May 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Some people do, actually, many people do.  That is why those “telethons” work so well, and that is why they are being put on time and again, even though it is a well-established fact that only about 20 percent (sometimes less and at times none) of the donated money gets to the advertised victims.

There is one other thing about those fund raisers.  It seems that the victims they depict (as tools for emotional appeals via which to collect their money) are suffering women, children and cuddly pets.  At times, endangered wildlife is also a popular and powerful motivator.

When it comes to the promotion of victim status, pets and wildlife serve well, but men need not apply, even though, world-wide, men live on average five fewer years than women do.  Generally, the more socialistic the country, the more likely it is that its women outlive its men by more and even far more than five years.

Certainly, many of the causes and victim groups those telethons collect money for are worthy of donations, however, as Angry Harry explains in one of his brilliant analytical commentaries, such fund raisers serve primarily the organizations that organize and sponsor them.

Charity or Self-Interest? The point of this piece is simply to demonstrate one example of how it is that socially-destructive organisations such as the NSPCC can become so powerful by providing self-enriching mechanisms for people whose main aim is to feather their own nests. — By Angry Harry

NSPCC stands for National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, an all-powerful organization in the U.K. that apparently is accountable to no one and grew so enormously powerful that it no longer can be controlled by anyone.

• The NSPCC is the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk. ^[2] As of June 2007, the NSPCC operated ten teams of child protection social workers.^[3] (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia has a peculiar characteristic that prevents it from being considered a good source of the truth.  The contents for many of its entries change over time, apparently to adjust on demand for political correctness.  Unfortunately, one cannot determine from any particular entry in Wikipedia whether the current edition exaggerates or downplays specific concerns, or even whether a given entry is as complete as it should be.  For example, here are links to archived Wikipedia entries for NSPCC:

2004 09 05 contained the following information:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London (Weston House, 42 Curtain Road, London EC2A 3NH).

The NSPCC employs 1,800 people

In 2002/2003 it had an income of £100.3 million and expenditure of £90.6 million.

2005 03 01, 2005 05 18,  2005 05 26, 2005 05 29, 2005 07 17, 2005 12 02, still contained that information.

On 2005 12 15, that information was changed to the following:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London.

It employs over 2000 people and in 2005 spent £84,500,000 (or 79%) of its income http://www.nspcc.org.uk/documents/reportAccounts05.pdf on activities to end cruelty to children compared to £42M in 1997/98, a pattern of growth that indicates either that the N[S]PCC is becoming increasingly effective at discovering cruelty to children, or that levels of cruelty are themselves on the increase (which the NSPCC has evidently been powerless to prevent), or simply that people have become a lot more generous, and the money has to be given away somehow.

On 2006 09 13, that information was changed to read:

The NSPCC’s administrative headquarters are in Shoreditch, London.

It employs over 2000 people, and has a budget for 2006-2007 of £138 million. Of this £138 million, the NSPCC plans to spend £60 million (43%) on services for children and young people.

On 2006 10 20, that information still was included in the entry, but in the entry that was accessible today, 2008 05 10, the information pertaining to the administrative headquarters and to figures on employment and on budget and income had vanished.

It appears that the information was removed for the obvious reason that it is not good for the NSPCC’s reputation and cash-flow projections to publicize how lucrative a business the NSPCC really is.  Aside from that, there were other changes to the various editions of Wikipedia’s entries for NSPCC over time.  The most notable of those changes, on the other hand, is the addition of information on the NSPCC’s role in Campaigning and controversy and in the Satanic ritual abuse scandal.

It seems that Wikipedia has no qualms about identifying that the NSPCC is socially destructive but now shies away from identifying how much money is being earned by the NSPCC.  Perhaps that is done for no other reason than to prevent such information from coming into play in wage negotiations by its more than 2,000 employees, but I doubt that is the only or major reason for hiding how lucrative an enterprise the promotion of social destruction is for the NSPCC.

Posted in Social-Destruction Enterprise, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

May 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Found at http://antimisandry.com:

Men are more visually aroused than women? Fact or fiction?

Research Shows Men And Women Look At Sexual Photographs Differently

[Original source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67705.php, 17 Apr 2007 - 8:00 PDT]

A study funded by the Atlanta-based Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) analyzed the viewing patterns of men and women looking at sexual photographs, and the result was not what one typically might expect.

Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals, but, surprisingly, they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman’s face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males. These types of results could play a key role in helping researchers to understand human sexual desires and its ultimate effect on public health.

The finding, reported in Hormones and Behavior, confirmed the hypothesis of a previous study (Stephen Hamann and Kim Wallen, et al., 2004) that reported men and women showed different patterns of brain activity when viewing sexual stimuli. The present study examined sex differences in attention by employing eye-tracking technology that pinpoints individual attention to different elements of each picture such as the face or body parts.

“Men looked at the female face much more than women, and both looked at the genitals comparably,” said lead author Heather Rupp, Ph.D., a fellow at The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University, who conducted the study in partnership with Kim Wallen, Ph.D., a Dobbs Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Neuroendocrinology at Emory University and the Yerkes National Primate Research Center.

“The eye-tracking data suggested what women paid most attention to was dependent upon their hormonal state. Women using hormonal contraceptives looked more at the genitals, while women who were not using hormonal contraceptives paid more attention to contextual elements of the photographs,” Rupp said. Although it is commonly assumed males have more interest in visual sexual stimuli, researchers are working to figure out what characteristics are important to men and women in their evaluations of sexual stimuli.

The answer may lie within a small section of the brain called the amygdala, which is important in the processing of emotional information. In Dr. Hamann and Wallen’s previous fMRI study, men showed more activation in the amygdala in response to sexual vs. neutral stimuli than did women. From the fMRI study alone, the cause of the increased activity was unclear, but Rupp and Wallen’s study suggests the possibility that higher amygdala activation in men may be related to their increased attention to faces in sexual photographs.

—————————-
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
—————————-

Posted in Media Bias, Censorship, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

May 4, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder that Can be Cured
LifeSiteNews ^ | 5/1/08 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BUENOS AIRES, May 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews. com) - The eminent Spanish psychiatrist Enrique Rojas gave a speech yesterday in Buenos Aires declaring that homosexuality is “a clinical process that has an etiology, pathogeny, treatment, and cure”.

Speaking at the Buenos Aires International Book Fair about his book “Goodbye, Depression”, Rojas characterized homosexual orientation as a “disorder” rather than an illness, and stated his opinion that 95% of cases are caused by environmental factors, according to the Spanish news service Terra.

The disorder, according to Rojas, is the result of an absent father, overweening mother, or sexual abuse in childhood.

Rojas blasted the homosexual movement for promoting the development of homosexual tendencies in young people, and particularly condemned the practice of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.

The child is deprived of a right to grow up “in a normal environment, heterosexual, which is the standard” he said. “Heterosexuality is what is normal, the natural condition of human beings.”
According to studies from the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, there is a 70-80 percent chance that a child adopted by homosexuals will develop the same tendencies, Rojas said.
Rojas is the author of various books on psychology, including “Who Are You?”, “The Light Man” and “Remedies for Coldness”.

Posted in Health, Gay issues, Propaganda Exposed | Print | No Comments »

May 1, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

(… even if you don’t know it)

Barbara Kay, National Post

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Unless you swore off newspapers and TV between April 12 and 19 in Quebec, you were exposed to a carpet-bombing of “sensibilisation” ads on sexual assault against women, sponsored by the Ministere de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec.

The TV ad featured a fresh-faced woman with flowing tresses framing an angelic face — she could be 17 or 25, hard to say — staring gravely into the camera. Calmly, she intones: “One out of every three women in Quebec will be the victim of a sexual assault during her lifetime.” Pregnant pause, then: “I’m one of them.” Cut. …(Full Story)

______________

Perhaps you wonder why the victimization of women is a men’s issue. It is that for two reasons.

Firstly, as Barbara Kay illustrates in her article, the statistic identified by the Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, Christine St. Pierre, is cooked, manufactured and not true. She alleges that “1.5 million Quebec women “will” (not “may”) become victims of sexual assault.”

Secondly, the government-sponsored anti-male hate-propaganda campaign labels as many as 1.5 Quebec men as rapists. That is quite an accusation by a minister who was surely elected not only by women but by many of the more than a million Quebec men whom she falsely accuses of being and assuredly becoming rapists.

Christine St. Pierre will most likely never admit that she deliberately lies, even though the sexual assault figures she sponsors and promotes are without a doubt deliberate lies in the eyes of anyone still possessing a modicum of common sense.

Many of Barbara Kay’s articles are pro-family, pro-male and pro-fathers. She has done a lot during her career as a journalist to oppose feminist propaganda and to debunk feminist statistics. However, even she appears to have been taken in somewhat by the decades-long, all-pervasive anti-male propaganda campaign that reigns throughout all developed nations. She states: ” The U.S. National Institute for Justice puts the lifetime risk of sexual assault for women at 14.8%, less than half [of] Mme. St. Pierre’s figure of 33%. Quebec women don’t live more than twice as long as American women. Whence the disparity?”

The problem with even that U.S. statistic is that it is bunk and from a feminist-dominated and -controlled source (as now virtually all government institutions and departments are).

Here are more reasonable calculations of rape-incidents statistics:

1. Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year. (Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics, by Eeva Sodhi)
2. FBI Rape Statistics and DNA Testing “…consider that the FBI program of DNA testing of rapists didn’t begin until 1989, and that therefore it is very likely that about 25 or perhaps as many as 40 percent of men convicted before 1989 of and serving time for rape are innocent.” (Full Story)
3. False Allegations of Rape In the US, there are an estimated 520,000 false rape allegations a year — 98.1% of all reported cases. — Eeva Sodhi, Debunking Domestic Violence Statistics; Rape

So, let’s do what Barbara Kay did, measure the false allegation by Mme. Christine St. Pierre, Minister de la Culture, Communications et la Condition feminine du Quebec, by the standards of U.S. reality. 98.1 percent of rape allegations are false. That adjusts Christine St. Pierre’s exaggerated assertion of 1.5 million rape victims down to a mere 28,500, which is still substantially more than the Canadian total number of rapes over the average life time of women.

Over the years there were on average in the order of 100 rape conviction per year in all of Canada. That works out to 8,000 rape convictions over an 82-year interval. That was until about 1972, when Canadian rape statistics became so absurd that they lost virtually all meaning.

So, how come that Christine St. Pierre can use tax revenues (about 70 percent of those come from men) to promote her monstrous lie? Why does any man still bother to vote for her and her party? If a man were to engage in propaganda tactics like those used by Christine St. Pierre, those would be considered hate crimes and sexual harassment. He would assuredly be hauled into court, and he would without a doubt be convicted of a hate crime.

Things weren’t always so. They became that way in about 1972, when feminist jurisprudence became reality in Canada and in many (now all) developed nations.

Within feminist jurisprudence, the boundaries between sexual harassment and sexual assault became blurred and largely obscured.

…”rape statistics” in Canada now encompass uncorroborated allegations of - including criminal convictions for - offences that range from uncorroborated charges of leering at a woman in a public swimming pool to rape with aggravated assault and murder. That had a fine effect. It raised statistics for incidents of “rape” to dizzying heights, all the more so because feminists in non-government organization and in government make no distinction between reports of rape or of sexual assault (allegations of crimes - innocent until proven guilty) and rape or sexual assault convictions (the alleged offender is being found guilty and sentenced accordingly in about 1.9 percent of allegations).

That is then taken by feminist activists in non-government and government positions alike as a permission to exaggerate and grossly distort statistics relating to criminal offences of a sexual nature - of course, only in relation to offenses against women.

The reality of sexual assaults in Quebec is that an allegation is overwhelmingly often false and is not admissible evidence that a criminal offence did take place, unless the alleged offender is found guilty in a criminal court, and that the number 1.5-million victims of sexual assault allegations by far exceeds the Canadian total convictions for sexual assaults for perpetrators of both sexes. The average of such convictions in the 1994 - 2002 interval in Canada was 1,828 per year, of which Quebec’s share would have been in the order of no more than 460 a year. The vast majority of the convictions would have been for minor offences, such as unwanted sexual touching (e. g.: pinching a waitress, or a student snapping the bra of his peer).

This is not a trivial problem, as the following comment and quoted link show:

Woman Who Made Five False Rape Allegations Walks Free

A woman who made a string of false rape claims, leading to the arrest of five different men and wasting massive amounts of police time, has walked free from court.

Note that these demonstrably false allegations will be called ‘rapes’ by the police and the Home Office when they compile and publicise their various bogus statistics. And that these five false allegations will also be multiplied upwards by a factor of somewhere between 5 and 20 when ‘working out’ how many women allegedly failed to report their ‘rapes’ to the police. (Source: Angry Harry)

According to Statistics Canada:

Sexual offences defined

The term sexual offences encompasses a wide range of criminal acts in the Criminal Code of Canada. Such conduct ranges from unwanted sexual touching to sexual violence resulting in serious physical injury or disfigurement to the victim. It also includes special categories of offences designed to protect children from sexual abuse.

In this Juristat, the term sexual assault includes the following Criminal Code offences:

(a) Sexual assault level 1 (s. 271) - an assault committed in circumstances of a sexual nature such that the sexual integrity of the victim is violated. Level 1 involves minor physical injuries or no injuries to the victim. This is a hybrid offence and may be prosecuted as an indictable offence (with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment) or by way of summary conviction (with a maximum sentence of 18 months imprisonment or $2,000 fine) ³

(b) Sexual assault level 2 (s. 272) - sexual assault with a weapon, threats or causing bodily harm. Level 2 is an Indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years In prison is imposed If a firearm is used.

(c) Aggravated sexual assault (level 3) - sexual assault that results In wounding, maiming, disfiguring or endangering the life of the victim. Level 3 is an indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. A mandatory minimum sentence of 4 years in prison is Imposed if a firearm is used.

As per those definitions allegations of sexual offences reported by police and “guilty” decision by Canadian Courts in the 1994 - 2002 interval were as follows:

Source: Source: Statistics Canada, Juristat, Sexual Offences in Canada; Cat no. 85-002-XIE, Vol. 23, no. 6

Note that the court decisions for a given “judicial” year do not necessarily correlate exactly to the number of reported allegations of sexual offences in a related calendar year (an allegation may not result in a trial and a finding of “guilty” until more than a year has gone by). For the purposes of the argument presented here, the conviction rates for the averages worked out from the totals of the eight-year interval are held to be reasonably close to reality.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »

April 23, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Barbara Kay, writing for the National Post, has done it again. She once more exposed massive pro-female and pro-homosexual bias in the mainstream media.

National Post
Barbara Kay: We’re still ignoring abused straight men

Posted: April 22, 2008, 4:38 PM by Marni Soupcoff

Barbara Kay

Heterosexual men can’t catch a break from the media. When they’re aggressors, they’re condemned. When they’re victims, they’re ignored. Conversely, when women — gay or straight — and gay men are victims, they’re pitied. And when they’re aggressors, they’re …hmm … also pitied.

A new study by Statistics Canada confirms what researchers in the field of domestic violence proved years ago: that partner violence amongst same-sex Canadians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual couples. According to StatsCan, gays and lesbians experience twice the partner abuse of straight couples….

….All women and gay men represent about 60% of our population, but where domestic violence is concerned, together attract 99% of the media’s sympathy and funded outreach. How long will the mainstream media’s unethical double standard in reportage of domestic violence persist?

(Full Story)

Posted in Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Turning the personal into the political

The other day someone let me view a video on Islamic violence against women. The video contained many instances of gruesome violence against women, amongst them, the murder of a Jordanian girl, an honour killing, happened perhaps about 12 or more years ago.  I wrote about it on Mothers_Day_1998, when a TV program, “Mothers and their Daughters”, mentioning it was broadcast by CTV Edmonton. That CTV program was about as revolting as the video of Islamic violence against women I watched the other day. Who knows, the two videos may even be the same. I can’t tell, too much time has gone by between the two viewings, and I had watched only relatively small portions of each video.

You may wish to read that comment I wrote about “Mothers and their Daughters” and especially the appended excerpt from “Covert Video Recordings of Life-threatening Child Abuse: Lessons for Child Protection” (PEDRIATRICS Vol. 100 No. 5, November 1997, Dr. Southall et al.). That provides for somewhat better balance in the coverage of the issue of violence against and by women.

It cannot be stressed enough that gruesome murders like that in Jordan about a decade or more years ago happen so rarely that feminists mention them for years and probably until the end of time. That is all they have with which to raise sympathy for women in that fashion, but it is enough. The anti-male feminists simply have only a very small base for their claims. That is why they have to repeat their claims over and over, for years and even decades on end. They invent the rest of their claims and false assertions, and they even go back into prehistoric times - although that defies all logic. How can anyone claim anything even remotely correct about anything that is supposed to have happened between the sexes before history was written down? However, the feminists justify their discrimination against men by demanding that today’s men have to atone for the crimes of their fathers, even if those crimes are pure inventions and distortions.

The trouble with the hyped-up, endless repetitions
of falsely alleged and ancient wrongdoings by men is that they are an effective propaganda tactic. Every time people see pictures or a movie of such things, they become affected. In essence, they are being brainwashed in a specific and extremely biased fashion, as the gruesome and far more prevalent murders and mass-slaughters of men are not being mentioned.

However, there is a far more insidious aspect of that sort of feminist propaganda. What is also not being mentioned is that women participate as primary perpetrators and especially as participants who give orders to others to torture and murder, especially when it comes to genital mutilation of girls. Naturally, the feminist propagandists never, ever mention the genital mutilation of boys, circumcision - most often done without anesthesia.

Feminist propagandists learned a lot from Lenin, Hitler and other masters of mass-brainwashing in all totalitarian regimes. Hitler said that if one tells lies, he must tell big lies, and that he only has to repeat the lies incessantly and all-pervasively to have them accepted by the general public as the truth.

Hitler also said that when it comes to successful propaganda it is important to “never underestimate the enormous capacity of the masses to forget”.

There is without a doubt a lot of indoctrination done with the Koran and with the Bible. Many passages in the Bible identify women as instigators of and participants in violence, but in all the illustrations that were ever inserted into any edition or version of the Bible, not one ever showed a woman taking part in an honour-killing of anyone.

The ancient laws in the Bible and in the Koran demand that all adulterers, and not exclusively only women, were to be put to death. Contrary to reality and to the words of the Bible, not one of the illustrations in the Bible or in modern tools of indoctrination ever show a woman doing the killing or a man being the victim of a woman’s violence. The illustrations do show women as loving mothers and as sufferers, even though there are more than enough Passages in the Bible that describe many but not all women as anything but being loving or suffering.

A picture is worth a thousand words. All propagandists, including modern-day feminists, are well aware of that, which is why they use pictures all the time. As far as the effectiveness of feminist propaganda goes, any photo or artistic illustration of a bruised, mutilated or tortured woman will do to raise sympathy for all women, even if it is a dozen or more years old. Propaganda never presents reality in an objective fashion.

The communists in the USSR raised particularly one form of propaganda to a fine art.  Just as they did with the Communist Manifesto, the feminists took those propaganda tactics over and now daily use them to bombard us with them: turning the personal into the political.

The use of the honour killing of the Jordanian girl for propaganda purposes and to imply that such an extremely rare form of a woman’s death is something that is being done to systematically victimize all women is an instant of making the personal politicial. Feminists use such tactics to assert that every woman’s pain is being felt by every other woman. Well, if that were truly so, we would have only horribly bruised and headless women walking around in the whole world.

Logic is feminism’s weakness, hyperbole its strength. If we throw away the genderlens and look objectively at reality, then we find that without a doubt men do far more suffering than women do. Here are a few comparisons.

• Canadian men live on average to only 76 years, but women live on average to 82 years of age.
• Far more men than women become victims of murder. In the USA, men comprise 77% of murder victims 18 years and older. See also Leading Causes of Death, age group 15 - 24 (USA)
• About 80 percent of all suicide victims in Canada are men or boys. (Corresponding suicide figures for the USA)
• Depending on country, between 18 to 19 victims of every 20 job fatalities are men. (Canada, USA)

You will have no trouble adding many other comparisons to the list. It is obvious that for men to be patriarchal male oppressors of women is a tough, even deadly job, but I am just kidding. Except for the fact that there is no male conspiracy to oppress women, men do on average - in the whole world - die five years earlier than women do.

If you wish to find the truth about many feminist distortions and myths, you can find quite a few very surprising truths at The Domain of Patriarchy on the Internet, by Robert Sheaffer - Chief Patriarch and Oppressor-General.

However, if all men truly oppress women, it would be the first time in the history of mankind that the oppressors live shorter lives than do those whom they oppress. In the feminist ideological universe that does not matter: women receive credit for suffering women don’t do, while men receive no credit at all for suffering that men do. In the feminist universe men’s suffering is invisible.

The Independent Women’s Forum debunked ten feminist- and government-promoted facts:

Take Back the Campus
4/17/2001

Are you tired of male-bashing and victimology?
Have you had your fill of feminist “Ms./Information”?
Have you been misled by factually challenged professors?

TAKE THIS TEST:

Campus feminism is a kind of cult: As early as freshman orientation, professors begin spinning theories about how American women are oppressed under “patriarchy.” Here is a list of the most common feminist myths. If you believe two or more of these untruths, you may need deprogramming.

THE TEN MOST COMMON FEMINIST MYTHS:

Full Story

Posted in Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 17, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

For many people the term divorce industry means absolutely nothing. It does, however, mean something to two minor sectors of the population:

1. Activist and advocates for pro-family rights and pro-fathers-rights consider the terms divorce industry and fatherlessness to be strongly related. They feel that fatherlessness is tearing apart the fabric of our once-functioning society. They have reason to believe that the divorce industry causes fatherlessness, that is: the removal and the consequences of that removal of fathers from the lives of those fathers’ children.
2. For feminists in non-governmental organizations and in government (whether elected or simply employees of the government bureaucracy), the divorce industry and the fatherlessness produced by the divorce industry matter not at all other than that they wish for the epidemic of fatherlessness to escalate and that they feel that the concerns by fathers-rights activists and by pro-family advocates are a nuisance that at the very least needs to be ignored.

Fatherlessness and the consequences of fatherlessness are growing inexorably, year by year. A steadily growing number of children in all developed nations - roughly a third and more of all children - have no fathers in their lives to guide them, to set rules, to be role models and protectors to their children.

Fathers very seldom abscond their families voluntarily. Virtually all fatherlessness of children is caused by the governments’ sponsorship, promotion and enforcement of anti-father and outright father-hostile sentiments and policies that are being actively promoted and put into play by members of the divorce industry.

When children are present in families, women file for divorce in roughly 75-85 percent of the cases (depending upon country), while without children in a family the dissolution of that family is being initiated by a woman in only two instances for every instance of family dissolution by a man.

The chart shown to the right depicts a typical composition of government departments and of government-sponsored private organizations and interest groups that promote and benefit from the government-promoted concept of fatherless families (a.k.a. sole-mother families or single-mother families). The chart illustrates the composition of the divorce industry in the United States (Source: Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, North Carolina, [US] Ways and Means Committee, 2001 06 28; footnote 69)

Everyone possessing a bit of common sense is likely to have concerns about the escalating trend towards increasing fatherlessness. Those concerns are well-justified and born out by scientifically-valid findings from research studies done by reputable researchers, studies that meet acceptable academic standards, studies like those quoted in the statement by Bill Wood and Jay Gell to the US Ways and Means Committee. Note that those studies are not creations by fathers rights activists, but that fathers rights activists quote from studies by independent and objective researchers.

Nevertheless, the feminists - whose goal it is to destroy the institution of the family, thereby to create massive fatherlessness and the gradual deconstruction of our Christian cultural heritage - dismiss valid social research regarding fatherlessness as myths and substitute unsubstantiated opinions based at best on nothing more than advocacy research done on selective and biased study samples from whom no valid projections to the general population can be made. Nevertheless, they call such opinions “facts” and they call the scientific truth “myths”. (For example: MYTHS AND FACTS About Fatherlessness)

Such feminists apparently feel justified in replacing the scientific truth with a fanciful reality of their own making because they obstinately believe, imply and even assert that feminists never lie, are therefore always right, and that anyone who disagrees with their outlandish and unsubstantiated opinions must quite simply be wrong.

To discern which side in the debate is right - feminists who promote the deconstruction of our society, or people who wish to promote the constructive evolution and growth of the western cultural heritage and society - one should have a look at a few of about 50,000 web pages and articles that address the subject of fatherlessness and not merely buy into the claims regarding fatherlessness promoted by feminists and published by the largely feminist-dominated and -controlled media.

One of the most-important and most-comprehensive compilations of studies of the impact of fatherlessness is the following: Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family, by Rebecca O’Neill; Sept. 2002, CIVITAS. It wins hands-down in refuting feminist claims that assert positive and constructive consequences of fatherlessness. It is not surprising that such studies do not support feminist claims and are therefore never mentioned by family- and father-hostile feminists.

Posted in Divorce, Education, Censorship, Shared Parenting, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 14, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

This morning I listened to Charles Adler discuss with callers to his radio show the case of the Jamaican woman in Ontario, Ms. Mowatt, who had been jailed for a few days because it looked as if she would not show up as a witness in the domestic violence trial she had launched against the man whom she had alleged abused her, a Mr. Harbin.

Charles Adler and his callers outdid each other on his show in an all-out competition as to who was able to show more sympathy for the (alleged) victim of domestic violence who had been punished twice, once (allegedly) by her abuser (as the alleged victim alleges),  and once more by forcing her to appear as a witness in the trial against the man whom she alleged abused her, but whom she, prior to being jailed, refused to testify against.

Charles Adler and his callers need a dose of reality.  They should, for instance, read Christie Blatchford’s April 12, 2008 article in the Globe and Mail, “A witness in need of a blankie, soother“.  There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Christie Blatchford’s opinions regarding the sham of the trial in which Ms. Mowatt made her public appearance is many times more valuable and realistic than the media-hype and show of phony outrage that Charles Adler and his supporters could muster during the sympathy orgy on the Charles Adler show this morning.

What’s the moral outrage really all about?  As Christie Blatchford points out, the young woman most certainly lied, either as a witness or as an accuser.  Which of the stories she told is the right one?  Even if she - as per the feminist assertion that women never lie - told the truth, two contradicting stories can’t possibly both be true.  It seems to me that she perhaps did not wish to appear as a witness to her own lies and be exposed as a perjurer and liar.  She is perhaps yet too young (although her handlers aren’t) to understand that as a woman who alleges that she had been abused she is permitted to lie with impunity, even in our courts.

The “accused” Mr. Harbin pleaded “Not guilty.”  As of now he is legally innocent, but even though his accuser and simultaneously lying witness against him or for him, whichever the case may be, and the court process have not yet established his guilt,  Charles Adler and his callers are quite certain that Mr. Harbin is without any doubt and absolutely guilty.  Moreover, Charles Adler implied that there is good reason to believe that all innocent people like Mr. Harbin are “piece[s] of human garbage” and capable and liable of killing their accusers by shooting them in the head.

That is not news reporting or even commenting with any trace of objectivity or truthfulness.  It is propagandistic hype, used to paint all men with the same broad brush.

Odd, Charles Adler is a man, I suppose.  His voice sounds like the voice of a man, although his words don’t.  I wonder whether any woman ever accused him of abusing her.  Perhaps that is still to come.  It is entirely possible, for any man, even for Charles Adler.  The likelihood of that happening is far greater than Charles Adler ever living up to his assuming his share of the guilt that he assigned to all men, namely that if he is ever accused by a woman of abusing her - whether the abuse took place or not - Charles Adler then becomes in his own words “a piece of human garbage” capable of killing his accuser by shooting her in the head.

Charles Adler should consider this: false accusations are as old as humanity - even the Bible tells us so.  It takes collaborators like Charles Adler to make them stick, and they almost invariably cause far more serious harm than the alleged abuse did (allowing in the process for good incomes to be earned by a lot of people in the resulting theater plays (a.k.a. court hearings) and associated industry surrounding them).

False abuse allegations are serious acts of interpersonal (often domestic) violence.  They often destroy the lives of the falsely accused.  It takes people like Charles Adler to have them come out that way or, at the very least, to have them stick to an individual like you-know-what to a blanket.

Posted in Media Bias, Men's Issues, Feminist Jurisprudence, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Print | No Comments »

April 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Well, that is not quite it, but it is a good part of what needs to be done, as Angry Harry - in his usual and admirable lucid style - explains in his piece, Feminists Destroy the Planet (April 4, 2008)

Read it. You, and especially policy makers, will most certainly obtain a few good ideas on what it takes to save the planet and, in the process, human civilization.

I farmed for decades, trying to keep wilderness at bay and motivating even Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to our door to exclaim: “You live in a beautiful place, you have a lot to be thankful for.” To which I usually explained, “Well, the piece of Paradise on Earth you see here and admire was created by man, mostly by me, working with the material that God gave me - not exactly gave, but I had to buy it with my earnings and with my labour. If you wish to see the original state of the God-given assets I had to work with, let’s go a half a mile east from our yard and let’s take a look at what things used to be like in their natural state.”

I also usually explained that, without the improvements brought about by man, Nature tends to be a bitch given to be very harsh and unforgiving.

Funny that none of the JWs ever took me up on my invitation and never went to take a look at what Nature in its natural state really is like (they also always expected that we would be ready to listen to them but never paid any attention to me when I asked them to give a hand first with pressing things before we would sit down, such as assisting with lambing). Still, Angry Harry is right. Man cannot live in harmony with Nature when feminists are bent on doubling the unavoidable losses that occur when man tries to make a living.

Posted in Feminism, Propaganda Exposed, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 7, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog features an entry today that is very favorable of Stephen Baskerville’s book “Taken into Custody”, a damning expose of the widespread corruption in the government-designed and -run divorce industry: a conglomerate of racketeering involving not only legislators, judges, prosecutors, social workers, police and bureaucrats but also a host of private-industry adjuncts to the government’s sector of the divorce industry, namely: child-support enforcement and similar agencies (in whom many politicians have a vested interest); psychologists; psychiatrists; mediators; lawyers; bar associations; law societies; universities; journalists; reporters and other interests in the media, and so on.

As Professor Stephen Baskerville describes in his book, all of those parties, especially those connected with the family-court system, conspire to intrude and insert themselves into families - even into the most intimate parts of family life - to expunge loving fathers from their families and their children’s lives, to apprehend and control children for the purpose of financially and emotionally devasting fathers (but not exclusively just fathers), to control women (for example, so as to dictate to women that they must choose between being married to the fathers of their children or to lose their children).

“Taken into Custody provides overwhelming evidence that a major reason for the existence and cancerous growth of what Dr. Albert Mohler calls the “Divorce Industrial Complex,” is the overwhelming greed and corruption that permeates the divorce industry.

“Taken into Custody” was popular from the time the first printing was released in the summer of 2007, but even now, quite a few months later, its popularity and appeal are still growing.  Last night the reader reviews at amazon.com for “Taken into Custody” numbered 37. This morning their number had increased to 41, all of them favorable and five-star rated. The most remarkable thing about those reviews is that amongst them is not a single one written by a family- or father-hostile feminist.  Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable, while a dozen years ago Stephen Baskerville would have had a very serious problem with finding a publisher willing to produce and distribute his book.

The vast majority of the reader reviews originated in the USA, but quite a few are from reviewers in other countries, such as the U.K., Sweden, Australia and one with an origin identified as “International”.

There is apparently as of yet no review by a Canadian reader. I should have written one, but have not yet finished reading the book, having received it, finally, and after two inexplicably failed attempts, just a couple of days ago.  I will make up for my missing review as soon as I am through reading “Taken into Custody.”

The fundamental issues discussed in “Taken into Custody” are not exclusive to the USA.  They are endemic of all English-speaking nations (as Stephen Baskerville identified with numerous examples and citations pertaining to many of those nations).  Still, they are applicable to - to mention a few such nations other than the USA - Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, the countries of the former Soviet block, India, Japan, Egypt, Spain, Italy, France, Holland, Germany, Canada, South Africa, and so on.  The preceding list of countries is based on what is being reported to and discussed with me by fathers and by pro-father- and pro-family activists from around the world.

If you haven’t yet obtained a copy of “Taken into Custody”, get one, and you will find out that - if you dare to dream of having a family - civil rights and liberties are only an illusion.  You will also find out that families make up the fabric of society, and that society is being destroyed when governments engage on a deliberate war designed to rip families apart.

As I am reading “Taking into Custody,” I cannot help but feel that the views I have held for years are confirmed.  We managed in the ostensibly “free” West to install absolute totalitarianism by the government bureaucracy.

Posted in Shared Parenting, Men's Issues, Divorce, Media Bias, Child-Custody Awards, Family, Propaganda Exposed, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Child Abduction | Print | No Comments »