The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW)

The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW) was only the first of many such agendas and has undergone numerous changes and transitions since the first in the long series was published.

During the 1990s, I downloaded the 1966 agenda of NOW, because I feared that at some time in the future the agenda wouldn’t be available at the NOW web site anymore, either because NOW will become defunct, or because NOW might find their 1966 agenda to become an embarrassment, or both.  The 1966 Agenda is quoted here unabridged, except for the comments I provided after each of the portion of the quoted text of the 1966 Agenda of NOW.

Aside from the flawed and skewed statistics presented in the first Agenda of NOW, shown below (the radical feminists, better called redfems, still use the same tactics in the presentation of such statistics), a lot has changed that indicates that the aims set out in the agenda have been met or surpassed.

Why are we now engaged in an all-out war on men?

The answer to that may be in the comment shown in Michael Crichton’s The Great Train Robbery:

Victorians also witnessed another rivalry, centering around a new social institution — the organized police force.  Almost immediately, the new force began to form relationships with its avowed enemy, the criminal class.  These relationships were much debated in the nineteenth century, and they continue to be debated to the present day.  The similarity in methods of police and criminals, as well as the fact that many policemen were former criminals — and the reverse — were features not overlooked by thinkers of the day.  And it was also noted by Sir James Wheatstone that there was a logical problem inherent in a law-enforcement institution, “for, should the police actually succeed in eliminating all crime, they will simultaneously succeed in eliminating themselves as a necessary adjunct to society, — and no organized force or power will ever eliminate itself willingly.”

The question here is: to what extent does a bureaucracy contribute to bring about the conditions that it was created to resolve?  If it is possible and likely that a bureaucracy perpetuates itself, will it not be an absolute requirement that it creates or finds enough reasons for its own existence?  How does that apply to all aspects of jurisprudence and social services?

There is no question that NOW was an organized power in 1998.  There is no questions that its members, sympathizers and collaborators had by then permeated all sectors of politics and the bureaucracy.  Should there be any question that NOW and its supporters govern under the premise expressed by Sir James Wheatstone?  Read the 1966 Agenda of NOW shown below and judge for yourself. Here it is:

The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose

NOTICE: This is a historic document, which was adopted at NOW’s first National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. The words are those of the 1960’s, and do not reflect current language or NOW’s current priorities.

To our sorrow we are only too well aware of that.

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

Done and surpassed

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

Done and accomplished, except for the equality for men. That got lost in the process of implementation.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of choice which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

Done and accomplished–except that women now have a far more pronounced special status than they ever had.

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

Full equality and then some more has been attained, however, the “accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life” has not come about. There is no military draft for women. Women are absent in all walks of life that involve exposure to the elements and to the risk of physical danger.

The result is that the gap between the life spans of men and women in all developed nations of the world stands now at seven years or more in favour of women.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society.

That goal has now been far exceeded. Women enjoy unprecedented advantages over men in  all of the areas mentioned.

Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child- rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives — still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

An enormous deviation from that goal has occurred. Although the life-span of women has lengthened by several years since then, no-fault divorce has pushed many women deeper into the role of mothering than ever before. They have thus managed to place themselves deeper and more firmly into the role from which they tried so hard to liberate themselves.

Today’s technology has reduced most of the productive chores which women once performed in the home and in mass-production industries based upon routine unskilled labor. This same technology has virtually eliminated the quality of muscular strength as a criterion for filling most jobs, while intensifying American industry’s need for creative intelligence. In view of this new industrial revolution created by automation in the mid-twentieth century, women can and must participate in old and new fields of society in full equality — or become permanent outsiders.

Woman are graduating in unprecedented numbers from educational institutions. The majority of graduates are women. However, their desire to make their way in social science, politics, and the liberal arts has prevented them from accepting careers to the required extent in the technical fields, engineering, and to some extent in medicine. Many women would still rather teach kindergarten than drive a truck.

Despite all the talk about the status of American women in recent years, the actual position of women in the United States has declined, and is declining, to an alarming degree throughout the 1950’s and 60’s. Although 46.4% of all American women between the ages of 18 and 65 now work outside the home, the overwhelming majority — 75% — are in routine clerical, sales, or factory jobs, or they are household workers, cleaning women, hospital attendants. About two-thirds of Negro women workers are in the lowest paid service occupations. Working women are becoming increasingly — not less — concentrated on the bottom of the job ladder. As a consequence full-time women workers today earn on the average only 60% of what men earn, and that wage gap has been increasing over the past twenty-five years in every major industry group. In 1964, of all women with a yearly income, 89% earned under $5,000 a year; half of all full-time year round women workers earned less than $3,690; only 1.4% of full-time year round women workers had an annual income of $10,000 or more.

Female university graduates in the U.S. , in 1998, earned 98% of what men with identical tenure and credentials earned. In Canada, such women have had pay equity with men since 1992, if they worked the same number of 44 hours per week as men did, and earned more than 110% of what men earn if the weekly number of hours worked by both sexes are in the range of 60 hours. Levels of unemployment are higher for men. There is preferential hiring of women and preferential lay-offs for men.

Further, with higher education increasingly essential in today’s society, too few women are entering and finishing college or going on to graduate or professional school. Today, women earn only one in three of the B.A.’s and M.A.’s granted, and one in ten of the Ph.D.’s.

Done, accomplished and exceeded! The drop-out rate is far higher for men now. The majority of graduates are now women, except in the hard sciences, and whose fault is that?

In all the professions considered of importance to society, and in the executive ranks of industry and government, women are losing ground. Where they are present it is only a token handful. Women comprise less than 1% of federal judges; less than 4% of all lawyers; 7% of doctors. Yet women represent 51% of the U.S. population. And, increasingly, men are replacing women in the top positions in secondary and elementary schools, in social work, and in libraries — once thought to be women’s fields.

Done, accomplished and exceeded! This is were some of the greatest advances by women were made. Women receive preferential treatment in all of these fields. A woman can become a judge far more easily and far quicker than a man.

A woman rises to the rank of General in the Canadian Armed Forces in only a third of the time that is takes a man to reach that position.

The educational field is practically a female monopoly. If woman are still under-represented in any of the fields mentioned, it is because there are no qualified takers for the positions that are available for them–even with the relaxed physical, educational, and professional standards that are generally applied in considering women for job positions.

It appears that women are still reluctant to take advantage of what is offered to them.

Official pronouncements of the advance in the status of women hide not only the reality of this dangerous decline, but the fact that nothing is being done to stop it. The excellent reports of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and of the State Commissions have not been fully implemented. Such Commissions have power only to advise. They have no power to enforce their recommendation; nor have they the freedom to organize American women and men to press for action on them. The reports of these commissions have, however, created a basis upon which it is now possible to build. Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex is now prohibited by federal law, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But although nearly one-third of the cases brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the first year dealt with sex discrimination and the proportion is increasing dramatically, the Commission has not made clear its intention to enforce the law with the same seriousness on behalf of women as of other victims of discrimination. Many of these cases were Negro women, who are the victims of double discrimination of race and sex. Until now, too few women’s organizations and official spokesmen have been willing to speak out against these dangers facing women. Too many women have been restrained by the fear of being called `feminist.” There is no civil rights movement to speak for women, as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak.

And speak they did! By 1998 Men were the discriminated class.

In all imaginable sectors of society, men were as a rule being discriminated against. Jurisprudence was actively pursuing a course of persecution of men. Men were completely helpless in obtaining equitable justice. Governments at all levels were supporting programs in favour of women and virtually none that were in favour of men. Hate language and gender-hatred against men had become part of everyday life and was actively being promoted and sponsored by governments–the reverse had never been the case. Women’s groups received generous funding out of tax funds. Men’s rights groups received none.

Women were considered incapable of committing crimes. Men were considered the sole perpetrators of them. That had reached proportions where women were encouraged to commit violence against men at an ever-increasing rate. Women could with impunity murder their spouses and the men in their lives, and their children—all under the guise of P.M.S., the “Learned Helplessness Syndrome,” the “Battered Woman Syndrome,” “Automatism,” etc. None of those defences were available to men.

Provided a woman’s crime came to trial at all—which it often did not—her chance of being convicted was far less than that of a man.

If a sentence for a violent or any other crime committed by a woman was handed out, she received on average a sentence that was only one third of what a man received for perpetrating a crime of equal severity.

If incarcerated, a woman was likely to serve far less of her term of incarceration than a man would. Women’s prisons were far more amiable than men’s prisons–in general they were described as “country club settings.”

In 1998, the sex ratio of inmates in our correctional facilities in Canada was 100 men for every woman, and in the U.S. 17.2 men for every woman.

The effort to house women in comfortable settings had resulted in the average cost for the accommodation of female inmates to exceed by far that of the average cost for male inmates.

Our Jurisprudence had become so distorted that it was possible for a woman to get a university professor sentenced to a two year term of incarceration for sexual assault, simply by alleging—supported by no evidence other than her say-so—that he “leered” at her in a public swimming pool, and to completely ruin his professional career in the process by forcing him from his teaching position.

A man who dared to use a worm instead of a fly to fish for trout would serve 30 days in jail, whereas a woman who murdered her child or her spouse was most likely not incarcerated even for a single hour.

WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.

Done and surpassed by far! However, the 1996 version of N.O.W.’s agenda still alleged that there was a looming presence of bias against women in our courts and in all other sectors of society. Furthermore, in both Canada and the U.S. a constant stream of legislation was being aimed against the men in our society, abrogating their constitutional rights to an ever-increasing extent.

Is it not time now to insist instead that equitable justice and rights for ALL be established? Should equitable justice and rights not now—where they have been taken away—be restored, implemented and protected for men?

We realize that women’s problems are linked to many broader questions of social justice; their solution will require concerted action by many groups. Therefore, convinced that human rights for all are indivisible, we expect to give active support to the common cause of equal rights for all those who suffer discrimination and deprivation, and we call upon other organizations committed to such goals to support our efforts toward equality for women.

Is it not time now to take the sexist language out of the wording? What would be wrong with demanding “equality for all”?

WE DO NOT ACCEPT the token appointment of a few women to high-level positions in government and industry as a substitute for serious continuing effort to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities. To this end, we urge American government and industry to mobilize the same resources of ingenuity and command with which they have solved problems of far greater difficulty than those now impeding the progress of women.

Done, accomplished and exceeded by far!

WE BELIEVE that this nation has a capacity at least as great as other nations, to innovate new social institutions which will enable women to enjoy the true equality of opportunity and responsibility in society, without conflict with their responsibilities as mothers and homemakers. In such innovations, America does not lead the Western world, but lags by decades behind many European countries. We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other. We question the present expectation that all normal women will retire from job or profession for 10 or 15 years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at a relatively minor level. This, in itself, is a deterrent to the aspirations of women, to their acceptance into management or professional training courses, and to the very possibility of equality of opportunity or real choice, for all but a few women. Above all, we reject the assumption that these problems are the unique responsibility of each individual woman, rather than a basic social dilemma which society must solve. True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child-care centers, which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown, and national programs to provide retraining for women who have chosen to care for their children full-time.

Women aren’t retiring from society, regardless of whether they decide to become fully involved in raising their children.  If the women who make the choice to dedicate themselves are not removed from society, they are still part of it, doing the most important job imaginable, raising the next generation of well-functioning citizens.

However, nothing is new under the sun.  Chairman Mao expressed very much the same sentiments as did Betty Friedan.

That won’t surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that both had a past with a solid Communist upbringing and a long history of being functionaries of the Communist Party.

Nevertheless, the women who choose not to devote their lives to the upbringing of their family’s children now kill them off in numbers that far exceed any horrors ever visited upon humanity. In 1998, 1.6 million viable children were being thrown into North-American trash cans every year, a holocaust far greater than anything anyone could have ever imagined.

The number of these throw-away children in the whole world amounted to 55 million annually (about 45 million annually by 2020).

WE BELIEVE that it is as essential for every girl to be educated to her full potential of human ability as it is for every boy — with the knowledge that such education is the key to effective participation in today’s economy and that, for a girl as for a boy, education can only be serious where there is expectation that it will be used in society. We believe that American educators are capable of devising means of imparting such expectations to girl students. Moreover, we consider the decline in the proportion of women receiving higher and professional education to be evidence of discrimination. That discrimination may take the form of quotas against the admission of women to colleges, and professional schools; lack of encouragement by parents, counselors and educators; denial of loans or fellowships; or the traditional or arbitrary procedures in graduate and professional training geared in terms of men, which inadvertently discriminate against women. We believe that the same serious attention must be given to high school dropouts who are girls as to boys.

Done and accomplished. More boys than girls now drop out.

More women than men graduate. There are no more all-male institutions. More and more all-female institutions are coming into existence. Is it possible to ask for more without eliminating men altogether?

WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility — hers, to dominate — his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of `half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes.

Done and accomplished — in some fashion. Few families find it possible now to survive or exist solely on the father’s income — even if they wanted to. That is largely due to an ever-increasing tax-burden placed upon them for the purpose of addressing the social problems that our social engineers created over the past three decades in the name of “Individual Rights,” and “Gender Equality.”

However, the lamented gender-role assignment:  “…. a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility — hers, to dominate — his to support….” has not been eliminated. Only the context has changed. Nevertheless, women still are, as they always were, the domineering force in our society — now only more so….

Our social engineers have shifted men’s role from their being the sole providers and protectors for their families (if we grant that this was actually an accurate description of the relationship between between fathers and their families) to that of a wage earner enslaved to the Department of Maintenance Enforcement (or pick any other equivalent).

Men’s ability to protect their families has been usurped — a better term would be “eliminated”. A father who has been forced out of his home and family — indeed forced even to live in jail — can’t be a protector of his family any longer. He can’t even be a good supporter, no matter how hard he tries.

 Reality governs. One single household is a more efficient user of the available resources of a set of parents and the resources that society offers to a family than two separate households are. It is not in the best interest of our society to grant surmounting rights to individuals and to destroy its families in the process.

When Pierre Elliot Trudeau said in the 1960s that “The government has no business in the bedrooms of its nation,” he apparently ruled out with that statement many other rights and privileges that families had become accustomed to during the history of civilization.

Single, unprotected women and their children live in ever-increasing poverty. Single mothers experience a disproportionate amount of violence and abuse.

The suffering of the children of single-mother families has reached proportions that have never before been seen. These children comprise by far the largest single group of our prison inmates. They are, compared to children from functional and whole families:

  •   5 times more likely to commit suicide,
  • 32 times more likely to run away,
  • 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
  • 14 times more likely to commit rape,
  •   9 times more likely to drop out of school,
  • 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,
  •   9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution,
  •   8.5 times more likely to end up in prison.
  • 33 times more likely to be seriously abused
  • 73 times more likely to be murdered

There is no alleviation of these problems. Governments, in their attempts to address the symptoms of the problems caused by single-mother families are forced to impose ever-increasing levels of taxation on business and all wage-earners.

WE BELIEVE that women must now exercise their political rights and responsibilities as American citizens. They must refuse to be segregated on the basis of sex into separate-and-not-equal ladies’ auxiliaries in the political parties, and they must demand representation according to their numbers in the regularly constituted party committees — at local, state, and national levels — and in the informal power structure, participating fully in the selection of candidates and political decision-making, and running for office themselves.

Done and accomplished. Woman and the male supporters of their aims are now the most powerful force in our political systems.

IN THE INTERESTS OF THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF WOMEN, we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media, and in the texts, ceremonies, laws, and practices of our major social institutions. Such images perpetuate contempt for women by society and by women for themselves. We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices — in church, state, college, factory, or office — which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.

Done and accomplished. Now men are the ones who are being denigrated through enormous and all-pervasive propaganda campaigns that depict them as violent and brutish batterers, rapists, deadbeat dads, sexist, etc. in spite of a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

NOW WILL HOLD ITSELF INDEPENDENT OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY in order to mobilize the political power of all women and men intent on our goals. We will strive to ensure that no party, candidate, president, senator, governor, congressman, or any public official who betrays or ignores the principle of full equality between the sexes is elected or appointed to office. If it is necessary to mobilize the votes of men and women who believe in our cause, in order to win for women the final right to be fully free and equal human beings, we so commit ourselves.

It is very questionable that this goal has actually been reached. Political parties and radical women’s groups are actively wooing each other. There is indiscriminate appointment of women to positions of power, often without regard for the academic or professional prerequisites needed for the positions to be filled.

WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity — not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes — but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

They stated “partnership,” not “domination,” but it is a goal that has not been met. In fact, the current state of affairs could not have deviated more from the stated objective if people had actively tried to get away from it, and that, as we can see in the trail of the NOW agendas that they have produced over the years, is exactly what was done. For example, see the 1996 Agenda of NOW.

This Statement of Purpose was co-authored by Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, and Dr. Pauli Murray, an African-American, Episcopal minister.

Source: http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html [As of 1998 06 28, that link was still functional. As of today, 2021 04 05, the link returns a 404 error. — Walter H. Schneider]

Where do we go from here? Is it still possible to salvage anything for our society, our children, and for their future, or will we go the way of the USSR–into total and absolute social and economic chaos? We are well down the road to that end. Is it too late to stop and take look at where we are going?

As agendas go and as has happened to so many of them, the NOW agenda too evolved over time. It has undergone a constant stream of changes and modifications until it reached its current state. It would be well if more people would take a close look at NOW’s 1996 agenda and compare it to NOW’s original intentions.

When the goals of the current NOW agenda have been reached and surpassed—they most certainly will do that in the absence of any effective opposition—and when the dust settles, we will be living in a society that even George Orwell and Aldous Huxley would not have dared to think of in their wildest imaginations. We should all mourn the future that lies in wait for our children.


See also:

    • There is absolutely nothing new about the sort of recent development addressed in the 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women.  The trend is simply a continuation of the chivalry by “men” of the Victorian age (politicians, judges and lawyers) who did their best to give women — in the name of liberating them from male oppression — more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).
      _____________
      Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men
    • Sex and Power in History, by Amaury de Riencourt, Review
    • There’s No Place Like Work : How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home, by Brian C. Robertson. Review
    • Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
    • In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

      What Are Boys Good For?

      What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let’s look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars’ [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male—pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
          There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl’s brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
          
      Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: “If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!”
          All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: “Keep tabs on your weight,” “File your nails … ,” “Massage your hands,” “Massage your feet,” “Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated …. ” What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
          
      Do teenage boys’ magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
          In men’s magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men’s magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy’s job? Because women have more important things to do – like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

—Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras – Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell’s message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it “power.” The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn’t help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story goes like this when it is translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny (found at angryharry.com*):

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. “But” said the Scotsman, “I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there’s a little bar called McTavish’s. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you.”

“Well,” said the Englishman “at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2.”

“Ahhh that’s nothin’,” said the Irishman, “Back home in Dublin there’s Ryan’s Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they’ll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you’ve had enough drink they’ll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house.”

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman’s claims. He swears every word is true.

“Well,” said the Englishman, “Did this actually happen to you?” 

“Not myself personally, no” said the Irishman, “but it did happen to my sister.”

found at angryharry.com

Men’s problem is that women’s “powerlessness” has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism [*], but that men’s powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women’s favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men’s lives.

While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to “increase” the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

_______
* If the term “radical feminism” (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See, Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Posted in Civil Rights, Feminism, History | Comments Off on The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW)

76 years after the end of WWII – still no peace treaty with Germany?

76 years after the end of WWII there is still no peace treaty with Germany. Will there ever be one? Let’s wait and see.

“Following the German military leaders’ unconditional surrender in May 1945, the country lay prostrate. The German state had ceased to exist, and sovereign authority passed to the victorious Allied powers….

The Soviets unilaterally severed the German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers and placed these under the direct administrative authority of the Soviet Union and Poland, with the larger share going to the Poles as compensation for territory they lost to the Soviet Union. The former provinces of East Prussia, most of Pomerania, and Silesia were thus stripped from Germany. Since virtually the entire German population of some 9.5 million in these and adjacent regions was expelled westward, this amounted to a de facto annexation of one-fourth of Germany’s territory as of 1937, the year before the beginning of German expansion under Hitler. The Western Allies acquiesced in these actions by the Soviets, taking consolation in the expectation that these annexations were merely temporary expedients that the final peace terms would soon supersede.

As a result of irreconcilable differences among the Allied powers, however, no peace conference was ever held.” More at https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-era-of-partition

Is that really true? Well, consider this opinion:

« *The case for “no real constitution”*

These arguments are historically grown. When West-Germany was founded, it did not have sovereignty and no “real” constitution. Both points resulting from allied control over the German lands and emerging states. The West-German state held the view that it was the only legitimate German state and successor to the German Reich, giving itself a preliminary constitution, called Grundgesetz (Basic Law), until all German lands are again unified, including the GDR and crucially, all other territories in the East, now in Poland and Russia, that were internationally accepted parts of the Reich before 1937. »
More at https://tinyurl.com/8tfy63zy

After the end of the second world war Germany became occupied by the military forces of not just four but five different countries. Canadian troops, too, occupied Germany, but Canada did not sign the 1990 2+4 treaty that was signed by the two Germanies, four of the five official occupational forces, and then again by the newly unified, abridged Germany, the treaty that – so some say – now serves in place of an official, legal peace treaty with Germany.

« In World War II the chief Allied powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on December 8, 1941), and China. More generally, the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers of January 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Yugoslavia. Subsequent wartime signers were (in chronological order) Mexico, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Iraq, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Colombia, Liberia, France, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. »
More on that at https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allied-Powers-international-alliance#ref754272

It seems that there is a sufficiently large number of loose ends to permit even a junior lawyer to drive a wagon through, without getting tangled on any of, the arguments that an international peace treaty with Germany exists. At any rate, the signatures of vastly most of the Allied nations are missing from the 1990 2+4 treaty.

Posted in History | Comments Off on 76 years after the end of WWII – still no peace treaty with Germany?

Evolution and its Consequences : Random Chance or Intelligent Design?

Do evolution and its consequences happen by random chance or intelligent design?

Stephen C. Meyer, Douglas Axe, Chuck Darwin, and Me
Three Evolutionary Siege Howitzers and a Popgun

By FRED REED • OCTOBER 7, 2020 • 11,600 WORDS

https://www.unz.com/freed/stephen-c-meyer-douglas-axe-chuck-darwin-and-me/

It seems odd that the author’s logic leads to the conclusion that, when it comes to human evolution, free will becomes a hindrance rather than a boon, at least for as long as we assume that an objective of human evolution is for humans to propagate.

That aspect of evolution is a loose end of the essay. After all, an ever increasing number of people insists that the objective of human evolution should be that humanity should vanish due to the lack of a young, sufficiently productive workforce to assure ever-increasing, unprecedented good health, wealth, and length of life, while enjoying unlimited sexual promiscuity without procreation.

An evolutionary path that leads to extinction? How intelligent is that? Still, it is not the fault of the designer whether a few or many people don’t follow the designer’s intentions, whatever those may be.

Is there a way out of the dilemma? Should common sense and free will be prohibited? How does abortion fit in?

I would have loved to post this to Facebook and tried, but FB prohibits me from posting links to or sharing this article:

Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.

Not much common sense at Facebook….

Posted in Abortion, Censorship, Population Control | Comments Off on Evolution and its Consequences : Random Chance or Intelligent Design?

Benefits of COVID Vaccines Outweigh Risks

Updated 2021 02 01, to show  Canada’s rank in progress of administering vaccines.

Unknown COVID vaccine side effects may appear after millions immunized—but benefits outweigh risks, asserts News Week. (More, by 

“Unknown COVID Vaccine Side Effects May Appear After Millions Immunized—But Benefits Outweigh Risks.” Really? That assertion is pure speculation. The side effects are unknown. It is unknown whether they will or will not appear. Furthermore, it is unknown how severe or prevalent the side effects will be, if they do appear. Therefore, no one cannot accurately estimate what the risks are and calculate whether the benefits of the vaccines will outweigh the risks they may pose. Still, educated guesses can and are being made. Nevertheless,

Should you ask a barber whether you need a haircut?

COVID-19 Vaccine Side-Effects

The New York Times states in its Dec. 27, 2020 article “Coronavirus Vaccine Tracker“:

Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but in 2020, scientists embarked on a race to produce safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Researchers are currently testing 64 vaccines in clinical trials on humans, and 19 have reached the final stages of testing. At least 85 preclinical vaccines are under active investigation in animals. (More)

Was enough testing done? It appears that, in the rush, there was not enough time to do animal tests. Obviously,  a lot of information about COVID-19 vaccines is yet to be discovered, and 85+ vaccines provide a very large selection to choose from. Let’s hope that the information relating to the vaccines that are being rushed to market after a few months of testing is sufficient to ensure that those vaccines will truly provide more benefits than risks.

In the meantime, I will stay at home as much as possible, try to stay out of senior care centres, avoid becoming a resident in any of them, hope for the best, prepare myself to accept the worst, and hope to live long enough to see how it all will turn out.

By the way, here is what prime minister Trudeau had said during his address from outside his home in Ottawa, on the ongoing COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) pandemic, with respect to the progress of vaccinations in Canada. (apparently Dec 18, 2020):

Justin Trudeau, making announcement about Vaccine "gold standard"

Justin Trudeau, making announcement about vaccine “gold standard”

“….Canada has the most, most vaccines secured per capita, and the most diverse portfolio of vaccine options in the world….Indeed, we have secured, as you pointed out [the reporter had *not* pointed that out at all –Walter], one of the best ranges of vac vac vaccine vaccine portfolios of any country in the world, and we have secured more potential doses of of vaccines per Canadian than anywhere else….with a gold-standard for Canadians that is the envy of the world….” (see video) Yeah, right.

Reality, as of Jan. 31, 2021, falls short of that claim. Canada ranks 24th (25th, as of 2021 02 02) out of about 50 countries for which Our World in Data tracks vaccination data (click on bar chart, to gain access to the latest version; interactive at the source).:


#Covid #Vaccines

See also:

Posted in Health | Tagged , | Comments Off on Benefits of COVID Vaccines Outweigh Risks

Canadian Federal Gross-Debt History

Usually, Canadian Federal Gross-Debt History focuses on only the accumulated budget deficit.  The expression extremely rarely focuses on the remaining 80 percent of government deficits, that is, on unfunded or unsecured liabilities.  Take this example:

FRASER RESEARCH BULLETIN; April 2019

Examining Federal Debt in Canada by Prime Ministers Since Confederation, 2019

By Jake Fuss and Milagros Palacios

Full article

The following graph is from that article.

Canadian Federal Gross Debt, 1870-2019

Figure 1: Federal Gross Debt, 1870-2019 (in 2019 $)

Note: Few people ever (and neither do Fuss and Palacios) address governments’ unfunded liabilities (at least not in the indicated report).

Gross Debt

Commonly, Gross Debt is the sum of the accumulated budget deficit.  That is allocated or borrowed money to pay for government expenditures.  It can be identified portions of tax revenues or loans for which interest must be paid by current and future tax payers. That covers roughly 20% of government liabilities.

Unfunded Liabilities

Unfunded Liabilities are the 80% portion of the accumulated government deficits not mentioned in the budgets. They are accumulated government liabilities for which no securities exist.  No money has yet been borrowed to pay them back. They are liabilities that have not yet but will inexorably come due. They are, for example, future demands for payouts from government pension plans, medicare, social security, old age security and employment insurance, etc.

Unfunded Liabilities, a massive Ponzi Scheme

Unfunded Liabilities are moneys that will largely come due and and must be paid during the lives of our children, grandchildren and subsequent generations. Canadian governments’ unfunded liabilities are roughly equal to four times the current accumulated federal budget deficit.  That is, 4 x $1.2 trillion or about $5 trillion, over and above the official accumulated federal budget deficit.
That makes the Canadian Unfunded Liabilities a massive Ponzi scheme.   It is an elephant in the living room that no one wants to see.  Federal and provincial politicians and bureaucrats, economist and journalists studiously avoid mentioning it. Perhaps many politicians and pundits may even be totally ignorant of unfunded liabilities.

Omitting Unfunded Liabilities from the Prospectus of a Corporation is a Criminal Offence

Directors of public corporations who fail to disclose the unfunded liabilities of the corporate entities in their charge are guilty of a serious criminal offence.  It is a criminal offence for which – if discovered and prosecuted – they serve substantial prison terms.
For anyone not aware of the issue of unfunded liabilities, this undated Fraser Institute article explains:

A $243,000 bill courtesy of Canada’s governments

By Milagros Palacios and Hugh MacIntyre; Fraser Institute

(That is, $243,000 for every Canadian man, woman and child. — Walter)

“Imagine receiving a credit card bill that totaled $243,476. This would no doubt be a shock for most Canadians. But if you add up all the liabilities of every Canadian government–federal, provincial, and local–that is in fact how much each taxpayer would owe of the $4.1 trillion total in direct debt and unfunded liabilities.

This admittedly is a very large number and much bigger than what is usually talked about by both politicians and pundits alike. So let’s deconstruct it to gain a better understanding….” (Full text of article)


#Censorship #Economy #History #PropagandaExposed

See also:

Posted in Censorship, Economy, History, Propaganda Exposed | Comments Off on Canadian Federal Gross-Debt History

World population projections – Beware of sources

Updated 2019 05 24, to present more “precise” estimates of annual numbers of deaths caused by abortions, worldwide.

UN world population projections are widely known.  Two other sources of world population projections deserve to be known as well.  They are the Wittgenstein Centre and IIASA.  The credibility of any of those sources is in the eye of the beholder.  Time will tell whose projections realistically predict what the future brings.

Contrary to the UN projections, the IIASA medium (most likely) scenario indicates that world population will increase to 9.2 billion by 2050, peak at 9.4 billion around 2070 and start a slow decline to 9.0 billion by the end of the century.

9 billion or 11 billion?
The research behind new population projections
Sep 23, 2014
By Wolfgang Lutz, Bill Butz, Samir KC, Warren Sanderson, and Sergei Scherbov: IIASA World Population Program

This blog posting presents graphs and information gleaned from https://ourworldindata.org, a non-profit website.

World Population Projections per the UN

UN world population projections

UN World Population Projections

More at Future Population Growth, by Max Roser

World Population Projection per the Wittgenstein Centre

World Population Projection by Wittgenstein Centre

World Population Projection by Wittgenstein Centre

More at 9 billion or 11 billion? The research behind new population projections, by: Wolfgang Lutz, Bill Butz, Samir KC, Warren Sanderson, and Sergei Scherbov: IIASA World Population Program

Progress with Reducing Extreme Poverty in the World

The number of people living in extreme poverty fell from close to 2 billion in 1990 to 0.7 billion in 2015 (see here). On no day in this 25 year period was the headline of any newspaper in the world “The number of people in extreme poverty fell by 137,000 since yesterday”. This is despite the fact that – on average – this would have been an accurate headline every single day during these 25 years.1
Because the media – as well as schools and universities – largely neglect reporting slow but transformative news the large public is extremely poorly educated about these developments. Even the decline of global extreme poverty – by any standard one of the most important developments in our lifetime – is only known by a small fraction of the population of the UK (10%), South Africa (14%), Norway (17%), Sweden (23%), and the US (5%).2

— Our World In Data, Motivation

Progress with Reducing Child Mortality

It is at least interesting that, as so many others, Our World in Data, too, concerns itself with saving the world from over-population, while promoting health for all, more education, reducing mortality rates, increasing life expectancy, and – importantly – hopes to reduce  child mortality:

Global child mortality fell from 18.2% in 1960 to 4.3% in 2015; while 4.3% is still too high, this is a substantial achievement. But similarly on no day in the last 5 decades was there ever the headline ‘Global Child Mortality Fell by 0.00719% Since Yesterday’.

— Our World In Data, Motivation

The Price for Demographic Progress

Demographic progress comes at a heavy price.  It requires the killing of about 50 million children due to be born, annually, worldwide.  The website of Our World In Data does not mention that, let alone stress it.  The promotion of population control through coercive and at the very least persuasive and effective abortion policies is a major goal of the UN as well as of one of the major funders of Our World In Data, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“If we have gotten to the point in our desperate culture in which we feel obligated to kill children, regardless of why or of what color, then we do not deserve to survive and probably won’t.”

— William Faulkner

How Many Abortions Took Place Last Year?

Is there an elephant in the living room?

Obviously, the most expedient way in which to deal with the by far largest single cause of deaths in the world, is not to mention 50 million abortions, annually, worldwide. Everything will then be fine, and we can deal with the causes of deaths that really matter.

Annual number of causes of deaths The number of 50 million abortions, annually, worldwide, is the result of a quick, back-of-of-the-envelope calculation.  Here is a more precise estimate of the annual number of abortions, worldwide:

Abortion was the number one cause of death worldwide in 2018, with more than 41 million children killed before birth, Worldometers reports.

As of December 31, 2018, there have been some 41.9 million abortions performed in the course of the year, Worldometers revealed. By contrast, 8.2 million people died from cancer in 2018, 5 million from smoking, and 1.7 million died of HIV/AIDS.

Worldometers — voted one of the best free reference websites by the American Library Association (ALA) — keeps a running tally through the year of major world statistics, including population, births, deaths, automobiles produced, books published, and CO2 emissions.

It also records the total number of abortions in the world, based on the latest statistics on abortions published by the World Health Organization (WHO)….
(more: How Many 2018 Worldwide Abortions Occurred? — Truth News Network)

Politically-correct fence-sitting and which side to come down on

Then again, preferences vary.  Some may not wish to refer to an objective source of information on the annual number of abortions, a subject of literally vital importance.  They may rather go to a source such as Snopes, which will inform them that,

“…the most recent figure on abortions from WHO we could locate dated from 2014 and was slightly higher than Worldometers’ tally. WHO estimated that between 2010 and 2014, an average of 56 million induced abortions occurred worldwide each year….

We can infer from WHO statistics that the difference between the number of abortions worldwide versus the number of deaths from heart disease and stroke worldwide is not a new dynamic, although viral stories proclaiming that abortions “now” outnumber deaths from those other causes imply that fact is a recent development.

Stating that abortion is the “leading cause of death” worldwide (as opposed to a medical procedure) is a problematic pronouncement, because that stance takes a political position, one which is at odds with the scientific/medical world. The medical community does not confer personhood upon fetuses that are not viable outside the womb, so counting abortion as a “cause of death” does not align with the practices of health organizations such as WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),….(more)

The Snopes article presents a good number of rhetorical devices which illustrate that abortions involve “fetuses”, not human lives, and that many authorities consider them to be acceptable.  To the credit of Snopes, its article avoids declaring the assumption that abortions are a cause of deaths as being false. 

Snopes therefore permits anyone to come down on the side of the fence they prefer in the debate on whether abortions are deadly or not.  Snopes essentially argues that abortion is a therapeutic medical procedure, designed to cure the fatal condition of living, viable “fetuses,” by killing them.  It is a procedure that causes the deaths of babies that would otherwise be born alive and grow with virtual certainty from lovable, cuddly human bundles of joy into fully functioning, productive adults capable of experiencing the full range of things humanity offers.  That leads to this practical conclusion:

“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”

― Ronald Reagan


#Abortion #PopulationControl #WorldDemographics

See also:

Posted in Abortion, Population Control, World Demographics | Comments Off on World population projections – Beware of sources

Freedom and Equality vs Rules and Power

Updated 2019 05 09

Freedom and equality vs rules and power — all are essential for symbiotic coexistence in a successful, thriving society.

Many clamor for “freedom and equality” and forget that the price for that is “duties and obligations.” Fairness is a bit more difficult to achieve.

There is little fairness in equality of outcomes. The latter is the enemy of and defeats the former. The concepts of fairness and equality of outcomes are incompatible. Still, a successful, thriving society uses the right tools to establish a good balance in the apparent conflict between freedom and equality vs rules and power, by allowing and promoting them to exist in a constructive symbiosis.

“The young men who are not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth” – African proverb,

(h/t JT Coriolis)

That proverb appeals to many.  Most appear to feel that a village that fails to embrace its young men must suffer the consequences.  Fewer (if any) feel that children must be raised to be likeable, so that a village will embrace them when they become young men and women, as readily as when they were helpless children. 

Duties, Obligations and Civility, to Balance Freedom and Prevent Chaos

Fewer yet feel that young men and women need to curb their wants somewhat, so that they fulfill their duties and obligations to serve their village sufficiently. 

It appears that no one or hardly anyone considers that, even when the village tried to raise its children right, to the best of its ability, there were still some young men and women who did not wish to be embraced but rather go out of their way to burn the village down.

Civility is the tool chest holding the tools with which to construct successful civilizations.  Those are societies in which everyone can enjoy the freedom of choice to reach the heights he can achieve.  Such societies have rules designed to protect that freedom, without enforcing it.

Balancing Freedom and Force

No society can function well without rules. A society in which rules rank supreme, no one is free.  It is a totalitarian regime. On the other hand, a society in which everyone is free but lives without or in spite of any rules will be utterly chaotic.

Freedom and Equality

Freedom and Equality

A successful solution to that dilemma will have the best possible combination of freedom and equality vs rules and power. There will never be a clear dividing line between the two. There will always be gaps in some as well as some overlap in other areas of the boundaries between freedom and equality vs rules and power. Moreover, those gaps and overlaps will change and shift with time and changing circumstances, as will – if left alone – the balance between freedom and power.  Any system, if left alone, will sooner or later collapse; catastrophically or gradually run down to its demise.

“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”

—Milton and Rose Friedman,
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement

A successful society adapts to maintain the best possible balance between freedom and equality vs rules and power.  It does so with the least possible amount of conflict but also the greatest possible extent of satisfaction.  Still, one thing is certain.

Inevitable Exceptions to Balance of Freedom and Force

There can never be a society that makes everyone equally happy or equally miserable. There will always be some people who, for whatever reasons, are eager to burn down the village to feel its warmth. Let’s hope that enough rules and the power to enforce them will always be in place to keep the ‘arsonists’ in check.

Freedom and Equality! one hears proclaimed,
The peaceful citizen is driven to arms,
The streets are filling, the halls,
The vigilante-bands are moving,
Then women change into hyenas
And make a plaything out of terror,
Though it twitches still, with panthers teeth,
They tear apart the enemy’s heart.
Nothing is holy any longer, loosened
Are all ties of righteousness,
The good gives room to bad,
And all vices freely rule.
Dangerous it is to wake the lion,
Ruinous is the tiger’s tooth,
But the most terrible of all the terrors,
That is the mensch 1 when crazed.
Woe to those, who lend to the eternally-blind
Enlightenment’s heavenly torch!
It does not shine for him, it only can ignite
And puts to ashes towns and lands.

— Quoted and translated from Song of the Bell
By Friedrich von Schiller
(The excerpt is part of his description of the impressions  the French Revolution left on him.)

___________
Note 1: The definition of mensch given in Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition:
“[Yiddish, mentsh human being, fr. MHG mensch, fr. OHG menisco; akin to OE man human being, man] (1953) : a person of integrity and honor.”


#CivilRights #Censorship #FreedomAndEquality #RulesAndPower

See also:

Posted in Censorship, Civil Rights | Comments Off on Freedom and Equality vs Rules and Power

Click-Through Rate Page Views per Visit – SEO and GSC

This is Part 5 of Web page ranking and search engine optimization : SEO
Updated 2019 04 22, to make addendum.

Click-Through Rate (CTR) vs Page Views per Visit – The first is high on Google’s priority list, the second apparently not so much, leading to Google ignoring 94 percent of the traffic to dads&things, or does it?  Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and Google Search Console (GSC) help with sorting some of that out.

Click-through rate (CTR) is the ratio of users who click on a specific link to the number of total users who view a page, email, or advertisement. It is commonly used to measure the success of an online advertising campaign for a particular website as well as the effectiveness of email campaigns.[1][2]

 (Full Wikipedia article)

The Wikipedia article discusses the CTR in the context of advertising.  An individual click-through is when someone clicks on the anchor text of a link at an originating location of a link to the target location, visits the web page that the link leads to, and then clicks on another link at the target page.  Obviously, some (perhaps many) visitors to a given page will leave the page again without doing, or without going to, anything else that the target page leads to.  If the page does not interest the visitor, he will not do what he should and leave the web page (thereby leave the web site, and that is not a click-through).

What does the CTR measure?

The CTR can pertain to a specific advertising campaign, or a key word or phrase, in relation to a target page, a sub domain on a website, or all web pages at a given website.  Arguably, the number of pages viewed per visit on a website divided by the number of visits to the website for a given interval of time should essentially be the same as  the CTR for the website for the selected interval.  If it is not, it could be possible that what CTR measures is incorrect or at best incomplete.

CTRs are expressed in percent.  The number of pages viewed per visit are expressed in terms of numbers, including decimal fractions.

CTRs differ much from the number of page views per visit

Curiously, CTRs for websites differ enormously from the number of pages viewed per visit on websites.  They are related and should have at least some correlation but do not.  That is apparently because the number of page views indicated by analytical tools, such as Google Analytics or blog software, take into account only traffic directed by search engines that had visitors whom clicked on a given page.  On the other hand, the volume of all traffic to a website is substantially larger than just the portion that comprises search-engine-directed traffic.  Look, for instance, at the differences over time for dads&things, between total monthly page views and page views counted by analytical tools:

Monthly Page Views – Search-engine directed traffic vs all traffic

Monthly Page Views – Search-engine directed traffic vs all traffic

Focusing on daily page views

This is what happened during the last two months of that interval:

Dads & Things, Daily Page Views, 2019 02 01 to 04 16

Dads & Things, Daily Page Views, 2019 02 01 to 04 16

All of the trend lines for page views in that graph show values for the very same stream of traffic to dads&things.  Of the analytical tools indicated, only GSC (Google Search Console – I activated that on 2019 04 05) provides information on CTRs.  GSC shows a CTR of 2.3% for the interval, versus the total number of visits to the site having a CTR of  64.9%.

Click-through rate, 2019-04-06-to-04-15

Click-through rate, 2019-04-06-to-04-15

There is little doubt that the visitors who came to dads&things through direct links, through any means other than being directed through search engines, were far more interested in the information at the blog than those who came by means of search engines.  Is Google’s analysis of traffic that goes to a website objective?  How can it be?  In the case of dads&things, it ignores 94 percent or more of the traffic that goes to the website.  That leaves the issue of web rank. 

Is web rank a good measure of web site popularity?

The preceding graph shows a trend line for web rank (data produced by Alexa.com).  Those figures relate to the whole domain of Fathers for Life, of which dads&things is a subdomain.  Therefore, that trend line is not quite accurate (no need to go into the details for that, here).  Still, it is more accurate than the page ranks or web rank assigned by Google to dads&things.  Earlier this year, Google down-ranked the web rank for dads&things from about 4 down to 0 (zero), over night, in spite of dads&things having experienced a 93% annual rate of growth in volume of traffic during the last two years.

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is a very complex issue.  It grew into a multi-billion dollar industry during the past  decade or so.  I will not attempt to become an expert at SEO and am happy with  what little I know and do about it. 

Others are far better at it than I could hope to become during the few years that may remain of my life.  You may wish to learn about the pros and cons of the latest Google search-and-ranking algorithms.  Their exact impacts on the rank of anyone’s website are important and noticeable.  Have a look at what an SEO expert, one of the best, wrote about that, but it is long:

How to Work Effectively with Google Search Console Data to Analyze Google Updates

There is no doubt in my mind that neither the Google web rank nor the Alexa.com web rank bear much relationship to either reach or popularity of dads&things.  Nevertheless, after being systematically and intensively involved with SEO for dads&things for almost two years, I am absolutely certain that SEO is a good thing.  It has done a lot to vastly improve the quality and attractiveness of the blog. 

Are CTRs important when ad-revenues are not?

Why should I care about how important the results are that I experienced on account of doing a lot of hard, time-consuming work in relation to ad-revenues?  I have no financial interests relating to that.  Much information is not, hardly or even only shoddily covered by the main-stream media and social researchers.  Many people like to learn more than what the MSM permits them to see, to learn about the objective truth.  No one can be free of bias.  Is my bias or that of any other conservative writer worse or greater than that of the media?  The readers of what I write about will gain at worst an alternative view point.  In matters of life and death, it is always worthwhile to get a second opinion.  That is my motivation for doing SEO.

If I spend time to offer my opinions to someone, I may as well make sure that I make good use of the time and effort doing it.  SEO makes it possible to reach more people, four times as many people than I managed to reach two years ago.

Google Search Console makes SEO more constructive and effective

There is one more thing about SEO and using the tools available that help making a good job of it.  I wish I had paid more attention to making use of Google Search Console.  I am using it now, found a few problems that I had not known about and fixed them.  More need to be fixed.  Some will take a bit of time, but the fixing is largely for the good, not just for Google and any other search engine provider, but for improving the quality and attractiveness of dads&things.

The conclusion that Marcus Tandler presents in his article is correct:

“Most importantly, don’t worry about visibility. The more efficient your site is, the better.”

That means that web rank is somewhat overrated.  Still, I am not at all convinced that the high CTR on non-search-engine-directed traffic should be ignored.  Google Search Console results and the results by many other analysis tools ignore it.  I had a suspicion that there had to be a good reason for the traffic to dads&things having increased so enormously, especially during the past year.  GSC results do not state anything about that.  The odds are 64.9 against 2.3 in favour of GSC being incorrect with ignoring 94 percent of the traffic going to dads&things

The next installment for this article series will be made in about June.  I will then recount the impressions I gained after having used GSC for a while.

Addendum 2019 04 22: Perhaps the next installment will attempt to come to terms with the illusion that the much-touted web ranks for individual web sites have any realistic meaning with respect to the relative popularity of web sites.  Consider:

There is a URL that permits comparisons between websites, in terms of a number of parameters.  That is Easy Counter (essentially based on what alexa.com makes available).

Here is a comparison of website stats based on what is available through Easy Counter (essentially based on what alexa.com makes available) and on what is available to me through the host server for fathersforlife.org and dads&things:

Web-rank comparison, Easy Counter vs Reality

Web-rank comparison, Easy Counter vs Reality

I don’t want to beat this to death, but what is publicly available for such comparisons is a farce and cannot be relied upon.


#Censorship #SEO #WebRank #WebStatistics

See also:

Posted in Censorship, SEO, Web Statistics | Comments Off on Click-Through Rate Page Views per Visit – SEO and GSC

Female innocence is what media and courts say it is

Adele Horin (†2015) was a feminist who wrote about female innocence. The Australian Advocate should have been so hard on Adele Horin. The editors of the Sydney Morning Herald she wrote for obviously felt that she was doing a good job, or else she could not have been a media award winner. Adele Horin was just trying to make a living and delivered in her articles nothing more than what her editors expected of her.

“Adele Horin, writer for the Sydney Morning Herald, is no stranger to the trappings of wish-fulfilment journalism. Writing bout innocence, controversial media award winner Adele HorinFor many journalists, you see what you need to see, and in the case of Adele Horin, men are inherently evil, as one can see from the litany of her work.

Her recent article, “Revenge and Despair place Children at Risk“, is another piece of fanciful writing from a Horin, who can always be relied upon to creatively re-interpret the facts to absolve females of the same crimes that men are vilified for….« More

Truth in reporting, in the media and in the courts

Credible and trustworthy social researchers will not base their research on court files, cherry-picked files, to boot. They will use randomly selected data from the general population to draw their conclusions. That is, because court decisions reflect the sum of the bias inherent in society, the media and jurisprudence. They often reflect at least a somewhat rose-tinted view of reality as we wish it to be.

Neither in the media nor in the courts is one likely to see the truth, all of the truth and nothing but the truth about female innocence. They can and will do what they do, because there are no consequences if they err or deliberately distort. It is extremely rare and virtually never happens that anyone will hold them accountable. For them, there is no such thing as “bad news.”

When it bleeds, it leads, and “bad news” become much juicier when they pertain to crimes that involve villains, all the more so when a woman doing a crime can be shown to be innocent, because a man, the Devil or – if all else fails – her inner demons made her do what she did.  However unlikely it may be that female innocence was what drove her to do a crime, the myth of female innocence must be maintained at any cost.

Consider how the media industry feels about the need for truth in reporting: “Caught: Media-prostitutes and their clients


#MediaBias #PropagandaExposed #WomensViolence

See also:

Posted in Media Bias, Propaganda Exposed, Women's Violence | Comments Off on Female innocence is what media and courts say it is

Rising sea levels could wipe entire nations off face of Earth

Updated 2019 03 10 10:58, to install link to FB discussion thread.

Rising sea levels could wipe entire nations off face of Earth — Fake news are easy to come by, even from ‘reputable’ news agencies, but give a little. Predictions are hard, especially about the future. 

If you have not done any worrying, today, you may wish to read the AP article identified by the following link and be off to a good start. Thirty years went by since the publishing of the article, June 29, 1989. If you never yet worried much about anything mentioned in the article, isn’t it high time that you begin to worry?

AP 1989 article predicting gloom and doom

By PETER JAMES SPIELMANN, June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000…. (Full Article)

“[E]ntire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels…” It is odd, that a UN official would say that. New countries come into existence all the time. No one knows that better than the officials at the UN.

The ocean blue submerged how many nations?

There were 46 nations on Earth at the onset of the first world war. Today, the CIA World Factbook identifies 228 nations and territories. The CIA’s list ranks them by their GDP per capita figures (in terms of GDP purchasing power parity). From that list, it becomes immediately apparent that poverty is real, and that it is a real world problem that is a far greater threat than the largely imaginary hobgoblin of rising sea levels or climate change.

Of those 228 nations and territories, 193 are UN member nations, according to the UN. The following graph shows how the number of UN member-nations grew over time.

UN Member Nations by Year

No Shortage of Nations
Contrary to popular fears, by the year 2000, rising sea levels had not wiped a single nation off the face of the Earth. Nor did that fate befall any nations in the years since.

Although the fears of rising sea levels were fed throughout all of the time since 1989 and before, sea level rise wiped not a single nation or country off the face of the Earth, not even close to it. Clearly, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Still, the fear of climate change and rising sea levels serves as an attention-getter, a red herring. The fear of climate change serves as a tool to draw attention away from what really matters: Poverty.  The people know that.

The people know better

The UN very own survey, My World, which canvassed close to ten-million people throughout the world, indicates that fears of climate change, rank dead-last (by a substantial margin) on the list of people’s concerns.

Concerns over environment change dead-last of things that concern the World's people

UN poll, My World (2015) — Concerns over climate change dead-last on the list of things that concern the World’s people

Google Timelapse is a reasonably good tool by which to observe whether any nation on Earth became inundated, as predicted, by the ocean blue. You should take a look. Perhaps you can find the smoking gun. Go to Google Timelapse and enter the name of the poster child of sinking nations, Maldives, into the location field in the upper-left corner of the tool. Hit <Enter>, and Google Timelapse will take you there.

There’s no evidence of a sinking nation in that corner of the world, not even if you expand the time interval past the ominous year 2000. No! None of islands in the Maldives are sinking or being submerged by rising ocean levels. They all stubbornly refuse to become submerged.

Sea level rise happens at the rate of less than 2 mm a year. Obviously, some of the doomsayers appear to feel, that is too fast for anyone to outrun. Nevertheless, the resolution of Google Timelapse is perhaps not good enough to observe the rate at which islands doomed to sink becoming submerged beneath the rising sea.

Rising sea levels sink no nations

Reputable authorities and reputable individuals working for and even independently studied the issues with far greater attention to detail than Google Timelapse can. They found no sinking islands anywhere in the Pacific Ocean or anywhere in the world, let alone any nations that were wiped off the face of the Earth. To the contrary, collectively, the many islands surveyed with great precision grew in area during the interval examined, not all but vastly most of them. Take a look:

New Science: 89% Of The Globe’s Islands – And 100% Of Large Islands – Have Stable Or Growing Coasts
By Kenneth Richard on 17. January 2019

Still, the alarmist hysteria over rising sea levels persists. We all must atone, and all of us normal mortals must comply by buying indulgences in the form of carbon taxes. Whether any souls were ever saved through indulgences is a matter not yet resolved, although highly unlikely, but that issue went into the dustbin of history — so will the indulgences in the form of carbon taxes, surely. The question is only whether that will happen because we ran out of money, out of the willingness to be successfully conned, or perhaps both.

After all, the UN survey of what concerns people most indicated that people not only deem climate change least worthy of concern, but that they value a good education far above everything else.  Educated people cannot so easily be conned into confusing the importance of mitigating climate change with the importance of almost everything else.

Let’s educate people, to enable them to solve all the problems that need to be solved.  It is nonsense to force people into squandering their abilities and resources on anything that does not require fixing, but forcing them to do that is a form of totalitarianism.

Commenting  at the related Facebook discussion thread: Follow this link and leave a comment.


#Environment #SeaLevelRise

See also:

Posted in Environment | Comments Off on Rising sea levels could wipe entire nations off face of Earth