Efforts to bring about equality of outcomes destroy freedom, as explained in this:
“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”
—Milton and Rose Friedman, in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
That is wonderful, but clause 3 of article 15 appears to contradict clause 1 and 2 of article 15. Is that contradiction not the legal foundation for the anti-male discrimination that concerns Indian men and mens rights activists? Read and weep:
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
So very few words explain so much! Furthermore, consider what The Constitution of India does not say about discrimination against men. It does not identify that there must be any limits to the extent of discrimination against Indian men authorized by clause 3 of article 15.
By making it a principle of the law to allow special provisions for women and children, The Constitution of India created a new caste for men that is lower than that of the Dalits. What kind of men were those that helped to bring that upon Indian men?
Clause 3 of article 15 of The Constitution of India set a precedent for subsequently adding clause 4 and 5, which intensified the constitutional promotion of the equality of outcomes.
1[(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.] 2[(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.]
___________ 1Added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, s. 2. 2Ins. by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, s. 2 (w.e.f. 20-1-2006).
In his ode Song of the Bell (1799), Friedrich von Schiller stated this about freedom and equality:
Beware, when in the cities’ womb
The fire-tinder has accumulated,
The citizenry, breaking its chains,
Frightfully seizes arms to help itself!
Then tears at the ropes of the bell
The uprising, that she clamors howlingly,
And, only meant to sound in times of peace,
The password gives to violence.
Freedom and Equality! one hears proclaimed,
The peaceful citizen is driven to arms,
The streets are filling, the halls,
The vigilante-bands are moving,
Then women change into hyenas
And make a plaything out of terror,
Though it twitches still, with panthers teeth,
They tear apart the enemy’s heart.
Nothing is holy any longer, loosened
Are all ties of righteousness,
The good gives room to bad,
And all vices freely rule.
Dangerous it is to wake the lion,
Ruinous is the tiger’s tooth,
But the most terrible of all the terrors,
That is the mensch  when crazed.
Woe to those, who lend to the eternally-blind
Enlightenment’s heavenly torch!
It does not shine for him, it only can ignite
And puts to ashes towns and lands.
Male circumcision is being done a lot. It is a good source of income for the medical industry and will continue to be done for profit as long as profits doing the procedure can be made. Male circumcision is a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.
Circumcision makes for happy baby boys?
Although circumcision is expensive, and even though that is good for the medical industry, one thing is certain, the ads that promote the procedure often show photos of smiling baby boys. The impression one is being left with by those photos is that circumcision makes baby boys happy.
Circumcision makes baby boys happy?
Whether it is covered by health insurance or not,
“…circumcision for an older child or adult male typically costs $800-$3,000 or more. For example, Gentle Circumcision charges $850 for children 1 to 17 years, $1,500 for adults if local anesthesia is used and $3,000 for adults if general anesthesia is used. Harold Reed, M.D. charges $250 for an initial consultation and $1,750 for the surgery, including doctor fee, anesthesia and facility fee, for a total of $2,000. And The Circumcision Center in Georgia charges $2,500 if the foreskin is retractable and $3,000 if the foreskin is not retractable.” More….
That is what doctors and co-beneficiaries in the U.S. receive for a single procedure. It is not clear whether those costs include hospital charges. If there are any complications from the procedure, the costs can escalate far higher than $3,000.
The costs in Canada are, for example, in
Pricing for Infant Circumcision: The cost for circumcising a baby under 4 weeks of age is $299 plus applicable taxes.
The price increases with age, and we offer procedures for boys up to 1 year old, as well as for adult men.
Pricing for Adult Circumcision: The cost for adult circumcision at our Toronto clinic is $1697. More….
According to various statements at this discussion thread, costs to parents for single circumcisions of baby boys range from $200 to $600. That is apparently what parents pay. The contribution by a health insurance plan would be over and above that. More….
Good luck with getting accurate information on the cost of circumcision. Look at this information provided by a professional:
“….The procedure is covered when it is medically indicated. Otherwise it is considered an elective procedure. It can be performed by a qualified pediatrician or urologist. It can be done in hospital or a clinic. It also can be done by a trained non-physician for ritualistic circumcisions.
The cost of the procedure varies based on who does it and where it is performed (typically more expensive in a hospital than a clinic). You are right that the typical cost is approximately $400 [quite likely not including hospital costs — Walter] or more [when including hospital costs —Walter]. Speak with your family doctor or pediatrician about who is qualified in your area and whether there might be a sliding scale for payment based on your personal circumstances.
CIRCUMCISION RATES DECREASING:
Number of infants circumcised in Canadian hospitals in 1995-1996: 35,731
Number of infants circumcised in Canadian hospitals in 2008-2009: 13,157
– Canadian Institute for Health Information
Published in May, 2011.” More….
Circumcision surgical procedure not without risk
This Wikipedia article on the circumcision surgical procedure (there is a fairly large variety of them) goes into some detail on the risk of circumcision.
“Complications may include bleeding, infection, and too little or too much tissue removal. Deaths are rare. After the newborn period, circumcision has a higher risk of complications, especially bleeding and anesthetic complications.” —Wikipedia article, second paragraph in Introduction
“The American Academy of Pediatrics reviewed one study of 1,000 newborn Gomco circumcisions in a hospital setting in Saudi Arabia and rated it “fair evidence.” The study found an overall complication rate of 1.9%. Bleeding occurred in 0.6% of cases, infection in 0.4%, and insufficient foreskin removed in 0.3%.” —Wikipedia article, Gomco Clamp
The Wikipedia article on circumcision describes seven more surgical instruments and “in situ” devices, whose risks range from that “the glans can be pulled into the slit and crushed or partially severed.” (resulting in damage awards of more than ten million dollars) to a variety of consequences and severity in up to 5% of procedures.
A consolation offered by the article is, as quoted above, that “Deaths are rare.” That means that deaths due to circumcisions are not unheard of.
All of that of course helps to drive up the costs of health care services and health insurance. It is extremely doubtful that the controversial health benefits of circumcision are of primary concern in the promotion of and demand for the procedure.
General context of the history and social traditions of circumcision
Wikipedia does of course have an article on that. That article does not delve much into the discriminatory circumstances of circumcision (re: male vs. female circumcision), other than to state in its first line: “This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital mutilation.”
A much more informative and far more exhaustive exploration of that subject is contained in this:
The practice of female circumcision or infibulation – otherwise known by such emotive and value-laden neologisms as ‘female genital mutilation’ and ‘female genital cutting’ – is unlawful throughout the West and indeed most of the world.
“Surveying patterns of genital mutilation cross-culturally, two findings become very clear. First, male genital mutilation is far more commonly practised cross-culturally than is female genital mutilation; and, second, the forms male genital mutilation has taken, and continues to take, among some pre-modern and ‘primitive’ peoples are at least as brutal as any form of genital mutilation to which females have been subjected.”
Throughout the West, the practice is opposed across the entirety of the mainstream political spectrum, from the nationalist and anti-Islamic ‘far-right’, who associate the practice with African and Islamic third-world barbarism, to the feminist-infested far-left, who associate the practice with the alleged ‘patriarchal oppression of women’ in traditional societies.
In contrast, however, male circumcision is widely tolerated, entirely lawful and indeed widely practiced even within the borders of liberal democratic Western polities.
In contrast to the high profile and widely supported campaigns to eradicate female circumcision worldwide, opposition to male circumcision is decidedly marginal and muted.
Indeed, such opposition as does exist seems to be largely confined a marginal fringe, composed largely of (1) anti-religious secularists, who associate the practice with outdated superstition and religious barbarism; (2) anti-Semites, who associate the practice with the allegedly unique barbarism and cruelty of the Jews; and finally, (3) Men’s Rights Activists, who see the practice as an example of how society tolerates and sanctions violence against the male body…. (much more)
Men are worthless — pity mothers is not an odd statement, regarding the discovery of the body of a dead soldier, just a boy, after it had been covered by ice for almost 100 years. It is a common reaction, when observers express their sadness caused by the loss of lives, not in relation to the fallen boy soldiers but to the pain that the mothers of the boys who died must have felt.
“Dr Nicolis, who watched the autopsy of the most recent bodies, told MailOnline: ‘It was very emotional. The first moment I looked at the boy I thought about his mother, who would have seen him for the last time and never heard from her young son again.'”
It is speculation that their mothers may have mourned on account of the uncertainty over having lost their sons. The pain felt by the fathers of the fallen doesn’t matter, I guess, although that is speculation, too, although with far greater conviction. After all, it’s not just that men don’t matter, people don’t want them to matter. To deny that fathers may feel pain over the loss of their sons makes it certain.
What are such speculations based on? Do the pains of the boys who died not matter? Boys will be boys, and as they are predestined to die painful deaths, no need to mention that they had been the primary victims, that they had suffered? Fathers will be fathers, and they don’t matter, as they feel no pain when they die and, anyway, they are incapable of mourning the losses of their sons?
Almost 100 years after losing their lives in ferocious First World War battle, melting ice reveals the bodies of the fallen.
Frozen in time: Mummified remains of two teenage Austrian soldiers were found in the Presena Glacier in 2012. Dr Franco Nicolis, Director of the Office of Archaeological Heritage in Trentino, blamed global warming My note: Glacier ice flows downhill. How fast it flows depends on a number of things, one of which is that a warm climate may cause more snow to fall on a given glacier. —WHS
“Ah yes. Those were the days when the women had it worse.
… so much so, apparently, that while tens of thousands of British men were being killed on the battlefields every month, the Suffragettes were disrupting the British war effort by smashing windows, firebombing homes and engaging in acts of civil disobedience because, apparently, women were being hard done by compared to men.
And they were also handing out white feathers, signifying cowardice, to men who were not wearing military uniforms.” —Angry Harry
This is what Hillary Clinton expressed about that men are worthless:
“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.” — Hillary Clinton, in a speech at the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998
The point made by Hillary Clinton, namely that men are worthless (or not worth enough), was made even more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice. She was then involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. She commented on the mass murder of Croatian men:
“My mental image of a mass grave was that it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up almost in file,” she recalled last week. “But these bodies were thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about was their mothers.” Arbour is a mother of three herself, although “it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and that’s not something you get here in the office every day. I watched the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were demanding,” she said, and there was not even a hint of sentimentality in her voice, “that their mothers be told.” (Full Story —2018 08 13: The link is now broken.)
There you have it, from an ‘impartial’ source, Louise Arbour, former Canadian Supreme Court Justice, involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague: men are worthless.
FOR SALE – NEW WORLD ETHIC
“Whether we like it or not, the nation state is already dead – the flags that millions of men died for are worthless rags to be despised, set fire to and trampled in the dust.”
The Toonie (a.k.a. the Screw)
“…the natives are becoming restless. A man told me the other day that he found a way to equalize the female Canadian soldier in UN uniform that is depicted on Canada’s new $10 bill, the Beaver. He uses a ball point pen to modify her image, so that she is equipped with the right weapon, a pair of testicles and a penis.”
The Politics of Sex – Radical Feminism’s Assault on American Culture
“Perhaps the most vicious aspect of radical feminism is that it necessarily criticizes and demeans women who choose to work primarily as mothers and homemakers. They are made to feel guilty and told that their lives are essentially worthless.” Yes, but the way men are made to feel is second to that? Perhaps in the eyes of Robert H. Bork, but not in the eyes of the radical feminists, who made it their mission to make men feel much more worthless than women who choose to work primarily as mothers and homemakers.
Posted inMen's Issues|Comments Off on Men are worthless — pity mothers
Misattributed paternity in non-contested paternity cases is ubiquitous, not as rare as often claimed (about one in a 100) but more likely about one in ten.
Evidence for the scale of surprising paternity
What is the evidence that it exists, and what does the evidence say about its scale?
A good indication that it exists is the disquiet about paternity tests! Those who criticise the availability of these tests do so because they have no doubt that a proportion of tests will bear bad tidings. Here are items from various sources, in various years, and in various countries. This material suggests that about 1 in 10 children have surprising paternity….
Source: “Knowledge is bliss” : Towards a society without paternity surprises, by
Barry Pearson, 11th September 2002
“1 in 10 children have surprising paternity”? Surprising for the falsely alleged dads, but not so likely surprising for the baby mamas. After all, it is not very conceivable that the baby mamas did not notice how, when, where and by whom they became pregnant.
We frequently have men contacting us about issues relating to problems they encounter with child visitation rights, child support payments, separation and divorce. We routinely tell such men that, before they invest a good portion of the rest of their lives and life earnings into fighting for their rights, they must ensure that they are the biological fathers of the child(ren) involved.
The usual reaction is that there is no problem with the issue of their paternity, upon which we explain to them that they need to make certain through a DNA test for paternity, so that they will know, instead of merely believing that they are the natural fathers of the children involved. There are very practical and compelling reasons that they must make sure. Consider:
Misattributed paternity is virtually always outright paternity fraud, “theft on a grand scale”.
Is Caring for Your own Children ‘Unpaid’ or ‘Overpaid’?
While wives and ex-wives typically receive recompense for the housework they perform from their husbands, ex-husbands and partners, mothers also receive payments for the childcare they perform even if they are single and were never married to the child’s father. These payments come in two forms:
Similarly the obligation on the taxpayer to support single mothers and their offspring is imposed despite the fact that taxpayers and the state are similarly denied any say over the decision whether to abort the child or carry it to term.
In both cases, it is, in practice, overwhelmingly men who end up footing the bill and women who end up benefiting.
In the case of maintenance, the men in question are usual fathers, who are obliged to pay maintenance despite being denied both the decision whether to have children in the first place and, in many cases, access to and custody of their children due to discrimination by the family courts. (In some cases though non-biological fathers – victims of so-called ‘paternity fraud’[*]– are also obliged to pay maintenance for the rearing of children who are, in truth, no biological relation to them, and are then, in many jurisdictions, denied any legal remedy despite being the victims of theft on a grand scale.)
This latter arrangement (welfare payments to single mothers) is an example of what Warren Farrell describes in The Myth of Male Power (which I have reviewed here) as “Government as a Substitute Husband”. Instead of being financially supported by a husband, single mothers instead look to the government to play the role of husband.
I guess, it had to happen, sooner or later. Facebook locked me out. Here is what they told me about why. They told me nothing other than what is in the following:
Facebook’s ‘Community Standards’: The truth violates FB’s standards on hate speech
That is downright Orwellian. At any rate, without Facebook giving me any warning, Facebook locked me out. I can no longer log in. All that happens is that I get the notification shown above. It took only seconds after I had posted my response to Lorne Winsor, and I was locked out.
I supposedly have a way of telling Facebook that I am not happy about what they did to me, mainly because their “community standards” do not comply with Canadian laws. I told them that. I’ll see what happens.
Update, eleven hours later: I noticed that FB had relented and permits me to log in to FB again, but FB had removed my response to Lorne Winsor from my timeline. FB censorship is still alive and well. It’s just that FB reduced the penalty they had imposed for transgressing their Orwellian community standards.
According to FB, I have been judged guilty of promoting hate speech. «««
I have had enough of FB. If they restore my access, fine (provided they apologize to me). If they don’t, they can go and drown themselves. I was happy before FB. I will be happy again without FB. I will not let FB decide whether anyone may or may not abide by Canadian laws. There is no way I will let FB constrain my lawful freedom of speech.
As to Facebook’s presumptuous assertion that “Only you can see this post because it goes against our standards on hate speech.”, they are obviously wrong about that, too.
I’ll now be able to devote more time to sprucing up my blog, dads&things. It needs a lot more work that I will now have more time doing.
—Walter, a legal immigrant (1962) and legally a Canadian citizen since 1967 (when people wanting to become Canadian still had to comply with Canadian laws; and they still must today, Facebook or not)
It is not a good thing that a large corporation without a legislated mandate and with little control by democratically elected legislators through any regulatory agencies has the enormous extent of power to influence, control and steer what billions of people in the world will think and talk about in their everyday activities. Such power vastly exceeds that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in ‘1984’.
dads&things – Search results differ, depending on the source of the data. Take the example of dads&things and what Alexa tells about search results in relation to respective frequencies of searches on specific keywords.
@ Alexa tells me this:
Alexa Keyword list for searches 2018
FreeFind, the search engine installed and accessible on each page of dads&things tells me:
Keyword list for searches 2018 06 21 to 2018 06 28
Internet censorship concerns all Internet users, those who engage in it and impose it, and those who suffer its consequences. Take the example of PragerU:
Obfuscating the identity of the messenger
The link behind that image leads to a vigorous Facebook discussion of Internet censorship. PragerU used the image to lead to a link to a YouTube video, via this:
A consequence of Google censorship and political correctness
You may wonder why that video on the consequences of Google censorship contains nothing that has anything to do with Marissa Streit. The reason, I speculate, is fairly simple. The announcement of the video could declare who is delivering its message. That would have caused a problem. You would most likely not be able to watch the video on YouTube. That is what the video is about. It has James Damore relate some of the experiences he made when he bucked Google’s censorship agenda. He had advised that the sort of censorship Google promotes is counter-productive, that it hurts the advancement of women and women’s rights, within the Google corporation. It is heresy for a Google employee to express such thoughts. That is even though James Damore’s advice was merely for corporate consideration and discussion.
James Damore lost his job with Google on account of expressing those opinions. His peers and superiors deemed them to be politically incorrect.
My experiences with Internet censorship
Much of my time, when writing anything that requires promoting on FB, Twitter and on my website and blog, is spent in determining ways by which to circumvent or avoid censorship. That is, algorithms that the providers of search engines and social media design and apply in exercising their ever tightening censorship of free thought.
I have no way to determine how successful I am with my efforts, except that others are no more successful than I am. YouTube censored dozens of PragerU’s videos. At least as of now, Google has not blocked any of my articles or blog postings. Perhaps I should be happy about that, but I wonder.
Facebook tried to shadow ban some of my comments. Does Google shadow ban me and my web pages?
Shadow banning (also called stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting) is the act of blocking a user or their content from an online community such that the user does not realize that they have been banned.
By making a user’s contributions invisible or less prominent to other members of the service, the hope is that in the absence of reactions to their comments, the problematic user will become bored or frustrated and leave the site.
Shadow banning is used by providers of social media. Facebook used it a number of times. That is, I detected it in a few instances I found, with comments I had posted to Facebook and that vanished from discussion forums. Members of those discussion forums never saw them.
The low website rankings assigned by Google to politically incorrect websites is essentially a form of shadow banning as well. Low website rankings condemn politically incorrect web pages to the nether regions of search-return listings. Low rankings are being assigned by web crawler services, such as Alexa.com, and there is a rub. Alexa.com is being controlled by Google. All search engine providers who subscribe to Alexa.com for the rankings of entries on search returns listings are being affected by what Google determines makes popular web pages. Add to that another handicap, namely the censorship algorithms that Google employs when anyone uses their search engine.
Identical searches produce different results with different search engines
There are substantial differences in the outcomes of identical searches when using different search engines searching for politically incorrect topics.. The problem for search engine users is that they have no way of knowing what the rules are for measuring degrees of political incorrectness. They do not know what sort of standards are being used for measuring that. A search engine user knows only one ting in that regard. When searching for specific topics or subjects, identical searches cause different results from search engine to search engine. Here is an example:
Consider the search results for site-specific searches (at fathersforlife.org) for the term fatherlessness, using various search engines:
Websites that mention the search term often and on many web pages should obviously rank high on a given search-return list. With respect to the term fatherlessness, the website of Fathers for Life should always be listed as one of the first few entries on such a list. If there are many websites that use the term fatherlessness, then the list of entries on the search return list should be long.
Freefind: #2 of 690 entries on the list of results. More…
Duck Duck Go: #2 of 178 entries on the list of results. More…
Bing: #3 of 813 entries on the list of results. More…
Ask: #111 of 129 entries on the list of results; More…
Google: #202 out of 297 entries on the list of results. More…
Close to a 1000 of my blog postings needed improvements to meet requirements for search engine optimization (SEO). For the past few months I put much effort into doing that. About 80 percent of that is complete. Still, I don’t have the slightest reason to believe that the effort is doing much at all to improve the search engine ranking for my blog.
That does not mean that I am giving up on making the effort. I like that it gives a more professional quality to my existing blog postings and the ones I am adding as time goes by.
My website and blog receive a fair amount of traffic. That is primarily on account of a large number of websites linking in. It is not because of a large amount of traffic directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Mind you, that is not necessarily all bad.
Typically, for search-engine directed traffic, the bounce rate is high (75.20%), the daily page views per visitor are low (1.5), and the average time per visit is low (2:58). The vast majority of traffic coming to my two domains of concern (http://fathersforlife.org and http://blog.fathersforlife.org) is the result of visitors coming through direct links. The average quality of those visits is much better: the bounce rate is low (12.10%), the daily page views per visitor high (20.0), and the average time per visit is high as well (82:11). That is what counts when trying to get information and ideas to people. An hour and 22 minutes of reading per average visit leaves a lot of impressions.
In the absence of search engine censorship of my website and blog, about 60% of the traffic coming to it would be directed by search engines to my Internet domains. Instead, no more than 4.4% of traffic to my website and blog is being directed there through search engines. A few months ago only 3.2% of traffic to the website and blog came through search engines. Still, “the improvement” in search-engine-directed traffic to my domain is imperceptible. (Update 2018 07 15:Alexa tells me today that the percentage of traffic that comes from a search engine dropped 56% during the past three months and is now at 1.9%. It seems that Google and Alexa are punishing me for doing search engine optimization.)
Relative traffic rank for fathersforlife.org Source: Alexa.com
The figure of 4.4% of all website traffic directed through search engines is a relatively large improvement. (Update 2018 07 15: That was a month ago. Today the figure is down to 1.9 percent.) In absolute terms it isn’t. When a large percentage of visitors is directed through a search engine to a given website, many bounces (visits that last only a few seconds) happen. Still, it also causes a larger number of visitors to return (time and again, one hopes). Thereby, a high percentage helps to add to a steadily growing volume of traffic.
It is doubtful that Google will ever permit that portion of the traffic to climb back to where it once was, around 60%. At that time (in 2007), the website had 1.5 million annual visits. Now it has considerably fewer annual visitors. Its rank has fallen from 270,000th (in 2007) to 650,000th place (in 2018) in the world. That is in spite of the quality of articles having steadily improved since then. It happened even though I spent a very large amount of time and effort during the last 12 months to improve the site for search engine optimization (SEO).
So, I will muddle on with my SEO efforts, for my own satisfaction, and just to see what Google will do next.
Aspects of the impact of Internet censorship
The tale of my experiences of Internet censorship over the years can use a bit of rounding out. Here is a link to a list of more than eighty commentaries I wrote and published about various instances of censorship (the first or second item happens to be in German, but I think that is the only German-language item on the list): More…
If nothing else, those commentaries provide insight into the enormous scope of the impact of censorship, just from the perspective of a single individual.
Many people feel that Google or Facebook have the right to censor. I wonder about that. The services of search engine providers and providers of the social media depend on the good faith of their clients. Their clients should have the right to exercise their right to freedom of expression, but not only that. Others are a bit more passive in the universal exchange of information. They primarily search for information, to read or study it. They have the right to freedom of access to information. Unfortunately, censorship affects the providers and the users of information, the censored as well as the censors.
Those consideration should take into account. There is the good faith of the clients who trust that a search engine provider will find what they look for, when it can be found. They permit providers of search engines and social media to derive vast fortunes from their mutual presence on the Internet. The absence of censorship will stil permit thoose fortunes to be made.
Internet censorship requires other considerations. Not the least is that, going by my experiences, censorship consumes vast amounts of time, effort and money. For example, a large division of Google (employing about 2,000, I understand) designs and applies search algorithms. Many of those algorithms cater to censorship. Search engine clients provide and use information. Providers of search engines and social media derive their incomes from that. Censorship causes those clients to suffer not only loss of opportunity but often harm. That is at least due to trying to overcome the consequences of censorship. Merely the effort to understand that a specific instant of censorship is taking place takes time. To assess its significance takes more time and effort. To try to overcome the obstacle of censorship takes more time yet.
Conclusion – Internet censorship happens and is not good.
Internet censorship forced me to spend thousands of hours of work over the years. I am only one of billions of people who are – some more, some less – similarly affected by Internet censorship.
It is not a good thing that a large corporation without a legislated mandate and with little control by democratically elected legislators through any regulatory agencies has the enormous extent of power to influence, control and steer what billions of people in the world must think and talk about in their everyday activities. Such power vastly exceeds that of Big Brother described by George Orwell in ‘1984’.
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: 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,
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,
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,
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: 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.
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.
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
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:
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:
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.
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:
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:
[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.
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.