May 8, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Hallo Olivier,

Es ist gut dass es scheint dass Du in guter Stimmung bist und dass wir noch einmal unsere Gedanken austauschen koennen.

Zuerst noch, und nebenbei, Ich habe noch die Webseiten in Bezug auf den Hungerstrike in Berlin.  Gerade gestern oder am vorherigen Tag hatte ich mit Bezug auf Dein Schicksal Links zu Karin Jaeckel’s Beschreibung der Umstaende Deines Freispruch’s eingesetzt.

Freispruch ist ja Bloedsinn.  Mir fehlt viel am deutschen Wortschatz.  Darum werde ich jetzt lieber zwei englische Begriffe gebrauchen: “exoneration” (Freispruch auf Grund dessen dass die Unschuld des Angeklagten bewiesen wurde) gegenueber “acquittal” (Freispruch auf Grund dessen dass die Schuld des Angeklagten nicht bewiesen werden konnte).  Das Letztere heisst dass der Verdacht der Schuld immer noch besteht.

Du, viele Andere und ich wissen dass in Deinem Fall das Gerichtsurteil eine Farce ist.  Es tut mir leid dass Du, wie auch viele andere, so durch die Muehle gedreht wurdest.

Olivier, im Bezug auf dass Jugendamt gibt es in jedem englisch-sprachigen Land (sogar in Indien) so etwas wie das Sozialamt (Social Services), welches in vielen Laendern eine Abteilung hat die man unter verschiedenen Namen kennt: z. b. Kinderamt (Children’s Services) oder Jugendfuersorge (Youth & Welfare).  Diese Jugendaemter in den verschiedenen englisch-sprechenden Laendern arbeiten mit den ihnen entssprechenden Familiengerichten sehr eng zusammen (so ungefaehr verbunden und politisch gleichgerichtet wie es die Gestapo und die Volksgerichtshoefe waren) .

Diese Familiengerichte wurden in den spaeten sechziger und fruehen siebziger Jahren speziell erstellt; um die Scheidungsverfahren zu beschleunigen die sich aus den enorm grossen Arbeitsrueckstaenden der normalen Gerichtshoefe ergaben - als die sogenannte verschuldensunabhängige Ehescheidung die neue rechtsverbindliche Sozialnorm wurde.

Die Beschleunigung der Gerichtsverfahren in den Familiengerichten konnte nur dadurch erreicht werden indem man die Prozesse so vereinfachte wie es in vergleichbaren Volksgerichtshoefen aller totalitaeren Regierungen ueblich war und ist.  Damit gibt es in Familiengerichtsverfahren schwache Rechte sondern nur starke Richtungen.  Eine gute Zahl der nordamerkanischen Rechtsanwaelte (darunter sogar Richter) nennen die Familiengerichte “kangaroo courts” (korrupte Gerichte).

Dadurch wurde dann auch in der sogenannten freien Welt der Wunsch von Marx, Engels und Lenin, der Wunsch auf die freie Liebe (heute nennt man das “sexual freedom”; Ich konnte keinen deutschen Ausdruck dafuer finden), zur Tatsache, indem man ganz einfach den Ehevertrag undurchsetzbar machte und dann in fast allen Faellen der verschuldensunabhängigen Ehescheidungen den Ehemaennern die Schuld auflegte.

Ich weiss nicht viel von franzoesischen Familien-Statistiken, aber in allen englisch-sprachigen Laendern sind sie sehr leicht genau so schlimm (oder vielleicht noch schlimmer) als die welche in Deutschland zutreffen.  Ich weiss aber dass die familien-feindlichen Dinge in Spanien sich jezt immer schneller den internationalen Normen anpassen, obwohl Spanien noch vor wenigen Jahren mit dem feministischen Sozialfortschritt etwas zurueckgeblieben war, bedeutend mehr zurueck als es in Deutschland der Fall war.

In der Abwesenheit von genauen Vergleichstatistiken die es andererweits beweisen, moechte ich suggerieren dass jedes andere Jugendamt irgendwo in der Welt Dir oder anderen Auslaendern gegenueber gleichmaessige Unrechte ausueben wuerde.

Nach meiner Ansicht wird sich nicht viel mit der Durchfuehrung der internationalen Agenda fuer die geplante Zerstoerung der Familie aendern, so lange nicht bis Maenner und Vaeter sich so effektiv und international vernetzen wie es feministische und aesserst linke Rechtsanwaelte, Richter, Sozialarbeiter, Sozialwissenschaftler and andere solche Aktivisten es tun.  Dass die letzteren es tun ist einfach eine Tatsache.  Sie vernetzen sich ausserhalb der oeffentlichen diplomatischen Regierungsverbindungen.

So lange das stattfinded wird die westliche Welt stetig zugreifend korrupt, bis sie zum Ende - innerhalb von hoechst Vier Generationen und dem roemischen Reich gleichend - unter ihrem eigenen Gewicht zusammenfallen wird.  Die westliche Welt wird nicht mit einem Knall sondern mit leisem Gewimmer verschwinden, da die stetig fallenden Geburtszahlen es dazu bringen werden dass die eingeborenen Bevoelkerungen durch die grossen Geburtszahlen anderer Voelker ersetzt werden.  Genau wie beim Untergang des roemischen Reiches finden nun grosse Voelkerwanderungen statt (die durch die Vereinten Nationen sehr stark gefoerdert werden).  Man will es damit ermoeglichen die Weltbevoelkerung bei dem Jahr 2150 bis auf eine Milliarde Menschen oder weniger herunter zu bringen, um den Einfluss der Menschheit (die man als ein Karzinom auf dem Angesicht der Mutter Erde ansieht) als ertragbar zu veringern.

Sehr wahrscheinlich wird sich bis zum unvermeidlichen Zusammenbruch nichts mehr aendern.   Es gibt nichts Neues unter der Sonne.  Das letzte Mal, in 1945, wurde bis zum bitteren Ende noch immer gesungen: “Wir werden weitermarschieren, bis alles in Scherben faellt…” obwohl alles schon in Schutt und Asche zerfallen war.  Ich war 10 Jahre alt als das zu Ende ging und muss nun - wie Andere meines Alters nahe am Ende meines Lebens - den Anfang eines anderen, noch groesseren Zusammenbruches erfahren.

Alles Gute,

Walter

P.S.: Die Zahl der einzelnen Besucher meiner Homepage ist waehrend der letzten 12 Monate um 2,5 Millionen angestiegen und gleicht damit im Totalen pappa.com in der weltweiten Rangstelle.

Posted in Divorce, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Heritage Foundation

May 13, 2004

The Social Scientific Data on the Impact of Marriage and Divorce on Children

by Patrick F. Fagan, Ph.D.

Testimony

Testimony Before the Senate of the United States, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Science, Technology, And Space regarding the Social Scientific Data on the Impact of Marriage and Divorce on Children.

(Full Story; Charts and graphs included in the testimony are available in the Powerpoint presentation, 1.4 MB)

Posted in Family, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted: 05/02/2008

“This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper,” wrote T.S. Eliot in the closing couplet of “The Hollow Men.”

Eliot’s poem was written after the Great War of 1914-1918 had carried off 9 million soldiers, wounded twice as many more, brought down the Romanov, Hohenzollern and Habsburg empires, and ushered onto the world stage Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and, soon, Adolf Hitler [as well as, of course, Mao Tse Tung –WHS]….

In 1950, whites were 28 percent of world population and Africans 9 percent, a ratio of three-to-one. In 2060, the ratio will remain the same. But the colors will be reversed. People of African ancestry will be 25 percent of the world’s population. People of European descent will have fallen to 9.8 percent….

Fleshing out the NPI picture is the U.N. population survey of mid-2007 that points to the 21st century disappearance of Western Man.

By 2050, a fourth of all the people of Eastern Europe will have vanished. Ukraine will lose one-third of its population. Russia, 150 million at the breakup of the Soviet Union, 142 million today, will be down to 108 million. Such losses dwarf what Hitler and Stalin together did to these countries….(Full Story)

Posted in The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

May 2, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Ministry fined for firing homosexual employee

Jeff Johnson - OneNewsNow - 5/1/2008 12:00:00 PM

Canadian ministry Christian Horizons has been fined more than $23,000 for firing an employee who was actively engaged in a homosexual relationship.

Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry in Ontario that has cared for more than 1,400 people with developmental disabilities in 180 group homes. The group requires all employees to sign a contract agreeing to abstain from all sexual immorality, including homosexuality. When Christian Horizons fired a female employee who became involved with another woman, she complained to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, which fined the ministry $23,000 and two years back pay….(Full Story)

Posted in Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 19, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

News.com.au
April 18, 2008 11:54pm

AN ITALIAN man was given a suspended jail sentence for staring too intensely at a woman sitting in front of him on a train.

What was the evidence?   Apparently nothing more than the woman’s uncorroborated assertion.  Read the whole story.

Posted in Men's Issues, The New World Order, 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 15, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The international networking by English-speaking jurists, judiciary activists, activist judges, and by their adjuncts (non-governmental organizations) is fast and - if not efficient - extremely effective. Therefore it frequently happens that innovative laws and forms of punishment for ostensible criminals make their appearance simultaneously or only separated in time by extremely short intervals in many different English-speaking countries throughout the world.

For instance, in English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removal is a popular and longstanding form of punishment (it has been around for a decade and more) for minor crimes, primarily the “crime” of falling into arrears with child support payments - not necessarily through any personal fault. In English-speaking countries, drivers-licence removals as a form of punishment spread like a wildfire.

Curiously, as Sanford Braver reports in Divorced Dads : Shattering the Myths, where reasonable child access exists for fathers expunged from their families (in the majority of the cases through no fault of their own), child-support payments are voluntarily made in more than 90 percent of cases and often in excess of the specified amounts. About six percent of fathers ordered to pay child-support default on some or all of their payments. At most half of those (about three percent of all divorced dads) are truly “deadbeat dads”. The others are often unable to pay all or pay only part of what they are ordered to pay - because they can’t make ends meet. They have fallen on hard times, such as having become under-employed, unemployed, sick, disabled, hospitalized, incarcerated (very often for outstanding child-support arrears), and even having died (quite often through suicide) and having been buried - as child-support obligations extend in many jurisdictions even beyond the grave.

Germany appears to lag a bit behind in the application of drivers-licence and professional licence removal for the enforcement of compliance with sentences for minor crimes that very often are not crimes at all but nothing other than the inability by idividual (amost exclusively men) to conform to government-imposed financial liabilities.  What will be coming next for a German man so unfortunate will be a life in which he, as a “criminal” (often a debtor with unpaid compulsory child-support obligations), is hobbled by the lack of a drivers licence, by the lack of professional licences and by seriously restricted abilities to earn a living and to pay obligations, instead of having to live a life shackled to the walls of a debtors prison. Is the imposing of the lack of freedom of movement or the freedom to earn a living any more humane than having one’s freedom of movement restricted by the walls of a debtors prison? One so sentenced is always assured good meals and a bed in debtors prison. Moreover, the place is heated and is a lot more comfortable than a cardboard box at -35°C in a back alley.

The appended translation of a German-language news item and of the related introductory comment shows that Germany is in the process of taking the important first step in the removal and denial of the constitutionally guaranteed right of freedom of movement in the cases of perpetrators of minor criminal offences. The step to extend the form of punishment that we have become accustomed to for the so-called crime of having fallen on hard times and defaulting on child-support payments will surely follow soon in Germany, too. Let’s hope that the German people will not experience the escalating oppression by the divorce industry to such an extent that it drives up the suicide rates for men even more, as happened in all English-speaking countries.

The remarkable aspect of such outlandish and illogical forms of punishment is that they are invented by bureaucrats and by judicial activists. There never has been, and is not now, any public clamour by the general public to implement novel punishments for so-called crimes that never were and still aren’t a concern of the public. Those crimes, and especially the “crime” of being guilty of having caused a “no-fault” divorce and its consequences or the “crime” of having fallen into arrears on payments that finance the government-sponsored filching of the children one never wanted to be deprived of, are entirely caused by the crazed ideology that drives our governments. It is not that the public has become so depraved that it now is intent on destroying society, but that our governments create “crimes” by manufacturing the conditions that allow the governments to rationalize that the inevitable “crimes” that are the consequence of government-manufactured conditions need to be fought and punished to make the people comply with undemocratic government edicts. That is not a condition of freedom, it is an escalating spiral of causes and consequences in an increasingly totalitarian society.

In the English-speaking countries there is a growing awareness that idiotic allegations of so-called crimes and even more idiotic forms of punishment, such as the removal of the means to make a living, are being driven by an insane ideology that calls for the world-wide implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of the family and even of the whole Western cultural heritage and traditions.

German people will have to learn that, too. As the comments identified in the appended translation show, some Germans are well on the way to understand what is going on. Let’s hope that, to fully understand, Germans will not have to go all the way to chaos. One would almost think that people who were not all that long ago ordered to fight to the last bullet - until all would turn to rubble and ashes - would by now have enough of radical ideologies that invariably lead to totalitarianism.

–Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org
____________
Translation of German Text

The drivers licence is for the majority of people the foundation for earning money through a job, thereby to pay for taxes, social insurances and the necessities of life, and through that to be enabled not to become a burden on the pockets of the taxpayers. This “prestige value” is so negative that it is possible to implement drivers-licence removal as a form of punishment, so that those that are sentenced are even less able to participate in an acceptable manner in our society.

When young people experience the removal of the basis of their capability to earn money trough jobs, they will no longer be able to create personal wealth and will be unable to pay fines. Therefore monetary fines will become inappropriate. Furthermore, those children won’t be in a position that enables them to become the necessary role models for their children that will motivate the latter to become productive and self-satisfied adults. Later, those children cannot become good parents. They either will have no children, or their children will become a burden on orphanages and foster homes, with all of the well-known consequences.

Is it then that our ministers lost all touch with reality and with realistic-practical thinking? Is that a sort of declaration of bankruptcy of spirit and morality? How much stupidity and moral turpitude can we accept from our lawmakers (in the majority jurists)?

Greetings,

Herbert Greipl

The German Federal Council [Upper House] intends to implement drivers-licence removal into list of punishments in penal code

Berlin: (hib/BOB) The Bundesrat [Upper House] intends to anchor prohibition to drive as part of the penalties provided in the penal code. It presented a draft of a law to that extent (16/8695). The States Chamber expects from that a noticeable impact, on those sentenced, of the [withholding of the] “definitive prestige value” provided by a drivers licence. The Bundesrat argues that, time and again, it happens that there are cases in which the imposing of a monetary fine will, under the personal and economical circumstances of those sentenced, not result in the desired effects. Alternatively, incarceration would in the circumstances of specific cases be disproportionately hard. Drivers-licence removal could thereby be classified as an independent major punishment, without the necessity to have to impose incarceration or a monetary fine. A further example would be not-so-serious deeds with extremist backgrounds - often with application of violence. A relatively large portion of young offenders are affected, according to the government. For such people the removal of the drivers licence could be “a shot across the bow”. The Federal Government agreed to evaluate the proposal.

Mailinglist papa-info - always well informed
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Original German text

Der Führerschein ist für die Mehrzahl die Grundlage mit beruflicher Tätigkeit Geld zu verdienen und somit Steuern und Sozialversicherung und auch Unterhalt zu bezahlen und nicht dem Staat auf der Tasche zu liegen. Und dieser “Prestigewert” ist so negativ, dass man ihn als Strafe wegnehmen kann, sodass sie dann noch weniger in der Lage sind, in zumutbarer Weise am Wesen unserer Gesellschaft Teil zu nehmen?

Wenn jungen Menschen schon die Grundlage zum beruflichen Geld verdienen genommen wird, so können sie keinen Besitz schaffen und auch keine Geldstrafen bezahlen. Damit sind Geldstrafen für sie ungeeignet. Aber sie sind so auch nicht in der Lage für ihre Kinder das Vorbild zu sein, das notwendig ist, damit diese sich zu tüchtigen, für die Gesellschaft nützlichen und selbst glücklichen Erwachsenen entwickeln können. Diese Kinder können später selbst keine guten Eltern sein. Entweder sie haben dann selbst keine Kinder oder ihre Kinder werden zu Wirtschaftsobjekten zur Belegung von Heimen und Pflegefamilien mit allen bekannten Folgen.

Haben unsere Minister schon jeden Realitätssinn und realistisch-praktisches Denken verloren? Ist das eine Art Bankrotterklärung für Geist und Moral? Wieviel Blödheit und Schlechtigkeit müssen wir Bürger uns noch von unseren Gesetzesmachern (die Mehrzahl sind Juristen) bieten lassen?

Gruß

Herbert Greipl

Bundesrat will Fahrverbot auf Zeit in das Strafgesetzbuch aufnehmen
Recht/Gesetzentwurf

Berlin: (hib/BOB) Der Bundesrat will ein Fahrverbot auf Zeit im Strafgesetzbuch verankern. Er hat dazu einen Gesetzentwurf vorgelegt (16/8695). Die Länderkammer verspricht sich davon eine deutliche Wirkung auf den Verurteilten wegen des “deutlichen Prestigewerts”, die ein Führerschein mit sich bringe. Der Bundesrat argumentiert, immer wieder kämen in der Praxis Fälle vor, in denen die persönlichen und wirtschaftlichen Verhältnisse des Verurteilten für eine Geldstrafe nicht geeignet seien, die mit ihr verfolgten Zwecke zu erfüllen. Andererseits erscheine eine Freiheitsstrafe nach Lage des Falles oft unangemessen hart. Das Fahrverbot könne hierbei als selbstständige Hauptstrafe aufgewertet werden, ohne Geld- oder Freiheitsstrafe verhängen zu müssen. Ein weiteres Beispiel seien nicht ganz so schwerwiegende Taten mit extremistischem Hintergrund - oft unter Anwendung von Gewalt. Ein verhältnismäßig hoher Anteil gerade junger Täter sei betroffen, so die Regierung. Für solche Menschen könne der Entzug des Führerscheins ein wirkungsvoller “Schuss vor den Bug” sein. Die Bundesregierung hat zugesagt, die Anliegen zu prüfen.

Mailingliste papa-info - immer gut informiert
e-mail: papa-info@listserv.shuttle.de
web: http://listserv.shuttle.de/mailman/listinfo/papa-info

Posted in Divorce, Men and Women Work, Men's Issues, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, The New World Order | Print | No Comments »

April 10, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

The following comments were sent to a fathers rights activist in response to his assertion that all that is missing for fathers rights organizations to gain political power is to obtain government funding.

George,

All the FR movement lacks is money? I cannot quite agree with that.

Money is the root of all evil, so the saying goes. It would therefore follow that money cannot possibly be the solution to a problem like the lack of inroads made by the FR movement, or can it?

As one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, subsidies to Canadian Natives to solve their woes at roughly $6,800 a year for every native man, woman and child have hardly solved any problems the Canadian Natives suffer from. A few success stories can be mentioned. However, as a whole,

• The life expectancies of our Natives are many years below the Canadian average;
• Their suicide rates are probably the highest of all ethnic groups in the world, higher than those in any of the nations in the world, much higher even than those in the Russian Federation, and about five times higher than the Canadian national average;
• The incident rate of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is about 70 percent in some Native communities;
• Their rates of fatherlessness and infant mortality are higher than the national average;
• The crime and incarceration rates for Natives are ten times higher than the Canadian average; but
• The department of Native and Indian Affairs is a boon for an army of civil servants and even produced a few prime ministers, most notably Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chretien.

If I were a Native leader and were to observe those dismal outcomes of centuries of Canadian empathy for Natives, I would tell the federal government to go and fly a kite. However, why in the world would FR activist organizations ask for financial assistance by the government? Financial assistance breeds political and economic dependency.

It was not financial assistance from the government that gave political power to feminists. It was political power that enticed the government to provide financial assistance to Natives and to feminism.

How did the Natives gain political power? They demonstrated, closed roads, stopped logging operations, etc.. They also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. Political power brought financial and other concessions for natives, but overall that brought benefits only to band councils and to bureaucrats. The few handovers of large areas of Canada did not perceptibly hurt the average Canadian, and all of the concessions made to the Natives helped build the careers of an enormous number of bureaucrats and lawyers, with just about all of the bureaucrats and the vast majority of the lawyers not being Natives. However, the net-”gains” made by Natives were confined to the First Nations and to Native communities. Canadians paid their taxes, and the Native problems hardly ever intruded into their lives.

How did the feminists gain political power? They raised their children (in their image), and they burned their bras. Just as the natives did, they also went to universities and studied law at far higher rates than other Canadians did. They went a bit farther, they began lecturing at universities, and they formed law societies that forced feminist laws upon the judiciary and thereby on all of society. In the process of doing that, they obtained ever escalating financial and legal concessions, but overall that brought benefits only to feminists and to bureaucrats. Those concessions do hurt all Canadians, but, just as with the Natives - only on a much larger scale - feminism helped build the careers of legions of bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, psychologists, lecturers, counselors, mediators, etc.. However, the net-”gains” made by feminists, although confined to women, did nothing for the Canadian economy as a whole and were extremely expensive. Even though Canadians paid their escalating taxes to pay for it all, given that we live in a closed system, men pay the majority of all taxes (about 70 percent) and at best receive 30 percent of all available social benefits, while women pay a small share of all taxes (about 30 percent) while they receive at least 70 percent of all social benefits.

How do men gain political power? They increasingly don’t get to raise their children, and they can at best burn their jockstraps - which latter, moreover, many men don’t ever wear. Besides, compare the public appeal of bras vs. jockstraps, of mammary glands vs. prostate glands and rectums.

One thing is certain, men will not gain financial or any other sort of concessions from the government until they have political power and begin to wield it. The question is not so much what the benefits are that men have to offer - and let there be no mistake, the benefits that men can return for financial and other concessions must be irrefutably good (while feminists never had to offer anything other than the promise to set social injustices for women right). The question is whether a sufficiently large critical mass of men can agree on what men have to offer.

The feminists didn’t have a heck of a lot of money to begin to achieve their progress. Why would men need a lot of money to do something comparable?

One thing is for sure, the liberalism, sexual revolution and women’s liberation promoted by the student revolutions that happened simultaneously throughout the world in 1968 did not happen spontaneously.

…the student revolution of 1968 (brought about, as in all other nations where it happened, through organizational direction by Moscow and funding by Pankow - [a suburb of Berlin] the capital of the GDR - it happened not just in France but in many nations at the same time - e. g.: 1968 in an international context), and then to the world-wide usurpation of power and control by radical feminism - largely by means of the influence of radical feminism on the UN.

All those changes happened through whatever special interest group’s ideology influenced the bureaucracy, controlled it and then had the bureaucracy promote and enforce it. (See Trends of the politics of sex)

Men’s rights and fathers’ right organizations throughout the world ignore history. They ignore it at their own and at all of mankind’s peril.

Posted in Men's Issues, Family, Feminism, The New World Order | Print | 1 Comment »

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 5, 2008 by Walter Schneider.

Edmonton Journal,
April 4, 2008, B16

Wife sentenced for slicing man’s penis, butt

Convinced he was having an affair, Calgary woman attacked husband during sex

Daryl Slade
Calgary Herald

In the midst of lovemaking, Abigail London-Fife pulled out a knife she had hidden under the bed and slashed her husband’s penis and buttocks.

The woman suspected her husband of cheating, court heard Thursday, when she was handed a 12-month conditional jail sentence, with house arrest for the first six months.

Provincial court Judge Judith Shriar and Crown prosecutor Deven Singhal both said the woman should be treated in the same manner as a man who assaulted his wife.

“Regardless of what’s going on in the home and background, you do not take two knives to the bedroom and stab your husband in the penis and buttocks,” Shriar said.

London-Fife, 35, pleaded guilty Jan. 16 to assault causing bodily harm to Leonard Fife for the Aug. 24 assault.  She has had no contact with him since.

Singhal earlier told court London-Fife was angry over phone calls she intercepted that led her to believe her husband was having an affair.

She planned the attack by bringing the weapons to bed, and carried it out at the most opportune time, the prosecutor said.  “He was in a vulnerable position and she took advantage of it.”

The judge ordered her to take psychological counselling, and to continue domestic violence and anger-management courses.

She is also prohibited from owning or possessing any weapons for a year.

________________
Notes by Fathers for Life

The Edmonton journal took considerable liberties with what it purports is an article published in the Calgary Herald.  For example, the following information was deleted from the edited text of the article:

Singhal noted the victim sustained a 2.5-centimetre laceration to the shaft of his penis, a 15-centimetre laceration to his left buttock, a puncture wound inside his right thigh, a laceration to his scrotum, a 10-centimetre laceration to the back of his shoulder and 7.5-centimetre lacerations to both hands.

However serious the redactions by the Edmonton Journal are, the case of Abigail-the-penis-slasher deserves more attention than even the Calgary Herald gave it.

What would happen if a man would attack his wife in a similar manner?  Right, the man would get locked up, and the key would be thrown away.  However, the “punishment” handed down to Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher proves that women can with impunity commit crimes of domestic violence. We can rest assured that if a man had committed a crime of comparable and equal severity, not only would he have served a long term of incarceration, the story would quite likely have made the frontpage.

For some crimes of equal severity committed by men or by women there are even laws, unlike in this case, that provide preferential treatment for women, such as the category of murder involving children of age 12 months or under.  It is called murder when a father kills his child, and it is called infanticide when a mother murders her child that truly or allegedly is an infant - supposedly less human than a child.  In fact, the category of crime “infanticide” has been applied in cases of the murders by mothers of their children when the victims were far older, as old as six years. When murdering a child, a woman almost always gets off free, with at most a conditional sentence (serving no time in prison, such as in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher), while a man gets locked up for a lengthy time, which he should be, just as a woman should be.  After all, according to our most fundamental laws, men and women are equal in all regards.

However, there is always an excuse when a woman commits a crime. There is always someone - virtually always a man - or something (if everything else fails, even her inner demons or the devil will do) that compelled a woman to be a criminal or to have been violent, whereby she is then deemed to be suffering and not deserving of any punishment.

The excuse used - entirely illegally but nevertheless by a judge in a court of law - in the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is that she is a woman and therefore dumb and ignorant of the law.

Isn’t it odd that the feminists refuse to raise a stink about that sort of demeaning and most vile discrimination against women?

In reality, of course, feminists welcome such discrimination.  Such discrimination perpetuates the lie that women cannot be violent and when evidence to the contrary presents itself, as it invariably will and shows women to be as often and as seriously violent as men are, the violence must be excused and thereby condoned.

The worst consequence of that will of course be that the victimization by women of all those who are less powerful or lower in social status (that is primarily children, men and the elderly) intensifies.  A “sentence” such as that with which Judge Judith Shriar rewarded Abigail London-Fife for slashing her husband’s penis and body is an incitement, not a deterrent, for all women to freely exercise their potential for violence against others.

The most remarkable aspect of the case of Abigail London-Fife-the-penis-slasher is what neither the original nor the edited version of the story mentions, the total absence of any injuries to the penis-slasher.  That says a lot about men’s potential for violence against women.  Virtually all men will protect and avoid hurting women, even when under a potentially deadly attack by a violent woman.

Posted in Child Murder, Feminist Jurisprudence, Feminism, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Print | 1 Comment »