The Soviet Story

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 »

Mother killed child

November 28, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

On 27/11/2010 5:06 PM, stephen wrote:

Hello Walter:

Under Google Reader they have listings of 100’s of pages of Church abuses and adult abuses in just the past two weeks.

Stephen

I know you celebrate Thanksgiving on a different day, as I celebrated with a couple from Calgary Salvation Army once.

My response:

Stephen,

I know that Dads & Things is not entirely unbiased in its reporting of child abuse cases, but that is mainly because I focus on reporting things not covered in the main-stream media and look at things a bit beyond the scope of the Google Reader feed you pointed me to.

Description: RELIGIOUS FANATICS ARE AMONG THE MOST VICIOIUS CHILD ABUSERS IN THE WORLD

Subscribers: 54

Posts per week: 77.2

Going by those numbers, I figure that we look at a total of 3,754 reports annually of child abuse by Christians in the world.  That number would be only a small fraction of the annual number of child abuse cases in the world.  I never have seen exact numbers of such cases, but let’s do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations.

First of all, let’s assume the worst, that all of the cases reported at the recommended Google Reader feed are cases of fatal child abuse.

The total number of child murders (not including abortions, of whom there are about 1.1. million a year) in the U.S. in 2009 was 923 (based on the FBI Uniform Crime Report).  That number is probably too low, as women routinely get off with murder and many cases of child murder are being diagnosed as being due to accidental or natural causes, but I’ll let that go for now.

From that, and given that the U.S. population is about 5 percent of the world population, the total number of child murders every year must then be in the order of 18,460 in the world.

Going by that, Christians would perpetrate about 20 percent of all child murders each year, while the remaining population sector (all non-Christians) would perpetrate the remaining 80 percent of child murders.

You may wonder why I discuss fatal child abuse by Christians, when the Google Reader feed you pointed out identifies in its title “RELIGIOUS FANATICS”.  Well, I looked through the first 20 or so headings of the postings the feed identifies and assume that the pattern shown there holds true for the rest.  All of the “RELIGIOUS FANATICS” identified in those first few postings are Christians.

Now, there are about 2.1 billion Christians in the world, out of a total of 6.8 billion people.  That would be about 31 percent of the world population (which means that the Google Reader feed you recommend is enormously biased).  That Christian portion of the world population fatally abuses at most 20 percent of all children who are being fatally abused each year.  Going by that, I fail to see the truth in the premise of the Google Reader feed you recommended, namely that Christians are the most vicious child abusers in the world.  It seems to me that there is only a very small chance of that being true, while, collectively, all other religious denominations are — going by those numbers — substantially more vicious.

The truth is quite possibly that some non-Christian denominations are a lot more vicious than Christian religious fanatics are alleged to be.

I think that I better stick to debunking the wrongfully alleged peacefulness of women rather than to deviate into largely uncharted territory about which there is very little reliable information.  I would no sooner want to go there than I am willing to promote returning to the allegations that Jews habitually engage in the ritual slayings of babies on Easter.  We have had enough pogroms against the Jews and don’t need any against the Christians, there having been more than enough of those sort of persecutions.

Our Thanksgiving Day was on the 11th of October, but we celebrate Veterans Day (our Remembrance Day), Christmas and Easter, of course, on identical days of the calendar.

–Walter

Sent to you by stephen via Google Reader:

Mother killed child

via Christian Child Abuse by MagdaGraham on 11/8/10

Mum killed toddler to ‘expel evil spirits’

Posted November 5, 2010 14:57:00

Rachel Cherie Hadley stood on her son’s chest and mouth to expel evil spirits, court heard (ABC News: Gary Rivett)

A court has found a mother was psychotic when she killed her two-year-old son by standing on him….(Full Story)

________________

F4L:  Let’s not blame religious fanaticism for it, but, yes, there always is an excuse when a woman kills a child.  If it was not her husband or any other man who made her do it, then the next in line are the devil or her inner demons.  If everything else fails, the poor murdering mama can always claim nothing more than that she just could not help herself and just had to do it.

For that reason a special crime category, Infanticide, was created that is accessible only for women who kill children.

For men there is never an excuse.  Men are always considered as being fully responsible for their actions, while women are thought to be so fragile that they must always be treated by the courts as being at least somewhat infantile.

Posted in Religion, Child Abuse, Media Bias, Child Murder, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 2 Comments »

Feminist Propaganda Debunked

November 24, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

A fathers rights activist wrote to me about the feminists having discovered a meeting of 160 FR activists in Switzerland.  I responded to him:

Unfortunately, the comments on the posting at your blog are closed.  Therefore I will respond directly to you.

It is not as important for you to wonder how the author (Suswati Basu) of the article at thefword.org found out about you having posed as Batman as it is to debunk her assertions of historical factoids that clearly come out of the rummage bag of feminist “herstory”, the re-writing of history as we once knew it, and that the IGAF is addressing exactly those sort of false assertions by feminist propagandists.

Take just a few of the propagandist assertions by Suswati Basu.

1. Now, I am not quite sure how far back IGAF are proposing to go. Perhaps 50 years ago when women were still considered ideal for housework and rearing children or better still, …

That lie is easily refuted, and that has already been done.

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

A review by Frank Zepezauer

---

The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher

Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers.

I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, There’s No Place Like Work by Brian C. Robertson. It has a provocative sub-title: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home. [1] The title pretty well tells you what the book is about, an account of how the workplace has replaced the home as the center of our lives.

I found it particularly instructive because Robertson’s account challenges recently formed misperceptions about our gender political history since the founding of the nation. It is in that sense an effort to recover the American past.

Robertson makes it clear who formed the misperceptions of our past 200 years. He writes that – “in order to propagate the notion (central to their ideology of women’s liberation) that before the dawn of modern feminism mothers stayed at home to raise their children only because they had no alternative – feminist writers have been forced into a tortuous and self-contradictory interpretation of the pre-1960s women’s movement, its goals and its guiding principles.”[2] (Full Story)

2. before women obtained the vote, and were voiceless ‘second-class’ citizens.

That is laughable.

• Working on the Railroad — in the Victorian Age

  How much oppression by men could there possibly have been?  The vast majority of men didn’t have the voting franchise (it was tied into assets, of whom most men didn’t have any), and men were generally treated like slaves.  How could history possibly have been re-written so much that the products of our education system became indoctrinated with the belief that men were oppressors of women?  Full Story
  

• The Victorian Age

  As seen through the comments by Michael Crichton in “The Great Train Robbery” (It took place in 1855) (Full Story)

• The Voting Franchise for women, as seen through feminist eyes

Already under Ottilie Baader and Clara Zetkin, the most prominent fighters of the proletarian and later socialistic women’s movement, the original, all-encompassing concerns of the association were reduced to focus on the labour movement.  The Leading principle expressed in the slogan “Woman and Worker have in common that they are oppressed,” identified the political liberation of the proletariat in connection with the political and labour-laws liberation of the woman — although what was meant by that weren’t all women in general, but merely women who were employed.  The main goal of the efforts was the voting franchise for women.

England became the fighting example to be emulated by the German women’s movement.  German women noticed with angry pride the first arrests of women’s right activists in England in the last years of the 19th century.  From 1903 on, under the leadership of Sylvia Prankhurst, the suffragettes became visibly more aggressive.  An external sign was the war of the fashion over the substitution of the more clinging suffragette-silhouette for the traditional crinolines.  Malicious cartoons of goat-faced, skinny women without bosoms and bottoms amused the male world and those women who were excluded from the women’s movement — namely the non-employed housewives.

Lastly the voting franchise for women materialized, although not at first in the England of the suffragette pioneers, and in addition at a different time.

Finland became the herald in 1906.  Germany approached the issue in small steps and introduced in 1908 the Reich Union Law.  That permitted women to participate in political meetings and rallies.  Even though the English women continued to fight vehemently, it was Russia which in 1917 became the first country to introduce the voting franchise for women.^[5]   Germany followed in 1918 at the end of World War I;^[6] the USA joined in 1920.  Great Britain was still a laggard.  Although in  1918 it granted all women over 30 the voting franchise, it wasn’t permitted until 1928 for all English women to vote.  France delayed women’s right to vote until 1944.  Switzerland became the tail light in 1971.  (quoted from The Wife at his Side, by Karin Jaeckel)

Still, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  Never present the truth in academic fairness.  Although Karin Jaeckel’s writing is largely pro-male and pro-family, even she is not totally immune to the damages caused by feminist propaganda.

The reality of the voting franchise by the masses is that men did not have it much better than women did, once it came to voting.

In essence, it was based on proportional representation based on assets owned by voters — a system that until just a few years ago existed even in Canadian municipal elections, preventing anyone who wasn’t a property owner from voting.  According to The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (by Colin McEvedy),

“One in every eight Englishmen had the vote in the early nineteenth century, a proportion that the Reform Bill of 1832 raised to one in five. ^[1] …only one in 300 Frenchmen had the vote in the 1820s …the Belgians …with a British-style Parliament elected a one-in-fifteen franchise.Note 1.) Things were not so good in the other parts of the United Kingdom: the post-Reform Bill proportion in Scotland was one in eight, in Ireland one in twenty.  (Source)

3. Women’s organisations such as the Fawcett Society are campaigning on issues such as equal pay. In the UK, women get paid, on average, 16.4% less than men….

That is just as wrong and as easily debunked.  For one thing, all developed nations now have very strong laws that make all attempts to pay women less for equal work done illegal, but let’s look at some of the truth about the lie that women are getting paid less.

Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?

All evidence to the contrary, feminist “researchers” continue to claim that women earn less than men do.  It used to be said that “A woman earns 59¢ to a man’s dollar,” or, more recently and today, “Women earn 72¢ for every dollar earned by men.”

As with all feminist “research”, in this area, too, the truth is stranger than fiction.  That the feminist fiction is being maintained as “the truth” is the strangest part of it all.  The evidence that feminist researchers have not been telling the truth about the lack of pay equity for women has been around for decades.

Well, what can one say?  To understand that mystery, one has to go back all the way to what Hitler said about what makes propaganda successful.

…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.

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI

Hitler made it quite clear that with successful propaganda it will not do to present the truth in academic fairness, but that what needs to be presented is what you wish the masses to accept as the truth.  That is quite obviously what feminist “researchers” have been and are very good at doing.  Moreover, aren’t all feminists women (not true; there are more male than female feminists, and we are likely to call them chivalrous), and are not all women incapable of lying? (Full Story)

4. And the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise stated “End Male Violence against Women”. 

Yes, that is true, and even the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise (at which considerably less than a million women rose) are true.  There is violence against women.

However, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda.  One should never present the truth in academic fairness.  That is exactly what the feminist propaganda about violence against women does.  It does not present all of the truth and nothing but the truth.  Most of all, it does not present the truth about violence against men, absolutely no truth at all.  It does not even mention violence against men.

Presenting the truth about violence against people of both sexes shows that without a doubt there is far more violence against men than there is against women.  Irrefutable figures on that are relatively easy to come by, and here are just a few.  The preceding link will take you to a list of links to articles on violence against men.  To cut through the chase, look at just one of the articles and sources identified in that list:

REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:

AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: September 2008

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.

(Full Text)

There is no doubt that more men than women die on account of violence, roughly two men for every woman, but the feminist assertion about violence against women implies that we have an epidemic of violence by men against women.

It may help to give the last word on this to Warren Farrell, Ph.D..  After explaining in Chapter 12 of his book The Myth of Male Power, titled “Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: “The Twelve “Female-Only” Defenses”, how those 12 female-only defences cloud public perceptions about women’s violence, Warren Farrell stated:

In brief, it is impossible to know the degree to which the sexes kill each other.  The only thing we know for certain is that both sexes kill men more than they kill women. (p. 282)

That leaves the last wrong claim in Suswati Basu’s feminist polemic that caught my eye to be debunked.

5. According to an IGAF member, the feminist message clearly implied here is “male slaughter, female supremacy”.

Well, yes, the IGAF member is right.  There is the slaughter of men, and it is being done to bring about female supremacy, even if that is not exactly what the polemic by Suswati Basu wanted to bring across.  In short:

and as per the words of a somewhat longer comment:

Remembrance : The status of men

By Walter Schneider, 2010, 11, 11

There is absolutely nothing the feminists state that you can or must accept at face value.  Nevertheless, what they say about you means virtually nothing compared to their objectives in their larger scheme of things.

All the best, and keep doing the right things,

Walter

Posted in Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

Wikipedia’s Request for Financial Support

November 14, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

[The following letter has been posted with the permission of the author, Michael Baleanu.  –WHS, 2010 11 15]

Männerpartei [Men’s Party], Derbystr. 5, D-85276 Pfaffenhofen, [Germany]

Hypo-Vereinsbank Pfaffenhofen, BLZ 721 200 78, Kto: 3849 23194

Dear Sir or Madam,

In my daily work I learned to appreciate Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Especially the untiring work of all the unknown voluntary contributors makes Wikipedia to envy of everyone. We are up to one’s ear in debt to all these authors.

It is a matter of fact, such a project could not be realized without errors and frictions. Corrections and improvements are always necessary.

But, due to my personal engagement in the field of men’s human rights, the following bothered me:

The decisions - at least in the German section of Wikipedia - to cancel contributions, reporting in a fully neutral way about social problems of men were taken in a fully undemocratic way.

For this reason www.wikimannia.org was founded by stout-hearted women and men.

The necessity of such an information site was demonstrated by a recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights, Zaunegger vs. Germany (December 3, 2009):

It demonstrates that fathers (and men) are strongly discriminated in Germany

The censorship of themes addressing mens rights is in our opinion a violation of the freedom of opinion promulgated by Wikipedia.

I would support Wikipedia in the case a democratic structure is implemented. Actually, as shown by the German Wikipedia, this not the case.

The only way to demonstrate that Wikipedia has a democratic culture, would be the public disclosure of decision processes, the obligation to perform a democratic voting for the approbation or cancellation of contributions. That is the only way to guarantee the diversity of opinions. As long as in an article there will be place only for feminist opinions, we do not see any reason to support undemocratic authors.

It would be nice, if Wikipedia subjects the own organisation to a self-critical analysis.

It seems for us, that especially in social, political or cultural themes, a disproportionate onesided opinion get the upper hand, but not the actually diversity of opinions. Such a one-sided orientation is dangerous for the excellent idea behind Wikipedia.

Hence: Either democratic structures, or limitation on pure scientific, informational or other themes free of political interpretations.

Free, democratic citizens do not like censorship.

Sincerely yours

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Michael Baleanu

Dipl.-Phys./Dipl.-Ing.

Erdinger Str. 30A
85356 Freising
Geschäftsführer der Männerpartei [Manager of the Men’s Party]
www.maennerpartei.eu
0179 - 2356536
089 26213484

_____________________________________________________
Männerpartei, Derbystr. 5, D-85276 Pfaffenhofen
Hypo-Vereinsbank Pfaffenhofen, BLZ 721 200 78, Kto: 3849 23194
Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail an die Liste schreiben: papa-info@listen.jpberlin.de
web: https://listen.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Posted in Civil Rights, Media Bias, Censorship, Men's Issues | Print | No Comments »

Remembrance : The status of men

November 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Today is Remembrance Day in Canada, a day to pay tribute to our fallen heroes and the sacrifices men make in war

Well, at least that is the way it used to be.  Today we are more politically correct and create, rightfully so, also compassion for fallen men’s (and a handful of fallen women’s) surviving loved ones and families.

This morning, a bit rushed for time, because I had to go to the Remembrance Day ceremonies in honour of Canada’s fallen heroes, victims of the wars required to preserve Canada’s freedom in two world wars, but also almost forgotten ones, the Boor War, the Korean War and now the war in Afghanistan in which more Canadian men (and a handful of women) left their lives as sacrifices for the same reason, I had responded to a Canadian journalist.  She had informed me of a paper on The Status of Men, by Andrea Mrozek, Manager of Research and Communication, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada.

The journalist, a long-term pro-family and pro-male advocate and writer, had written, “Walter are you already on this list? This was written by a friend I worked with at…. Very impressive.”

I was not quite that much impressed by the paper, although the paper is a fair outline of the plight of men and its impact on families and society.  Before I explain why that is and state what I wrote back to her, let me tell you what happened at the local watering hole, Nightmoves, the Bruderheim bar where I stopped in after the Remembrance Day ceremonies were over, to warm up.

It had been cold, and, because the sun had been shining before I left, I had thought that I would not have to put on my parka.  That had been a mistake I will not soon make again.

It was cold, I got cold, chilled to the bone, and I needed a brandy and a coffee to try and warm up. That worked, and I was glad it did. I needed it.  A few acquaintances were there, having breakfast and also warming up before they were to resume their attempts to hunt deer and moose in the area.

“Where is your wife,” they asked, and “why did you not bring her?” I explained that the missus went to Edmonton, with one of her girlfriends, to the farm fair, although I could not think for the life of me why her girlfriend would want to go there, unless she wanted to go shopping for a prospective husband, because she surely was no longer in the farming business, having done her best to sell off already most of the farmland that her husband — deceased for a few years, long before it was his wife’s turn to go, as husbands are likely to do for various reasons (e. g.: such as being forced to fight in military actions here and there) — had done his best to acquire for the safety and security of his family.

I told them that I thought that at her age, about 65, she would face tough competition. In the age-group 65 and over, there is one man for every two women. The hunters said that they had never thought of it that way, and that I made reaching old age quite an attractive proposition for men. I said that they were quite right, but that, even though the risk for men of losing it all is quite high, things would progressively get better for surviving men, the older a man gets. “Think of it,” I said, “all the fun you can have! At age 85 and over, the ratio of men to women is about 1 : 5, and at age 95 it is about 1 : 10. Women could be falling all over for you. You would no longer have to look for them. They would come looking for you, although by that time you would probably have forgotten even the memory of what the chase is all about.”

Still, here now is what I wrote back to the Canadian journalist, in memory of the sacrifices men make, in Canada and elsewhere. I told the journalist,

I am not sure what list you are referring to, but I read the abstract of “The Status of Men“, its summary, and small portions of the full report. I will have to leave the reading of all of it until much later today. As of now I cannot comment intelligently on the whole report, but I must assume, from what I read so far, that the author accurately summarized her perspective on the issue of the declining status of men. My commentary is based on that assumption.

I am not all that impressed by the paper; but is it perhaps a step into the right direction? I wonder. I am a bit rushed and have not yet given several readings to what I wrote here. So, consider this a first draft that needs some refinements, although what those should be is not immediately apparent. Perhaps you have a few ideas on that. I would gladly discuss those this with you, provided we can do it at Dads & Things, where I will post the following.

As a subject for concern, we should neither be overly concerned about the status of men nor about the status of women. The latter is a term that was brought into prominence through Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels [considered to be the fathers of modern communism]. It was used to help “liberate” women, to bring them into the work force and to help bring about the destruction of the traditional nuclear family, for which purpose modern feminism rose (all along opposing the incumbent pro-family feminism that had prevailed since the early 1800s) to promote that and the consequential marginalization of men.

It somewhat underscores the reality of those objectives when one considers that while women became “liberated” and expanded their power from the home domain (which they without a doubt already firmly dominated) to the work domain and continued and intensified their domination of public life (enabled by male politicians who recognized the opportunities presented to them through women’s suffrage), men became more firmly enslaved.

It is ironic that during the initial period of women’s liberation, men were forced like slaves to die in record numbers in the bloodiest wars in the history of mankind, while their surviving widows and children were forced to live miserable lives, often and largely on the dole; but the politicians had achieved their goal, female liberation and domination, while the tax burden for income earners — mostly men — rose rapidly and enormously to enable the State to pay for it all. [Preceding link inserted 2010 11 25 –WHS]

While formerly it was that men were still openly and deeply mourned by their mothers. sisters, wives and daughters, today’s women see nothing wrong with men’s enormous sacrifices, for the simple reason that radical feminists indoctrinated them into firmly accepting the belief that no sacrifice by men is large enough to atone for the alleged oppression of women throughout the history of mankind (of course, history as invented and edited by feminists). There is of course another reason why the large losses of men are no longer so keenly felt. Father State jumped into the breach that was left by men and fathers who were expunged from their families, providing his benevolence so easily funded by the much greater contributions of men (70 percent of all such contributions) to social safety nets whose benefits are handed out primarily to women (70 percent of all such benefits). That alone is socialism in action: from those able to give to those in need — and men industriously give, slaving away as always, now for Father State instead of for their families from which they were expunged.

The question is whether the promotion of the status of men will change and equalize what is an obvious imbalance in the status of women and men. Radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist or socialist feminism), the currently ruling faction of the feminist movement, always has and will vehemently oppose the elevation of the status of men, while other feminist factions, of whom there are several dozens, are happy to ride along on the feminist band wagon.

The elevation and promotion of the status of men will do little more than to enormously deepen the rift between the sexes and to intensify the war of the sexes.

Here is an excerpt from a commentary I wrote just yesterday morning to put the war of the sexes into the greater context of the re-engineering of civilization. I urge you to follow the link in that to some observations on Igor Shafarevich’s book, The Socialist Phenomenon. I think that The Socialist Phenomenon is of far greater importance than the IMFC paper on The Status of Men. Alone the foreword by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn makes it worth having a look at the book.

My first marriage had fallen to pieces and ended in separation and divorce in 1975. The consequence of my experiences of the divorce process convinced me to become a fathers-rights activist. On account of that I now operate the most-popular fathers-rights website in Canada, Fathers for Life, but that is also quite popular (one of the top-ranking websites of that sort) on a global basis.

Through the international networking I do in connection with that, I developed early on an interest in the history and evolution of feminism and of the Marxist roots and ideology of radical feminism, feminism’s controlling faction. That led me to explore the history and evolution of socialism and of the tools and programs employed by socialists in the re-engineering of our civilization.

Out of that, beginning in the early 1990s, came my interest in environmentalism and in the hype and hysteria created and used by it to indoctrinate humanity. I set up a website and blog to address that.

As Anthony Watts often explains, it is not necessary to assume that malice is the driving cause of something that we see as corruption, when simple incompetence suffices. Still, I am more inclined to consider that the driving force for our progression towards the global socialist state is nothing more than greed for money, power and control.

I know, I am describing the making and development of a cynic, but I consider Igor Shafarevich and others who stated similar things to be absolutely correct.

Socialism is an ideological force that existed for as long as did civilization, while feminism, a branch of socialism, existed just as long. A society will always tend to evolve into a socialist regime of a totalitarian nature. That was true on a regional basis throughout history. We now have the tools and the audacity to attempt expanding the scope of that progression to encompass the globe. At that level, things will end as they always did, in chaos and a long dark age from which humanity will take a long time to emerge in more conservative manifestations of orderly nations and regimes. However, before that happens it will be necessary for society to develop once more an appreciation for the essential, fundamental building block of a well-functioning society, the traditional nuclear family. That will happen all on its own. It will be a survival mechanism that comes into play when Father State can no longer afford to support his children (that’s beginning to happen right now), and individuals will once more seek and find security at home, within the welfare and safety provided by the immediate family.

Consider a few of the observations presented by Igor Shafarevich,

But while Fourier, with the infantilism so characteristic of him, sees amid “the passions we call vices” nothing more terrible than “passion for sweets and the delights of love,” Freud goes much further. Among the forces to which he attempts to reduce culture and the spiritual life of man, Freud does not bypass either malice or lust for domination, destruction or the death wish. He considers all culture to be based on the suppression of the instincts–the deepest part of the human psyche, which strives to act according to the “pleasure principle.” Unhappiness, in Freud’s view, is a necessary cost for civilization. Happiness does not fall within the range of cultural values. Moral norms, elaborated by that part of the psyche that is of later, cultural, origin, are factors which are destructive and mortally dangerous to the organism. Freud compares morals with products of decay which are manufactured by a cell and then become the cause of its death.(ibid. p. 229)

and

There is certainly nothing that suggests the existence of any kind of limit beyond which socialist principles cannot be applied. It would seem that everything depends only upon the depth of the
[274]

crisis with which mankind may be faced. In this case, one could regard the death of mankind as the final result to which the development of socialism leads. (The Socialist Phenomenon, bottom of p. 274 and top of p. 275)

and

The death of mankind is not only a conceivable result of the triumph of socialism–it constitutes the goal of socialism. (ibid. p. 285)

Shafarevich is right, and I can’t see for the life of me how promoting the elevation of the status of men will address the problem he identifies. It will certainly not do so by focusing on the plight of men and illuminating them as victims, while the welfare of our nation and indeed all of civilization is being ignored through diverting attention away from the fact that all along socialism had as one of its primary objectives: the planned, deliberate destruction of the traditional nuclear family, whereby — with what can be salvaged out of the resulting rubble of the destruction of our civilization — then a greater and better socialist, totalitarian, global regime can be constructed.

Walter Schneider

Posted in Men and Women Work, Media Bias, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Civil Rights, Health, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Family, The New World Order | Print | 3 Comments »

Man Woman & Myth

October 31, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Many thanks to George Rolph for pointing me to this.

Man Woman & Myth

Truth, Lies and the War on Men

The website identified by the preceding link is one of the most important ones I have come across in decades.  It answers the concerns of many men’s and fathers rights activists who wrote to me over the years and expressed the wish for a video lectures series on men’s and fathers’ issues.

Well, the video project by Man Woman & Myth is the answer they sought and to which many of them through their efforts tried to contribute more or less successfully.

About the Video Project

The Project

A documentary series, 7 years in the making, exploring all aspects of male-female relations from a man’s point-of-view. Looks at the various reasons behind the negative treatment of men in Western society, including the root cause: Feminism.

Consists of 49 short films on Feminism, Misandry, Equality, Domestic Violence and Education as well as Family issues like Paternity Fraud, Fatherlessness and Reproductive Rights.

As of now I have only been able to quickly browse the website and looked at no more than a quick sample of the 49 videos that are available there.  I am amazed at what has been put together.

I will watch all of the videos in the coming weeks and try to give that top priority.  As I go along with that, I will report on what I find.  It is quite obvious already that not many words at the website are wasted and that all of them are intended to mean what they say.

The first lesson I learned is that the website owner means everything he states in his “Notes on the Video”.  Read all of the notes.  Just as there is no way you can take in all of what the 49 videos present without watching all of them, so you will not be able to successfully understand the problems you may encounter in downloading, file-sharing or watching the videos without reading all of the notes.

As of now, my first impression is, Wow! The Man Woman & Myth video project either used the website of Fathers for Life to develop its scripts or it took its guidance from some of the same sources that guided me and the contributors to Fathers for Life over the years.  The video-project leader quite rightly states:

As a result of years of feminised programming, any film like the ones found here will be a bit like a bucket of cold water in the face in terms of the presentation of what I see as basic reality. Many people will not be used to this degree of forthrightness and honesty and some may be a little shocked.

That is absolutely no exaggeration, at best an understatement, and it is no wonder.  Look at the individuals that were interviewed and whose views are being presented:

Principal Interviewees

• Angry Harry

Psychologist and prominent Men’s Rights activist, angryharry.com.

• Erin Pizzey

Author and Domestic Violence expert. Opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter in London and is a patron of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Author of the book “Prone to Violence”.

• Stephen Fitzgerald

Former Director and National Organiser of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity.

• Michele Elliott

Founder and Director of Kidscape, a children’s charity, and author of the book “Female Sexual Abuse of Children”.

• Oliver Curry

Evolutionary Psychologist at the London School of Economics and contributing author to Demos, the independent think tank and research institute.

• Professor Colin Francome

Professor Emeritus of Medical Sociology, Middlesex University. Author of the book “Improving Men’s Health”.

Alright.  That is all I can say for now.  I will be back about this and present more of my impressions as time goes on.   I hope that if you watch any of the videos, and you absolutely should, you will be able to post a comment here.

Posted in Civil Rights, Paternal Rights, Social-Destruction Enterprise, Media Bias, Maternal Rights, Parental Alienation, Child Abuse, Violence by Proxy, False Allegations, Men and Women Work, Education, Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order, Women's Violence, Feminist Jurisprudence, Family, Divorce, Health, Men's Issues, Paternity Fraud | Print | No Comments »

Defining the Purpose of Boys

September 12, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

Men’s News Daily

Friday, September 10, 2010
By J. Steven Svoboda

Why has Michael Gurian, author of over twenty books mostly relating to children and/or gender, devoted a book to boys and purpose?

In answer to that natural question, the author lists “some of the core issues of male purposelessness”, including schools not trained in caring for and motivating boys; media “attack[ing] males as defective and dangerous (and, quite often, just plain stupid) without also providing a variety of strong role models”; families lacking male role models or not understanding their critical importance; and “workplaces helping young women secure employment, but assuming young men will do just fine at landing a job, even though millions are not finding useful work.”…(Full Story)

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

Raising pity elsewhere, for women…,

September 11, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

…but should we not be concerned about crimes against humanity in our own backyard?

One woman’s nightmare, and a crime against humanity

Robert Fisk in Amman

Call her Hanan. She sits in front of me, a red scarf tied round her long intelligent face, her wide, bright eyes sparkling as she tells her story, her two-year-old son Omar restless on the chair beside her. To save the “honour” of her family – and to avoid being killed by her youngest brother – she has married her own rapist. To save the “honour” of her family – to stay alive – she is now divorcing her rapist. Omar, drinking orange juice, jumping on his plastic chair, is the rapist’s son….

That is a fine label to give to a small boy to grow up with.  Let’s hope that his mom does not keep a clipping of that article in her personal effects, for the boy to find when he grows up or when he is an adult.

I don’t see a reference to a corroborating police report that identifies beyond a doubt that the boy’s mother is telling the truth.  After all, she does have her life to protect, and, when it comes to honour killings, it would be in her best interest to claim that she was raped.  Aside from that, rape accusations are easy to come by.

Just this morning there was an article in the Edmonton Journal (on the bottom of page B8) about a Calgary man who had been incarcerated for two years on account of having been wrongfully accused of brutally raping a woman for ten full hours.   There was a mistrial earlier, due to an issue with one of the jurors (the article was no more specific than that) but just the other day, in a re-trial of the man’s alleged crime, the woman who had accused him admitted under cross-examination by the defence attorney that she had made the whole story up and had lied about it all along.  The next day she did not even show up in court.  It appears that no warrant for her arrest was issued. The woman’s name was not mentioned.  The man’s name is John Francis Dionne.  He was to be released later on Friday.

Will anything be done to fully compensate the man for the time he spent in jail and to have his reputation and career destroyed?  I doubt it.  Will his accuser be made to make full retribution for the crime against her victim that she committed?  I doubt that even more.

Cases like that are legion, some for no other reason than that a woman accuser wanted to come up with an acceptable excuse for showing up late for a meeting or for supper with her family.

Robert Fisk’s article concludes,

….The two-year-old struggles down from his plastic chair and demands chocolates. But given his mother’s painful struggle, what world has he been born into?

(Full Story)

Robert Fisk should have come up with a more appropriate ending: “Given his mother’s hatred for his father and for half of the boy’s genetic heritage, will the poor boy be able to respect his mother, his father, any men or perhaps even himself when he grows up?”

Robert Fisk is not helping.  He appears to have appointed himself judge, jury and executioner, and all of that apparently for no other reason than the complaint by a damsel in discomfort.  What a world the Robert Fisks have created!

The article by Robert Fisk contains an estimated statistic: “Hanan is the victim of a vast, corrupt system of “honour” crimes that plagues the Middle East, and takes the lives of at least 5,000 women – perhaps four times that number – a year, a vicious patriarchal system of extra-judicial killings in which a chance conversation between an unmarried woman and a stranger,…” and “….Policemen and judges often connive with the murderers.”

Other than that, his article consists of a long tale of anecdotal evidence as told by the woman who claims to have been the victim of a rape.  Is the story true?  Why should we accept her word as the sole authority for the story’s veracity?  There were no other witnesses to the alleged crime.

Aside from that, an opposite bias by the judicial and law-enforcement authorities in the so-called free West is without a doubt the cause of the deaths of about exactly 30,000 men in North America a year, out of a population of 340 million people, compared to an alleged 5,000 (or “perhaps four times that number”) in the Middle East, out of a population that is much larger than that of North America.

It seems to me that when in search of victims for personal monetary gain, Robert Fisk and others like him should go by rank based on size of victim group to raise sympathy and pity for those who deserve consideration most, not necessarily by what is politically correct and easiest to sell by the word count in the articles he earns his bread-and-butter with.

At any rate, all that stands as the dividing line of the legal reality of a man being or lover or being a rapist is the plausibility of a woman’s word, and women often lie.  The woman who lied about John Francis Dionne is a prostitute, but she is still deemed to be a victim whose name needs to be protected.

Posted in Judiciary, False Allegations, Violence by Proxy, Media Bias, Health, Feminist Jurisprudence, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | 5 Comments »

False rape-claims

August 10, 2010 by Walter Schneider.

FALSE RAPE CLAIMS AROUND THE COUNTRY [U.K.] AND ABROAD

Guest post by George Rolph

Feminists tell us that false rape claims are rare and we should all believe every woman that makes a rape claim because not doing so deters other females from coming forwards. Unfortunately, the opposite is true. When we believe every woman who cries rape we open the door to massive injustice that can destroy the life of the accused completely and leave them open to assault or even death. What is more, false rape allegations have the effect of diluting the credibility of genuine rape victims when they stand before a jury.

The feminist position hurts everybody and seeks to protect those other criminals who make malicious and false allegations against the innocent.  Whether those allegations involve the horrendous crimes of rape or domestic violence.

From the feminist position, hurting as many men as possible may seem like an ideal to be pursued and indeed they have written widely that this is their aim. One has to wonder what kind of sick, misandrist mind-set wants to do that and why society has been giving so much credibility to those feminists who hold these sick views? It is surely time to begin asking some very deep and penetrating questions of those who hold onto these desires.

As someone who has fought for over thirty years now to get justice for male victims of abuse who are often arrested for being the victim, I have long been warning about how women who assault their male partners in the home will often give themselves injuries to make their claims look credible to gullible  and badly trained police officers (police officers most likely to have been trained by feminists and indoctrinated into a feminist view of domestic abuse, incidentally) These claims of mine have been dismissed as the ranting of a man who hates women. A claim I most fiercely deny. Hating what some bad females do is not the same as hating women as a group! In fact, I wrote a fictional story and published it online years ago to illustrate how women, filled with hate against male partners, can manipulate the police and media by the use of self inflicted injuries.  (You can read it here: http://www.fictionontheweb.co.uk/heads.html )

In one of the true stories at the links below you can read the following account:

“A young woman who ripped her clothes and gave herself a black eye to support her rape lies was yesterday jailed for three years…”

Further on in the story we get this detail:

“The frilly dress and leggings she had been wearing had apparently been ripped in the attack, clumps of her hair had been hacked off and she had a black eye and scratches to her breasts and legs.

But police became suspicious, and tests showed the Libyan-born former children’s holiday rep had ripped her own clothes and inflicted the injuries herself to back up her fabricated claims…”

It is only when reading real accounts about the lengths some women will go too, out of sheer spite and hatred for the male sex, to do as much damage to them as possible and where they can, to misuse the law and media to inflict this damage, that the reality of what really goes on in homes up and down the land begins to sink in. It is a reality the police, those in the legal system, the media and the politicians need to think about and investigate as thoroughly as possible. It is also as clear an indication as it is possible to have why the ideology of a particular political group with a gender axe to grind, cannot be allowed to make social or political policy that will affect the lives of millions of people. Many of whom may not share that ideology. Slanted views will always lead to injustice. Balance and sober reflection should always accompany those who make and maintain laws. Not an ideology which is neither balanced or sober and which must lead to gross injustice and social harm. How can it be right that a group known to hate marriage and the family are given a powerful political platform to preach their views, for example, while those in favour of both are denied the same? How can it be fair, equitable and just that these political groups are also funded by the state when their opponents are not?

All of the false rape stories in the press at the links below you will notice have the following dates attached. All come from just one Google search carried out today.

16th July 2010
21/07/2010
28 July 2010
1st August 2010
2nd August 2010
10th August 2010

Six cases found from around the country [the U.K.] being dealt with by the courts in just one two-month period! I will leave the conclusions about how serious this menace is up to the reader. What I would draw attention too is the staggering differences in weak sentences being handed down for this life destroying and wicked crime in British courts.

Here is a story about the same crime — this time being perpetrated for financial gain against British men — from Greece. Note how the story blames the males.

Dated 09 Aug 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/7933190/Britons-trapped-in-false-rape-sting-by-blonde-Swede-on-Greek-island.html  Sweden, incidentally, is a European feminist hot spot.

Please, take some time to read through and analyse these stories and draw your own conclusions about the nature and frequency of this terrible crime. If you have a blog or web site of your own, perhaps you should get a discussion going? We cannot just pass by on the other side and let those with an agenda of hate go on being responsible for making our social, legal and political policy on these important human issues.

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299310/Woman-admits-SECOND-rape-offence-spared-jail-heavily-pregnant.html

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-10790304

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301755/Mother-alleyway-sex-soldier-cried-rape-hide-shame.html

• http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Haverhill/New-mum-locked-up-for-false-rape-claim.htm

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1294947/Leyla-Ibrahim-jailed-crying-rape-despite-7-months-pregnant.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

For more study on the effect of social misandry please go here: http://www.manwomanmyth.com/

Please circulate widely on your lists.

George Rolph
London

Posted in False Allegations, Violence by Proxy, Media Bias, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, Women's Violence | Print | No 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 »