logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

The End of Humanity?


A few days ago (May 2002) someone asked about the meaning of some family statistics produced by the US Census Bureau:

The US Census Bureau list on "Table A" for income "non-family households".
__________
Type of Household for 1998 hhes-info@census.gov [000 omitted]

Family households71,535 
 

Married-couple families

  54,770
 

Female householder, no husband present

  12,789
 

Male householder, no wife present

  3,976
Non-family households32,339 
 

Female householder

  17,971
 

Male householder

  14,368

The question asked was: "What do you think 'non-family households' means. Is it single-mother households?" That is apparently not the case. Single-mother households would fall into the category "Family household: Female householder, no husband present."

Comparable Canadian statistics are a little hard but not impossible to come by, although for a while it seemed that those types of statistics would completely disappear. Statistics Canada proposed that divorce and other family statistics no longer be published. It said that with the multitude of "family types," many of whom are difficult to track, the tracking of family statistics had become so imprecise as to be virtually meaningless. That proposal was met with too many complaints from the public, so that StatCan changed its mind and kept on tracking.

However, StatCan does have a point. The traditional nuclear family is disappearing from the demographic landscape at an ever accelerating rate and will soon be an insignificant aspect of our society, whereupon our society will then either cease to exist or resemble nothing that we have become accustomed to.  The chances are that of the few formal marriages still in existence, one in two will break up before death does do them part. That is according to plan. The social engineers bringing about that trend love nothing better than to have the traditional nuclear family vanish completely, thereby to achieve the end of the dreaded "patriarchy".

Nobody expressed the prevailing thinking on that any better than the German health minister, Ulla Schmidt (SPD), when she proclaimed: "Family is, if all eat out of the same refrigerator."

The game plan is firmly rooted in Marxism and can be summed up in one short statement: A new and better socialist state can be successfully constructed only if the concept and the very existence of the traditional nuclear family are abrogated.

Marx and Engels said that over and over in their writings.[1] They also promoted the concept of free love (now called "sexual freedom"). Simone de Beauvoir went one step farther.[2]

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."

— Simone de Beauvoir, quoted in
The Saturday Review, June 14, 1974, p. 18. [3]

Of course, no country implemented the objectives of Marx and Engels as much as the USSR did.  It will therefore be worth your while to check how far things got there in that respect and how it was done.  See feminist subversion in a nutshell.  Read Matriarchy in USSR (off-site, about five minutes of reading)

It seems that as of now the focus of the attacks against the family was on fathers, then mothers, and now even on both parents in intact families. Having or even wanting a family is becoming penalized through punitive, family-hostile taxation and even criminalized more and more.

The Fraser Institute identified that a single-income family comprised of two parents and two children, with an income of $50,000, has a $4,000 lower net income than a comparable family with two income earners earning a combined total of $50,000. That tax penalty is a great burden and constitutes an enormous disincentive to being married and raising children. Of course, even though a two-income family ostensibly earns a larger net income, the burdens and pressures faced by two parents who both must work to be able to feed and raise their children are severe.

Add to that the emotional and financial devastation caused by the break-up of families that crack under social and financial pressure, and it is no wonder that fewer and fewer adults make the emotional and physical investment of having children. In consequence, in Canada and all developed nations the total fertility rates keep dropping and are now far below the birth rates required to maintain population levels. In the end, the protection that the nuclear family offered to individuals will be gone, and all children ó whether below or above the age of majority won't matter much ó will be in the care, custody and control of the State.

Stuart Birks, from Massey University in New Zealand, stated in that context that:

The real danger is that policies fail to recognise connections with people outside the designated household.

In NZ we see concepts of a "social parent", whereby a parent can leave/be evicted from a household, and is assumed to be quite satisfactorily replaced by whoever moves in.

Similarly, grandparents get no say, so a "sole parent" can have complete control over children's lives, with no-one else having any moderating influence. I suspect that, if the role were recognised, two sets of grandparents could work together to maintain the ongoing parenting of their grandchildren by both parents, and could both also be involved in the parenting themselves.

At present there is more and more call for state-supported childcare services, etc., which simply serves to further undermine the roles and contributions of family members.

The test of any social hypothesis is in examining what will happen if all members of society adhere to, follow or practice the theory that is being advanced. Simone de Beauvoir's theory will within one single generation bring about the complete end of humanity. Reality is not quite so extreme. It will bring about the end of the Caucasian sector of the world population within about four to five generations. That is where the loss of 30 percent of the Caucasian population with each successive generation will take us. For all practical purposes, within another 100 years Caucasians won't matter anymore. The Occidental culture largely ceased to matter already and has been virtually replaced by the mania of consumerism.

Feminism, especially radical feminism (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist feminism), is communism under a different name. The traditional nuclear family is the fundamental social unit from which communities and nations grow.[4] It is a widely-held belief that the radical feminists (more accurately called redfems) identified the concept of the word "patriarchy" in the context of a larger, comprehensive social system comprised of traditional nuclear families. That belief is wrong. It was Marx and Engels who defined the concept of the patriarchy in that context. The redfems, being the disciples of Marx and Engels, merely promote the abrogation, and celebrate the death, of the patriarchy. The ideological roots of feminism can be recognized by the fruits it bears. Moreover, lecturers in women's studies are almost without exception proud Marxists and make no bones about their ideology and its origins. (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 is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the roots of 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.)

The UN, and to a large extent its daughter, the EU, being the embodiment of the central administration of the ultimate global state, and, being driven and controlled by radical feminist and "gender" rights organizations (a.k.a. pro-homosexual advocacy groups - male and female), have no interest in promoting family values, because that would be contrary to their aims. The UN and the EU want to eliminate families and nationalism, not nurture them. Already in 1997, Kofi Annan said in one of his speeches that the elimination of national boundaries would have progressed so far by the year 2000 that it would no longer be possible to reverse the trend.

It could be argued that there is nothing wrong with the end justifying the means, and that the deconstruction of the patriarchy is a fine thing, as long as the result is lasting world peace. However, all indications are to the contrary. The deconstruction of the patriarchy did not result in lasting peace within the USSR. Instead it caused more than a 100 million deaths (in the USSR and in China), social and economic chaos in, and the collapse of, the USSR.

What didn't work on a local scale will work no better globally. World-wide, more than 35 million deaths occurred through military actions since 1945, and there are now close to 55 million deaths of unborn children annually. Both circumstances are doubtlessly detrimental to the wellbeing of families, nations and humanity.

The birth dearth affects all developed nations and became an epidemic that spread to many lesser developed ones (at last count about two years ago, a total of 83 nations -and growing). The UN proposes that the resulting population shortfalls and demographic distortions and imbalances be adjusted through equalization of the world population by massive population transfers. That, of course, does nothing other than further accelerate the eradication of nationalism through massive immigration and, thereby, the rapid growth of the ideology of multiculturalism.

In consequence of the planned destruction of our families, abuses of the human rights of fathers and their children are becoming all-pervasive. However, those abuses are just a relatively minor annoyance, a symptom and consequence of the problems caused in the implementation of the overall scheme. Fathers are merely the obvious target for attacking the traditional nuclear family. Fathers are the weakest link. Remove them, and the nuclear family will vanish.

Just a few days ago a feminist wrote to me, thanking me for the insights into the current thinking of men and women that the website of Fathers for Life provided her with for the production of a paper for her "American history class about whether or not feminism has achieved any lasting political gains."

She described herself as a woman and a daughter (but, tellingly, not as a mother), and painted a picture of "feminist waves" that "emerge with grace, grow with menace and force and leverage, crash down upon you, soak the sand to wash clean the state of the world, or better yet, mix and mangle the grains so that they are united, and then receed [sic.]." (Quoted verbatim)

In my response I completed her metaphor, by stating:

"As the tsunami of the last wave of feminism begins to recede, the full extent of the devastation it caused appears in its wake. Radical feminism leaves behind an emotional wasteland that is beginning to stink with the all-pervasive death of human love, leaving the landscape of society and human emotions strewn with the rubble remaining from the destruction of the families that once bound our fragile civilization together.

However, amongst the darkness and desolation of humanity's destruction, the first stirrings of new life with love make themselves known. The first cries of hope are heard: "Man and woman were made for one another, to complement one another, to make a more productive system whose synergy is greater than the sum of its parts." And as the renewed hopes rise out of the chaos of destruction, the human spirit begins the long labour of love of reconstructing civilization one more time."

I doubt that she will put that into her paper, but what the heck, at least it is spelled correctly. (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 is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the roots of 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.))

The question now is whether the reconstruction will be successful or even possible in the face of the opposition by the radical feminists who are in virtually total control of all of our social institutions.

In the face of devastatingly deadly population decline, western civilization actively pursues oppressive policies for the promotions of negative population growth.  That is being brought about by means of the vilification of fathers, families and giving birth.  The goal of the powers that promote these policies is to reduce the world population down to pre-Columbian numbers, somewhere in the range of 300 million to a billion people. [5]

Walter Schneider
http://fathersforlife.org

________________
Notes:

  1. "The Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, December 1847/January 1848; Translated excerpt at http://fathersforlife.org/communist_manifesto.htm#Destruction

  2. "Germany devours its children - Families today: Exploited and burned out," by Karin Jóckel (German Title: "Deutschland frisst seine Kinder - Familien heute: Ausgebeuted - ausgebrannt," Karin Jóckel, September 2000, Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH, Reinbek bei Hamburg, ISBN 3-499-60929-0). A translation of the pertinent excerpt: "Friedrich Engels and Simone de Beauvoir, the shining apostles of contemporary family politics," (pp. 134-139), is shown at http://fathersforlife.org/kj/children.htm

  3. The quote is from a collection of quotes illustrating "Hegemonic Feminism," accessible at http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/femterms.htm#Hegemonic_Feminism

  4. Allan Carlson, "What's Wrong With the United Nations Definition of 'Family'?" The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3; http://fathersforlife.org/feminism/femterms.htm#Family

  5. Fertility

Power and Progress; Confidence in Life and Genius; Problems and Paradoxes

by Angelo Bertolo, Ph.D.

Essay (about 40 pages, in English and in Italian) on the relationship between fertility and the well-being of civilizations.  It is an important read.

Angelo Bertolo explores the rise and fall of many civilizations throughout the history of mankind.  He shows that the current decline of the West is the final phase of the existence of our civilization

Angelo Bertolo's views are of course politically incorrect but fit in well with those of Patrick Buchanan (Death of the West) and Samuel P. Huntington (Clash of Civilizations).  His views go a necessary step farther.  Angelo Bertolo identifies that the rise of civilizations was inevitably a consequence of their fertility, but that all civilizations throughout history experienced a decline in fertility as they became wealthy enough to be able to afford the luxury of enlightenment.  They then became old and decrepit, unable to sustain themselves on account of birth rates having fallen to deadly low levels, and ultimately collapsed, either to vanish or to be conquered and assimilated.

The conclusion that is to be drawn from that is inescapable.  Our civilization has a few more years of existence, and that only if nothing and no-one else rushes in to assimilate the shrinking population remnants left by our rapidly increasing demographic vacuum.

Angelo Bertolo's essay has been published in India by the Rajiv Gandhi Institute For Contemporary Studies; Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, where there exists considerable concern about the threatening population reduction that is caused by the growing decline in the Indian total fertility rates.  Curiously, population research and policy institutions in the West have so far ignored Angelo Bertolo's essay.

  1. Is the world overpopulated?

    If all of the world's people were located in the Province of Alberta (just a touch smaller in area than the State of Texas) and each were to have an equal share of all of the land in Alberta, then each of the world's people would have 98.6m2 of land to live on.

    Assuming that the average household consists of three people, a family of three would have enough space (3,184 ft2) for a moderately-sized house and a garden large enough to grow some of the food consumed by the family.

    • Alberta land area: 661,565 km2, 255,541 miles2
    • World population: 6,706,993,152 (Source: CIA World Factbook, July 2008 est.)

    It is obvious that the world's population density will be the controlling factor.  Is that a problem?  Will people any time soon be standing on each other's shoulders? 

    How can the world be overpopulated if it is possible to fit the world population, fairly comfortably, into a province the size of Alberta or a state the size of Texas,  even if we divide the whole population into families of three and give each a bungalow and a good-sized garden to boot?

    The following table list a number of nations, ranked by their population densities. 

     A table of population densities of various countries, with columns for country, area, population, and population density per km^2

    Does anyone seeing those numbers still think that the world is overpopulated?

     


Related Articles:

  • From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family
    Statement of Bill Wood
    FC-8 Hearing on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse July 17, 2003
    TESTIMONY FOR THE [US] WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

    The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

  • Sunday Tasmanian

    26 May 2002, Page 11

    Nowadays the vow is not to tie the knot

    By Gerard McManus

    Australian men are avoiding marriage because of the financial ruin marital break-ups bring.

  • 2002 05 27, Washington DC — Stephen Baskerville reports:

    Sen. Cools Stuns Washington in Historic Address

    Canadian Senator Anne C. Cools addressed a Washington audience of 2,000 public policy and community activists today, calling for shared parenting and criticizing family courts and "radical feminist extremism" for destroying fatherhood.

White RoseThe White Rose
Thoughts are Free

__________________
Posted 2002 05 28
Updates:
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)