Starving for Justice

July 29, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

STARVING FOR JUSTICE.

Guest story by George Rolph

Writing in the Independent Johann Hari reported on July 2nd 2010 how Goldman Sachs and “its swarm of Wall Street allies” had been causing massive starvation and riots around the world by trading contracts made between farmers and traders as futures on the stock exchange.  (You can read his excellent piece here:  http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-how-goldman-gambled-on-starvation-2016088.html  )

In the article referenced above you can read the story of Abiba Getaneh. She is an Ethiopian mother. Pay attention to what she had to say about her hunger: “I felt like battery acid had been poured into my stomach as I starved….” She goes on to talk about the effects on her children too. My readers will, I am sure. feel horrified that the acts of some powerfully greedy little men and women in the West can have such terrible effects on people all over the world as their starvation buys these disgusting dead-hearted people a new work of art to hang in their massive houses or perhaps, a nice diamond bracelet to impress associates with.

This week I spent over four days with a man who knows the terrible pain that Abiba Getaneh and her children went through. He is feeling it right now. Today. His pitifully thin body has began to eat into the muscles because there is no fat left to consume as a source of energy. In his hollowed out face his eyes burn with a revolutionary zeal. His lips are set in grim determination. His skin, burnt by the sun to the colour of dried tobacco, is stretched tightly over his weakening skeleton. Every now and again his head and body lurch to the side as he retches. All that leaves his stomach is the water he has been drinking. Today, his pain has lasted twenty seven days and no end to it is in sight.

The differences between this man and Abiba are many and varied. There are, however, some differences that are deeply tragic. Abiba’s pain has ended now and she can eat again. His pain has not ended. It is fashionable for many in the rich West to feign concern for the Abiba’s of this world and to discuss her plight and those of her countrymen and women around the table at their dinner parties. Others have a genuine concern and will work themselves into the floor trying to get food aid to the starving all around the world. Still more will pour their money into charities like Oxfam, Save The Children, Christian Aid and others, with the poor giving proportionately more than the rich and not trying to claim it back on their taxes. This mans pain does not qualify for aid and even donations have been thin on the ground for his supporters. Unlike the Woman’s Movement who receive millions of pounds in aid from the government, the police and the public every year, the Men’s Movement get nothing and that is a quite deliberate political decision.

It has been ever thus. When I was once starving hungry it was a poor man and his wife who fed me from their meagre food supply. The rich turned away, muttering that I should, “Get a b****y job” and then walking on. Happy that they had voiced the outrage of their ‘enlightened’ selves, their colleagues and political masters but never once asking me how I came to be in that mess. Talking to me was beyond their Pharisaical nature. It was easier to walk by on the other side.

This starving man is called Len Miskulin. He is 59 years old. A deeply wounded father. An ex hard working and successful BT engineer, he is on a hunger strike and he is one of those sitting opposite Parliament on the pavement. He too has suffered the insults shouted from passing cars that he should “Get a b****y job.” Insults resulting from feelings stirred up by irresponsible journalists and the many thieving politicians in Westminster who would rather forget their own version of benefit fraud. Len receives no benefits from the State but loudmouthed, self righteous fools in passing cars do not know that.

Originally from Croatia he has been in this country for thirty five years. It was this country that stamped all over him. It was this country that invented the system that ripped his heart out. It was the people of this country that, by their complicit silence in the face of staggering pain and injustice for thousands of fathers like Len, walked by on the other side. It is the people and the governors of those people who allow thousands of men like Len Miskulin to suffer unbearable pain because of their inflexibility and sheer naked, ideologically driven greed, that seems coupled with a staggering degree of misplaced hate. Unlike Abiba there is no fashionable concern for Len. He is homeless. He is starving because no one cares. He is starving because of a deeply held grief that will not leave his soul in peace. When that battery acid pain that Abiba felt tears into Len’s stomach lining it serves only to bring to mind his two children that he has not seen in ten years and to increase his determination to go another day without food.

At the State opening of Parliament Len watched as the Queen and her retinue drove past in the carriages of State. He wondered if she noticed him sitting outside of his tent in clear view of the road as she went by. A huge sign telling any who would look his way that he was starving himself because of her judges and her politicians.

Did she look his way? I have no idea. What I do know is that she is not ignorant of what is being done to men like Len. Fathers4Justice campaigners who stormed her London palace in 2004 made sure of that. The contrast between her condition, described at the time by journalist Phillip Johnston writing in the Telegraph as, looking like “a picture of health” and the pitiful condition of Len Miskulin could not be greater.

Len Miskulin. Starving for Justice.

As I contemplated that contrast I amused myself with a fantasy to help break the depressing reality of Len’s condition threatening my mind. I imagined the impossible. The Queens carriage coming to a halt opposite the green at Westminster and her royal figure alighting from the carriage and walking — in all of her robes of state — over to the mess of tents. There she walked among some of her people who were, for a myriad of personal and political reasons, not enjoying life in her country. In my imagination I saw her leaning forwards to speak to Len who made no attempt to rise from his seat and saying, “And what do you do?”  Then I saw in my mind, Len push himself painfully from his folding chair and stand proudly before her on unsteady feet. I saw him fix his eyes upon hers with an unwavering and piercing gaze and tell her, respectfully, but forcefully, “I starve, your majesty, because your courts stole my children and stripped me of all my assets and my children’s inheritance.” I wondered if she would blush. I finally decided that she would not. Her mind would probably have wandered away from Len a split second after she had asked a question whose answer she had no interest in. Perhaps I do her an injustice. I doubt it. She has done nothing to show any support for the nations fathers since the feminist inspired war on them began. There is no capital to be gained for her, unlike during the war when her parents visited the bombed out buildings in the East End and announced that they could now look people in the eye. Somehow, between then and now the Royal family have lost their humanity and common touch. The Queens heart has hardened and she no longer cares except where she must pretend too care for reasons of diplomacy or publicity.

On Sunday evening I travelled from my home in Bromley to Len’s tent in Westminster to sit with him through the night in case the bailiffs came to turf him off the green so that Boris Johnson and those other stalwarts of humanity in the Houses of Commons and Lords would have a little less to complain about. I knew that the bailiffs would come with the police to back them up. I also knew that things might get nasty and if they did, the police would have their black uniformed thugs nearby at hand to stamp on those who resisted and possibly those who could not resist, like Len. I was determined to do what I could to passively protect him from any blows that might come his way. His health could not have stood a Tasering or kick to the belly from a psychopathic thug in armour. I wanted to try and see that such a thing did not happen to him. The bailiffs did not come that night. Instead, the police drove periodically around the green at four in the morning with the sirens screaming in an effort to make sure that no one slept. Coupled with the fact that they had made sure many of the toilets nearby were shut and, I am told, all water stand pipes had been shut off, who ever gave those orders to those unthinking robots who carried them out were like nasty children bullying the helpless for fun. This is what our country has come too and it is also the reason the camp on the green exists at all. Earlier in the day I had heard one of the peace camps inhabitants speaking to a foreign journalist who had said, with a nod towards the House of Commons, “Those people think you are nuts.” “Yes well.” The hippy replied. “Like attracts like so they could be right”

Today, Len is still there. He is enduring another day of self imposed agony because he has no other way to express his rage at what has been done to him. Unlike the feminists, the amorphous International Men’s movement has refrained from using violence to get its message across. Today, like every other day he has been there, the common tourists will come and speak to him and he will tell his tale for the thousandth time. They will photograph him and sympathise and hopefully, go home to tell their friends in their own country how the once most democratic country in the world is sliding into barbarism against its own fathers.

A few days ago, a male teacher led a sizable party of school children onto the green. They gathered around Len and began firing their questions at him in a polite and slightly bewildered way. Unable to raise his voice above the din of the traffic and weak from the sun and the corrosive acid eating at his stomach lining, I spoke up for him. As I told his story and answered their questions the teacher said nothing. He was letting the children experience the raw emotion of the situation for themselves. I was aware of the need not to frighten the children but also, not to shield them from the realities of life in the country they live in. I saw the shock in their eyes and knew they would talk about what they had heard to their parents and friends. Getting the message out to those who still have hearts that can feel compassion for their fellow man. Before they left I told them that their generation needed to find a better way than our incompetent generation had for dealing with the issues of family breakups. Len and I thanked them for asking their questions and being interested. Something we could not say to a single MP. One bright looking young girl replied, “No. Thank you both for being brave and telling us.” I was deeply moved. Both by the children’s natural concern for another and by the teachers amazing instincts for letting the children learn about life outside of their own realities. Something both politicians, the legal system and journalists are often reluctant to do when it comes to their own people.

Abiba Getaneh suffered her pain because of the impersonal and irresponsible greed of Goldman Sachs and others. Len is suffering his pain because of the closed minds of politicians and the greed of lawyers and judges who have devised a system steeped in astonishing cruelty and a secret process they can spin out for as long as they wish in order to keep the money rolling in. Tonight, somewhere in this country, a judge and lawyer will be dining out on money made from the misery of thousands of men like Len. All in the best interests of the child, of course. Most of those men will suffer in silence. Some will squeak out a weak protest online or by letters to their MP’s. Most will take pills for the depression they feel and try to go on living. Still more will kill themselves or drift into homelessness because their future has been stolen from them. Like those other victims of injustice, the men who are abused by their wives and partners in their homes everyday, they will look at people like David Cameron and Boris Johnson with undisguised disgust. They will do the same to our almost silent press who collude with MP’s, feminists and the police to walk past on the other side and to present misinformation to the public (See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKXVcUSBKH4  ) in a deliberate policy of propaganda and deception. And that is a further difference between Abiba Getaneh’s pain and Len Miskulin’s pain. Hers was caused by unthinking greed. Len’s is caused by greed and lies.

In his latest article for the Independent, brilliant journalist Johann Hari inadvertently mirrored the attitude of the establishment to fathers deprived of their very basic human right to have contact with their own children and be involved in their upbringing. He wrote about the Peace camps protesters and spoke eloquently and movingly about why their presence on the green was more important than Boris Johnsons aesthetic sensibilities, but he skimmed past Len Miskulin’s story with barely a nod in his direction.

He writes:

“As the months went on, the tent city developed and mutated each time I visited. More protesters arrived, with a more eclectic range of grievances. A man appeared announcing he was starving himself because the courts wouldn’t let him see his children: he hasn’t eaten for more than 20 days.”

This is the story behind the announcement Johann Hari so briefly reported. It is as moving and as sad as Abiba’s story and just as unnecessary. It is time we spoke out about these men like Len and let the world know that Britain does have a heart after all.

It does, doesn’t it?

Tomorrow is day twenty eight for Len’s pain. If you can pray and know how, please do.

George Rolph
Bromley. Kent

___________
Follow-up:

Video of Len Miskulin’s eviction from the Peace Camp, opposite from the Parliament, in London (video link provided by George Rolph).

I am sure that quite a few of us can say: There, but for the grace of God, goes I.

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Divorce, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards | Print | No Comments »

Fighting for child custody

June 9, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Time and again I receive requests for help and advice on issues such as those outlined in the following.  I replied on average about once or twice each day during the past two weeks to such requests.

I write the advice I provided over and over, time and again.  I wrote the articles on how to select a lawyer so as to prevent me from having to write up such advice over and over.  The worst thing is that no matter what I write, post or state, extremely few people take any of it to heart.

“Bill” and “Rose” (not their real names) will have 18 to about 25 years of misery and financial hardship ahead of themselves.  They are being forced to dig a financial hole for themselves that they will most likely never be able to get out of — and even if they do, they and their kids will be set back for life.

In spite of that, it is not likely that they will do what is necessary.  Very few people will look past today.  The vast majority of those who read my advice will think it is too much work, give up, stick their heads in the sand and then get their butts shot off.  The good thing about that is that, with their heads in the sand, they will never see it coming.

Excuse my pessimism, but I am 74-years old now and have seen too much of the same thing happening, over and over.

Do you think I am wrong about it all?  Well, the website of Fathers for Life has been in existence for about 20 years.  How come that people like Bill and Rose never visited the website until they ran into trouble?

How come that the stuff I am writing about is not being taught in the schools?
–Walter

Rose wrote:

Hi there..my friend Bill is newly seperated from his girlfriend…upon seperating she agreed to week on week off custody.  1 1/2 weeks later as he returned to the apartment from the funeral of his best friend and cousin, he was presented with a lawyers letter stating she would allow him access to the child IF he didnt have him around certain people (who have no criminal record, who have years of experience in childcare, have strong educational backgrounds - one is a psw, the other has numerous diplomas and a degree which included study in psychology, etc as well as years of military service.) These said people were also the same people she depended upon, on many occasions to watch this child for her…while she worked, got groceries, etc etc and she never had a problem with them watching him until they noted suspecious behaviour on her part and told Glen.  Both can come up with wonderful letters of recomendation, etc.

He refuses to sign this document, as she is STILL trying to controll him.  During the relationship she was controlling and abusive…and neglectful to their son as well.

Since the breakup Bill has had joey for the first whole week (during which these above people watched him while glen was at work..and she even came over to interact with joey during that week while these people had him outside playing…if she was that concerned with the care, why did she leave him there?

She has no denied ALL access of Bill to joey for a little over 3 weeks.

Bill has very little in the way of money to spend on a lawyer..so I have been compiling the documents he needs and filling them out fo rhim as best I can.  We heard of a mens group who will help you fight for custody…and then I found this website…I am hoping you can help lead me in the right direction to find help for him, and have this father and son re-united.

In the conversation he had with her tonight..she is now claiming that william isn’t even Bill’s..and became very hostile when he suggested a paternity test be done…

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help us!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rose

My response:

From: Walter H. SchneiderTo: Rose

Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 9:08 PM

Subject: Re: fighting for custody

Hello Rose,

If you tell me where you are located, I may be able to direct you to an organization near you.

Regards,

Walter

Rose responded:

Sorry  I  Should have insluded that.  We are located in Fredericton New Brunswick.

I responded:

Rose,

The “you” in the following refers to you and Bill.

There are two organizations in New Brunswick whom you should try to contact:

New Brunswick Children’s Equal Parenting Association
New Brunswick Shared Parenting Association

Ask both of them for advice.  If either one of them has meetings of its membership, you should try to attend.  You will learn more from individuals who are at various stages of their legal fights than you can from any lawyer.
The website of Fathers for Life and its associated blog contain a number of articles on how to select a lawyer.  Read those articles (some of them are repetitions) and learn what you should do in selecting a lawyer.

I know, you stated that Bill has little money.  It is up to you to determine whether Bill qualifies for Legal Aid.  If so, let him apply (and keep in mind that if she applies before Bill does, Bill will not be given Legal Aid — Legal Aid will not present both sides in a case).  If not, consider what the alternatives are.  Bill will potentially be forced to hand over about $250,000 to $500,000 in child support over the years, until the boy is mature or until he has finished his education, whichever comes later.

Denial of access or visitation needs to be assessed with respect to the custody and visitation order.  Interference with that order is a criminal offence.  However, the number of such offences that were prosecuted and punished in Canada can probably be counted on one hand.  I only know about two of them that were.  In both of those cases the fathers fighting for their rights went into bankruptcy.  Interestingly, neither of those fathers made any headway in court until after they went bankrupt, could no longer afford to pay their lawyers and began to represent themselves.  Great stuff, right? Legal victory predicated by financial self-immolation.

You will not gain any legal ground by trying to establish guilt.  For one thing, guilt is not punishable, and neither will be anything else be she may have done you don’t like.

Concentrate on what you primarily wish to achieve.  That is, regular and equitably-shared parenting, right?  Therefore, concentrate on what is best for the child.  Make an appearance that you are bending over backwards to please the mother, and that all else is in the best interest of the child.  However, make sure that the custody and visitation order contains a statement that specifies that the police must assist Bill if the mother should interfere with the court order.  Without that statement it is extremely unlikely that Bill will ever get the police to help him enforce his visitation rights, if that should become necessary.

You will need to file a statement of claim.  Keep that as short as possible, about a page to a page-and-a-half.  Use reference pointers to any supporting documentation.  Attach copies of the documentation and use tabs for each document, with each tab to correspond to the reference identifying the document in the statement of claim.

Learn about the rules of the court. Visit the local law library.  Find case law, that is: evidence of judgments in similar cases.

Keep tabs on what your lawyer does.  He works for you.  You must be quite clear on what you want him to do.  Make sure he does the right thing at the right time and at the right place.  Keep in mind that the lawyer will get paid whether you win or lose your case.

Try to keep your case out of the family-court system.  The family-court system is ostensibly in place to help individuals with family issues.  The reality is somewhat different.

The family-court system was put into place for no other reason than to expedite the dissolution of marriages, when the liberation of the divorce laws and the establishment of the principle of “no-fault” divorce created an insurmountable backlog of divorce applications.  (Read more: Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families )

A secondary result that evolved over the close to 40-years time of the family-court system’s existence was that family courts evolved into a system for putting men and especially fathers into their place, which place, according to feminist doctrine, is for fathers to be without and not within families.  That is being accomplished by having the rules of the court and the rules of evidence no longer apply in family court. (Read more: Family court to men - ‘Just shut up and pay’; Bias and injustice in our family court system the root cause of many murder- suicides; Note: you can find much more information on family-court issues by searching the website of Fathers for Life for “family court”. )

The best thing you can do to help Bill is to bring Bill’s case into regular court, were his chance to receive justice according to the law will be considerably better.  However, the chances that Bill will gain anything are slim, about one in ten.  Bill most likely will at best only obtain standard visitation (one weekend every two weeks, plus half of vacation and one out of every two holidays).

In general, the only thing that Bill can be sure about is that he will be sentenced to pay for having become a father, that and that he will be ordered to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.

Here now is the most important aspect of Bill’s whole case.

It is of course possible that Bill is the natural father of the young boy, but if I were in your position, I would make absolutely sure that the boy is Bill’s biological offspring.  The chances are on average one against two that the boy is not Bill’s child.

If Bill’s paternity has been established on the basis of DNA paternity testing, then it is reasonable for Bill to fight for regular access to the boy or perhaps even for fully shared custody.  Without proof of paternity, Bill should refuse to pay child support, and he should not bother to attempt to obtain visitation rights. (See also: Pregnant on the Sly; Table of Contents — Paternity Fraud)  Mind you, once there is a court order that sentences Bill to pay child support, then there is not much he can do (other than to try to have the court order overturned) than to pay, or else he will be breaking the law.

Regards,

Walter

Posted in Suicides, Divorce, Child-Custody Awards, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

A “fare-well” of sorts

October 10, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

This blog entry is intended only for the serious reader and student of human history and evolution.  Do not bother to read the rest of this entry if you do not like reading or if you merely seek judicial solutions to the damages caused by your divorce and child-custody issues.

Almost three months have gone by since I last posted an entry to dads & things, the blog of the popular website of Fathers for Life. Related to that, I also reduced the frequency of postings to the mailing list of Fathers for Life.

To keep up the frequency of the postings and updates, at the levels to which people had become accustomed to, as well as staying on top of the hundreds of e-mail messages that arrived daily in our inbox, required between 16 to 20 hours of work each day. Obviously and ultimately, that was more than I could cope with.

Little harm is done by me not answering requests for help and information.  Virtually all of the answers I can give are available at the website of Fathers for Life.  Surely, anyone who seeks answers can find them at that website.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so, as the home page of that website clearly states, is Fathers for Life.  No one expects to be led by the hand to explore Wikipedia….

If anyone wishes to get in touch with me, I still answer my telephone.  People frequently do get in touch by phone.  I gladly sit down at my PC to illustrate to them how to navigate the website of Fathers for Life, explaining to them over the phone which links to follow, while I also offer some common-sense advice to those who appear to be in need of it.

That sort of help is much more and better than what was available to me when I went through my separation and divorce, close to 35 years ago — when it took me about six months to find out that there was an organization in Edmonton that could or should have helped to provide some of the answers I sought but did not, even after I found it.

All of that does not mean that my life stopped.  I still seek answers.  The serious heart attack I experienced in February 2009 was a warning that I had to slow down.  I slowed down but did not entirely stop my efforts to find and understand the driving forces of the motivations for the planned destruction of the family within the context of the program for the re-engineering of humanity, of all of civilization, that is.

Quite some years ago, I posted an on-line edition of a book to Fathers for Life, The  Head of the Medusa. by Perseus.  The book was read by few fathers-rights activists, even then, and is being read by virtually no fathers-rights activists now. Yet, the book clearly identifies the forces that drive the planned destruction of the family within the context of the systematic re-engineering of humanity.

The Trinity of Humanicide — the destruction of the existing form of the human race — is formed by combining three such isms and let’s be honest, didn’t they all sound good when we first heard them? Let’s rip off the shining raiment and see what lies underneath.

• Environmentalism — the war between people and the planet.
• Multiculturalism — the war between the world and its component nations.
• Feminism — the war between the two component human genders.

Unmasked, we can see these three imposters for what they are. They are not a Trinity to bring us together at all. They are three weird sisters met to tear us apart and create disharmony and destruction.

Here we have a witches brew, an all encompassing global ‘ethic’ that is the most powerful mechanism for human destruction in the history of the world. Anyone who cannot see, or understand this — and that is the vast majority of us — must believe that the three components of this spell are basically benign, altruistic aims. But, we have been fooled into biting into a poisoned apple. That is the true heart of this terrible human catastrophe.

In our lack of vision and understanding, we have ourselves become components in the most toxic and most powerful force for evil that has ever been unleashed in the history of human existence.

– The Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, by Perseus

A few days ago I ran across a statement that, with very few words, sums up the fundamental, primary problem cause for what Perseus addressed in The  Head of the Medusa, “Communists are socialists who are in a hurry”.

Communism is socialism, but whether socialism is being put into place through a bloody revolution or through a slow death of a thousand cuts, once socialism is in place, whether its implementation took a hundred years or more or just a couple of years, it will have the nature of a centralized, totalitarian regime.

The Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich (English edition 1980, with a foreword by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and now accessible in full and for free at the indicated link) is required reading.

I came across that book as a result of reading Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Commencement Address at Harvard.  He stated in that,

….The mathematician Igor Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliantly argued book entitled Socialism; this is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death. Shafarevich’s book was published in France almost two years ago [1976, in Russian] and so far no one has been found to refute it.

Igor Shafarevich is a world-renowned mathematician.  I read substantial portions of his book [2008 12 02 — all of it by now], and I must fully agree with what Solzhenitsyn stated about it.

Solzhenitsyn did not mention feminism as a form of socialism, and neither did Shafarevich in his book, where feminism is not mentioned at all.  Perhaps neither author deemed it necessary to state the obvious, namely that socialism favours the female of the human species as much as anthills and beehives favour the females of their respective insect species.  That favoritism is illusory, as it means nothing more than that females do all of the work, and males serve only a single purpose, to diversify the gene pool….(Full Story: Search-engine censorship, socialism, ant hills and female supremacy)

The Socialist Phenomenon makes for chilling reading and is without a doubt true.  It is even more chilling to consider the extent of censorship that is at work in the West, given that it took a world-renowned mathematician during the existence of the former USSR to provide a clear and concise summary of the pertinent issues, while no one in the West, not even the Pope, did anything comparable.  (–The Communist Manifesto, by Walter Schneider)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn explained in his 1978 commencement address at Harvard that The Socialist Phenomenon,

is a penetrating historical analysis demonstrating that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death.

Yes, socialism does that and nothing else.  Igor Shafarevich hammers the point home by describing the four major aspects of socialism:

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

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

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

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

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

Igor Shafarevich
The Socialist Phenomenon, p. 200

_________
See also: Abolition of the family (at Fathers for Life)

Above, I mentioned that Igor Shafarevich’s The Socialist Phenomenon does not once mention feminism as an outcome or expression of socialism, but neither does it mention environmentalism.  That brings me to the motivation for posting this commentary.

MUST READ: What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson, BBC Climate Correspondent

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought [instead of “thought”, a better term would have been “falsely-alleged” –WHS] to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?  ….

(Full Story)

And this:

From The Times (UK)
October 10, 2009
Power cuts forecast to hit UK in four years
Robin Pagnamenta, Energy Editor

Britain faces a return to 1970s-style power blackouts and disruption to its electricity supplies within four years, the energy regulator warned yesterday.

Ofgem raised the spectre of a return to the three-day week for British industry as the country scrambles to renovate its crumbling power infrastructure ahead of new EU pollution rules that will force the closure of a quarter of UK power stations by 2015….

(Full Story)

That is environmentalism gone insane, and so are comparable efforts, wherever they are being undertaken, such as in the case of the Alberta Government intending to spend billions of dollars for Carbon Capture and Sequestration while it cuts back on health-care spending for seniors and the disabled.  The reality of that sort of thing is that it is absolutely unnecessary, not only that but totally futile.  There is no way that a reduction of man-made CO2 emissions, emissions that constitute no more than 3.6% of the total CO2 content of the global atmosphere, will have a noticeable impact on climate trends.  The question is, what do power cuts and saving the globe have to do with the planned destruction of the family and with the abrogation of fathers rights?

Yes, I know.  A few fathers-rights activists asked me that question over the years, but, although I gave them the answer to that question, few of those who asked that question ever accepted my answer.  Well, if anyone still has a doubt as to whether environmentalism is part of the current program for implementing global socialism, consider how big a part of naziism environmentalism was.

Yes, naziism is a form of socialism.  The term nazi is a nickname for the name of the party that promoted that particular form of socialism, the National-Socialist German Workers Party (the acronym for the nazi party, NSDAP, stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, that is, the National-Socialist German Workers Party –WHS).  If you have any misgivings about the fact that environmentalism was strongly intertwined with Hitler’s National Socialism, read

The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter’s “Green and Brown” (2009), at Environmentalism is Fascism, by William Walter Kay

Considering the global attempts under the auspices of the UN to implement international income and asset equalization between have- and have-not nations (true to the communist maxim, “from those who have to those in need”) at any cost, in the order of many trillions of dollars, the income and asset transfers from men to women in the name of women’s rights pale by comparison, and so does the accompanying extent of the human misery, suffering and deaths so created through the planned destruction of the family.

The third member of the Toxic Trinity of Humanicide, multiculturalism, will be covered in another commentary that I will, if time permits, post a few months or so from now.

For now, if we cannot stop the insanity of extremely expensive but totally futile, humanly and economically damaging efforts to implement climate control for the sake of environmentalism in the name of saving the globe, what makes anyone think that the ongoing planned destruction of the family can be stopped? The same organizations and ultra-wealthy individuals who fund and promote “climate control” also fund and control the planned destruction of the family, with the goal of reducing the world population to about 350 million to a billion people.  After all, they consider humanity to be a cancer on the face of the Earth.

If you have not yet caught on to the strong connection between environmentalism and feminism, then consider to what extent you, too, have become indoctrinated:

The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. …

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. …

The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan….

The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

—Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Walter Schneider

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

Why Did Feminists Attack The Family?

May 30, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Definitely worth reading

From the blog Heretical Sex

Monday, August 27, 2007

Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

The contemporary cultural and political war against the family has several causes, of which feminism is by far the most significant.

‘First-wave’ feminists in the early Twentieth Century were not at all anti-family. Indeed, one of their demands was that control of hearth and home should be the domain of women. Reference.

It was only as a result of second-wave feminism, in the late 1960s, that the feminist attack on the family began. Neil Lyndon, in his 1992 book ‘No More Sex War’, was perhaps the first to trace the origins of second-wave feminist ideology to Marxism….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Roadkillradio.com

May 12, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

FYI,

Here is the chance you were always waiting for, a chance to have your say in public!

RoadkillRadio.com is worth listening to (Tuesdays, PST 7:30 to 9:30 p.m.) and even worth promoting.

Home Page: RoadkillRadio.com

Listen live:

Quoted from that web page:

NOTE: We only Broadcast “LIVE…” on Tuesdays, starting approximately 30 minutes before showtime! If its not Tuesday, you will not get a live stream. The archived shows however, will stream. All archived audio on the web site is of the MP3 file format.

Archived shows:

Archived Shows
All shows [a large and interesting list — WHS] are available for mp3 download

For example:

Download Show 8 Part Two

There will be time for some open-line then an eye-opening, in-depth discussion on Fathers Rights and the Rights of Children.  Vancouver lawyer and well-known advocate Carey Linde will be joining us to talk about this issue and parental alienation.  Are the courts getting it wrong?  (Note: The first third of that portion of the show deals with provincial politics in B.C..  Skip that to get to the interview with Carey Linde.  The discussion of fathers rights, feminist judicial bias, divorce issues such as parental alienation and much more is fascinating.  It is very important for anyone living in B.C. that the discussion contains a recommendation by Carey Linde to copy the results of the poll on shared parenting run by Saskatchewan MP Vellacotte and to forward that to the B.C. Attorney General — in view of the currently going-on revisions to family rights laws in B.C.. –WHS)

From the home page:

Important and Informative! Joins US!!

Broadcasting Live from Vancouver Canada
Unabashedly Canadian, BOLD, No Apologies!
Join Kari Simpson and Terry O’Neill as they expose and examine
the issues that affect your family, rights and liberties.

This Hard-Hitting current events online show dares to be
politically-incorrect and invites all those who have been silenced to be heard!!

May 12th 2009 - 7:30 p.m. - We ran out of time last week, so as promised you will hear a tape recording of a meeting (held on April 29, 2009) between RKR’s very own Kari Simpson, social workers and the parents of three children who are being “investigated” by these so-called child protection workers. Listen as social workers REFUSE to have the meeting taped for accuracy
(click here for an advanced listen part 1).

Then you will hear how they REFUSED to provide the findings of their investigation in writing!!!! (click hear for an advanced listen part 2)

For the rest of the show it is all about the BC Election!! Joining us in-studio will be pollster Glen Robbins from SceResearch and our own, politically in-the-know commentator Ron Gray. Former B.C. Premier Bill VanderZalm will be here and we will talk to candidates as their political fates are decided by BC VOTERS!!!!

We will be taking your calls and emails! This is a must listen… a must tell your friends and family to listen to… RoadKill Radio Rumble!

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167

Important and Informative!

Your Calls, Your Thoughts, Your Opinions are welcome!

EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com

–Walter

http://fathersforlife.org
http://blog.fathersforlife.org

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Education, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Economy, Child Support, Judiciary, Divorce, Health, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, Family, Gay issues, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Children harmed by sole custody, report says

April 5, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Toronto Star
3 April 2009

Children harmed by sole custody, report says

Canadian judges rarely use voluntary arrangements in which kids live with each parent roughly equally

By Susan Pigg, Living Reporter

Family court judges are misguidedly harming children by granting sole custody to one parent - usually the mother - in bitter divorce battles, says a comprehensive new report.[*]

Too many children are being “robbed of the love of one parent” by a legal system that is out of touch with the needs of children and treats them like property to be won or lost, says Edward Kruk, an expert on child custody issues….(Full Story)
__________________
* Note by F4L:

The report by Edward Kruk, Ph.D.:

• Shared Parenting: Child Custody, Access, and Parental Responsibility
• More information by Edward Kruk at Fathers for Life

Posted in Divorce, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

An unmarried husband: Unwelcome reality

April 4, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

The Free Lance-Star

March 29, 2009 1:14 am

AN UNMARRIED HUSBAND:UNWELCOME REALITY

By Stephen Baskerville

–The decline of the family now affects virtually every American and seriously threatens not only social order but freedom and constitutional government. G.K. Chesterton once observed that the family checks government power. He was writing about divorce: Despite other threats to the family, divorce remains the most serious.

Americans would be shocked if they knew what goes on in the name of divorce. Divorce today licenses unprecedented government intrusion, including the power to seize children, loot family savings, and incarcerate parents without trial.

The full implications of the “no-fault” revolution have never been publicly debated. Divorce today seldom involves two people simply parting ways; 80 percent of divorces are unilateral. Under “no-fault,” divorce becomes a power grab by one spouse, assisted by judicial officials who profit from the ensuing litigation: judges, lawyers, psychotherapists, and social workers. Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long-term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Paternal Rights, Civil Rights, Men's Issues, Child-Custody Awards, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

Gold digger supreme

February 3, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Adler Online

50 Million Pays to Leave your Lover
By Charles Adler
Friday, January 23, 2009

A fool and his money are easily parted…well sometimes not so easily. Sometimes it takes the judge’s gavel to pound on the pocket book to shake the shekels loose and it’s happening in Quebec.

As you heard on Adler OnLine earlier this week, a Montreal-based Billionaire is having a bit of a tussle in court with his former girlfriend, who feels that considering she lived with him for ten years and considering she had three kids with him, she should be considered his wife, and therefore be entitled to far more money than he paid her when she hit the trail 7 years ago with only 10K to find an apartment, another 10K for the kids and 5K for some new clothes. That’s what was reported earlier. However, in court today it emerged that she’s been getting more than thirty-thousand dollars a month in child support for the kids over the last five years and he also bought her a condo worth more than two-million dollars, with a staff of seven.

She is also suing in Brazil for half his wealth estimated at over a Billion dollars….(Full Story)

Posted in Media Bias, Divorce | Print | 1 Comment »

Leadership/diversity training is pure brainwashing

February 2, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

Leadership/diversity training is pure brainwashing

February 2nd, 2009 LAIGLESFORUM Posted in Britain, Culture Wars, Global governance, Government, Political Correctness, Sovereignty, Uncategorized |

Beware “leadership training” and “diversity training” - it’s brainwashing!

By Don Hank

Friends, politicians, and particularly presidents, often use weasel words to beguile people. FDR spoke of a “New Deal,” which turned out to be Keynesian Big Government that greatly slowed the recovery from the Depression.

Lyndon Johnson used the “Great Society” to sell welfare.

Obama used “Change” to mask an attempt to nationalize American business and industry.

In the UK, they came up with “Common Purpose” to sell the EU, a veritable dictatorship which makes national governments redundant. Their only purpose: to harmonize (meaning, rubber-stamp) legislation handed down from Brussels.

Below is an urgent message from our friends in Britain. Note the words “common cause” in an Obama speech cited therein. Although the far-left global government advocates at Common Cause are only interested in enslaving Britons (as if mocking the famous lyrics of “Britannia”:  “The Britons never never never will be slaves”), they have inadvertently and unwittingly created a true common cause, namely, the backlash to this insidious plot: throwing off the yoke of the international cabal of leftists and bankers who run Europe like a Chicago gang boss….(Full Story)

Posted in Divorce, Civil Rights, Family, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

Children need families, not 50/50 parenting

February 2, 2009 by Walter Schneider.

What children need - not 50/50 shared parenting but to be raised in the Family founded on Marriage and for the State to stop attacking the institution and instead obey the law and assist it when asked.

By Roger Eldridge
Feb. 2, 2009

I am writing this to Charles, who asked how the Council could help him achieve the presumption of 50/50 shared parenting after a “split.”

If you go to our website http://www.family-men.com you will see our position. Read it all, not just the “About Us” section which was put up seven years ago. It remains accurate but we have moved on.

You won’t find support for “equal custody” on there because we have found after ten years serious research and experience in this that the solution to children suffering from the Family being disintegrated is something else and we know, as men, that once you analyse the problem the solution pops out.

For a start there is no such thing as a “split”. This euphemism is used because it is not politically correct in the feminist state to allocate any reasons for relationship or Marriage breakdown - except that it is caused by men. In fact, under this regime, the fundamental principle of the Courts and government policy is the extraordinary presumption that relationships break down spontaneously by mutual agreement. This allows the State to promote the myth of “no-fault” separation and divorce. The state then claims that it is just facilitating the couple who wish to separate.

The spontaneous and free movement of two halves of formerly integral matter away from each other does not happen in Nature, has never been recorded in Science and does not happen in human relationships.

Until the last fifty years and the advent of feminism with its abhorrence of anything rational, it was accepted that relationship breakdown begins with one of the spouses losing their commitment to the promises they made when they became one flesh.

Like you and many others I was seduced into joining in the victim game and campaigned for many years for the “equality” panacea on the basis that women would not initiate a separation if it meant they would lose time with their children and would not be provided for financially.

Sadly, whilst it would deter some women, it might and probably would encourage many more fathers and mothers by the predictable outcome, to give up on their commitment to the Family they took on when they first opened themselves to the procreation of children.

All the evidence - and there is volumes of it - show that children suffer from EVERY separation, not just the “bad ones” where they are ripped from one parent but from all separations, including those where mercifully one parent is not encouraged and enticed by the corrupt family Law system to destroy the other parent and his relationship with his children.

If you think about it, your duty, whether you are Married or not, is to provide for, educate and protect your child. That means every day until the day you die.

Doing it as much as 50% of the time means you are failing your child the other 50% of the time and they suffer, believe me.

What a child wants and needs is security, stability and predictability in their life. The evidence shows that they don’t care if you and their mother argue all the time and it also shows they prosper better if you stay together despite the rows. They basically want their daddy and their mummy in their life EVERY MINUTE OF THEIR LIVES, not at weekends, not for an hour in the evening three times a week and neither do they want one or two weeks with one parent and then the reverse.

The 50/50 may be good for the parents because they can get on with their life and may be marginally better for children than a lop-sided arrangement but it will never be “good for them”.

As parents - see below the report by the Family Rights Institute of Ireland - we are expected to give our lives for our children and until the last forty years that is what parents did.

Marxism, the ideology of the subversive Statists/Fabians/Feminists, requires an atomised society so that the State can easily control its every move. The Family with its Christian values and extended family “in law” creates bonds that can never be shaken and represents an enormous barrier to their plans. The radical left-wing inflitrators have clandestinely subverted the organs of the State in the Western world and have mercilessly attacked the institution of the Family founded on Marriage.

You can, of course, succumb to their devilish plot or fight them back. We have chosen to do the latter. What aids our position is that we have the Rule of Law and the Constitution on our side. The changes that we all perceive to have taken place are all illusory and merely propaganda put out by their allies in the media. The law has not changed from its founding roots. It can’t so we see our job as restoring the law and ousting the subversives who are side-stepping the democratic process. When was the last time you heard any politician or political party talk about Family law in their manifesto. I guess it is never because they never have.

These so-called reforms were instigated by shadowy persons behind the scenes. Fortunately despite their claims and rhetoric the law can be used to protect Families and children.

We just need a critical mass of the untapped power of men in the Fathers/Family Movement to see the error of being led by the nose towards 50/50 which translates into leaving our kids unprotected and undirected for half their lives and to row in behind the law so that they can again ask a woman to be their wife, safe in the knowledge that the law works as shown below and will defend their right, as long as they conduct themselves appropriately, to properly parent their child EVERY MINUTE OF THEIR LIFE!

If you have any questions please ask

God bless, Roger Eldridge
Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familymen@eircom.net www.family-men.com 07196-67138 086-8180146

***

What children need - to be raised in the Family founded on Marriage and for the State to stop attacking the institution and instead obey the law and assist it when asked.

The Family founded on Marriage is the embodiment of Christian teaching in action.

The institution of the Family founded on Marriage existed prior to the State.

The Family founded on Marriage is a unit and by definition has its own sovereignty with its own Constitution and authority.

The State is not a parent.

Therefore the institution of the Family founded on Marriage is antecedent to and morally superior to the State and to all positive law. The legitimate role of the State relative to the Family founded on Marriage must respect the Subsidiarity Principle and be confined to providing assistance - and only where voluntarily required - by the heads of the Family - the Husband and Wife - acting with the joint power and authority vested bin them to carry out their duties on behalf of the Family.

The purpose and intention of parliament in the context of Family Law must be consistent with the foundational principles outlined above.

In practice this means that all primary legislation - in the form of statute, all secondary legislation - in the form of statutory instruments, court rules and regulations and all tertiary legislation - in the form of government policy and guidelines must act, in a moral manner consistent with Christian teaching, to facilitate the better functioning and continuation as a unit of the Family founded on Marriage.

Thus it can be shown that every action of government must be “Married Family Mainstreamed” - it must form the basis for all policy planning and decision making. Currently “Gender Equality mainstreamed” controls all such policy formation despite it being inconsistent with and repugnant to the Common Good, which allows for policy to discriminate positively, as it must, on the basis of a person or group’s capacity and social function.

For all these reasons the institution of the Family founded on Marriage possesses rights which are inalienable and imprescriptible and superior to all positive law. This simply means that these rights can not be ceded or transferred to third parties and can not be superseded and regulated by the State through its organs, including the Courts. The single exception to this is where the parents have failed for moral or physical reasons and the State is obliged to step in to replace the parents - but only until the family can be rehabilitated.

On Marriage (from the French word meaning to take a Husband - “mari”) the couple become wedded and form “one flesh”. From that point they are obliged to act as one and this is acknowledged in the Law where it recognises that the heads of the Family jointly control all the assets that they have accrued together during the lifetime of the Marriage since their wedlock. These assets necessarily include the Family Home, any land or other property, all material goods and savings. The most important asset however is any children they are blessed with.

The Married Family, like all institutions has its own Constitution and authority where its sovereignty is given expression. It necessarily must have a structure and a hierarchy of responsibility and government. The heads of the Family are a committee of 2 which must make all decisions jointly that involve a third party, especially any organ of the State. Each of them individually, if they believe the children’s welfare and safety requires their intervention, also have the right, at any time, to veto any prior decision jointly made but can not unilaterally initiate the involvement of a third party.

As one would expect, where Marriage is the daily theatre in which we act out our Christian faith and teaching, the most important duty of a spouse flows from the covenant made with God in the Marriage ceremony where we vow to “love” each other and any children we might receive by the Grace of God.

This “love”, what we call unconditional love, is the authentic Christian love that was shown to us by God sending his own son Jesus Christ to sacrifice himself so that we might be saved. In the same way spouses are expected “for richer, for poorer, for better for worse, in sickness and in health” to sacrifice their own comfort, their own welfare and safety and in fact their own lives for the benefit of their spouse and children and the Family Unit as a whole.

Jesus reminds us that the two most important of God’s commandments are that we should love Him above all else - that material and selfish desires should be resisted - and that we should love our neighbour and our enemy as we love ourselves. This second commandment directs that the most important duty of a spouse, apart from the duty to self-sacrifice for the rest of the Family that flows from the first commandment, is to be open to reconciliation in these troubled times when it is all too easy tfor the other spouse to be painted as “the enemy”.

It is falsely stated that the primary duty of a spouse is to co-habit. Plainly, whilst for practical purposes it is usually the case that the Family all live together, the principles of family law do not support it as being critical. Many families exist and function well whilst the members of the Family reside in different locations. For example where the Husband may be in the services or in the merchant navy etc.

The genuine key principles that distinguish a Marriage are:

The spouses act jointly as a single unit in decision-making involving any third party;

The spouse act selflessly for the benefit of the Family as a whole and subordinate their own individual needs and wishes;

The spouses are continuously open to reconciliation.

The act of living together, ie merely co-habiting, has been falsely promoted as a defining duty of spouses precisely to create the potential for any pairing of two people - of opposite sex or same-sex - to co-habit in a Marriage-like manner and so blur the real requirement for the love - self control, submission to regulation and openness to reconciliation - characterised by the authentic Family founded on Marriage.

Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familyrightsinstitute@eircom.net 07196-67138 086-8180146

***

In order to pay the wages and make a profit the media has learnt that their clients - readers, viewers, listeners, must be good consumers or else the advertisers will go elsewhere. The best consumers are overwhelmingly women - Maureen Gaffney of the National Economic and Social Forum estimates that at least 90% of financial decisions and purchases are now made by women - so to survive and be successful editors everywhere must fill the spaces between the ads with content (what in the old days used to be called “News”) labelled WAWMAA - stories that reinforce what women like to hear - ones that say Women Are Wonderful, Men Are Awful.

It’s not that editors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

The mantra of big business is growth so their strategy has to be always to maximise profit through sales. For every cent they pay to a woman they know they will get it back immediately in sales. For them to hire women rather than men, wherever it is feasible, suits their purpose.

It’s not that managers and company directors like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

Since the seventies governments have acted exactly like big business. They now claim taxes from virtually every purchase made so, if they want to expand their empire, they have a vested interest in ensuring consumerism is maximised.

That means it makes sense for government, like the media and big business, to have policies which use WAWMAA to justify the transfer of control of the Family income from the man to the woman. Hence the built-in bias in the governments family Courts - both in Custody and Domestic Violence cases - and Child Support laws and decisions.

It’s not that governments like women and dislike men, it’s just good for business.

God bless, Roger Eldridge
Executive Director, Family Rights Institute of Ireland, Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
familyrightsinstitute@eircom.net 07196-67138 086-8180146

Posted in Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Organizational News, Civil Rights, Divorce, Health, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »