Family courts solve divorce applications backlog

Family Courts (they essentially give marching orders to Child Protective Services) – put in place to solve a growing divorce applications backlog – target men.  They also seriously hurt children.

Getting dad out of the picture

Getting dad out of the picture:
The Fatherless Society

  • Family courts were to mitigate the divorce applications backlog in the regular court system (in the early 1960s, waiting periods for court hearings after divorce applications were three and more years – and rapidly growing longer).
  • The growing divorce applications backlog was a consequence of the legalization of ‘no-fault’ divorce.
  • In ‘no-fault’ divorce, the default position is nevertheless that the fault is placed on the shoulders of the men.
  • All of that works exceedingly well, so that, if they cannot resist the urge to have families and children,
    1. Men will be punished severely for trying, by forcing them to pay for divorces and their consequences, thereby to serve as examples of what is in store for them if they dare, and, even better,
    2. Many more men will be scared to have families and children, and who can blame them for that?  They have good reasons to be scared.  Every man easily knows dozens of men (fathers, uncles, brothers, sons, cousins, friends, team mates, co-workers, etc.) who, on account of divorces, had been fleeced, put through the wringer, squeezed dry and stripped of everything they had –and even worse – roughly one out of every two men they know.  Half of those who pay no heed will get a rude awakening when their turn comes.

Nothing would have been gained in solving the divorce application backlog if divorce and child custody hearings would have been transferred to family courts.  No, the objective was to streamline court hearings involving family law.  Therefore a few things had to be done away with, such as,

  • Jury trials;
  • The rules of the court;
  • The rules of evidence;
  • The right of the accused to a fair trial, and even
  • The right of the accused to face his accuser (which is why family courts are infamous for routinely handing down ex parte orders, which are essentially the outcomes of trials in absentia).

All of that had a fine effect.  The backlog of divorce applications was dealt with in very short order.  Mind you, although family courts deal quickly with large volumes of family law cases, they also serve to bring more business to the appeal courts, for those litigants who feel that their issues were not dealt with fairly in family court and who have a fair bit of money to spend on such issues.  Still, that is not a very big problem, as most people dealt with in family courts don’t have the financial resources necessary to obtain justice through appeals.

Getting rid of Dad

Getting rid of Dad:
The Fatherless Society

A few articles in the media focused on the issue of the increasingly fatherless society but never did more than scratch the surface of the social problems that were about to happen.

Still, the program for the persecution of men who dare to have families and children proved to be the best combination of effectiveness and profitability of all population control measures ever devised and employed. The powers who engineered that and made it happen saw that it was good and therefore ensure that it will remain so.

After all, the goal is to bring the size of the world population down to between a billion and 300 million people, and much more work of that nature remains to be done.

That does not mean that women who clamor for divorce or single-parent status, so as to have it all, do have it all. No, that is not it, not by a long shot.  There are other consequences.  After all, fathers are not only excellent providers and protectors to ensure the comfort of women, they also comprise half of the first teachers of our children.  Removing half of those teachers will affect children – boys and girls – negatively.  There is little consolation in the fact that, amongst other things, boys will become more feminized.  That issue alone provides so much reading material that even a speed reader could stay occupied by that topic for the rest of his life.

144 years of marriage and divorce rates

Marriage and Divorce Rates (h/t

Consider, for example, that many sociologists hold that the divorce rate is the best predictor of future criminality, but high divorce rates and declining marriage rates have many more consequences. One of those is that divorces cause a substantial number of men to commit suicide.

Canada — suicide rates vs. divorce rates over time

Canada — suicide rates vs. divorce rates over time (StatCan)

The divorce revolution was obviously as deadly in Canada as it was everywhere else.  It must be realized that it was far more deadly for men than it was for women, as is shown in the following graph from an article I wrote and published, “July 1st 2000, Canada Day — Proud Canadians?” It is exceedingly important to recognize one core truth that was not and still is not being discussed very often.  Although the divorce revolution that now has all of the developed nations and most other nations in the world in its grips was and still is especially deadly for boys and men, it hardly affected girls and women.

Family courts played and important role in the esclating suicides of men and boys.

Suicides, a deadly consequence of the divorce revolution, especially for men and boys – but hardly so, of course, for girls and women.
(Data Source: StatCan)

The fact that the divorce revolution was (and still is) especially deadly for men and boys (not only in Canada), should all along have been and still be but was not front page news  since the 1960s.

Still, while Father State has the power and uses it to expunge loving, caring husbands, fathers, providers and protectors from their families, it is a poor, inferior substitute: impersonal, basically uncaring, unloving and incapable of engaging on a personal level. Therefore, women who choose to be single parents are left with the reality that, instead of having it all, they have to do it all, and they must do it by themselves, alone, and – on average – under ever deteriorating and ever more oppressive conditions.

Ostensibly it is all being done in the best interest of the children. Who in their right and politically-correct mind can possibly find fault with any of that? The end justifies the means! /sarc

#FamilyCourts #TheBestInterestOfTheChildren #PopulationControl

See also:


Posted in Child Abuse, Civil Rights, Divorce, Family, Feminist Jurisprudence, History, Men's Issues, Population Control, Social-Destruction Enterprise, The New World Order | 27 Comments

Survivor hyperbole – increasingly popular survivor fad

Survivor hyperbole – Survivors of [insert victimhood category] – is an ever more popular survivor fad.  What is it with the growing popularity of the fad that drives ever more people to assert that they are survivors of something or other? If merely being alive is classified as survival, does that make a mundane life heroic?

An old saw goes, “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” and another one, “Adversity makes people tough,” or “When the going gets tough, the tough get going.” Nothing is perfect. Not even things that kill do kill everyone, but what about things that are not obviously, extremely rarely or not even logically fatal? Is someone who had a tooth pulled a survivor of a tooth extraction?

Some people are lucky enough to escape potentially fatal circumstances. It can and must be argued that no one should consider himself a ‘survivor’ of experiences that rarely cause death but at worst nothing more than various extents of misery or bad feelings. Being glad that those bad experiences are over is without a doubt enjoyable, but why insist that one survived them, when they were merely unpleasant and never posed a serious threat to one’s life?

Still, what about enjoyable experiences?  It stands to reason that those must be survived, too.  A popular German adage goes: “Nichts is so schlecht zu ertragen als eine Reihe von guten Tagen” (Nothing is as hard to bear as a row of good days).  That can be attested to by everyone who ever came back to work, to recuperate after enjoying a long weekend a little too hard.  No doubt, survivor/victimhood will eventually get around to include even enjoyable experiences, before the survivor fad has run its course.

The Inconvenient Truth That No One Wants to Talk About

That does not mean that potentially fatal experiences never kill anyone, or that potentially harmful circumstances do not cause any serious harm to many who experience them. Consider how Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell put that and identify in this video:

How does the survivor hyperbole fit into this?

Jordan Peterson and Warren Farrell explain the demographics of the death of our civilization

Peterson and Farrell identify seriously harmful and even fatal outcomes of single motherhood, of fatherlessness, and of the abrogation of the traditional two-parent nuclear family.

The harmful consequences of that not only kill many of our children, they demonstrably are putting an end to the welfare and continued existence of our civilization. The survivors of that ultimate outcome better be strong enough to deal with some very, very tough living conditions, unless they wish to become extinct, too.

All of us would do well to not merely relish that we ‘survived’ our previous experiences, we better be strong enough and sufficiently wise to consider the consequences of the circumstances affecting our children described in this video by Stefan Molyneux, in which a special needs teacher explains why students and society are in danger:

Survivor hyperbole does not fit special needs students

A special needs teacher, a guest of Stefan Molyneux, explains why his student are a danger to themselves and to society.

With virtually all those students being the products of broken families, all are ‘survivors’. A good number of them will survive long enough to become and remain a very real danger to society. That danger will grow. Society cannot endure that unharmed. Some people will remain alive after the decline and fall of our civilization. They will be too busy scavenging from the ruins, rubble and ashes of our civilization to be proud of their survival. That is when survival will no longer be a fad but the primary goal of human existence, just as it was during the age of the cave man as well as after the collapse of every single empire throughout history.

#Survivor #SurvivorFad #SurvivorHyperbole #BrokenFamilies #Fatherlessness #EducationFailure

Posted in Divorce, Education, Family, Social-Destruction Enterprise | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Feminist Conquest -Supremacism – in India vs Male Rights

Male rights to procreate (or not) are some of many rights being lost by Indian men in the context of the feminist conquest of India. Female supremacism thus becomes ever more firmly entrenched. Siddharthasankar Mukherjee explained the implications of that in a Facebook posting:

The Abrogation of Male Procreation Rights

By Siddharthasankar Mukherjee, 2018-06-01, Facebook

Well. All rights are of women.

Why not aggrieved men then avoid celebration of so-called Independence day when they are actually dependent on women’s will?

Supreme Court says a woman has unimpeachable right whether she wants to have a baby or wants to abort a baby. Indirectly they are saying that a decision related to having or not having a child is entirely hers and husband has no say in it, putting an official stamp on the feminist theory of #MyBodyMyChoice

But what about autonomy of a man over his decisions? What if he doesn’t want to have a child because he can’t afford to or can take responsibility of but the woman refuses to abort? Then if he refuses to pay for upbringing of child, he is served with court notice under DV Act where he has to part away with his money even though he did not want to.

What if the man wants to feel the bliss of being a father and expects his wife to give him a child but she doesn’t want to bear a child for various reasons ? Can he then exercise his bodily autonomy and go and have a child with some other woman who is willing to give him one?

Which brings me back to the question I have been asking for a long time – what are the “rights” of a man within a marriage now that are recognized by courts? I am not talking about his rights in case of divorce(there also he hardly has any) but rights during subsistence of Marriage….

Can the courts reflect on this?

Even women have rights on the bygone times! Men are only to toil and serve women! Have men any Independence allowed by court?

To drive the point of the abrogation of male procreation rights home within the context of the feminist conquest of India, Siddharthasankar Mukherjee closed his commentary with a link to a commentary on the latest Supreme Court of India decision on female supremacism over Indian men after divorce:

Abrogation of male rights through the feminist conquest of India — Supreme Court states that women can file complaints against ex-husbands under domestic violence law even after divorce

[India] Supreme Court states that women can file complaints against ex-husbands under domestic violence law even after divorce — FIRSTPOST.COM

That implies, of course, that – because the law explicitly grants only women that right – men do not have the right to freedom of choice in matters of procreation.

Special rights are being granted only to women, whereby – with each such special right granted – female supremacism becomes ever more firmly entrenched.

#FeministConquestOfIndia #MaleProcreationRights #FemaleSupremacy

See also:

Posted in Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Judiciary, Men's Issues, The New World Order | 3 Comments

Fort Saskatchewan Solo Liquor Store provides discounts?

Yesterday I found out that the Fort Saskatchewan Solo Liquor Store (the one right next to Giant Tiger, the one with the big sign on the store front that reads “Solo Liquor Discounts”) does not deliver what it promises but tries to bamboozle its customers by charging a higher price at the till than what the label on the shelf indicates for an item.

Solo Liqur Store ad

Does that Solo Liquor ad adhere to truth in advertising?
Not when one goes by what I found out yesterday.

Ruth and I had finished with running our chores in Fort Saskatchewan – medical tests, having a quick bite to eat after a long fast, shopping…. The last stop we made was at Giant Tiger.  I noticed that the space next to Giant Tiger, in the former Safeway Store, was now occupied by a Solo Liquor Store. It was the first time I had seen that store and decided to give it a visit.  I walked in, to the shelves with the Scotch and found what I wanted, a 750 ml bottle of “Johnny Walker, Red Label”, labelled with a shelf price of $29.99, and carried it to the check-out counter, to pay.

I used my credit card to pay and noticed that the price I was supposed to pay was $31.59, $1.60 more than what the price label at the shelf had indicated.  “Just a moment,” I said, “aren’t you giving me a senior’s discount?”

The man at the cash register told me, “No.  All the items are discounted already,”  to which I responded: “I can get the very same bottle for a lower price in Bruderheim.”  He asked, “How much of a discount do they give you?” I said, “I don’t know the exact amount, but the last time I bought one of these in Bruderheim, I paid $28-something, a bit under $29.00, but tell me.  What sort of deal is this?  You advertise this on your shelf as being priced at $29.99 and then you charge me $31.59 when I pay for it.  I think I’ll make my purchase where I can get it at a better price” and pulled my credit card out of the reader.

Not all things are cheaper to buy in Bruderheim, but Scotch is.

Not all things are cheaper to buy in Bruderheim, but Scotch is.

Back in Bruderheim, I went to Spirit of Bruderheim and bought the same bottle for for $29.12, $2.47 cheaper.

Unfortunately, groceries cannot be bought cheaper in Bruderheim than elsewhere. Many grocery items sell at substantially higher prices than what they cost in Fort Saskatchewan.  You will most definitely experience that Bruderheim sales prices for groceries are inflated at the till by a factor of often close to 2.  You need to pay attention at the till in Bruderheim, or you will be sorry, but that is a different story that has a lot of aspects.

Posted in Propaganda Exposed | Comments Off on Fort Saskatchewan Solo Liquor Store provides discounts?

Shady deal involving Canadian Atlantic Fishery

A shady deal involving Canadian Atlantic Fishery (h/t Jeff Rowsell)

Something is rotten with the state of the fishery in Canada’s Atlantic provinces and family members of Canada’s Liberal Party using a back-room deal to corner a lucrative chunk of the harvest of Arctic surf clams, giving indigenous interests competition by non-indigenous interests.

It is not that federal Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc did not know about the shady deal being made:

Tories ask ethics commissioner to probe fishery bid they say favours Liberal insiders

Company behind winning bid is run by the brother of Nova Scotia Liberal MP Darrell Samson

John Paul Tasker · CBC News · Posted: May 07, 2018 6:10 PM ET
Last Updated: May 7

….In his letter to Mario Dion, the newly appointed ethics watchdog, Cariboo-Prince George MP Todd Doherty alleges the government’s effort to diversify ownership in the fishery — by clawing back part of an existing quota held by Clearwater Foods and handing it to a group with Indigenous representation — violates the Commons conflict of interest code because it enriches the brother of a sitting Liberal MP and a former Liberal MP.

“I am concerned that the relationship between Five Nations Clam Company and its partner, Premium Seafoods, could have played a role in (federal Fisheries Minister Dominic) LeBlanc’s decision,” Doherty wrote in his letter to the commissioner, obtained by CBC News.

“For one, Premium Seafoods president and CEO, Edgar Samson, is the brother of Nova Scotia Liberal MP Darrell Samson. Moreover, the president of NunatuKavut, the First Nations partner in Labrador, was only announced weeks after Five Nations won the bid, and is former Liberal MP Todd Russell.”  More….

That is not all.

“We are talking about a group of Liberal family members who had no boat and were not even incorporated until after the announcement was made.” – Conservative MP Todd Doherty

Can things with that deal really be that bad? Perhaps not, because Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau condones those machinations and insists that,

“Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives’ habit of pitting Canadians against indigenous Canadians is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Our decision to increase indigenous participation in fishing is based on our government’s commitment to developing a renewed relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. Enhancing access to the Arctic surf clam fishery broadens the distribution of benefits from this public resource and is a powerful step toward reconciliation. This will significantly enhance indigenous participation in the offshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and allow the benefits of this lucrative fishery to flow to more Canadians.” —Justin Trudeau, Fisheries and Oceans – Oral Questions, March 28th, 2018 / 3 p.m.

There you you have it, right out of the mouth of a trusted politicians, the top-ranking one in Canada. The deal is on the up and up. It is not to enrich relatives of sitting members of the Liberal Party. It will instead “significantly enhance indigenous participation in the offshore fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, and allow the benefits of this lucrative fishery,”  by giving it a handicap in the form of some real competition from outside, non-indigenous interests under the control and ownership of relatives of sitting members of the Liberal Party.

Even Justin Trudeau says so. Therefore, it must be true. Surely, no one can be so dense as not to be able to see the truth of that. 😉

Posted in Corruption, Economy | Comments Off on Shady deal involving Canadian Atlantic Fishery

Weather Forecast Accuracy

The weather forecast accuracy, or rather the persistent lack of it, has been bothering me for a long time. I had wanted to get an appreciation of what I had suspected and what is virtually never mentioned, namely that weather forecasts consistently miss their mark and by how much.  That is a fairly important issue, it seems. After all, if forecasters cannot accurately predict what local weather conditions will be a few days or even only one day in advance, what hope is there that climate change for the end of the century can be predicted with a credible or even only reasonable degree of accuracy  for the end of the century?

Many people love the dog-and-pony show presented by various weather forecasters, who ultimately all get their meteorological information on which they base their forecasts – indeed, even the forecasts themselves – from the same sources, satellite measurements.  Local variations and circumstances are provided to some extent by local weather stations, whose measurement  data  is fed back to national weather services.  The latter feed all of those data into their computers, do the number crunching, and then send the results of the calculations back to local weather forecasters.

The forecasters put those results into graphic format that they make available to the public in the presentations during the news hour and on the Internet.  The members of the public who are the consumers of that information are eager and happy to have the latest information on the weather – never mind that what they get to see of the forecast components are the results of calculations on data that is a few hours old and is never or at best rarely and even then only coincidentally accurate.

The following three screen shots of weather forecast results are a case in point.  They are for Edmonton, Canada and for nearby Elk Island National Park (the latter is identified in the graphs by the designation of its weather station, CWFE).  They cover a few of the attributes of forecast and actual attributes of weather conditions that weather forecasters and their fans relish and revel in.

Forecast and actual conditions for Edmonton and nearby Elk Island National Park:

2018 05 04:

Weather forecast and actual conditions Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park 2018 05 04

Weather forecast and actual conditions
Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park
2018 05 04 11 pm

2018 05 07:


Weather forecast and actual conditions
Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park
2018 05 07 11 pm

2018 05 10:


Weather forecast and actual conditions
Edmonton, Canada and Elk Island National Park
2018 05 10 9 am

The comparing of forecasts and actual conditions is a bit difficult, when using those three screen shots, but by rearranging the components according to attributes (Temperature, Cloud Cover, Conditions (rain), and Precipitation Rate), visual comparisons are easier.
Weather Attributes — Forecast vs. Actual Edmonton, Canada and nearby Elk Island Park (CWFE) May 4 to 10, 2018

Weather Attributes — Forecast vs. Actual
Edmonton, Canada and nearby Elk Island Park (CWFE) May 4 to 10, 2018

Data sources are indicated at the bottom of the web page at WolframAlpha from where the screen shots were taken.

Four attributes are indicated in the images: temperature, cloud cover, conditions (rain), and precipitation rate per hour. Only one of those, temperature, was persistently forecast with reasonable accuracy. The forecasts for the others were consistently proved wrong by reality.

That performance is nothing to be proud of.  Don’t take bets on the weather forecasts, especially not on whether it will be cloudy, raining or raining much or little.  It appears likely that the opposite will happen from what the forecast called for.  Even if the forecast was made just one or two days earlier.

Regardless of how wrong or useless weather forecasts are, they do serve a purpose.  They attract large viewing audiences and are a sure-fire method for conveying many TV commercials to a captive audience.

Posted in Climate & Weather | Comments Off on Weather Forecast Accuracy

Rente retten

Rente retten – Dieser Auftrag einer neuen Kommission von zehn Experten macht Claudia Kirn Sorgen, und sie (mit allen anderen Rentnern in Deutschland, wie auch in allen anderen entwickelten Staaten) ist berechtigt sich darüber Sorgen zu machen.

Rente Retten - SPIEGEL ONLINE - Wirtschaft Zuaellig oder absichtlich, Thema verfehlt

Rente retten – SPIEGEL ONLINE – Wirtschaft
Zufällig oder absichtlich, Thema verfehlt

“Die deutsche Gesellschaft überaltert, vor allem wegen der stark steigenden Lebenserwartung,” stellt der Spiegel Artikel fest.  Nee, wirklich?  Ist das Problem nicht, dass nicht mehr genügend Arbeitnehmer produziert werden oder dass sie ungenügende Steuern zahlen, weil die Arbeitsstellen nach Südost Asien and andere Länder exportiert wurden?

Was die stark steigende Lebenserwartung angeht, die Behauptung ist leider stark übertrieben, da die Realität sehr stark von den übertriebenen Erwartungen abweicht.

Nach dem Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation hörten die ”stark steigenden Lebenserwartungen” in Deutschland schon 2015 auf anzusteigen.  Es wäre besser gesagt, dass schon wenigstens seit 1990 die aktuellen deutschen Lebensdauern viel schneller als die geschätzten Lebenserwartungen anstiegen, obwohl die Lebensdauern in 2015 ein Niveau erreichten welches sie möglicherweise nicht mehr überschreiten, und von dem sie sehr wahrscheinlich nun anfangen werden abzufallen.
Mehr: Davon:

Wie lange leben die Menschen (in Deutschland)?

Ein Vergleich von deutschen Lebenserwartungen und Lebensdauern

Ein Vergleich von deutschen Lebenserwartungen und Lebensdauern

Sonst aber ist es ganz gut, dass man sich über solche Sachen nun endlich Sorgen macht.  Es wäre nicht notwendig das Rad wieder zu erfinden. Man könnte sehr wahrscheinlich etwas von den Japanern oder den Chinesen lernen, da diese sich über solche Sachen schon seit langer Weile Sorgen machten.  Man würde dadurch wohl keine guten Lösungen finden, aber wenigstens würden solche Erwägungen es ermöglichen die Alternativen auszumerzen, die keine praktischen Lösungen bringen können.

Hier (von dem Artikel im Spiegel) ist das fallende Rentenniveau von dem Claudia Kirn sprach:

Rentenniveau - unsichere Prognose

Rentenniveau – unsichere Prognose

Claudia Kirn machte dann noch eine weitere Bemerkung:

Claudia Kirn's weitere Anmerkung

Claudia Kirn’s weitere Anmerkung

Worauf ich dann noch Dieses festzustellen hatte (welches ich früh am Morgen in den Diskussionsfaden gestellt hatte, worauf es ohne Warnung der Zensur zum Opfer fiel, wonach ich es noch einmal versuchte):

Claudia Kirn, man hatte wohl meinen Kommentar unbequem gefunden, weshalb er ausradiert wurde? Deshalb werde ich ihn noch einmal zeigen:

»Es wird sich alles von selbst lösen. Deutschland ist einer von 39 Staaten oder Gebieten deren Bevölkerungen schrumpfen (trotz der vielen Einwanderer).

Es gibt noch eine andere wichtige Überlegung, in dem Zusammenhang. Wenn die eingeborenen Deutschen sich zögern ihre Rentner zu versorgen, warum sollte man erwarten, dass die Einwanderer es fröhlicher tun? Es scheint als ob sie sich eher weigern werden.«

Den Diskussionsfaden hier sehen.

Wenn ein Versicherungsunternehmen es gewagt hätte, in die Fonds einzusteigen, die seine Auszahlungsbeträge aus seinen Versicherungsverträgen in Höhe von 700 Milliarden Euro sichern, würde sich sein Gesamtverwaltungsrat ins Gefängnis bringen. Regierungen haben einen Vorteil.  Wenn sie solche schweren Verbrechen begehen oder begehen wollen, können  sie die legalisieren und routinemäßig begehen, ohne sich Sorgen über die Folgen für die Straftäter zu machen, da irgenwelche Folgen nicht zu befürchten sind.  Der Spiegel Artikel schlägt Lösungen vor:

Um auf diese Entwicklung zu reagieren, bleiben im Grunde nur vier Stellschrauben:

  • der Beitragssatz, um die Einnahmen innerhalb des Systems zu erhöhen,
  • das Rentenniveau, um die Ausgaben innerhalb des Systems zu senken,
  • das Eintrittsalter, um den Altenquotienten zu senken und
  • die Höhe des Steuerzuschusses, um die Einnahmen außerhalb des Systems zu erhöhen.

So werden solche enorme Defizite dann zur Strecke gebracht, indem man die Steuerzahler  damit bürdet and man sie streckt bis sie brechen.

Größere Lebensdauern waren ein gewünschtes Ziel. Nicht so sehr daraus ergab sich dann das Problem dass man nun lösen möchte. Es sind aber nicht die größeren Lebensdauern, sondern dass ”seit Jahrzehnten zu wenig Kinder geboren werden” was das Problem verursacht. Dass wirklich größte Problem ist dass man alles Mögliche versucht die sehr einfache Lösung für die Ursache des Problems nicht sehen zu wollen und noch nicht einmal erwähnt.  Das wäre (und hätte schon vor Jahrzehnten gefördert werden sollen):

  • Die deutschen Geburtenziffern müssen höher gebracht werden.

Margaret Thatcher war eine begeisterte Leserin von Friedrich von Hayeks Schriften und studierte sie.  Ein Ergebnis davon war einer ihrer berühmtesten Sprüche: “Das Problem mit dem Sozialismus ist, dass eventuell das Geld anderer Leute nicht mehr ausreicht.”

Deutschland will nicht nur seine Ersparnisse and das Zahlungsvermögen gegenwärtiger and zukünftiger Steuerzahler erschöpfen, es will sich außerdem noch zu den Kindern von Eltern in anderen Teilen der Welt helfen, bis dann auch keine Kinder anderer Leute mehr zu haben sind.

Posted in Ageing, Censorship, Economy, Family | Comments Off on Rente retten

Sources of Indian rape statistics deplorable

In reference to Indian rape statistics, Siddharthasankar Mukherjee stated:

Indian feminist, Indian secular and Indian commu are the most formidable character-assassinators of India. The proof is here. Compare epidemic rape-hysteria and following data.

Indian rape statistics

Indian rape statistics in the context of rape statistics for other countries

Wikipedia is neither the best nor the most reliable source of either rape statistic for any country or of rape statistics for India.

The Wikipedia article you indicated states: “Times of India reported the data by National Crime Records Bureau unveiling that 93 women are being raped in India every day[133]

When you follow that reference to the indicated Times of India article, you will find this:

93 women are being raped in India every day, NCRB data show

Christin Mathew Philip | TNN | Updated: Jul 1, 2014, 12:46 IST

That article states: “According to NCRB data, there is a gradual increase in the number of rapes reported in India – from 24,923 in 2012 to 33,707 in 2013.”

Dividing 365 into 33,707 results in 92.35 women being raped each day. Rounded down, that would be 92 women, not 93 women being raped each day, but why quibble over a little rounding error? In a country with 1.3 billion inhabitants, things happen.

The Wikipedia article, in the section, “By country,” contains a table,
“Rape at the national level, number of police-recorded offenses,” that shows NCRB rape statistics for India, as shown here:

India — Rape Statistics

India — Rape Statistics


Why does the Wikipedia article not contain the latest NCRB data? The latest NCRB rape statistics would have been reported in 2017 for the year 2016.

The Wikipedia article states:

“The National Crime Records Bureau of India suggests a reported rape rate of 2 per 100,000 people, much lower than reported rape incidence rate in the local Indian media.[35][132] However, Times of India reported the data by National Crime Records Bureau unveiling that 93 women are being raped in India every day[133]

Rape is the fourth-most common crime against women in India.[134][135]…”

How can one believe statements such as “The National Crime Records Bureau of India suggests a reported rape rate of 2 per 100,000 people”? The NCRB suggests nothing of the sort! The rape incidence rates identified by the NCRB for 2004 to 2010 quite clearly state that in not one of the indicated years is the rape incidence rate higher than 1.8 per 100,000 (10 1 Lakh) population, by far one of the lowest rape incidence rates of all countries in the world. That is worth celebrating! It shows that, in a country with close to 1.3 billion residents things happen. They happen more often than they do in countries with much smaller populations, but in India they happen far less often than is the norm in the world!

It shows that, compared to rape incidence rates in the rest of the world, India’s women are some of the least-likely of all to be raped! Why does no one ever mention that? That leads people to assume that India’s politicians and officials – in concert with the Indian media – are engaged in a systematic program of vilifying and deprecating India’s men.

Yet, one other aspect in relation to the undeserved focus on India’s women in regard to rape statistics glares by its absence. Where are the statistics that show how many Indian men are being raped?

Do not think for a moment that no men are being raped, or that men can only be raped by other men.

Here are some circumstances in the U.S. that should make India’s public officials and policy makers take a closer look at Indian rape statistics.

Rape – propaganda talking-point debunked

After all, Indians are human, too. They live on the same planet as do other humans. Indians have human failings as all other humans do. It is a great injustice to one half of India’s population, the male half, to misrepresent the crimes it commits and to ignore the crimes committed against its members.

What are Indian men’s rights activists doing to illustrate the NCRB data in ways the NCRB does not, to show crimes against men and crimes against women, side by side, so clearly and so easily comprehensible that the Indian media and the media of the world use it as their first place to go to when they collect information on articles for any selected victim group of their choice?

Do Indian men’s rights activists plan to take the leadership in becoming the most reliable and most trusted source of such information? It needs to be nothing more than better presentation of official crime statistics, with links to articles that present corrections of misrepresentations of crime statistics by India’s official source of such statistics, namely the NCRB.

Let there be no mistake. India’s NCRB does lie about its own statistics. The NCRB has a long record of misrepresenting accurate statistics in ways that turn public perceptions about who comprises the major victim group (men) on their head, so that women are being perceived to be the primary victims of crimes and discrimination.

Commenting on this posting: Why not leave a comment at Siddharthasankar Mukherjee‘s FB discussion thread that caused this posting to be made?


Posted in False Allegations, Feminism, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed, Violence by Proxy | Comments Off on Sources of Indian rape statistics deplorable

Blog Rules

An orderly blog needs blog rules.  There can be no order without rules.  Without rules there is chaos.

This is a moderated blog. At the present time, individual blog entries are open to comment for no longer than 30 days, each, and are closed to comments after that interval.  The interval may be expanded indefinitely if I manage to get the problem of spammer-subscriptions under control.  For now, that problem is the overwhelmingly primary reason dads & things is a moderated blog.  Some spam gets through spam detection, I still receive close to 100 spammer subscription a day, and I just finished deleting 32,000 of them.  Moderation permits me to stay on top of that issue.  No one would like the looks of the blog unless it is moderated.

The blog is closed for comments, but I can be reached at FaceBook. I may not respond immediately but will try.  If you wish to have something posted at the blog that should be seen by others, send it to my FB address, but make sure to follow the blog rules listed here:

Blog Rules

  1. Keep your comments short.  Consider that a longer posting should, and may perhaps require to, be posted as a guest-post, so that it can become the beginning of a new discussion thread.
  2. When making a comment, stay on topic.  The title of the initiating posting usually states what the topic is.
  3. Make no ad-hominem attacks (any statement that: a. appeals to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, or b. is marked by or is an attack on an opponent’s character rather than being a response to the contentions made).
  4. Do not swear or use vile language.
  5. Do not call for revolutions or assassinations.
  6. Do not deprecate ethnic or racial origins.
  7. Use facts and logic in your comments.
  8. You will not be permitted to point to any location of information without stating which specific item of information at that location it is that you refer to and wish the reader to look up.  In addition to that, you must also state sufficient details that will enable anyone to find with ease the exact location of a specific item of information you are using to illustrate or support your point of view.
  9. Do not base your comments on political correctness. (Political correctness usually precludes logic and facts and is generally based on unsubstantiated opinions.)
  10. Do not troll or pile on (to pile on is to respond to an argument without properly answering a point that was made but to offer instead more opinions that are not or at best only remotely related to the contention).
  11. Postings may not contain or point to advertising, so as to promote a product or service, but they may identify advertising to illustrate a point under discussion, if the advertising is used to deprecate or slander fathers and families.
  12. In general, this blog permits freedom of speech.  With the ever-intensifying promotion of more self-centeredness, especially through the education system during the last few generations, it has come to pass that many people now see freedom of speech as the right to say anything they want, without regard to whether what they say is true or a violation of the standards of civility.  That is not a view that is tolerated here.
    At dads & things freedom of speech is encouraged, but it is constrained by the obligation to express the truth that can be backed up by information from credible sources and by the obligation to extend common decency to others.
    Rights bring responsibilities and obligations.  Without duties and responsibilities no rights can be exercised or enjoyed.  Without that there will be mob rule and chaos.
  13. A comment that does not meet all of the preceding rules will not be posted.



My other half and I hope that you will be able to subscribe to the blog, so that you can contribute to making this blog a success in support of fathers and families, because they are what it is all about.  As long as FB reigns in its greed for the power to socially engineer society and to mold it into the shape it wants, as long as FB permits people to write to me, that is, as long as FB does not censor me, get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB (the same blog rules apply there).

Please let us have your comments. Get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB


Posted in Organizational News | 4 Comments

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, …Bureaucrat, Bureaucracies are forever

(2017 words)
Last updated 2018 10 12 

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief, Doctor, Lawyer, Merchant, Chief (ahem, that is, bureaucrat).  It is not so much the politicians who drive the evolution towards censorship and control by the state. The bureaucrats are the main movers of it. The politicians come and go. Bureaucracies are forever.

Bureaucracies have their own agendas, powerful ones, all-pervasive and intrepid. They are the ones who make the necessary things (and many others besides) happen. Politicians have some influence. Most of them just come along for the ride. The bureaucrats are far more numerous and have much more power that is always being used. The bureaucracy is the wagon that virtually no politicians can steer, but that they happily use to hitch rides.

The maxim "Bureaucracies are forever" applies in many localities — NJ lawmaker introducing bill to legalize marijuana

No doubt, when aiming high, fly high.
Why not? Grow the planet and make everyone feel good!
(Let’s hope that whoever designed that poster figures out that he is
urging the wrong thing to be taxed, before he lights up another toke.)

It is highly unlikely that any elected politician(s) will ever be powerful enough to tell the wagon of the bureaucracy where to go, in other words, be in control of it and drive it (through taxes, censorship, red tape, whatever you may desire or are bothered by). The driving of the wagon that is the bureaucracy is being done by powerful bureaucrats.  That helps to ensure that bureaucracies are forever.

Take just one example,  Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise that under his term the trade in pot would be legalized.  Of course he felt compelled to say that. It was a calculated move that helped to bring a good number of voters to the polls, voters that otherwise would never have bothered. How could Justin Trudeau resist?  It is a dream come true, for any bureaucrat worth his salt, to legalize the lively trade of pot in Canada!  Nevertheless, promising that it be done is easy, getting it done is hard work.  It is work that bureaucrats are made for. 

It takes the creation and re-writing of rules and red tape, one consequence of deciding that what was illegal is now legal.  That involves:

  • All and every one of the bureaucratic sectors and departments involved in jurisprudence;
  • The creation and rewriting of rules for industry and commerce.  It must be decided who can do it, who may do it, who must do it, how much of it, how, of what quality, when and where, market studies, audit trails and much more.  It must be decided what it will cost (while no bureaucrat can possibly know how much it will cost; don’t think that bureaucrats are all-knowing);
  • Making an estimate of how much money it will cost the government to produce pot, control it, administer and control the production and trade, and of how much can be raked off in tax revenues;
  • Travelling by the Prime Minister and many bureaucrats (separate trips, conveyances and accommodations, of course, to drum up foreign trade and to make foreign-trade agreements.  There are precedents, fortunately, as Canada once before tried to corner the world market on the production and trade in hemp products (sail cloth and ropes made from hemp, whose production the government heavily subsidized, unfortunately in vain, as the advent of steamships grew to be very detrimental to those plans);
  • Making more rules for how to collect the taxes. the designing of all the forms, applications, permits and exemptions that will apply, and of course to bring all of that to bear in government budget estimates, do I need to go on?

The legalization of pot, just as the legalization of gambling, tobacco, alcohol or any other vice, is a bureaucrat’s wet dream.  That is why the bureaucracy will go along with it and make it go, even if it should break the Country.  After all, it is much work and a great boon for employment that presents untold career opportunities for self-respecting bureaucrats.  It makes the Canadian bureaucracy a growth industry with plenty of opportunities for growth, a grow-op!  Long live the bureaucracy!  Bureaucracies are forever.

How do the people manage?

If you wonder where that leaves us, we are the horses that pull the wagon. Between the bureaucrats who tell us where to go, how fast, how long and when, and the politicians who go along for the ride and make us believe that they are our leaders, and that they act in our best interests, we can only hope that we are always told to go into the right direction and that we get fed.

Politicians come and go. If lucky, they will last at least one whole term until the next election comes along. Usually, bureaucrats outlast even the most long-lived politicians. The wagon of the bureaucracy is self-renewing, self-controlling, essentially autonomous (except for the little detail of the tax revenues it consumes to keep the bureaucracy in fine shape). Bureaucracies usually see Politicians as temporary inconveniences, necessary evils, meddlers that must be tolerated, their plans and objectives to be supported if useful for the purposes of the bureaucracy — to be circumvented, opposed and even sabotaged, if seen as being counter-productive to its aims.

The first order of business for a bureaucracy is to create business for itself, business that caters to the self-interests and well-being of the bureaucracy.  C. Northcote Parkinson knew a thing or two about bureaucracies. He knew why they grow inexorably.  He expressed that in Parkinson’s Law. We owe him eternal gratitude for pointing out that the inevitable cannot be changed, that bureaucracies are forever, that a bureaucracy’s “Work expands so as to fill available time,” and that the unavoidable corollary is that “Expenditure rises to meet income—and tends to surpass it.”  That quite nicely demonstrates that there are virtually never any budget surpluses but with virtual certainty always budget overruns.  That also never fails to get politicians elected, who – time and again – promise to put an end to what cannot be changed.

Yet, whenever a discussion turns to the consequences of a bureaucracy’s actions and inexorable growth, the thought gets expressed, “How much longer to the next election?”  As if that would make a difference!  It never did before.  After all, the bureaucracy that is the cause of the concern that the hoped-for election is to fix existed since time-immemorial; not because it got elected, but because it never did get elected, it always existed, and it always will.  No election will fix that.  Bureaucracies are forever and always were.

Do we need to go along with it all?  That depends, and we must come to terms with this:

“A government is not the expression of the popular will, but rather the expression of what a nation’s people are willing to endure.”

 — Kurt Tucholsky

Many people throughout history tried to fix the problem through revolutions, bloody or administrative, which says nothing about their effectiveness or the extents to which they are harmful or even deadly. Still, the deconstruction of the patriarchy, whenever that was attempted – whether that was through things like the Bolshevik revolution in Russia or revolutions that were to create Utopia in any other country, or on account of the feminist, global re-engineering of civilization, to get rid of the patriarchal family once and for all – it had no effect on the existence of the bureaucracies, other than to increase their power.  The bureaucracies survived them all, to become the new law and order, with a vengeance, in every single case, unhindered (because all resistance, protection and hope for opposition had been removed), the Parens Patriae (Latin for “parent of the country”; lit., “parent of the fatherland”), with powers over everyone that were and are far in excess of anything the bureaucracies had before all protection against the rising powers of bureaucracies had been removed.

The hallmark of totalitarian regimes always was and always will be that the powers and the excesses of their bureaucracies, on whom they rely for their existence and effectiveness of the oppression for which the are the tool, is far greater, far more terrible than elsewhere or when, where people could or can enjoy life more because freedom still ruled or rules.

Bureaucracies are forever, even though they can become cancers, ranging from being benign to being extremely malignant. Still, whether a bureaucracy contributed much or little to the untimely demise of the society it lived on, a bureaucracy will be the very last thing that perishes after a nation or civilization exhausted itself while trying to support the bureaucracy that it hosted.

Bureaucracies and civilization are inseparable

Through the cycles of empires – from their births, through feudalism, monarchies, democracies, increasing socialism into totalitarianism and dictatorship, even through conquest by outside forces and the ultimate decline back into chaos – the bureaucracy always is, until the last remnant of humanity expires.  For all practical intents and purposes, bureaucracies are forever.

The most important career-decision anyone ever made was when he decided whether he would work for the bureaucracy, or the bureaucracy would work him, for – win or lose – just as with medical doctors or lawyers, as long as there is demand for them (remember and never forget: bureaucracies are forever), bureaucrats will always get paid, for as long as there is someone capable of paying the taxes required for that.

Even Hitler knew that, but that is a different story, although it is much the same, as Hitler, too, managed to turn the bureaucracy of his time into something that could no longer be controlled, by removing the controls that had kept the German bureaucracy in check for about 400 years.  He had promised aspiring bureaucrats without employment jobs when he would get into power, if only they would work for him and support him in getting there.  They did, and he made good on that promise.  Hitler was not as sophisticated as he was honest.  His lure was law and order, and employment, not the legalization of illegal substances, but you’ve got to admit, he delivered in spades, because he got the help of the whole bureaucracy, all of it, not just a few portions of it required to legalize just one illegal substance.

With the help of a German bureaucracy that grew to cancerous proportions, Hitler managed in an interval of about six years to change Germany’s fortunes from rags to riches.  Within about another six years he blew all of it and left Germany in ruins, rubble and ashes, and he could have done neither without the help of a bureaucracy that he had caused to grow to cancerous proportions.

Hitler died by his own hand, at the end of that, but the bureaucracy he used to make that roller coaster ride happen survived, unscathed, uncontrolled, uncontrollable and more of a cancer than ever before, with the bureaucracy now changing its strategy: If Germany and its bureaucracy cannot conquer the world, invite the world (at least the people of the poor third world nations) to come and conquer Germany.  That is no skin off the back of the German bureaucrats.  Their bureaucracy will still be around, and its bureaucrats will still get paid.  The bureaucracy does not care who the taxpayers are that feed it, as long as they consume goods and services, and as long as they pay taxes.

Justin Trudeau’s Dad knew how well total control works in that respect, because, he once remarked to his dear friend, Fidel Castro, that it would be much easier to accomplish reforms in Canada, if only he could do them the way Fidel Castro did them in Cuba.

»Mary McCarthy’s warning that “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism,” like Agenda 21, is alive and well.«

—Tim Ball, Ph.D.
in the conclusion of his commentary in the following example:


See also:

Posted in Censorship, History | 1 Comment