Martin Bormann Memorandum: Securing Germany’s Future

Securing the future of the German people

Martin Bormann, Adolf Hitler’s secretary, speculated in his Jan. 29, 1944 memorandum, “How many children would have been born in this war if it had been possible to give our front-line soldiers any leaves at all or more frequently?”  He did not go into very much detail on the extent of the demographic calamity that World War II had imposed on Germany, but he most certainly did not underestimate the problem of the lack of births.

Bormann had it right: Demographics of death of the German people, death by war

Not so much a “population pyramid” but a snapshot of a population ravaged by wars

It is not possible today to determine which of the concerns in his memorandum are truly those expressed by Adolf Hitler and which are Bormann’s own.  It is nevertheless fascinating to see how many of the details Bormann perceived for solving Germany’s looming demographic calamity became standard fare for fiscal and family legislation in many nations throughout the world.  That is not so to solve demographic crises in any nation but simply for governments to partake of what seem to be the main ingredients of the pro-women provisions as well as the means for having men pay more taxes, by which the governments increase their revenues, exactly as envisioned by Bormann.

(On the situation of Germany in January 1944:
– It had been a year since the strategic defeat of the Hitler armies in Stalingrad. The Soviet armies had liberated almost the entire former Soviet Union territory.
– It had been half a year since the capitulation of the Hitler Army in North Africa.
– It had been half a year since the landing of the US troops in Sicily. Meanwhile, the whole of Italy had been liberated.
In his nightly talks, Hitler sees the “catastrophic situation”. The “secretary of the Führer “, Martin Bormann, formulated on 29th January 1944 as a Führer decree, what Hitler had devised in consequence. WB)
[Found at http://www.marx-forum.de/ ]

Führer Headquarters, January 29, 1944

Memorandum.
Subject: Securing the future of the German people.

1.) In the night of 27/28. In January, the Führer talked with us about the problem of our national future. From this and previous conversations and deliberations, the following is to be put on record:

Our national situation will be catastrophic after this war, because our people are now experiencing the second major bloodletting in 30 years. We will certainly win the war militarily, but we will lose it through population losses if we do not come to a decisive restructuring in all the previous perceptions and the resulting attitude.

The bloody loss is not something unique, but it will have consequences year after year into the distant future:

A single example:

How many children would have been born in this war if it had been possible to give our front-line soldiers any leaves at all or leaves more frequently?

The terrible political consequences of a war can be seen in the Thirty Years’ War. At the beginning of the war, the German people numbered more than 18 million, and by the end barely 3.5 million.[*] The consequences of these bloody losses are still not regained and compensated, for we lost the world-domination to which, at the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War, the German people seemed predestined. The disruption of our states lasted until 1870, that of our populace largely until 1933; the denominational disruption is not alleviated today. [* The German-language original contains a typographical error that indicates “31/2 million”. Correctly, that must be 3.5 million. — WHS]

(2) Earlier already I emphatically pointed to several instances of the situation that results after the end of this war: We must keep in mind the population map of Europe and Asia of 1850, 1870, and 1900 and 1945: The Asian peoples multiply at a much faster pace than the Nordic peoples, which partially do not increase their populations at all anymore. If these circumstances were to remain, it would not benefit our Nordic peoples if we were to win this war, for in a hundred years at the most they would be crushed by the mighty masses of the Asian people. Already the present struggle is becoming infinitely difficult for us through the ever-new masses of fighters that the Russian is capable of bringing to bear.

(3) After this war, as the Führer emphasized, we will have 3 to 4 million women who lost or cannot get husbands. The resulting birth dearth would be unbearable for our people: how many divisions — emphasized the Führer — would we be lacking in 20 to 45 or more years!

4.) The future — the life of a people is the more secure, the more numerous the births of this people.

The consideration by some parents, that they should have to keep their number of children limited, to secure the future of the children born, is therefore fundamentally wrong: the opposite is correct! Given sufficient insight, therefore, all women who have a child should place great value on the fact that not only they themselves, but all other women, will bear as many children as possible, because the future of these children is the more secure the greater their number. That is a very sober calculation.

5.) Now, the women who are or are not or will not be married to a man after this world war cannot get their children from the Holy Spirit, but only from the German men still remaining. Increased reproduction of the individual man is, of course, desirable from the point of view of national well-being only by a portion of these men. The decent, characterful, physically and mentally healthy men are to reproduce themselves more intensively, not the physically and spiritually bent ones.

6.) If the dead of the past world war and this new war were not to have been lost in vain, we must secure victory by all means. Any woman whose husband or brother or father or other relative fell in one of these struggles must wish that! That is, every woman must wish that as much as possible every healthy woman who is able to do so secures the future of our people and thus of all its grandchildren to have as many children as possible after the end of the war.

(7) In this manifold delicate area, state orders alone are of no avail. Here only a very serious conviction borne by the movement can lead to the necessary insight. The concern is too grave for corny jokes and bad jests; this is really about securing the future of our people.

8.) Then, too, after this war we can not command that women and girls shall have children. The utmost sensitive — here the much too often-related superlative is appropriate — elucidation is necessary.

9.) It can i. e, not be carried out by men, who are all too easily seen as being personally interested, as beneficiaries. Only older men may talk about the theme, and above all, our women’s organizations must provide the necessary education.

10.) It is necessary to convince not only the women who no longer have or are unable to obtain husbands of these necessities, but before all other things, it is necessary to educate the elders, the mothers and fathers, who grew up in quite different perspectives of the past.

11.) Even more necessary is the enlightenment of the married women, who often became respectability-fanatics only after their weddings.

12.) If we consider what is necessary to bring this question, so vital to our people, to a successful solution, we must clarify the situation in a particular case. Firstly, many women will — lack of logic is simply congenial to women — affirm the correctness in general, in a particular case relating to personal circumstances fanatically reject it.

13.) The public, i.e. general enlightenment can for obvious reasons only begin after the war. One reason for this is that we can not today appeal to the women whose men are likely to fall, and we can not begin our education, too, with regard to our soldiers; This would require us to familiarize our men, who are now soldiers, with these thoughts, for it will not be desirable for every soldier to have his wife or bride conceive children by another man after his death.

14.) Instead, we must now be clear about the steps that can be taken during the war, and about the others to be initiated immediately after the war.

15.) Already now we must abrogate all the undesired impediments to our goal: in particular, it is especially important to direct poets and writers of our time. New novels, novellas, and plays that describe dramatics of matrimony — adultery, are no longer to be allowed, no more than are any poetry, writings, or movie scripts that treat the extramarital child as inferior, illegitimate.
(The word “illegitimate”, as I have emphasized a long time ago, must be completely eradicated. The prefix “un” generally means something to be rejected.

Examples: [The following list contains literal, rather than linguistically correct translations. —WHS]

marital : unmarital [illegitimate]
peace : unpeace [discord]
honor : unhonor [dishonor]
free : unfree
sympathetic : unsympathetic
appetizing : unappetizing
comely : uncomely [grisly]
benefit : unbenefit [calamity]
fortune : unfortune [misfortune]
belief : unbelief)

In other words, we must already now reject everything that presents this problem wholly or in part in a manner harmful to the future of our people. Neither on the stage nor in the whole literature can we any longer present conflicts between “legitimate wife” and “illegitimate rival”.

On the contrary, we must skilfully and unobtrusively point out, that for example — as the genealogical research showed — many of the family tree of famous scholars, artists, statesmen, businessmen, and soldiers show the birth of foreign children. In other words, how many famous men who were the greatest servants of our people would not have been born if their mother or ancestor had not given birth to their child.

16.) Now, the aversion to extramarital children undoubtedly has a reason, which we also — more correctly, especially we, must acknowledge.

We also do not wish our sister or daughters to carelessly get children from anyone man, that is, even to have them now from one and then from another. We must therefore wish that the women of our people, who can not marry after the war in the accustomed manner, join a man who truly suits them and to conceive children with him.

If I am careful in the breeding of animals, that only compatible animals are coupled, then I have to respect the rules applicable to all mammals in humans too: if I want children who have a balanced character and not a conflicted one, then I must put forth that only people who really fit together conceive children with each other.

In other words, we can not wish for a woman — and be it by way of so-called parthenogenesis — to get children from anyone man; on the contrary, only those who are really fond of heart to one another, because they fit together, should beget children.

17. Conclusion: We must wish that the women who no longer have or find a husband after this war should enter into a marriage-like relationship with one man, out of which spring as many children as possible.

The fact that not all such circumstances will last a lifetime does not speak against it, but is natural; many marriages are also divorced after a longer or shorter period. For the rest. Moreover, I am even convinced that two people who are connected in friendship, but who do not see each other very often, are more likely to stay connected more easily for life than others; especially when children of love and friendship reinforce this bond.

18.) I had already pointed out above that every defamation of [volklich – demographically ? no definition could be found —WHS] desired conditions must be prohibited. Whoever insults a woman who has children without a husband (in the present sense) must be severely punished. Anyone — that will concern many a clergyman — who speaks against the propagation of [demographic] necessities, is also to be severely punished.

19.) In many cases, the resistance of married women will be due to material considerations: for their sake, the wife, in the interest of her own children, does not want to share her husband’s income or estate with another woman and her children.

That is understandable! But because the people and the state want to secure their future, they must secure by all means, therefore by the necessary material means, the best possible increase in the number of births; therefore, the state must accordingly provide adequate funding.

(20) If it were not do that, the most important capital would be irretrievably lost; the fertility of many millions of women.

21.) Very many women and girls would like to have children, many children at that, if they knew exactly that they would be truly provided for their whole life. They do not want to have children, and then, one day, because the father of these children dies, is impoverished or abandons them, become unprovided for with their children and dependent on the mercy and charity of some welfare institutions.

22.) It is clear that women who are employed and who have children must be appropriately higher remunerated, and that these women should also be assigned living accommodations corresponding to the head count of their family.

23.) After the war, I would like to create such housing in the sunny corner for the female employees of the Party Chancellery who have children.

24.) The number of residential schools (grade schools — boarding schools, junior high school boarding schools with pre-school, senior high school boarding schools with pre-school) is to be hugely increased, so that all women who can for any reasons not, either partially or in whole, raise their children, can let them be raised without difficulty at the residential schools. That applies to both boys and girls.

These residential schools are also necessary because the best and most able men are in their youth quite wilds and can hardly be controlled by mothers alone.

25.) However, these women should not be allowed to wait until their children are of school age before they move to residential schools, but according to the Führer’s order, the NSV [National Socialist People’s Welfare], as emphasized previously, shall create the best maternity homes and furthermore the best children’s homes in which children from toddlers to school age will be raised. The education in these nurseries must be far better than it can be in the general care of the family. This is the great future task of the NSV!

26.) For the sake of the future of our people, we must have a mother-cult, and there must be no difference between women who are married in the present manner and women who have children by a man to whom they are connected in friendship! All these mothers are to be honored equally.
(Of course, this does not apply to those antisocial elements who do not even know who the fathers of their children might be.)

27.) When two people go to the civil registry office, to have their intended civil union officially certified and legitimized there, the main reason for that is the following:

(a) the marital community, together with the offspring, shall be placed under the protection of the State and its means of power and its Civil Code and its Criminal Code,

b) The two partners now know that one is committed to the other and that one can not run away from the other without consequences.

c) Ideal security: extramarital sex is frowned upon according to mendacious bourgeois opinions. On the other hand, marital sex is without ado deemed to be honorable!

(d) Material security: A man who is divorced must provide for his wife unless she is guilty.

28). These statements show which inhibitions we must eliminate and which suppositions we must create to achieve the necessary increase in the number of births

(1) We must also create for the mothers who are not married in the old manner by official civil ceremony a very similar comprehensive ideal as well as material security. This includes among other things: in any case, the children have to get the father’s name without difficulty.

(2) Further: Upon special request, men shall be able to enter into a fixed marriage relationship, not only with one woman, but with another, in which the woman would then easily obtain the name, the children the father’s name.

3.) That a man is sued for the payment of maintenance fees (alimony) must be a rarity; a man who acts without compelling reason must be outright defamed, because his behavior is generally regarded as disgraceful.

Obviously, in such a case, there must be paid, without any difficulty and — as long as this is necessary — adequate government support. It must be completely impossible that a mother with a child is ever in need. Every mother with a child who without fault falls into material or ideal distress must be sure of the special welfare of the community.

4.) As I mentioned earlier, it is necessary that we abolish and forbid the present relationship terms, which have a more or less disreputable sound. On the contrary, W[e] must find good, friendly names. We must, too, consider how the relationship a woman has with a man with whom she may be married in the accustomed manner will be designated, we have to consider how the children that come out of such friendship-relationships are to be designated, etc.

The more fortuitous we will be in the discovery of names, the more easily we will remove the existing inhibitions.

These inhibitions must, however, be removed, for otherwise all the sacrifices of the preceding world war and of this war were in vain, because our people must fall victim to the next storms. In twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years, we will have the divisions, which we need absolutely, if our people should not perish.

5.) After this war the childless marriages and the bachelors must be taxed far sharper than before. The hitherto taxation of the bachelors has to be a child’s play against the taxes with which they are to be burdened in the future.

The revenues from these bachelor’s taxes must serve the support of the mothers who have children, that is, to materially support our efforts to promote offspring.

I would ask you to consider the whole problem in depth and afterwards to submit your opinion.

Signed M. Bormann ”

______________

Translated from the German-language text found at http://www.marx-forum.de/  —WHS

[Original source: Memorandum by Martin Bormann, 1944 January 29, Papers of Oron J. Hale, MSS 12800-a, Special Collections, University of Virginia Library, Charlottesville, VA;
reprinted in »The Secretary: Martin Bormann, the man who ruled Hitler. Stuttgart«, by Jochen von Lang;1977, pp. 478-82.]

This permits to compare Germany’s total fertility rate to those of other countries in the world.

Posted in Child Support, Civil Rights, Divorce, Economy, Family, History, Maternal Rights, Men's Issues, The New World Order | Leave a comment

IVF same-sex conception less eggs

The success rate for pregnancies conceived by IVF is quite low, compared to that for those conceived naturally. Some deformations, e. g.: of the genito/urinary tract, are far more common with IVF. Chromosomal aberrations, for example, are 7.7 times more common for IVF babies carried to term than they are with babies conceived naturally.

IVF produces same-sex mice

Motherless babies — Do we need or want them?

The IVF procedure outlined in the Telegraph article even lauds the possibility of self-cloning without eggs, which, in view of the costs of IVF procedures that will eventually be developed to that end, will without a doubt create much good will with potential gay couples who have sufficient means to be able to pay for them.

Nature puts logical constraints on unnatural means of conception.  It does not necessarily forbid them, but it makes them impossible or at least less viable.  In other words, they are — either immediately or in the longer term — evolutionary dead-ends.  Not so with medical research that makes the unnatural natural, normal or even desirable — usually in the pursuit of perhaps knowledge but most certainly profit.

What is the success rate for creating a viable baby without a human egg? It must be less than the IVF success rate for producing viable babies. In 2008, the success rate seemed to have leveled off at around 27 percent. Did it improve at all since then, and will the success rate for egg-less, same-sex conception be better? Common sense suggests otherwise.

The research has not yet progressed to make an estimate possible, not even for the mouse stage of the experimentation, even though the Telegraph article states, “In the study, 30 mouse pups were born with a success rate of 24 per cent,” and then continues to assert that, “This compares with a 1 per cent to 2 per cent success rate for offspring created by the Dolly the Sheep method of cloning by transferring DNA to donated eggs,” which is a bad comparison. The proper conclusion should have been that same-sex-cloning in mice, starting without an egg, is three percent less successful at the embryo stage than heterosexual IVF in humans when using egg and sperm.

It appears that, at least officially, no attempts were made yet to establish the viability of human embryos created without human eggs. That may be a good thing, as the tests that have so far produced 30 viable mouse pubs permit absolutely no conclusions as to the success rate with viable human babies. It appears that none of the mouse pubs were examined for all of the deficiencies that may occur when hoping that IVF will produce normal humans. IVF is not as proficient with that as is conception by natural means. It stands to reason that considerably more deficiencies will occur when cloning of the same-sex sort is used instead of normal, heterosexual conception.

Naturally, those issues and many others are usually not addressed in articles such as that in the Telegraph, as they might then trigger some reservations instead of amazement, praise, and the willingness to fork over vast sums of money for research in the field of IVF, the aim of which is, of course, ultimately, to create work and profit for the sector of the medical industry involved with performing IVF procedures. Those are a lucrative business with enormous earning potential, not to mention the higher rate of birth defects that will ultimately need to be treated, if corrections prove to be impossible and need further medical research, skills and procedures.

Ostensibly, the principle that guides all of that is, “First do no harm.” Sorry, but it is not apparent how the objective of doing no harm prevents profit motives that drive the harm being done. How can anyone claim that, for example, the tendency of producing vastly more chromosomal aberrations and other abnormalities, when bringing about conception using IVF procedures (let alone that the same-sex cloning has not even examined that in any depth), is doing no harm? Creating a vastly greater amount of business for the health industry, deliberately, not only causes harm, is driven by the harm-causing search for profit.

Still, it makes one wonder. At what success rate will anyone draw the line and decide: “No more of this!” With IVF babies, there is a more personal human factor:

»…If you are a woman wanting to become a mother after natural methods did not make you pregnant, will you be willing to run the risk of becoming pregnant several times before you are finally able to give birth to a child whose chances of having a moderate to severe chromosomal abnormality are one in ten?« More

Injury to motherly feelings will allegedly be alleviated or avoided, as ostensibly no emotional harm will be done to a human incubator for rent (a.k.a. surrogate mothers), but, even if that were always true (we know that it isn’t), there are some other considerations. More at the preceding link.

Posted in Family, Gay issues, Health, Media Bias, The New World Order | Leave a comment

The Future is Female

Social engineers increasingly promote that the future is female.  Still, at the founding of the UN, the natural family was declared to be the basic building block of nations and worthy of protection and nurturance. Legally, that declaration is still in force.  The question is whether the declaration is still worth something or not even the paper it is written on.

Nevertheless, today, with radical feminists and extremist gender activists having taken control of the UN through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), an all-out war is being waged against the natural family.  Check out The Gender Agenda and find out about the history and the state of the war against the family.

You may wonder why anyone should worry about a feminist- or female-controlled future world, where the future is female.  If so, then you don’t think much of the rights of human males.

You may see nothing wrong with a world populated only by females.  If that is the case, you obviously think that one half of humanity is not worthy of being kept around, and perhaps you shouldn’t be looking at this page.

Whatever the case may be, perhaps you should look up a short story, Consider Her Ways, by John Wyndham (first published by Michael Joseph, 1961), that describes what such a world in which the future is female may look like.  The story is the perfect counter piece to Margaret Atwood’s  A Handmaid’s Tale.  In 1961, Consider Her Ways was most definitely science fiction.  Today, some prominent feminists propose in earnest that 80 percent of all human males should be either castrated or, better, eradicated.  Biological science has moved that into the realm of possibilities. Pathological agents do exist that could easily target all of the men in the world or perhaps only men of a certain race.

Nobody in a normal state of mind would ever contemplate anything like that, you say?  Reconsider.  Although the term madwoman is rarely used, it does identify a human condition to which men don’t hold a monopoly.  There are a lot of women who work in biological sciences.  They may have the necessary motivation and the required opportunity to achieve exactly what is being described in Consider Her Ways.

Most definitely, many feminist writers addressed the theme of the total eradication of all human males.  The idea is a recurring theme of feminist science fiction.  I don’t recall seeing the corresponding theme of the eradication of all females ever having been mentioned by male authors.

However, an item that appeared in the new just during the middle of January 2001 should make anyone think again.

Consider their ways:

January 11, 2000

Daily News, at yahoo.com (The article can no longer be accessed at the original source.)

Aussie scientists stumble across the Doomsday Bug

PARIS, Jan 10 (AFP) – Australian gene engineers accidentally created a mouse virus that kills every one of its victims by wrecking their immune system, a discovery with the potential for making the ultimate terrorist weapon,New Scientist reports. The killer bug was invented quite inadvertently, while the researchers were trying to create a contraceptive vaccine for mice as a pest control, the British weekly reports in next Saturday’s issue.

They inserted into a mousepox virus a gene that creates large amounts of interleukin 4 (IL-4), a naturally-occurring molecule that produces antibodies in the immune system. The idea was to stimulate antibodies to destroy eggs in female mice, thus making the rodents infertile.

Mousepox, a close relation to smallpox, normally only causes mild symptoms among the type of mice being used in the study, and was only being used as a vehicle to deliver the IL-4. But when the IL-4 gene was inserted, the engineered virus ran amok, attacking the “cell-mediated response” – the part of the immune system that fights viral infection. All the animals in the study were wiped out in just nine days. Worse, the engineered virus was astonishingly resistant to vaccines. A vaccine that would normally protect these mice from mousepox only worked in half of the mice exposed to the killer version.

Co-researcher Ron Jackson, of the Canberra-based institute CSIRO, said the discovery was a frightening indicator of what could happen if the human smallpox virus was similarly modified. “It would be safe to assume that if some idiot did put human IL-4 into human smallpox, they’d increase the lethality quite dramatically,” he told New Scientist. “Seeing the consequences of what happened in the mice, I wouldn’t want to be the one to do the experiment.”

“It’s surprising how very, very bad the virus is,” said Anne Hill, a vaccine expert from Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland, Oregon.

Smallpox has been eradicated as a disease thanks to a global vaccination campaign, although two laboratories – one in the United States, the other in Russia – still have ampoules containing the virus, under an arrangement with the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The incident highlights how easy it could be for some with bio-engineering knowledge to create a murderous virus for which there would be no cure or effective vaccine, New Scientist said.

“Vast amounts of time and effort have gone into policing the military’s use of biotechnology. But the activities of civilian biologists have been ignored,” it said. “Yet genetic engineering techniques are now so widespread that potentially dangerous results are bound to emerge accidentally.”

It suggests tougher vetting of research proposals; a greater effort to train students in biological subjects about potential dangers arising from lab work; and encouraging greater openness among biologists to discuss the misuse of genetic engineering.

_____________
The material contained in the quoted article is made available courtesy contributors and editors of Pro-LifeE-News.

One may think that such ideas and possibilities are too horrible to think about, but that is not so.  Some feminist are seriously considering how to get rid of men, to make it happen that the future is female.  It is not too unthinkable that some mad feminist scientist of the feminist variety, male or female, is at work right now to make that a possibility.

The horror of the thought is not that it is in the realm of what is possible, but that when some feminists publicly propose the possibility and discuss it, the idea does not get condemned but is either welcomed or at the very least condoned or tolerated by all other feminists.  The horror is that not a single voice of protest was raised in the feminist camp when just that happened, when Sally Miller Gearhart proposed that the number of men in the world must be reduced by 80 percent, and what means should be used to achieve that goal.  See Why have any men at all?

John Wyndham, speculates what such a future will look like, in Consider Her Ways And Others (Science Fiction, Penguin Books Canada Ltd, 2801 John Street, Markham Ontario L3R 1B4; ISBN 0-14-002331-7, First published by Michael Joseph 1961, first published in Penguin books in 1965.)  The book contains:

This short story is the perfect counter piece to Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale.  It’s a story about a society in which all males were eradicated after a genetic experiment designed to exterminate brown rats — specifically the male rats — had gone wrong, a society that is a radical feminist’s (a.k.a. redfem) dream, one that is fashioned after the Bible quotation “Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways.”

Read it and decide which, Margarete Atwood or John Wyndham, is the true prophet.

Read it and shudder, because it seems that we are well on the way of bringing it about.

Read it and weep.

  • Odd
  • Oh Where Now is Peggy MacRafferty?
  • A Stitch in Time
  • Random Quest
  • A Long Spoon
Posted in Civil Rights, Family, Feminism, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Women's Violence | Leave a comment

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Aliens?

The belief that there is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is far more widely spread than the one that there is extraterrestrial life.  Yet, neither belief has ever been corroborated by science, for which reason both are beliefs, not absolute knowledge.


“Aliens Cause Global Warming”

“My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming.”
— Michael Crichton; Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003


A search for “Fifty percent of Americans already believe that there is some form of life on other planets” (2013 HuffPost/YouGov poll) produces 42 entries on the search-return list (as of 2017-09-01), with occurrences from items such as

About extraterrestrial life, who tell the truth?

When we don’t know, who tells the truth?

with more than 3,700 shares, to more sedate, down-to-earth, feet-on-the-ground, common-sense deliberations such as in

There is no knowledge of extraterrestrial life.

When we don’t know, beliefs cannot be knowledge, because they cannot be based on anything other than speculations.

Similar to the belief in the as of now unknowable existence of extraterrestrial life (let alone of the intelligent variety), the belief in CAGW is also widespread but far more so.  An Internet search for “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” produces about 59,800 results (as of 2017-09-01), a consequence of a raging debate, also based on nothing more than speculation.

Contrary to some claims, the debate regarding CAGW or “climate change” (some are hard at work to change the designation to “climate disruption” — more alarmism is what seems to be sought) is not settled.  If it were, it would not be debated as hotly, no more so than orbital mechanics or the general theory of relativity, which latter is arguably far less complicated than the matters that drive the ever changing climate, although both came into existence with the beginning of time.

Global warming a boon for civilization - 4,000 years of global temperature trend

Global warming a boon for civilization
The intervals highlighted in green are warm periods during which civilization thrived.

It is fairly obvious that the climate record provides no clear evidence of CAGW at any time in the past.

Ask yourself, if we don’t understand any better what changes the climate than that we cannot predict the weather with better than 50:50 accuracy for four days into the future (using massive super computers that produce results which are more biased than the flip of a coin), then how much knowledge do we lack, and how much must we gain, before we are able to predict the magnitude of climate change with reasonable accuracy any farther into the future, let alone what it will be by the end of this century?

Here is some down-to-earth advice regarding things such as some of those promoted by many of the articles that can be found through those indicated Internet searches:

“The scientific debunker’s job may be compared to that of the trash collector. The fact that the garbage truck comes by today does not mean that there won’t be another load tomorrow. But if the garbage were not collected at all, the results would be worse, as some cities have found when the sanitation workers struck.

So let us do our best to get rid of this ideological garbage, lest it inundate the earth. Our work will never be decisive, since old cults are almost unkillable and new ones keep springing up; but that is no reason for not doing what we can. If we can save even a few from the lure of the higher nonsense, our efforts will have been worthwhile.” — L. Sprague de Camp, in “Little Green Men from Afar”

L. Sprague de Camp concluded his article with this little poem, summarizing the ideas presented in his commentary:

The Little Green Men

Ah, little green fellows from Venus
Or some other planet afar:
From Mars or Calypso or, maybe,
A world of an alien star!

According to best-selling authors-
Blavatsky to von Daniken-
They taught us the skills that were needed
To make super-apes into men.

They guided our faltering footsteps
From savagery into the dawns
Of burgeoning civilization
With cities and writing and bronze.

By them were the Pyramids builded;
They reared the first temples in Hind;
Drew lines at Peruvian Nazca
To uplift the poor Amerind.

With all of these wonders they gave us
It’s sad these divine astronauts
Revealed not the answers to questions
That foil our most rational thoughts.

Such puzzles as riches and paupers,
The problems of peace and of war,
Relations between the two sexes,
Or crime and chastisement therefore.

So when we feel dim and defeated
By problems immune to attack,
Let’s send out a prayer electronic
“O little green fellows, come back!”
_____________

The opinions of the two very well qualified writers of good science fiction, both world-renowned, set the record straight on what needs to be considered when speculating on the existence of extra-terrestrial life, given the total and absolute absence of evidence that permits anyone to speculate with an acceptable measure of accuracy and project whether extra-terrestrial life exists.

One is Michael Crichton, who stated in a lecture, “Aliens Cause Global Warming,” Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003:

My topic today sounds humorous but unfortunately I am serious. I am going to argue that extraterrestrials lie behind global warming. Or to speak more precisely, I will argue that a belief in extraterrestrials has paved the way, in a progression of steps, to a belief in global warming….

In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI [SETI: Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N* is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero….

Full text

The other one is, of course, L. Sprague de Camp, who debunked beliefs in extra-terrestrial life in a short address, “LITTLE GREEN MEN FROM AFAR” (Winner, Grand Master Nebula of 1978; originally published in Humanist, Jul. 1976).

Four of the authors represented in this volume are here because their stories were judged the best in their class for the year in which they were published. Sprague de Camp’s award is something else. It isn’t for a story. It is for a life. The Grand Master Nebula goes only to those who are judged to have made such significant contributions to the field of science fiction that no temporally limited award will suffice. Only four have ever been given-Robert A. Heinlein, Jack Williamson and Clifford D. Simak are the previous winners. To commemorate it for this volume, we asked Sprague de Camp to let us publish the text of an address: “Little Green Men from Afar.”

In 1950, when the flying-saucer craze was enjoying its first boom, Francis F. Brahman, an instructor in general science at the University of Denver, staged an experiment to test his students’ judgment of evidence. He presented to his class a self-styled flying-saucer expert. Broman told his students to judge this man’s tale by five criteria: that the report be first-hand; that the teller show no obvious bias or prejudice; that he be a trained observer; that the data be available for checking; and that the teller be clearly identified.

The class met on March 8. Students invited friends, so the classroom was crowded with strange and eager faces. The speaker was one Silas Newton….

Full text of that address

It is your choice whether you wish to be a believer or a debunker.

______________
Related article: Great Global Warming Swindle film tells truth, 2008 07 26

Posted in Climate & Weather, Environment, Propaganda Exposed, Religion, Science Fiction | Leave a comment

CO2 emitted at a high rate by soil

Concerned about increases in atmospheric CO2? Read this description of an interesting experiment and its fascinating result. Soil does produce a lot of CO2.  Check it out.

Interestingly, the URL for the comment by Jerry Henson, August 18, 2017 at 10:20 am, that describes the experiment for measuring CO2 emitted by soil cannot be found by Facebook, but, just in case it should work for you, here is the URL for Jerry Henson’s comment: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/18/nasas-secret-plan-to-save-earth-from-super-volcanoes-seriously/#comment-2584698

I have no problem with accessing Jerry Hanson’s comment via that URL.  The problem I have is that FB does not permit me to post a comment that contains the URL for either that comment or even the URL for the article that sparked the comment.  The article is this:

NASA's Secret Plan for Preventing another Sopervolcano Explosion

NASA’s Plan for Preventing another Sopervolcano Explosion

In case FB cannot find the URL for you either, here is the text of that comment:

Jerry Henson August 18, 2017 at 10:20 am

marq2

The whole carbon cycle does not depend on volcanoes alone to recycle the CO2 trapped in limestone deep in the earth. At great depth, heat, pressure and water convert the minerals to hydrocarbons, mostly natural gas.

The natural gas and other hydrocarbons rise, and some are trapped in rock layers and over time, the accumulation can be drilled and produced as oil or natural gas wells.

A substantial portion rise as natural gas and in the presence of adequate moisture and oxygen, microbes consume the natural gas, enriching the soil and oxidizing the hydrocarbons creating CO2.

This is easily observed by a simple test. I use an anemometer, thermometer, a 14″ stainless steel salad bowl, a 10 lb rock, and an inexpensive CO2 meter which allows for lengthy exposure readings.

On my last observation, the wind was less than 2 mph, the ambient CO2 reading was 404 ppm. I put the meter on the ground in an area which has dark brown topsoil approximately 12″ deep and the grass had been cut short. I then inverted the ss bowl over the CO2 meter and placed the 10 lb rock on top of the bowl.

12 hours later, I retrieved the meter and recorded the CO2 reading. It was 961 PPM.

This is a real test It is easy and inexpensive to replicate. Your readings will vary depending on the richness of your topsoil, and therefore, the amount of natural gas upwelling in your area.

In Kansas and most of the midwest, the CO2 reading will be very much higher than, for example, the area around Atlanta, Ga. where the soil is red, because the shield is very close to the surface and blocks most of the natural gas, thus little to no CO2 output.

The amount of CO2 contributed to the atmosphere in this manner is unknowable because on my property, the CO2 output varies by 300% in less than 1000 ft.

In deserts, the natural gas can pass into the atmosphere unoxidized because there is not enough moisture to support an adequate microbial culture, and the gas is then oxidized in the atmosphere.

Of course, I searched the Internet for articles describing just such experiments.  The very first one I found was this:

CO2 emitted by soil - Description of experiment, detailed to produce a biased conclusion

CO2 emitted by soil – Description of experiment, detailed to produce a biased conclusion

It stands to reason that the description of Jerry Hanson’s experiment is biased, too.  The question is whether either description is biased deliberately.  It would not be too hard to devise an experiment using either method that shows whether the origin of the measured CO2 emissions by soil are a consequence of geochemical origin or purely biological origin due to decomposition of plant material or emissions from roots.

Posted in Climate & Weather, Environment | Comments Off on CO2 emitted at a high rate by soil

Rape – propaganda talking-point debunked

Rape statistics, ever more inventive and innovative, have long been a primary weapon in the apparently inexhaustible arsenal of feminist propagandists, but, all things must come to an end.  My mother was a treasure trove of proverbs that she used often.  One of those was, “Lügen haben kurze Beine,” literally, “Lies have short legs,” the meaning of which is that lies don’t get you very far.

Index

My mother († 1973) wasn’t always right, but she was right about that, ultimately, the truth will always prevail.  Even though the feminist-inspired misinformation on rape statistics gave the feminist propaganda campaign a lot of impetus, and it helped feminists to gain far more than they deserved to obtain, eventually the truth caught up to their false and misleading rape statistics.

Take this PragerU.com video on college rape:

rape culture, video by pragerU.com

YouTube video by pragerU.com

The Prager University debunks the 1-in-5-women-are-raped-at-college myth.  Prager U states that there is,

  • No evidence of a national campus rape epidemic;
  • No evidence that sexual violence is a cultural norm in 21st century America;
  • Rates of rape in the U.S. are very low, and they have been declining for decades, and that
  • In an Internet survey of 5000 women, the authors, not the participants, determined that 1000 had been victims of some type of “non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact.”  Prager U further determined that,
  • More comprehensive data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that “1 in 52.6 college women will be victims of rape or sexual assault over the course of four years,” and that the same U.S. BJS data reveal that,
  • Women in college are safer from rape than college-aged women who are not enrolled in college.

All of that is meaningless as to how many rapes really happen.  It is even meaningless as to how many rapes happen at U.S. colleges.  The feminist figures are laughable.  The debunking by the Prager University of those feminist rape figures is great, but what are the facts?

The video by the Prager University presents figures that are more reasonable, but is the 1-in-52.6 figure much better?  The rape incidence rate at U.S. colleges would be more than a 14 times higher than the rape incidence rate in South Africa, the country that has the highest rape incidence rate of all countries in the World.  It would make the rape incidence rate at U.S. colleges more than 70 times higher than the U.S. national average rape incidence rate.  If that were true, all colleges should be shut down.

The Prager U video presents no sources, other than vague references.  One out of every 52.6 women at college being raped still is atrocious, and the video gives the impression that only women are being raped, that they are being raped at an unacceptably high rate, and that, as relatively safe as college women may be, women in real life have it a lot worse, because they are not as safe and are consequently far more likely to be raped than those at college.

Rape incidents in the U.S. — What is not the truth?

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics should have the answer, at least about what happens in regard to rapes in the United States.  The U.S. BJS states:

Rape – Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and same sex rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Sexual assault – A wide range of victimization, separate from rape or attempted rape.  These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender.  Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling.  It also includes verbal threats.
(More, including a large number of links to statistics and study reports)

There is a large list of links to all sort of reports at that U.S. BJS web page, for example,

There is even information on Victimizations Not Reported to the Police, 2006-2010 NEARLY 3.4 MILLION VIOLENT CRIMES PER YEAR WENT UNREPORTED TO POLICE FROM 2006 TO 2010 (all in capital letters, no less)

Obviously, the U.S. BJS is clairvoyant, but honest it is not, because all of those reports appear to cater to feminist interests, or perhaps they were even compiled by feminists or according to feminist standards, because none of them indicate that the U.S. BJS has the slightest interest in, let alone any information on, male victims of rape.

With the widely expanded definition of what constitutes rape or sexual assault — everything from actual penetration with deadly battery to leering, sounding wolf-whistles, making cat-calls, thinking about it, including the fears every woman may or may not have about being raped or being sexually exploited, psychologically — the U.S. BJS appears not to give a single thought to prison rapes or sexual abuse of juveniles, on the rapes men or boys in detention by their prison guards, most of whom are women for juveniles and statutory rapes are rampant?  Not a single word can be found on boys routinely being statutorily raped by their female baby sitters or high school teachers.  That reflects considerably less than an acceptable standard for professional integrity.

Lying through omission is nevertheless lying.  Once a liar, always a liar.  If such a large sector of sexual violence data is missing from the U.S. BJS data and reports, why should anyone believe anything else they publish information on?  That would take far more trust than most objective people are able to muster.

Closer to the truth about college rape

Fortunately, there are people who are more objective about U.S. rape statistics than the U.S. BJS demonstrates it is.

Rape

Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually

Actual statistics:

A review of Oklahoma University enrolment data and information supplied by campus police yielded the estimate that the annualized rape risk for 1996 freshmen women at OU was 1 chance in 476. [Source: Deflating the Date Rape Scare: A Look At Campus Police Records, by Michael P. Wright, Scientific Social Research, Norman, Oklahoma]

BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year.

— Eeva Sodhi, Source

That works out to 98 percent of rape allegations being false, but that calculation still pertains only to women as real (or more likely falsely alleged) rape victims.  Given that Eeva Sodhi only had U.S. BJS reports to go on, the exclusion of male victims of rape should not surprise anyone.  There is now another source that can most definitely be trusted, and the latest report produced by that source, Lara Stemple and colleagues, appears to be trustworthy and in considerable conflict with the shoddy rape incidence statistics published by the U.S. BJS.

Lara Stemple and colleagues looked at all rape victims, not just the female ones.  They found something that was in view for many years but not reported on to the extent that the media took an interest.

2016 study released by UCLA found that women have collectively committed millions of sexual offenses against American men including rape, assault, coercion, and harassment. The pandemic of sexual violence committed by women caused the lead author of the study, Lara Stemple, to suggest that Americans rethink “long-held stereotypes about sexual victimization and gender.”

Stemple’s 2016 study found that a stunning 4.5 million American men have been forced to penetrate another individual at some point in their lives, which meets the legal criteria for rape. In 79.2% of these cases, the perpetrator was a woman….

— By: Taylor Larson MSN, RN.
More…

The 2016 study report by Lara Stemple et al.:

Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence
By Lara Stemple a, Andrew Flores b, and Ilan H Meyer c
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.007
________
Health and Human Rights Law Project, UCLA School of Law, United States
Mills College, United States
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, United States

Highlights

• Federal agency data find that female sexual perpetration is not uncommon.
• Gender stereotypes interfere with complex understandings of sexual perpetration.
• Broadened feminist approaches can shed light on female sexual perpetration.
• Studies among college students and inmates provide context for at-risk groups.
• Professionals responding to sexual victimization must address it in all its forms.

The study is behind a pay wall!  Apparently it is legal for public servants to profit from the work they do that they are being paid for out of the public purse.

The objective truth about rape incidents in the U.S. — As published by the U.S. government

Perhaps it is possible to put more trust into rape statistics that the U.S. produces not so much to satisfy the demands of U.S. feminist propagandists but for international consumption.  At the very least it should be possible to look at U.S. data on rape incidents relative to those that occur in other nations.  We may never get to know with absolute certainty what the real numbers are, but we can judge their extent relative to the numbers in other nations when all are being judged by common, universally applied standards.

Rape incidence rates, for countries ranking at the top in the World

Rape incidence rates, for countries ranking at the top of the list in the World

The table shows that the rape incidence rate in the U.S. is not the best but much better than in South Africa and other countries that rank at the top of the list, that the U.S. rank is 14th on the list, and that the U.S. have a long way to go before their rape incidence rate of 27.3 per 100,000 residents (in 2010) will be as low as that in Liechtenstein, 0.0 per 100,000 residents (in 2010).  Still, it does show that the rape incidence rate in the U.S. has been falling at an accelerating rate.

However, if anyone should want to find rape incidence rates for the U.S. that look much worse for a specific victim group, it is possible to find those at the website of the U.S. BJS or in a Wikipedia article on Rape in the United States.  Both of those sources will without a doubt provide the advocacy numbers that someone with a subjective mindset would like to find.  Most importantly, neither one of those sources provide any information on rape incidence rates for men and boys, which will certainly satisfy most feminists, whether they contribute information to Wikipedia or work at the U.S. BJS or not.  Wikipedia does have an article on prison rape that contains the required extent of hand-waving to make it useless as a good or remotely reliable source of statistical information.

Posted in Propaganda Exposed | 1 Comment

The Myth of the Oppressed Japanese Women

David Thomas, in Not Guilty — In Defence of the Modern Man, dispels the myth of the oppressed Japanese Women.

Not Guilty

…although [British] men have marginally more influence in six out of the eleven categories, in none of them do they have the dominance enjoyed by women in their most influential areas.  The overall average works out at a marginal advantage for the female partner by 51 to 49.  It is also worth noting that the two strongest areas  for men – motor and health insurance – have to be considered in the  light of the fact that, for white-collar workers at least, both may well be  included as part of a man’s professional remuneration.  So the women’s  lack of influence should not be taken to imply male power: it’s just that  he’s abandoned his wife’s decision-making in favour of his boss’s.  Either way, he’s the junior partner.

    This phenomenon is by no means confined to British society.  In fact, it might even be true to say that the more that a society appears to be financially biased in favour of men, the more the reverse is actually the case.  In Japan, for example, men still hold the vast majority of positions of executive and political power; feminism has made nothing like the strides there that it has in the West.  Japanese wives are seen by their Occidental sisters as hapless servants, waiting hand and foot on their male masters, like geisha girls ready to provide everything that their man might require.  The truth, however, appears to be rather different.

    As a Japanese salary man slaves away at the absurdly long hours that can, as we have seen, induce premature death, or karoshi, his wife is out enjoying the fruits of his labours.  A Japanese woman has the same lock on the family finances as her Western counterparts, a privilege that merely adds to the traditional power that she enjoys as the matriarchal ruler of the family home.  For the purposes of public

82


This Working Life

consumption, she may play the dutiful helpmeet.  But in private, she’s the boss.

    The Japanese name for a domineering, dictatorial wife is obatalian.  So common is the species that in 1992 Fuji Television launched a series called Obatalian Watching.  In the words of Joanna Pitman, reporting from Tokyo for The Times: ‘A group of scowling harridans were unwittingly filmed on one of their power-shopping sprees, swarming through sales like locusts, dolling themselves up in Chanel suits and Italian shoes.  The cameras then followed them onto a crowded underground train where they were seen doing battle for seats armed with designer handbags and umbrellas.  The obatalian gets what she wants.

    ‘The comedy of the series depends on the gap between social pretension and reality.  Everyone knows that if the cameras were to arrive at her home, the obatalian would slip into her public role as the simpering wife who selflessly tends to the needs of her husband.’

    Social attitudes towards the family’s supposed patriarch can be guessed from the title of a popular Japanese comic book series (the Japanese consume manga, or adult comic books, with a voracity and seriousness unknown in the West).  It is called Stupid Dad.  Its hero – if that is the right word – is eerily reminiscent of the hopelessly inadequate male to be found in so many British TV commercials (and Japanese ones, come to that).  After a hard day of ritual humiliation at the workplace, he comes home for more of the same at the hands of his wife and daughters: virulent shrews who would give Regan and Goneril a thoroughly good run for their money.  Bossed at work and bullied at home … no wonder the poor old Japanese male spends so much time getting drunk in karaoke bars….

83

Book details at amazon.com

The editorial review shown at amazon.com pertains, correctly, to David Thomas’ book, but the book description shown there has nothing to do with the book.  Is that another manifestation of the feminist plot to downplay and diminish the importance of David Thomas’ book?  After all, the feminists managed to make the book almost disappear.
(Update 2017 07 24: amazon apparently got around to correct the book review it had shown at that link, but the reviews shown in the following are a bit more heart-warming.)

Commentaries that do better justice to Not Guilty

David Thomas makes it clear, although it is not the focal point of Not Guilty, that the myth of the oppressed Japanese women is nothing more than a propaganda tactic invented, to be leaned on as if on a crutch, to derogate and vilify men in the war against men and families.

David Thomas, in his book “Not Guilty – In Defence of the Modern Man” (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London 1993, p.63) writes: “It is not often that a dominant class legislates its own downfall with quite as much thoroughness as the parliaments of the Western World, filled as they are with men passing equal opportunities legislation in favour of women, have done.”

In fact men have not only shot themselves in the foot but blown their leg off as well, apparently without feeling a thing! But men are suffering. They die earlier, form the bulk of the unemployed and the homeless, often receive a raw deal in the family court, are under-represented at our tertiary institutions, yet barely a squeak from men. Hence the problem with no name.

In contrast [to “the somewhat negative, repetitive, even whingeing tone of the [The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Farrell], there is David Thomas, author of Not Guilty. Unlike the American basis of Farrell’s book, Thomas adopts a British-based, but much more holistic perspective — and where Farrell’s background in academia and politics involves speaking to captive audiences who do not have the freedom to leave the room, Thomas is a product of the competitive and slick world of British glossy magazine journalism; (an industry which he notes, is one of the few that is dominated by women). Unlike Farrell’s lacklustre style, here is someone who is used to having to entertain as well as to inform, who is used to fighting to keep an audience. Not Guilty is therefore a far superior book, combining rhetorical style with statistical argument. Thomas also uses personal anecdotes and interviews, thus adding a strongly human dimension to his raw figures and studies. Far from weakening the force of the book, this actually adds to the argument, making it much easier for the audience to relate to the book.

Several years ago David Thomas wrote an excellent book, “Not Guilty: In Defence of the Modern Man.” One of his chapters is called “The Myth of the Bad Man.” Thomas shows that today’s intellectual elite is creating a myth that men are violent and violence is male. A huge cottage industry has grown up to demonstrate that within families, men are a bad influence — a necessary evil at best. “Meanwhile,” asks Thomas, “why won’t anyone have the courage and the honesty to confront and deal with abuse carried out by women?”

There is no balance, says Thomas, who writes of a “pattern of prejudice” in social science itself. Thomas argues that today’s accepted orthodoxy holds “that all abusers are male. …” This is especially true in the area of sexual harassment.

The organization of hatred along sexual lines is, in my view, the most troubling intellectual trend in modern thought today. The next time you hear somebody say that men are pigs — or some similar comment — you might want to object….

Right! The cover of Not Guilty successfully sums up the spirit of the book in an adaptation of Michel Angelo’s Creation of Adam:

Adaptation of Michael Angelo's The Creation of Adam

Men are okay!

Forget the myth of the oppressed Japanese women.  Forget the myth of women being oppressed anywhere, especially the assertions that they are being oppressed in any of the developed nations, where women live much longer and more comfortable lives than their male counterparts there or anywhere else. Men are okay!  Enough already with the tarring and feathering of men.

I found Not Guilty to be considerably more positive and informative than Warren Farrell’s books, such as The Myth of Male Power.  After all, Warren Farrell is a power-feminist who declared that he wants to empower women, apparently through normalizing men down to women’s level and through portraying men as victims of neglect and vilification.
__________________
Originally posted 2000 05 23, at the website of Fathers for Life.

See also Marty Nemko’s statement, “In Defense of Men.”

Posted in Books & Films, Feminism, Men's Issues, Propaganda Exposed | 1 Comment

Irrational problem solving or rationality, the difference is?

Irrational problem solving is in, rational problem solving is out.  What is the difference?  The main objective is to make the victims of miscarriage of justice feel better — justified or not, right?  First there was Omar Khadr, except that — believe it or not — he wasn’t the first.  Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along.  How many more cases like this are coming down the pipe?

Irrational Problem Solving

Three Muslim-Canadians who sued Canada’s government for $100 million each

Summation of the article

The CBC article states that three Muslim-Canadians were arrested in Syria and tortured:

1.) Abdullah Almalki, a Syrian-born graduate in electrical engineering from Ottawa’s Carleton University with a successful electronics export business, was arrested in May 2002 upon his arrival in Damascus to visit family. He was held in custody for 22 months.
2.)Ahmad Elmaati went to Damascus to get married in the fall of 2001. He was handcuffed and hooded at the airport and taken to a Syrian prison and tortured. Then he was put on a private jet and sent to Egypt, where he was tortured further. He was released in January 2004.
3.) Muayyed Nureddin, Iraqui-born Principal of a Toronto Islamic school…was detained in 2003, as he crossed the border from Iraq into Syria. …Nureddin was held for 34 days in a Syrian dungeon before he was released and allowed to return to Canada.

All three men had sued the Canadian government for compensation, for $100 million each. All three men settled out of court with the Canadian government. “The statement does not provide any details about the nature of the settlements reached, financial or otherwise.” I wonder whether the figure for each of the men was perhaps $10.5 million. After all, that seems to become a familiar figure for such settlements, because,

There is also another case, »A 2006 inquiry led by Justice Dennis O’Connor found that Canadian officials played a role in Arar’s torture, and he received an apology and $10.5 million from the federal government. O’Connor also recommended a review of Almalki, Elmaati and Nureddin’s cases.«

Issues and Consequences

I wonder. Does the Canadian government really have a responsibility to compensate people whom they grant citizenship, only to find them returning to where they came from and to be arrested there?

It is a safe guess that the settlements now total about $53 million. Before we know it, they may be some more cases, and — $10 million here, $10 million there — before we know, we are talking about real money.

Money does not appear to be the main concern for the Canadian government.  After all, what is another $53 million that is being added to the $12 trillion of what we already owe to lenders and future generations will be made to try but never manage to pay it all anyway?

What would be wrong with travel advisories to Canadian nationals who are Muslims and wish to return to the places they sought refuge from? Should the government perhaps tell them, “Look if you go to a country like that and get arrested and tortured, we will not be liable. You go there at your own risk. Here is a release from for you to sign, if you wish to go.”?

By the same token, just in case the Canadian government is incapable of keeping track of who wishes to go where (which they are and can’t), why not just issue a general travel advisory and tell all Canadians, when they purchase their tickets, that they will be going at their own risk?   That is what health-insurance companies do, and why shouldn’t they?  They need to worry about making a profit.  Our governments don’t even worry about the debts they run up.  They don’t, because no one holds them accountable.

Still, such a travel advisory is the norm for anyone else.  Why does the Canadian government not issue any?  That should take care of anyone from being caught in a fire-fight anywhere between local government forces and their allies, against terrorists troubling the local governments.  When he realizes that no one will help him out of the bind he will get himself into, he will think more than twice about getting into it.

What is happening is becoming ridiculous, but why not? If you can’t get any money from the regime that arrested and tortured you, why not go for compensation from the pushover country that let you go there? That works fine, doesn’t it?

How many more cases like that are in the pipe? Now that there have been five precedents for about $10 million each, things should be rolling right along.

Rational or Irrational Problem Solving?

We have got a problem. The problem with Muslims who have Canadian citizenship but yearn to be in Islamic nations of one sort or another for whatever reasons is turning into quite a good-sized liability. Perhaps Muslims coming to Canada and then opting for dual citizenship is not such a good idea because it is plainly an all-around bad deal.

How should the problem be solved?

The rational way to fix a problem is to,

  1. Recognize and admit that there is one;
  2. Determine the most economical and most effective way to fix it and how it can be prevented from re-occurring, and
  3. Fix it and keep it from happening again.

Irrational problem solving, the Liberal way to deal with the very same problem, is to,

  1. Ignore that there is one, but relish the pain experienced by anyone as a result of the problem;
  2. Determine what needs to be done to make the victims of the consequences of the problem feel good, and
  3. Make the victim of the problems feel good, regardless of the cost, and keep looking for more victims who can be made to feel good as well.

Rational problem solving addresses the fundamental causes of a problem, the causes that made the problem happen and keep it alive.  Rational problem solving eradicates those fundamental problem causes and keeps them from ever happening again.

Irrational problem solving focuses on problem symptoms and how to mitigate them, without ever wasting a thought on the fundamental causes that make the problem produce problem symptom after problem symptom.

Irrational problem solving ensures that there will be a never-ending number of problems symptoms that need to be mitigated.  Irrational problem solving can be compared to treating the symptoms of small-pocks with Band Aids, without ever spending a thought on developing a vaccine that will eradicate the  small-pocks virus forever.

 

Posted in Civil Rights, Men's Issues, The New World Order, Violence by Proxy | Comments Off on Irrational problem solving or rationality, the difference is?

Sheep People Comparisons – Are people sheeple?

It was in 1997 when I first wrote this commentary.  I updated it today, but not too many changes needed to be made.  It concerns sheep people comparisons, something that many people often make.  Some do it so much that they refer to people and their  allegedly sheep-like behaviour as sheeple.  Is that fair to sheep or people?  I thought about it, and here are the results of that.

Many years ago I obtained my first e-mail address.  I made it sheep_@telusplanet.net.  That address is now defunct, as eventually it became so well-known by spammers that a vast and overwhelming  majority of the mail I received was spam, and much of the rest of it contained attachments with viruses.  Some messages had the viruses embedded.

Coping with that was quite a nuisance that became alleviated to some extent through the efforts of the software industry that never seem to crack down on spammers and hackers but makes all of us buy-in on the virus protection racket.  Who can find fault with that?  Anti-virus protection and software is a multi-billion dollar business, and why fix what earns so much money?

At any rate, enjoy the sheep people comparisons that are contained in this article, the comments about sheeple.

Index to subject areas of sheep people comparisons

  1. Introduction
  2. Bonobos reality
  3. Illegitimacy
  4. Group Instinct
  5. Sexuality
  6. Domestic Relations
  7. Domestic Violence
  8. Child Abuse
  9. Homosexuality

Introduction

Ever since I started to use my first e-mail address in 1988, I now and then had a comment on the first five characters of the address: sheep.  The following is an example from a message received in 1997.

PS I take it “sheep” is a word-play on the “Schneider” who shears sheep? Or, is this just a coincidence ? I thought “schneiden” usually referred to cutting/tailoring cloth, and “scheren” to cutting/shearing sheep.

Schneider is the German word for tailor, but it could also be used as the term for cutter (in a literal translation, usually in a compound noun, such as Glasschneider — glass cutter)

The man who asked the question was almost right.  The word “sheep” in the address does relate to sheep (the animal), actually, the fact that we produced sheep. In 1997, when this was originally written, we still had a few, after having had to down-size substantially, when our flock became literally decimated in 1996 through predation by three separate packs of coyotes that came daily for snacks.  We lost a good number of ewes and more than four times their number in lambs that year — almost our entire profit from the sheep operation went to the coyotes in the last year of our operation.

Curiously, at that time Canada Parks and Wildlife were equipping coyotes at nearby Elk Island National Park with radio collars.  They did that, so that they could track and study them, justifying that needless job because they had decided that Canadian coyotes were in danger from human encroachment, which was patently untrue at the time and even less so now.  Coyotes are routinely found in Canada’s cities, where they now and then dine on pets taken for walks by their owners.  Environmentalism was already then a cause célèbre and always good for successfully requesting lavish funding through which those so inclined could make a good living, regardless of whether the activities they pursued and wanted the taxpayers to pay for served a useful purpose or not.

After we decided to sell all except a few lambs for cutting the grass around the yard, I was actually worried for a while that we might lose so many before the next scheduled sale, that it might hardly have been worth it to call the trucker to haul them to the stockyards.

Well, the down-sizing was a blessing in disguise.  We gained a little bit more time then.   Ruth and I were both getting a bit worn out anyway.

We also chose the word sheep for the address because of our activism and the fact that society is as easily conditioned as a flock of sheep.  Sheep are much better though and more persistent in their habits.  They retain them far better than people do and always have realistic motives for their behaviour, which appears primarily and consistently motivated by greed for personal, instant gratification.

In the 1980s and ’90s,  we heard frequently about the Bonobos, a species of small chimpanzees living in Africa and in some zoos, whose members appear to be possessed by obsessive-compulsive sexual behaviour, that perhaps being the reason why they never fully developed and never managed to come out of the trees to create a civilization.  Instead, they remained stunted, while they blissfully copulated their brains out.  They simply wasted a lot of time devoting their attention to unproductive sexual behaviour.  Nevertheless, many feminists would like us to emulate their behaviour, while claiming that post-coital bliss and stupor would be a worth-while goal to achieve, somewhat like an eco-friendly, pacifying Soma, all the more so when it can be employed to gain social status and popularity in a troupe of Bonobos.  Those feminist “researchers” and their disciples seem to forget the little problem of the correlation between that type of behaviour and the lack of being civilized.


Bonobo not so peace-loving

A four-year-old female bonobo.
Bonobos have been recognized as a species for less than a century.
JAMES MOLLISON / CHRIS BOOT LTD

Update 2008 02 28: The Bonobos’ reality is somewhat different.  When observed in the wild, away from captivity in which there is little more to do than eat and have sex, Bonobos are not too different from other chimpanzees.  Bonobos in the wild, it can be argued, don’t have sex more often than other chimpanzees do.  Most importantly and counter to feminist propagandistic claims, Bonobos are violent, perhaps as violent as other Chimpanzees.  This link will lead to a very interesting article about that and many other misperceptions regarding the Bonobos, “Swingers : Bonobos are celebrated as peace-loving, matriarchal, and sexually liberated. Are they?” by Ian Parker July 30, 2007, The New Yorker.


Nevertheless, sheep people have many misperceptions about how things work in nature.

Environmentalist's fantasy of sheep and wolves living in harmony

Wolves (or coyotes, for that matter) and sheep do not live in harmony. They do not play leap-frog with one another.

Illegitimacy

There are other implications in the behaviour of the Bonobos and other varieties of chimpanzees whom the feminists would have us emulate and go back to the social standards that prevailed before the rise of civilization.  The Scientific American (January 1999 issue, page 97) reported that “Pascal Gagneux and David S. Woodruff of the University of California at San Diego — together with Christophe Boesch of the Zoological Institute of the University of Basel [Switzerland]” used DNA tracing to investigate “the mating habits of a group of wild chimpanzees in the Ta—Forest of Ivory Coast. . . . By comparing the … DNA fingerprints of the adult males and females of the group with those of 13 offspring, Gagneux, Woodruff and Boesch found that seven of the babies could not have been fathered by males in the group.”

That’s an illegitimacy rate of more than 50% with respect to the gene pool present in the group of chimpanzees that these researchers studied, not to say anything about the extent of promiscuity of the females within that group in relation to their ostensible mates (chimpanzees don’t practice monogamy).  From the account given of the researchers’ findings, it appears that the adult females in the study group were quite sneaky about their “trysts” and must have used stealth during the night to see their “extramarital” lovers.  The authors of the article, E. Richard Moxon and Christopher Wills, opined that behaviour like that might explain why even small groups of chimpanzees maintain a great deal of genetic diversity, with the preservation of such variety being essential to the survival of wild chimpanzee populations. (Scientific American, January 1999, p. 97) [*]


* The modern re-engineering of humanity managed to undo the regulating of human sexuality that it took 10,000 years to bring to reasonable levels, to the point where some groups of civilized humans reverted back to and now exceed the extent of promiscuity of primates in the wild.

Six in 10 who take DNA tests in Wales turn out not to be fathers
Wales News – News – WalesOnline, www.walesonline.co.uk

ALMOST six out of 10 Welsh men who take a paternity test turn out not to be the biological father….(Full Story off-site)


It is interesting that it is the females who sneak off to have their trysts, to follow their biological need for genetic diversification and dispersion in their offspring.

The preservation of genetic diversity played an important role in the social habits of the Eskimos and other isolated communities of northern natives of Canada.  They exercised the practice of providing visiting men from distant tribes or communities with local women, even if they came just for an overnight stay.  That practice became diminished to a considerable extent, ever since the advent of Christianity in those communities.  In consequence, strongly localized genetic aberrations made their appearance.  Some of these genetic aberrations, enhanced through the inbreeding forced upon extremely small communities that have insufficient genetic diversity to maintain viability, are distinctly European in origin.  Visiting sailors and other White men who spent time in Eskimo communities have left their mark.

The remnants of the biological need for genetic variety in small isolated communities may be a biological necessity that drives social behaviour in communities that no longer need to worry about deliberately bringing it about.  On the basis of  investigations in a community in England, another one in Canada, and based on the results of tissue matching for organ transplants in supposedly monogamous, stable families, it was found that on average one in five children in such marriages are not the biological offspring of their ostensible natural fathers.  It must be a very devastating experience for fathers ready and prepared to donate a kidney for their poor suffering offspring to discover that the child they thought all along was theirs isn’t.

Obviously, civilization was far from totally successful in regulating, guaranteeing and controlling paternity through matrimony, although jurisprudence increasingly grasps at straws to assign “fathers” to children, with little regard to marital or biological status of paternity.  Still,

Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own. —Aristotle

At any rate, Ruth and I never managed to go to far-off places to study the Bonobos in attempts to contrive from their behaviour reasons for establishing new moral standards in society, such as the exhaustive variety of sexual behaviour discovered in the study populations of the Bonobos.   We did, however, have occasion to observe sexual and social behaviour of another species of animals, the sheep that we lived for and who lived on our farm.   We learned quite a bit from our sheep.  But, rather than to suggest that humans should emulate the Bonobos and swing in the trees again, or rather than to suggest that humans should emulate sheep instead of emulating the Bonobos in some far-off African jungle,  I would like to simply recount some of the things in which man and sheep are alike, and some of those in which they differ.

Group Instinct

Sheep are animals that are without exception dominated by a group instinct.  They do everything together, when one eats they all eat, when one drinks they all drink, and when one lays down to chew its cud they all do.  When one panics, all of them panic, unlike humans, where that can only be said to be true of a majority of anyone group.  However, just like humans, sheep are easily fooled.  When they are fooled all of them are fooled.

Sexuality

We discovered an interesting peculiarity, peculiar only because it seemed so on account of a misperception that not only we had been but also many other people are suffering from, the alleged absence of the female urge to want to have sexual relations.  It is actually the ewes who actively pursue the ram to give themselves an opportunity to be bred.  That fact made it necessary for us to arrange the corrals in our yard so that the boards were nailed or screwed to the side of the fence posts on which the ewes spent their time eating and socializing.  Otherwise they would actually push the boards off to get to the rams and mess up our breeding program.  So much for the passive sexuality of the females, eh?

The mating behaviour of teen-aged girls (and even of fully grown adult women) appears to be much the same as that of ewes, although the feminists claim that it is all the fault of the men and boys.  By the way, cattle display basically the same behaviour. All domesticated mammals apparently do, except humans — they say.  But then it is questionable from my observations whether that is true or, if it isn’t, whether sheep people are truly domesticated.  What do you think?  If you should have any doubts about that, spend a few hours in a mall where teenagers hang out and observe their mating behaviour.  Honestly, I could swear that they behave like sheep in clothing.  I can tell without making any mistakes what sheep-like mating behaviour looks like, regardless of how it is dressed up.

I’ve got to do this right and give this part of my musings equitable and politically-correct treatment.  The sheep people comparisons of the mating behaviours must also address the one of man and beast.  Rams, unlike men, have it really good in that respect.  They know when a ewe is ready and when the time is right.  They constantly check out the ewes for breeding readiness, much like men do who are table-hopping in a bar, although these days it seems to be more likely that women pursue that activity.  Signals are exchanged between each ewe and the ram when he checks her out.  When she is at the right moment, she’ll let him know in no mistaken terms.  She’ll stand for him to be mounted, always!  The ewe simply would not think to turn away and say: “Not now dear.  I’ve got a headache.”

That and the idea that the ram could easily have an endless row of opportunities could make many a man envious.  Not so fast!  Each ewe has an 80% chance of being impregnated when she is bred.  Once she has been successfully bred, that’s it!  There’s no more copulating after that, until the breeding season in the following year.

We gave our ewes three chances, three cycles of 17 days, and if they weren’t bred after that, they went.  We shipped them out.  So, on average the rams had it good for about seven to eight weeks each year.  After that they had to abstain, which wasn’t too hard for them because, just like the ewes, they are seasonal breeders, unlike humans, men and women alike (except some feminists who like to abstain permanently), who normally like to do it all year around.

The shepherd wants that the lambing period will be over as quickly as possible. That means exposing the ewes to the ram for a maximum of 51 days during any year.  The rest of the year the rams and the ewes are by force chaste, through force of nature and man.  What lessens their bad feelings in that respect a bit is the fact, as I already mentioned, that they are seasonal breeders, like deer and like the members of the deer family they are, and that they are at the peak of their libido during September to early January.

There is one major difference in the breeding behaviour of man and beast.  Animals only copulate when the females are in estrus, but when that time comes there is no holding them back.  We have never had to eliminate frigid ewes from the flock, only sterile ones — they always all got themselves bred when they cycled (we used paint markers on the rams; the paint rubs off on the ewes; thereby we can can tell who did and who didn’t engage in breeding activities (the colour of the wax crayons used in the marking harness got changed when a new cycle began), while humans are usually immune from detection, unless something unforeseen and not-hoped-for should happen to them).  That had caused some frustration for us, because we would not find out about barren ewes until about 147 days after they had been bred, but we only experienced less than ten of them in a total of a few-thousand ewes over a twenty-year interval.  To avoid that problem, we exposed the ewes to the rams for three cycles and assumed that when a ewe came into estrus again, after having been bred during three cycles, she would not be bringing us any lambs and had to be sold.  Thereby we would not have to feed her for five months, only to find that she was barren.

Infant sheep (lambs, that is) do engage in sex play.  It is quite a large part of the routines they use in play, and they do play a lot.  The ram lambs do perhaps a bit more of the mounting than the ewe lambs, but they have no preference for the sex of the lamb they mount. Penetration is not possible, because they can’t produce an erection at a young age.  They truly consider it play and just go through the motion of mounting.  And let there be no mistake, ewe lambs and ram lambs alike love to engage in that mounting game, indiscriminately, as active and passive participants.

Domestic Relations

Sheep have neither marriages nor divorces, nor do they have any conjugal loyalty, unlike humans, who at least pretend at times that partners are true to each other.  All that matters to sheep in that respect is to breed and to be bred.  It would not really be to any advantage to the ewes to have marital bonds.  They are taken care of one way or another.  Child support can’t become an incentive for them.  If sheep in the wild have any social mechanisms to prevent inbreeding or incest, that got lost a long time ago in domesticated sheep.  The only one who can exercise any control over that and prevent undesired excesses is the one in charge of the flock, the shepherd.  Any such controls for the safe-guarding of general humanitarian moral standards in human society through the intervention of the equivalent institution, the judiciary,  have long ago been lost in human society.

Shared parenting has to my knowledge never been observed in sheep.  The rams don’t become involved in any parental duties or enjoyment of fatherhood, contrary to what gay-activist-influenced Disney would have us believe.  The rams are truly nothing more than donors of sperm and instruments for insemination; sort of what some lesbians use, like turkey basters on four legs.

Don’t look for anything in the way of rams in the role of protectors.  They simply don’t care, no more than a turkey baster does.  If any protecting is done, it’s done by the ewes.  However, there isn’t anything noble or indicative of self-sacrifice in the protecting that sheep do.  It’s all about self-protection when they are in a flock.

It was frustrating for us to see, when a predator attacked a flock of sheep in the open pasture, but also very interesting.  The ewes would crowd together into a tight mass that would be in a circular motion.  While the whole group of ewes milled around like that, the strong and heavy ewes managed to work themselves into the centre of the flock, with the weakest animals, the lambs and their mothers, being left on the outside.  Those lambs and some of their weaker mothers would then be picked off by the predators.

That is very much like similar situations in human society.  The big strong ewes are most likely to be ewes that have no lambs or at most only one.  Most of the weaker ewes would be the productive mothers whose lambs, of course, would cling close to their mothers at the periphery of the milling crowd that safely surrounded the few fat, strong ewes at the centre of the flock, whenever a threat came about.  It was those weaker ewes and their lambs at the periphery who would have to bear the brunt of any attack on the whole flock.  Just like weak women in society, weak ewes do not benefit at all from the protection that they offer to the fat ewes safely ensconced at the centre of the milling flock.  Rather, whether they do so on purpose or not, they maneuver themselves into sacrificing themselves, to save the big, fat ewes at the centre of the milling crowd.

That always reminded me of the herd mechanisms at work in women’s issues with respect to the few feminists in our society who ostensibly work for the benefit of all women and who rake in fat salaries while safely ensconced in women’s health centres, battered women’s shelters, women’s ministries, Status of Women offices, or any other institutions that ostensibly serve to protect the common masses of women from the depredations of the institution of the family.

While these few privileged, mostly childless women from the upper- and upper middle classes of society plot their strategies for the destruction of our families and society in their plush offices, the majority of women who are the child bearers — in attempts to secure the survival of civilization and the species — suffer the consequences at the periphery.  Ever-increasing numbers of these weaker women who were being coaxed from the protection of warm and loving families find themselves in poverty.  They struggle with the difficult task of being parents who mistakenly thought that they would have it all and now find themselves having to do it all, by themselves, and often relying on welfare handouts for which the funds are being rapidly depleted.

Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a reality with sheep.  I always wonder why it is that, when we see sheep butting each other on TV, it is always the rams who are involved in that activity.  I suspect that it is a conspiracy by gay-rights activists and feminist propagandists that keeps the truth from us about that, too.  The truth is that ewes fight too, far more often than rams do.  They fight bitterly and hard! Often more than two are involved in an all-out brawl.  Not only that.  They are mean about it and relentless, often carrying on with their animosity for so long that we were forced to cull some of them and send them into exile.

Ewes have no compunctions about fighting dirty and often butt each other in the gut!  We found that when they butt, they often use sneak-attacks and do it without any warning to the victim.   In that respect, ewes are very much like women when the latter attack policemen after those come calling to investigate reports of domestic violence incidents.  That’s something the rams never do!  They make a ritual out of the process of fighting and are virtually always fair about their rules.  They seem like men when they make formal declarations of war before engaging in hostilities, or, if they do it in private, when they challenge each other to get the opponent to knock a chip of their shoulder or when they slap their opponents lightly on the face to challenge them before they join in formal combat.

Nevertheless, overall, ewes are the more violent ones, not only with respect to violence against their children but even with respect to mutual violence between adult ewes, much as in human society, where the households most likely to experience incidents of domestic violence are those of lesbian women.  If an adult sheep is involved in inter-gender violence, it most often involves a mother and an offspring that she considers not her own, with same-gender violence between ewes being a distant second.

Rams, too, are more like humans in that respect.  They never attack or hurt their offspring, much like real dads, at the very least not until their offspring are fully grown and worthy opponents, and never unless they are challenged.

Often I wish that people would be more like sheep in one aspect of domestic violence.  We never observed inter-spousal violence between opposite sexes in sheep.  Not once have we ever seen a ewe attack a ram, and, of course, the rams just wouldn’t dream of attacking  a ewe.

Child Abuse

Child abuse and neglect by sheep is called mismothering.  It is far more common in sheep than anyone would expect, just like in humans.  However, unlike humans, with sheep it is possible to eliminate that trait from a flock through aggressive culling — by selling off both mother and daughter — because daughters from bad mothers in turn have an 80% likelihood of being bad mothers themselves (who often deliberately kill their babies, again just like in humans, although, to give them credit in that respect, ewes never demand voluntary abortions).  Ewes are extremely reluctant to adopt strange babies.  Orphans are best taken care of by bottle-feeding them in foster homes run by humans.  On the other hand, expecting ewes that are within hours of lambing steal another ewe’s lamb if that ewe is too busy with the delivery of her second or third one.  That is the main reason why during lambing time ewes must be watched 24 hours, around the clock.  I suspect if that were to be done with humans (surprising results were found when that was done through covert video surveillance), fewer human babies would be stolen, and most definitely far fewer would be killed.

Nevertheless, although it is found time and again that mismothering by human mothers is very common (and goes, moreover, unchecked and is therefore rampant), dictionaries contain a definition of the term that relates it to behaviour that is peculiar with sheep.  It is apparently not to be mentioned in connection with the concept of sacred and often unjustifiably revered motherhood by women.  There it goes again, denial of reality for the sake of maintaining institutionalized misperceptions.  It is, of course, propaganda in action:

Definition of mismother
of a ewe
:  to fail to own and care for (her lamb)
_________
Source: Merriam Webster

With respect to the severity of violence against infants, it does not matter whether the infant truly is a strange lamb or whether the ewe just thinks that it is a strange lamb.  However, when such violence occurs, infants of both sexes are equally likely to be at the receiving end of it — very unlike what happens with human infants and their mothers.  In humans, boys are almost twice as likely as girls to be the victims of violence by their mothers.

However, we never observed any single ewe to develop any animosity towards any of her offspring once she assumed the sacred duty of motherhood.  Once they do that, they are devout, doting and loving mothers until their breeding cycle demands of them to prepare themselves to become ready for the next breeding season.  In that respect, ewes appear to be considerably different from human mothers, who often become a nemesis of their children and frequently inflict upon the latter a life-time of suffering, regardless of whether such malicious human mothers are in season or not.

Unlike in humans, where natural fathers are one-ninth as likely as biological mothers to kill their offspring, we never once had a ram that killed any of his descendants, although we once had a triad of rams that butted each other so aggressively that one of them got some of his ribs broken and died of the consequences.  That was primarily my fault.  I had wanted to improve the quality of the wool in our flock and bought a Finn-sheep ram.  That breed is finely boned and considerably less in weight than the other breeds that we were using.  He wanted in on the scrap and got a fatal licking. That was after he had done all of the breeding he was supposed to do.  At least we still had the benefit of his genes after he departed.  In that respect, just like any disfranchised father, he had done his job and donated his sperm, so that, although we would have liked to have him around for another two or three years, his loss wasn’t that important in the scheme of things.  Other rams took his place.  Just as in humans in modern society, that father was of little consequence in the subsequent life of the children he helped to be conceived.  That is the nature of sheep.  We now consider that to be desirable in humans as well.  At least that’s what the feminist sociologists tell us.

Homosexuality

Although it is claimed that homosexuality is natural with humans, it isn’t with sheep.  Not once did we observe homosexual activities in sheep when heterosexual opportunities for copulating were available for them, except for such behaviour in single-sex groups who were prevented from heterosexual contact.  Amongst adult animals, once they had experienced heterosexual copulation, they would never revert to homosexual behaviour, even though for most of the year they were in single-sex groups.  Quite a departure from the behaviour of homosexual humans, isn’t it?

It is not possible to be wrong about that.  With sheep you know!  They definitely don’t have any closets to hide in.  With them it’s all out in the open.  They are honest and at the same time have no scruples other than a slight reluctance to eat very close to where they have defecated (and in that their habits are quite removed from those of some homosexuals).  And you know what? I can’t really say that either one of us ever did observe lesbianism in ewes, unless one considers the ewes’ imitation of the rams’ fighting ritual as evidence of that.

If that’s the case, then one would have to consider all ewes to show lesbian tendencies to varying degrees when they come into heat and no ram is present.  However, one would also have to admit then that, because of the absence of such fighting behaviour when ewes are either pregnant, nursing lambs, or in the company of a ram, they have a distinct preference for real sexual contact over the fake kind, just like the rams do.

And what is wrong with that?  Consider that the main purpose of a sheep is to produce another sheep.  Just like humans, they are built for propagating and nothing else.  There is no way that anyone can deny biological requirements, not even in humans, regardless of how sheepish they might act.  That is the master plan!

Let’s assume that the claim by some “researchers” of a homosexual gene in humans is correct.  Maybe there is a genetic disposition towards homosexuality in some humans.  That would make humans distinctively different from sheep in that respect.

Could there be a hidden agenda for the experiments in Scotland, where they achieved to combine human genes with those of a sheep to produce what could be thought to be technically a human-sheep hybrid,  although that would not be quite correct if a full human chromosome was not used in the experiment?  I always was suspicious of the motivations of shepherds who would prefer a kilt to a pair of trousers equipped with zippers — the absence of noise, you know?  [It seems that we’ll have to fear nothing yet.  Other researchers reported since then that they failed to duplicate the results of the Scottish experiments and therefore were unable to verify the accuracy of the Scottish claims.  1998 10 07 —WHS]

Could the agenda be that either the researchers in Scotland are trying to produce homosexual sheep, or that they are trying to eradicate the “genetic disposition towards homosexuality” in humans, by introducing a superior gene into the human gene-pool?  If the latter is true, do they really think that it is possible to make people even more like sheep than they presently are?  After all of the hype about Lady Diana, who, suddenly elevated to the status of a saintly woman, was mourned by millions of sheep people (polished pedestal, and all flaws deliberatelyy ignored), it seems hardly possible to achieve such a goal.  Nevertheless, there are a few characteristics of sheep that, if they could be transferred to humans, would, oddly, make humans not more sheepish but, rather, more humane.

Count your sheep, don’t let the coyotes or the neighbour’s dogs get them, and good night.

Walter H. Schneider, 1997 11 14 (updated 1998 10 07 and 2017 07 14)

PS.   Please, don’t send me any jokes about sheep.   I don’t want to issue a challenge here, but there would be extremely few that I haven’t heard yet.  (Don’t give me any BS about anything I stated in this article.  I’m familiar with BS and SS and can quite well tell the difference between the two.)

Posted in Child Abuse, Child Support, Child-Custody Awards, Divorce, Gay issues, Paternal Rights, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ashley Murrell banished husband to sofa and found him dead | Daily Mail Online

Ashley Murrell, from Somerset, found her husband (pictured together) Mikey’s body on May 16, but it has now emerged that she is in a relationship with his brother, Chris.

Source: Ashley Murrell banished husband to sofa and found him dead | Daily Mail Online

Posted in Men's Issues | Comments Off on Ashley Murrell banished husband to sofa and found him dead | Daily Mail Online