A discussion of the totalitarian roots of the politics of sex
and of the implementation of the agenda for the planned destruction of our families
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
(Milton Friedman won the 1976 Nobel Prize for Economics)
All developed
nations now use force to achieve the implementation of the international agenda for
the planned
destruction of the family.
In all
developed nations, fathers in ever-increasing wholesale numbers are being
forcibly removed from their families. Not only that, but the
bureaucracies of all developed nations go out of their way to ensure that
disfranchised and expunged fathers not only have great difficulty in
maintaining a close relationship with their children, but that they are
burdened with capriciously calculated, court-ordered child-support amounts
that essentially put many fathers into poverty or jail, and push others to
the brink of suicide
and
beyond.
Child-support
payments are ostensibly for children of divorce but are in essence income
for the children's mothers. No mother has ever been held
accountable for on what she spends the often amazingly generous amount of
child support moneys a mother receives. That is, by the way, even true of
family allowance checks that the governments pay to women.
Men and
women are increasingly more often reluctant to form families, and, even if
they do, record numbers deliberately refuse to have children. In
virtually all developed nations (the USA are an exception, but just
barely and only due to illegal immigrants), birth rates are now far below the levels required to maintain
population levels without massive importation of immigrants from lesser
developed nations. Birth rates everywhere are in constant decline. In
consequence of the
steadily declining birth rates,
the young and working population sector that supports the older or
unproductive members of society is becoming steadily smaller, and the
population sector of the elderly is steadily growing.
The social
safety nets of all developed nations have become stretched to the breaking
point to such a severe extent that some economists estimate that our
social safety nets will inevitably collapse within about a decade. In
times of plenty, people forget to pray. It will not be all that much
longer now that people will pray for families, and that they will curse
the day when they decided to forego having a family—or being part of
one—for the false security offered by Father State. Father State
(or Mommy State, if you prefer) is no longer up to the task of providing
security to people out of increasingly more and more insufficient tax
revenues gathered through increasingly more oppressive levels of
taxation.
Forcing
the liberation of women down people's throats by imposing punitive
taxation for married couples, and by making marriage an unattractive
proposition and unenforceable contract, brought sexual freedom (the
early communists called it "free love").
It also brought enormously elevated incidence rates of sexually
transmitted diseases (some of them causing great numbers of deaths),
escalating poverty for men, women and children who could otherwise have
prospered in intact families, and it brought increased social chaos.
It did
not bring freedom in the greater sense. It brought the
manufacturing of concern
for special groups of "victims" and the use of force (taxation) to elevate
those special groups of "victims" from their ostensive inferior and
oppressed status to that of government-enforced "equality".
During the
initial phases of the USSR, all that had to be done for a couple to
achieve the dissolution of their marriage was to visit the local
magistrate's office, declare their intention, sign the divorce
certificate, pay five kopeck (about a nickel) to get it stamped, and they
were free from one another.
That
was made possible in accordance with Marx's and Engels' theory on what was
necessary to convert a society that evolved out of 10,000 years of social
tradition based on nurturing and respecting the family (they called such a
society a patriarchy) to a socialist state. The social engineers of the
USSR soon found that things were not quite so simple. (See:
The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage,
The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
(See also
a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact
of Soviet divorce laws)
Although
social policies eventually changed in the USSR to address the undesirable
consequences of eliminating families altogether, in the 1940's the USA
imported the child support and alimony enforcement measures that had been
developed in the USSR and began to implement them.
By the 1970's no-fault divorce had been put into position. That was ostensibly to ease and facilitate divorce by mutual
consent. In reality one party in marriage uses it to facilitate divorce through
unilateral declaration. In the vast majority of cases women make the
declaration against the wishes of their husbands. That becomes a virtual
certainty when children are present in a marriage. Women can claim
children as their property and use them as a source of a stable and often exceedingly
generous income after divorce.
That innovative
judiciary nightmare spread like a wildfire throughout the developed
nations. It became soon apparent that the courts could not cope with the
flood of divorce applications that caused ever-increasing waiting periods
before divorce decrees could be issued. To expedite the dissolution of
marriages, family-court systems were implemented throughout the developed
nations. Nothing much would have been accomplished by merely shifting
venues and leaving the rules of the court intact. Therefore the
family-court systems were made to operate without jury trials, without the
traditional rules of the court, without rules of evidence, and without the
mandatory and constitutionally-guaranteed right of respondents (usually
fathers, in family courts) to have legal representation. Many procedures
that had been put into place over the centuries to ensure that anyone
could be assured a fair trial thus vanished in the family courts.
That, too, was
nothing new. All totalitarian regimes that were obsessed with the
eradication of enemies of the state did the same when they created their
people's courts. We can't be certain that the example of the people's
courts in totalitarian states was used as a model for the more recent
creation of the branch of the judiciary in which the rules of law could be
held in abeyance and circumvented. One thing is certain; all of that
worked fine and produced fine results.
The enormous
and overwhelming backlog of divorce applications got soon cleared, and the
process of the dissolution of marriages has been operating with great
speed and efficiency ever since. In some countries (e.g.: the U.K.) the
process operates behind closed doors, ostensibly to protect the interests
of the children, although it should be quite obvious to anyone reading
this who is being protected.
The
family-court procedures received further refinements since then. It is
now no longer necessary to wait for a divorce decree or for a decision to
determine whom to award the children of a marriage or anything else that
could be considered an asset. Possession date is now quite conveniently
the day on which a woman (whether she is married, living common-law or is
merely visiting makes little or no difference) declares to a judge that
she is afraid of her spouse or partner. Remember, there is no longer any
need to provide corroborating evidence or for the "accused" to face his
accuser. Kids, car, cash and castle can then immediately be taken
possession of through the expedient process of having the police remove
the husband or male partner.
The innovation
and implementation of zero-tolerance policies with regard to domestic
violence and mandatory arrests of men made it possible to install a
further refinement of the husband-removal process. The husband or male
partner will be removed as soon as it is possible for a police cruiser to
arrive after a woman dialed 911. It seems hardly possible to think that,
short of murder, any further expediting of the process of husband-removal
is possible. However, maybe the judiciary activists are working on that
already.
Some women now
and then murder their husbands; some do it more than once. It
usually happens, when a given man who is about to meet his maker through
the actions of his wife (in newspeak: intimate partner), that he is
intoxicated, sleeping or otherwise incapacitated or handicapped. Poison
is a favorite murder weapon of women. Murders of that type are frequently not
identified as murders, unless a series of deaths under similar
circumstances involving the same woman as the bereaved widow casts
suspicions on her. Women are likely to be absolved or given a conditional
sentence for murdering their spouse anyway, why not switch standards and
make spousal murder by women a virtue? If those murdering wives don't get
punished anyway, is it not a waste of the judiciary's time and resources
to bring them to trial?
Of
course, matrimony until death does them part under such violent
circumstances is not a common course of events, but it is growing in
popularity. So far, most often less extreme and less messy methods are
employed, and after that or before that the necessary papers need to be
issued by the family court, so that the proper rules for the conduct by
the expunged fathers can be established, documented and enforced. That is
then no longer a pressing concern with respect to the element of time,
although it does press expunged fathers dry.
Rules for
women are documented, too, although those are less stringent and never
need to be adhered to. Women have the indulgence by the judiciary to
violate with impunity the rules that apply to them.
However,
possession has already been taken of kids, car, cash and castle, and the
husband and fathers is safely out of the picture Possession is nine tenth
of the law. Therefore a woman can then rest assured that soon a
family-court caseworker will prepare the required papers and schedule a
"hearing" according to what opening is available in the judge's busy
schedule. The judge will then, when the time of the hearing arrives,
merely have to put the stamp of approval on the decision drafted and
predetermined by the family-court caseworker.
It is hard to
imagine anything that could work more smoothly for the intended purpose.
That is why those processes have been in place for almost two decades
now. We can hardly expect that the powers running the system are willing
to mess with perfection and to listen to cries for mercy or equitable
justice.
The husband
and father who by then lost most or all of everything he ever thought was
his in whole or in part will be ordered to pay for the upkeep, maintenance
and financing of all of the things and children he no longer can enjoy.
That leaves
the matter of how to enforce the payment of child support. Courts and
police don't do that; neither can the bailiffs and sheriffs who are under
the direction of the courts. The task is simply too massive, and court
procedures notoriously too cumbersome. The very last thing the judiciary
system wants is to have successfully resolved the speedy dissolution of
marriages and their "equivalents", only to find that the blockage merely
moved a little farther down in the torturous path of its bowels.
Enter the
child support enforcement agencies. First those agencies were government
departments with judicial- and police powers. However, not
only the courts but also all government bureaucratic institutions are
cumbersome. It was soon decided to assign the task of child-support
collection to private contractors who operate under government control and
supervision. They usually accomplish the task through garnishment of
paycheques, keep a "reasonable" portion of what they collect and mail out
appropriate amounts of money in monthly instalments to the intended
recipients, the custodians and gate-keepers of the children, namely
separated, divorced or single mothers.
Moreover, in
many localities and jurisdictions, the task of designing the guidelines
for the setting of child support amounts got assigned to those people who
are best qualified to ensure a desirable maximum rate of return on
investment to the collection agencies, namely the owners of those
agencies.
There are
local variations of these processes. All of them more or less align
themselves with the goals and objectives that Adolf Hitler expressed in
his bunker on Jan. 27 and 28, 1944. His personal secretary Martin Bormann described
the results of those deliberations in fair detail in a memorandum dated
Jan. 29, 1944, when he produced the guidelines on how the People could be
assured of remaining victorious in spite of losing millions of men and the
war.
The strategy
was to abolish existing moral traditions and inhibitions. That was
thought to enable the People to out-breed the enemy, seeing that they
could not conquer the enemy on the field of battle that by now had
expanded to include the Fatherland, which was being reduced to rubble and
ashes.
We must -- for the sake of the future of our People -- promulgate a real
mother cult, and therein there may be no differentiation between women
who are married according to present manners and women who conceive
children from a man with whom they are joined only in friendship! All
these women are to be honoured in egalitarian fashion. (Obviously, that
is not the case with those asocial elements that don't even know who the
fathers of their children may be.)
These statements indicate which inhibitions we must eradicate and which
conditions we must create to reach the vital increase in the number of
births.
That a man lets himself be brought to trial for arrearages in the
payment of support moneys (alimonies) must become a rarity; a man who
acts like that without extenuating circumstances must be defamed
outright, because his behaviour will generally be considered as
being reprehensible.
Obviously, in such a case the State must -- as long as it will be
necessary -- pay sufficient support money. It must be quite unacceptable
that a mother with a child will ever be in need. Any mother who without
fault of her own finds herself in circumstances of material need or
lacking optimal conditions must be assured of the designated care by the
public.
As I already mentioned earlier, it is necessary that we eradicate and
prohibit the presently used designations for relationships that have a
more or less odious sound.
We must, to the contrary, even find good, friendly names.
We must therefore deliberate how the relationship that a woman has with
a man with whom she may be married in the customary manner shall be
designated. We must deliberate how the children that issue from such a
friendship compact must be designated, etc.
Hey, why don't we do what the homosexualists are proposing now, abolish
the institution of marriage and recognize only "committed civil unions"?
Won't that normalize everything down to the lowest common denominator? And
as to what we do with children of various sorts and circumstances, Bormann
should have lived a little longer. He would have been happy to see our
current universally accepted standard, "There are no illegitimate
children; every child is a legitimate child." There,
wasn't that simple? — WHS
The more fortuitous we shall be in the determination of such names, the
easier it will be for us to eliminate the existing inhibitions.
Well, we succeeded beyond Bormann's wildest dreams. — WHS
Nevertheless, these inhibitions must be put aside, otherwise all of the
sacrifices of the previous world war and this war will have been in
vain, and else our people will fall before the next storms.
In twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years we will then lack the
divisions that we absolutely need if our People are not to go under.
After this war, the childless marriages and bachelors must be far more
sharply taxed than until now.
The present taxation of the bachelors must be child's play in comparison
to the tax load with which they will be burdened in the future.
The revenues from these bachelor taxes must serve for the support of
mothers with children, that is, for the material support of our
ambitions in relation to our offspring.
I
ask of you to thoroughly consider this whole problem in your thoughts
and then subsequently to transmit your assessment to me.
signed, M. Bormann
Headquarters of the Leader, Jan. 29, 1944
Annotation.
Re: Securing the Future of the German People
Excerpt
from The Secretary: Martin Bormann, the man who dominated Hitler,
by Jochen von Lang, Stuttgart 1977, pp. 478-482 [My translation (with
edits from Julian Fitzgerald), —WHS] Somehat redacted
Original German text of Bormann's letter, and here is is
the complete original German text of the letter.
|
Those who don't learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.
History repeats itself because the current generation refuses to read
the minutes of the last meeting.
History tells us from where we came and where we are going. It tells us
about actions and consequences. It tells us not only whether we are
making progress and how far we have come, it tells us whether we are
going into the right direction.
History is therefore a threat to all totalitarian regimes, as it clearly
shows all of their flaws and the consequences of every single wrong
decision made by a given totalitarian regime. For that reason all
totalitarian regimes prohibit the teaching of history or at best permit
only the teaching of versions that are constantly tailored and
manipulated so that they will show a given totalitarian regime to be on
the right path.
History is no longer taught in the elementary and grammar schools of
Canada or in those of many other nations in the "free" West.
Any nation
that no longer teaches honest and true history forgets from where it
came. It will therefore be on a random path to self-destruction and
oblivion. That is because it will not be able to determine which change
in direction that it takes in reacting to each event in the never-ending
succession of unexpected catastrophes it tries to escape from will prove
to be the best. The fatal end of that nation will come as a total
surprise to the vast majority of its people who will bear the cost of
their own destruction.
—WHS |
Karl Marx, who is
generally regarded as the father of communism, promoted heavy progressive
income taxes (in the second plank of The
Communist Manifesto) as
the means to transfer wealth and income from those who have to those in
need.
The USSR, which became one of the manifestations of the theories of Marx
and Engels, brought into being the persecution and extermination of men
to an industrial level.
From the website of the
The Soviet Story:
The film tells the story of the Soviet regime and how the
Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust.
“The Soviet Story” is a story of an Allied power which helped the Nazis
to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale.
Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were
made taboo, and the complete story of Europe’s most murderous regime has
never been told. Until now…
DVDs of the documentary can be
purchased through Amazon.com, but the documentary is also accessible
free-of-charge on-line.
See a review of
the documentary on the soviet holocaust
or democide, the definition of democide being the extermination of a
people by its government. It is estimated that during the height of the
Stalinist purges,
men comprised 98 percent of the 8-million people that were being exterminated
in just two years, 1937 and 1938.
In the
developed nations, women live about six to fourteen years longer than men
in the developed nations do
— depending on location and if we consider The Russian Federation as being
developed, which we do. Therefore, although on average women work fewer
years than men do, women spend on average far more years being retired.
Men, working much harder and much longer than women do, accordingly wear
out much faster. They spend far fewer of their golden years in retirement.
Therefore we must ensure that women enjoy far more years of life of
leisure at the appropriate level of comfort that is due to women.
Whose needs could be greater than the needs of those who
live longest?
Collectively, men make about 70 percent of payments to our social safety
nets (through payroll deductions) and receive about 30 percent of social
security benefits paid out.
Collectively, women make about 30 percent of payments to our social safety
nets (also through payroll deductions) and receive about 70 percent of
social security benefits paid out.
That disparity is similar in the area of private insurance and corporate
pension plans.
The disparity is far greater yet with respect to child support
payments, but there it affects, in addition to the impact of the
disparities mentioned above, only men who dared to become married or to
cohabit (even if only for one night) and were
subsequently divorced or separated. Of all such men, that specific disparity becomes
crushing for those that dared to father children. It is fairly safe to
assume that the Canadian circumstances in that respect are representative
of all developed nations, as the relative proportions of awarding child
custody and corresponding child-support allowances to mothers and fathers
vary little from country to country.
In Canada, in 1991, men paid 99 percent of all child support paid. Women
paid one percent of all child support paid.
Quotes from Glenn
Cheriton's book
on Canadian family-issues-related statistics:
Note: Some of the links identified at the URL for Glenn
Cheriton's book are dead and will be updated or corrected within the next
few days.
In 1991:
-
The
average child support award in Canada was $4,411
-
The
average CS paid by fathers was $4,883
-
The few
women who paid in 1991 paid an average of $2,758
-
The
proportion of women who default on child support and don't pay
anything at all is 93%
In 1991 there were 136,825 fathers eligible for CS and 127,602 women who
didn't pay any of what they were supposed to pay.
Total CS paid by women to single fathers in 1992:
$18,314,000 or about 1 percent of all support paid. (Revenue Canada,
Statistics Division) There are 170,000 lone parent families headed by
men. The average single father receives about $109 per year or about $6
- $7 per month per child.
Ostensibly, all of that is in the best interest of the children. In
reality it is a consequence of the government's use of force to bring
about equality of outcome through massive income- and asset-transfers from
men to women. As the Party stated in George Orwell's 1984, "Freedom is
Slavery", and as George Orwell explained in Animal Farm, "Some
animals are more equal than others."
Some people may think, and some may even say it, that all is fine with the
world, that women deserve what they are receiving, because men have so
much to give, seeing that men make so much more money than women do.
Right...
To pay men more than women receive for equal quality and quantity of work
performed is against the law!
Collectively, men truly earn more than women earn, but that is primarily
due to three things.
-
Men work
on average far more hours per week, per month and per year than women
do.
-
Collectively, women limit their income on account of the choices they
make.
-
Men work
on average many more years than women do.
Men are beasts
of burden that
are the victims in 19 out of every 20 serious or fatal job
accidents and live on average considerably fewer years than women do.
That is quite acceptable to our society, because men can never be
"victims", they are deemed to be unworthy of the status of victimhood. When
the early communists coined the euphemism "status of women" it defined
women as victims.
Although women now live far more comfortable lives than they did then, and
although the quality of those lives is far better than that accorded to
men, now that women's lives last much longer to boot,
"status of women" as a euphemism for
women's victim status is far more firmly established than it ever was.
Men, the beasts of burden, the truly oppressed and exploited, are farther
removed from acquiring victim status than they ever were.
Most men
by far, proud, don't wish for victim status. They are too generous
for that, but they should receive some respect and appreciation for all of
the sacrifices they make. Men do not deserve to have feminists
conspire with the enormous influence and control they have in government
to use tax revenues, that were provided in the majority by men, to gain
advantages for themselves and some women but to justify those advantages
through intensive tax-revenue-funded vilification and slandering of men.
There is only one single national government department in the world, in
Austria, that officially deals with the "status of men". It is staffed
by four women and two men, led by a woman, and pursues the mission to
educate men to,
a.) Accept
all of the much-needed rights and advances gained by women during the
past five decades,
b.) Learn
that men have the duty in the world of brave new marriages to serve
temporary terms as fathers.
However, there is more than that to the existence and role of
men, but, although once-upon-a-time men were much praised for it, that
is no longer the case. See:
The 1989 Montreal Massacre in the context of men’s sacrifices, 2008
12 07, by Professor Jeffrey Asher.
As Martin Bormann, Hitler's personal secretary, observed in the memorandum
from which I quoted above,
The number of residential schools (elementary schools — boarding
schools, secondary-school boarding schools with pre-schools, grammar
school boarding schools with pre-schools) is to be increased hugely, so
that all women who for whatever reason cannot temporarily or not at all
raise their children themselves can have them brought up without any
difficulties in the residential schools. That will hold for boys as well
as for girls.
These residential schools will be required also because the best and
most valiant men are in their youth most-real troublemakers and can
hardly be managed by their mothers alone.
Women have come to expect preferential treatment and now demand it. Men
are being conditioned from childhood on to accept that, to serve and to
be proud to serve, but proud of it they can no longer be. Men used to
be honoured for the sacrifices they made. Now that for decades they have
been slandered, vilified and many of them actively persecuted, oppressed
and incarcerated for trying to have families, they are secondary citizens
at best, somewhat sub-human, slaves, and inferior to the new Aryans.
The enormous
discrimination against men in the West is a product of
western chivalry.
Neither the concept of western chivalry nor the discrimination against men
it produces is present in the two most populous nations on Earth (China
and India) to the
extent that they manifest themselves there in noticeable proportions.
Western chivalry is a concept that demands that men adore and serve women.
There is no female counterpart to western chivalry. Western
chivalry entices women to exploit men. Western chivalry compels men
to be deferential to women, to perceive women to be weak, moral minors,
yet angels or saints that must be elevated on pedestals. Men were
given honours and appreciation for doing that. That is no longer so.
However, men are still expected to serve women, voluntarily and without
complaint, but woe to the man that provides his services voluntarily to a
woman offended by that because she finds it to be demeaning to the status
of women. In that case, the man may receive a poisonous stare, a
slap in the face or an invitation to come to court to defend himself
against a charge of sexual harassment or discrimination.
Even without the
honouring and respect that men formerly received, they still willingly put
their lives on the line if only those that want them to do that can
convince men that they have to because it will save women, home and
country. The irony is that men don't even have to be convinced,
because right from birth they are being conditioned to do that
unconditionally: "That's a boy!" and later, "That's a man!" and, "It's a
man's duty." On the one side of the coin is men's duty to serve
and protect women and children. What is on the other side of the coin? What is a
woman's duty?
Honour or not, men receive nothing in return but long lines of their names
on memorials and today the scorn of not only feminists but that of
countless women whom the feminists indoctrinated to hate men. That
is freedom, justice and equality? Karl Marx and Frederic Engels must
be laughing in their graves.
All that is necessary to trigger active discrimination against a class of
people is to regard them as being inferior. Regard men as being vile,
brutal, insensitive and to be oppressors, and discrimination against men
soon turns into active persecution of men and into their exploitation as
slaves; and who can force himself to respect, love and honour slaves?
If men don't complain about being mistreated, it is reasonable to expect
that they will be burdened with more and more obligations, duties and
sacrifices until they crack or die; and if they die, so much the better.
Dead men don't complain. The women who survive them are the real
victims, right? That must be so, consider:
Women have
always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their
fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only
homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict
and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are
often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children."
— Hillary
Clinton
in a
speech at
the First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence
San Salvador, El Salvador, November 17, 1998
The point made by Hillary Clinton was made even
more forcefully by Louise Arbour, former Canadian Surpreme Court
Justice, now involved in the persecution of Bosnian war criminals at the
International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, when she commented on
the mass murder of Croatian men:
"My mental image of a mass grave was that
it would be more of a trench, where the bodies would be lined up
almost in file," she recalled last week. "But these bodies were
thrown together indiscriminately in a hole. Then I noticed their
clothes. They were young men, and the first thing I thought about
was their mothers." Arbour is a mother of three herself, although
"it would be too corny, too sentimental, to suggest that you go back
to work suddenly fired up. But it made the tragedy very human, and
that's not something you get here in the office every day. I watched
the bodies come out of the ground and it was like they were coming
alive again. They were demanding to be identified. They were
demanding," she said, and there was not even a hint of
sentimentality in her voice, "that their mothers be told." (Full
Story)
See how that works? We must not mourn
the loss of the lives that these men lost, the torture they experienced
and their killing . We must mourn the pain of the mothers who lost
the lives of their sons, for the simple reason that the primary victims
of that war were the mothers who lost their children. The
suffering and deaths of the children, especially given that they
were almost exclusively men who were killed, are not what matters as much as does the pain of their
mothers, the survivors and therefore the primary victims of the Bosnian
War.
Being a survivor is a tough job, but somebody has to do it. In the
western world, by design, women have to carry that grave burden. Don't
they deserve that men reward them well for that, and is it not proper that
men should pay for that with their limbs, lives and reputation?
Additional Reading:
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.
- There is absolutely nothing new about the sort
of recent developments described in this web page. The trend
is nothing but a continuation of the chivalry by "men" of the
Victorian age (politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and
Journalists) 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
-
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.
WHY MEN
ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p 34-35
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:
One-Night Stand
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, translated into a joke that is far more ironic than
it is funny, goes like this:
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.)
THE HATE MONGERS
From THE
CASSANDRA PAPERS, by Andy Turnbull
Neo Nazis and other overt hate groups are amateurs. THE HATE MONGERS
explains how some elements of the women's movement use lies and hate to
make big money for themselves, and how they harm our culture and our
economy.
Read THE HATE
MONGERS
If you have concerns about these and other issues related to the condition of
seniors, visit, contact and perhaps even join:
SUN — Seniors United Now
The up- and coming, rapidly-growing advocacy organization
for seniors (55 years and over) in Alberta
There are in the order of about half a million or more people of age 55 and
over in Alberta. If all of them were to join SUN, they would become the most
powerful advocacy organization in Alberta; and seniors would no longer be robbed
of their comforts and otherwise ignored.
At the price of one package of cigarettes seniors will be able to
gain a voice that will be heard by a government that otherwise can and will take
from seniors what they worked for all their life to enjoy in their old age.
If you are concerned about how seniors are affected by the
planned,
systematic destruction of our families and society, a search
at google.com (for elderly OR seniors OR grandparent OR grandfather OR
grandmother site:https://fathersforlife.org) will provide you with the links
to about 80 web pages at Fathers for Life that will be of interest to you.
