was in the making. I am not proud of the fact that that was only for a moment and that a functioning FR movement did not come into existence, to pursue a common goal in a systematic, effective and organized fashion. However, not all is lost and there is reason for great hopes.

Feminism has fallen into disrepute, and a renewed, much more massive movement for the restoration of traditional moral standards is growing from the grass roots, to compete for a place in the sun of public respect and appreciation, if not admiration.  Feminism fell victim to its success.  People have become bored with it.  After all, feminism’s success is built on the myths that women are not equal and that they are victims of oppression by men.  Outrageous claims like that cannot be maintained for very long in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, after which only one possible conclusion is possible, namely that feminism is not about equal or equitable rights.  It is about something else. perhaps to make women “more” equal than others.

“Taken Into Custody” was published in 2007. Feminism’s popularity steeply increased from the 1960s until 1970, maintained itself (even declined a little) from 1970 to 1988 and rose steeply once more in 1992, declined somewhat and steeply rose once more in 1998 (link), after which it began to decline in earnest. The decline of the popularity of feminism took on serious proportions during 2008 (link), and that is even though in 2008 the media doubled its efforts to promote the ideology of feminism (link).  Mind you, along with the escalation of the media effort to praise feminism there came also increasingly more articles critical of feminism.  That helped to accelerate feminism’s decline, because all along it was clear that the giantess, feminism, had clay feet whenever she engaged herself or was forced to participate in open debate.  There is no effective defence against the truth:

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Judiciary, Books & Films, False Allegations, Maternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Divorce, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

December 17, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

“There is no such thing as bad publicity.” — unknown origin

On Dec. 14, 2010, I received a complaint from Lisa McShine, who, according to what she wrote in the ensuing e-mail exchange, is an occasional proofreader for Project Gutenberg.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project Gutenberg, abbreviated as PG, is a volunteer effort to digitize and archive cultural works, to “encourage the creation and distribution of eBooks.”^[2] Founded in 1971 by Michael S. Hart, it is the oldest digital library.^[3] Most of the items in its collection are the full texts of public domain books. The project tries to make these as free as possible, in long-lasting, open formats that can be used on almost any computer. As of November 2010^[update], Project Gutenberg claimed over 34,000 items in its collection. Project Gutenberg is affiliated with many projects that are independent organizations which share the same ideals, and have been given permission to use the Project Gutenberg trademark. (Link to Wkipedia article on PG)

Lisa McShine complained that the web page by Fathers for Life on a mid-19th century German-language children’s book, Der Struwwelpeter, by Heinrich Hoffmann (Slovenly Peter, translated by Mark Twain) misrepresents the intentions of PG and its proofreaders.  She wrote:

Hello:

Thanks so much for adding the Mark Twain translation of Der Struwwelpeter. I enjoyed reading Twain’s much more close translation from the German.

However, I want to point out that the preamble of the e-book in Project Gutenberg says the English translation dates from 1848 and it certainly dates before 1927, the published date of my physical copy of a volume of extracts for children including the Der Struwwelpeter translation and illustrations shown in the Project Gutenberg e-book. Thus, I highly doubt that the bowdlerization was intended to make the translation politically correct, as you state.

Lastly, as someone who occasionally volunteers time to proof-read for Project Gutenberg, I would like to reassure you that PG NEVER re-translates or tries to change the meaning of anything it makes available online. Our Primary Rule (http://www.pgdp.net/c/faq/proofreading_guidelines.php) is “Don’t change what the author wrote!”: we only transcribe from the image of the printed page.

I hope you will consider revising “In the translation provided by Suzanne Shell, Sandra Brown and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team of the Project Gutenberg those lines came to read as:” and “Project Gutenberg’s politically-correct translation reads:” so that it does not imply that PG and PG proofreaders had anything to do with the existing content other than to make it available in plain text form.

Kind Regards

LM

Depending on what I will eventually find out about what caused the enormous increase in traffic to the web page by Fathers for Life on Der Struwwelpeter, concurrently with or subsequently to Lisa McShine’s complaint, I may at some time publish all of the e-mail exchange between us.  Nevertheless, it was not on account of anything I had done.  My responses to Lisa McShine were sent only to her, and until today I had not done anything to make anyone aware of the discussion.  Regardless, my closing remarks in my second message to Lisa McShine (Dec. 15, 2010) proved to be prophetic, at least in part, the one pertaining to publicity.

Nevertheless, not all is lost.  An often-used maxim by an unknown individual states: “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”  That principle brought fame, power and fortune to many people.  Let’s hope that the discussion of the book at Fathers for Life will help to encourage improvements to the good work by Project Gutenberg and that thereby the quality of that work will become even better.

It remains to be seen whether the remaining part, about the good impact that publicity may have, will come true.

The increase in the number of daily visits to the web page is remarkable.  After having been read for years by from four to 21 visitors a day (each remaining on the page on average for a little over eight minutes), the number of daily visits increased to 95 (Dec. 13), then to 1,110 (Dec. 14, the day Lisa McShine sent her complaint), after which it fell off to 556 (Dec. 15), and to 310 (Dec. 16), with the average time each visitor remained at the page still being a little more than eight minutes — enough time for most to have read all of the page.

A screen shot showing the daily number of visits at http://fathersforlife.org/hist/der_struwwelpeter.htm, for the 30 days ending Dec. 16, 2010 (thanks to Google Analytics)

The conclusion is inevitable, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Posted in Media Bias, Books & Films, Education, Men's Issues, Feminism, Family, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 1 Comment »

December 7, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A friend pointed out the documentary The Soviet Story, about which I had not heard anything yet, most likely because the mainstream media have been largely silent about it.  As incredible as that silence may seem, there are probably reasons for it.

The title of the documentary does not sit quite right.  After watching the documentary, considering what it covers, namely the history of the soviet regime’s systematic efforts to eradicate a large portion of its population and of the populations of the countries it occupied — prior to its collaboration with Hitler’s regime to that aim, during that collaboration, during the war and during the post-war period — it seems that a little more effort should have been given to devising a better title for the documentary.  Perhaps something like “The Soviet Democide”* or, perhaps better, because of its parallels to the holocaust eventually launched by Hitler, “The Soviet Holocaust.” (* Democide – the deliberate extermination of a people by its government.)

According to The Soviet Story, 20 million people or more were deliberately exterminated under Stalin.  However, according to sources cited by Professor Rummel, Stalin and some of the other communist leaders in Russia killed about 62 million people between 1917 and 1987.

That is not intended to take anything away from the message conveyed by the documentary: Socialism is deadly because it progresses toward totalitarianism, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  An interesting aspect of The Soviet Story is that it illustrates, by juxtaposing propaganda posters and other aspects from the USSR and from Hitler’s Germany, that, other than the vastly differing scales of the democides by the respective regimes, there were few if any differences in the tactics for promoting democidal programs under either regime.

If you are not sure whether you should watch The Soviet Story, have a look at some of the reviews of the documentary.

It boggles the mind that Stalin could become an ally even though it was already well-known that he had exterminated at the very least 10 million people before Hitler had even started his war of conquest, and that Hitler had done little to begin his program of extermination until Stalin and Hitler began to collaborate in exterminating a large portion of the population of the conquered Poland that they had both invaded and divided amongst themselves.

The facts presented in The Soviet Story are indisputably true.  Many historians reported them (e. g.: Rudolf Rummel), but they have not become part of the history with which the students in our education system are being indoctrinated.  The reason for that omission is most likely that teachers’ associations and the ideologies driving many lecturers at our universities have solid Marxist roots.  It would never do to have Marxism identified as a murderous, democidal ideology.  That, of course, is also most likely part of the reason why,

On May 17, 2008 the Russian pro-governmental youth organization Young Russia (Russian: Россия Молодая) organized the protest “Let’s not allow the rewriting of history!” (Russian: “Не дадим переписать историю!”)^[13]  in front of the Embassy of Latvia in Moscow. An effigy representing Edvīns Šnore [the director of The Soviet Story] was burnt during the protest.^[14] (Source: Wikipedia)

A DVD of  The Soviet Story can be purchased through amazon.com.  The documentary is accessible free-of-charge online at MEFEEDIA. (85:33 minutes).  Update 2011 04 13: The link at MEFEEDIA no longer functions. Copyright violations or censorship because it is an inconvenient truth?  Who knows? Nevertheless, I bought the documentary on DVD and do not regret that I did.  I am making sure that it goes around.

Just found another link to an online copy of the documentary that still works.

_____________
See also the following web pages at Fathers for Life:

• The Communist Manifesto (2000 05 25), and
• UN Population Policies, World Demographics, Job Fatalities and the Extermination of Men (2000 04 25)

–Walter Schneider

Posted in Civil Rights, Books & Films, Child Abuse, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, The New World Order, Men's Issues, Child Murder, Child Abduction | Print | 1 Comment »

November 10, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

The indifference referred to in the title of this posting relates to the social apathy that permits rampant discrimination in court proceedings that produce fathers expunged from the lives of their children as if they were being cranked out on an assembly line.

One such father wrote to me about a book that he feels will open people’s eyes to the abuses in the courts that are being experienced by men.  He thinks the book deserves honorable mention as an eye-opener because it was written by a woman.

Winner Take All : A woman exposes the violation of men’s rights at the hands of family law, by Molly Murphy

I post here my last response in the one-on-one discussion we had on this to encourage him to come out in the open with something that is essentially a public concern that should not be hidden.  Here goes:

Dear Kevin,

I accept all you state about the book, and if you condense it a little, so that many other people will want to read it, you will just about have it in the form of a review for which our blog has been made available to you and anyone who wishes to abide by the blog rules.  Aside from that, I merely stated that, going by the many comments I read [about the book], I see nothing that indicates that the book calls for any particular changes to Canadian jurisprudence (which in view of the name of the website for the book promotion, www.changefamilylaw.com, seemed to be a bit incongruous).  How do you read into that what you did, that I think the book has no merits?

I cannot do it all by myself, and I could not do justice to the book by producing a book review, because I have not read the book.  No copy of it has been sent to me, which is what people who wish to promote their books here usually do.  If you feel strongly enough that the book is worth it, write about it and post that to Dads & Things.  If it will be written well enough, which you are evidently able to do, it can be posted as a guest article and thereby become the beginning of a new discussion thread.

I really wish people would get over their fears and have such debates in public, on our blog, rather than on a one-on-one basis and in private.  Do you feel that your convictions will not withstand public exposure?

A public debate would quite likely do more to popularize the book than a book review could.  Besides, you are preaching to a member of the choir without anyone else being in hearing distance, but you should try and reach those who know little or nothing about the issues of concern, which is what the blog is for.  A one-on-one debate of any topic of that sort is wasteful, considering how many more people could be reached by having it in public.

Alright, now to what you see as a breach in the walls of the fortress of discrimination against men and fathers.

I have no idea of how familiar you are with what Fathers for Life presents, but surely you must have noticed that it contains contributions by many women, contributions of whom many were made many years ago already, for which reason and by your reasoning — that it takes women to make a breach into the wall of denial — you must be familiar with what they wrote and that much of what they wrote is available for free at our website or accessible through it.  If the following names have not reached the status of household words in your world, click on the links identified through their names (to mention just some in no particular order):

Note: Do not attempt to read all of the articles identified through the lists of references provided through the following links, but browse through the lists and try to read a few of the articles, so that you can get an appreciation of the issues that the author of your book appears have failed to address (she most definitely failed to impress any of the commenters whose opinions I read, if in fact she had made any suggestions for required changes).

Eeva Sodhi, Erin Pizzey, Dale O’Leary, Karin Jaeckel, Christina Hoff Sommers, Candis McLean, Donna Laframboise, Patricia Pearson, Louise Malenfant, Susan Steinmetz, Antonia Feitz, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Maggie Gallagher, Elizabeth Loftus, Patricia Morgan, Judith A. Reisman, Phyllis Schlafly, Gudrun Schwarz, Esther Vilar, and many more.

By the way, the preceding list of women authors contains Canadian women authors, five of them.  Do you know who those are?

Still, in spite of what all of those women wrote and of what of that is posted at our website (much more is available elsewhere), somehow I doubt it that you had ever known of all of them — if any.  Had you known of them, you would certainly not think that what you read in that book is so novel and so earth-shaking because a woman wrote it.

Nothing will change things, except time and the death of feminism, whereby then the judicial system will adapt to serve the public as required.  Until then, feminists are in total and absolute control.  I don’t think that the book so dear to you mentioned that.  I can’t even recall whether it impressed upon anyone that feminism is the driving force for the discrimination against Canadian men.  Can you clear that up for me?

Posted in Judiciary, Books & Films, Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Men's Issues, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »

October 14, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Veritas Publishing I N T R O D U C E S

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice

The book addresses a serious problem, the need for court reform and the abolishment of judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. Marinated with the makings of sizzle, the book is f illed with the courts’ tricks and traps for the unwary—to alert the readers both why their law cases failed and what must be done to effect court reform.  E ach chapter introduces the background of the subject of that chapter and then presents a series of illustrative anecdotes intended to teach the readers by example how to avoid those court tricks and traps people are likely to encounter in their existing or potential court cases.

Its author, Barbara C. Johnson, an unconventional 74-year-old, has long been a fierce advocate for fathers’ rights in family courts.  She is an outspoken critic of the Massachusetts court system, which she says is rife with corruption.

In 2002, she ran a quixotic campaign for governor, campaigning in an antique fire truck and promising to use creativity, compassion, and a willingness to listen to the People to mend an ailing government.

In 2006, Johnson was barred from practicing law in Massachusetts. “The disbarment by a kangaroo court was an effort to silence my criticism of the courts,” she said.

A newspaper wrote, “While we don’t fully agree with either her politics or her methods, Johnson is a character in a humdrum world sorely in need of more characters.  She’s the t horn in the side, the thumbtack on the chair. . . . Johnson speaks her mind, and loudly.”

Behind the Black Robes: Failed Justice is available for purchase on

• http://www.Amazon.com
• http://www.Abebooks.com
• http://www.Alibris.com
• http://www.BookSurge.com (eventually) and shortly thereafter the book’s listing will appear on
• http://www.BooksinPrint.com and
• http://www.GlobalBooksinPrint.com

Please forward this announcement to everyone who you believe would be interested.  Thank you.

Read the customer reviews as they come in after publication and/or write your own review!

Click to sign up, if you want to receive other emails from Veritas Publishing.

Posted in Books & Films, Judiciary, Civil Rights, Feminist Jurisprudence | Print | No Comments »