American Communism and the Making of Women's
Liberation
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
July 12, 2003
"Rape is an expression of ... male supremacy ... the age-old economic, political and cultural exploitation of women by men."
Does this sound like a modern radical feminist? Guess again. It is from a 1948 American Communist Party pamphlet entitled "Woman Against Myth"by Mary Inman.
In a recent book, Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women's Liberation, (2002) feminist historian Kate Weigand states: "ideas, activists and traditions that emanated from the Communist movement of the forties and fifties continued to shape the direction of the new women's movement of the 1960s and later."(154)
In fact, Weigand, a lecturer at Smith College, shows that modern feminism is a direct outgrowth of American Communism. There is nothing that feminists said or did in the 1960's-1980's that wasn't prefigured in the CPUSA of the 1940's and 1950's. Many second-wave feminist leaders were "red diaper babies," the children of Communists.
Communists pioneered the political and cultural analysis of woman's oppression. They originated women's studies, and advocated public daycare, birth control, abortion and even children's rights. They forged key feminist concepts such as "the personal is the political" and techniques such as "consciousness raising."
In the late 1940's, CPUSA leaders realized that the labor movement was becoming increasingly hostile to Communism. They began to focus on women and African Americans. They hoped "male supremacy" would "bring more women into the organization and into the fight against the domestic policies of the Cold War." (80)
Communist women who made up 40% of the party wanted more freedom to attend party meetings. After the publication of "Women Against Myth" in 1948, the CPUSA initiated a process of "re-educating" men that we recognize only too well today.
For example, in the party newspaper "The Daily Worker" a photo caption of a man with a young child read, "Families are stronger and happier if the father knows how to fix the cereal, tie the bibs and take care of the youngsters." (127)
The Party ordered men who didn't take the woman question seriously to complete "control tasks involving study on the woman question." In 1954 the Los Angeles branch disciplined men for "hogging discussion at club meetings, bypassing women comrades in leadership and making sex jokes degrading to women." (94)
A film Salt of the Earth, which critic Pauline Kael called "Communist propaganda", portrayed women taking a decisive role in their husbands' labor strike. "Against her husband's wishes, Esperanza became a leader in the strike and for the first time forged a role for herself outside of her household... [her] political successes persuaded Ramon to accept a new model of family life." (132) Portrayals of strong assertive successful women became as common in the Communist press and schools, as they are in the mass media today.
Communist women formalized a sophisticated Marxist analysis of the "woman question." The books In Women's Defense (1940) by Mary Inman, Century of Struggle (1954) by Eleanor Flexner and The Unfinished Revolution (1962) by Eve Merriam recorded women's oppression and decried sexism in mass culture and language. For example, Mary Inman argued that "manufactured femininity" and "overemphasis on beauty" keeps women in subjection (33).
The founder of modern feminism, Betty Frieden relied on these texts when she wrote The Feminine Mystique (1963). These women all hid the fact that they were long-time Communist activists. In the 1960, their daughters had everything they needed, including the example of subterfuge, to start the Women's Liberation Movement.
Feminism's roots in Marxist Communism explain a great deal about this curious but dangerous movement. It explains:
Why the " woman's movement" hates femininity and imposes a political-economic concept like "equality" on a personal, biological and mystical relationship.
Why the "women's movement" also embraces equality of race and class.
Why they want revolution ("transformation") and have a messianic vision of a gender-less utopia.
Why they believe human nature is infinitely malleable and can be shaped by indoctrination and coercion.
Why they engage in endless, mind-numbing theorizing, doctrinal disputes and factionalism.
Why truth for them is a "social construct" defined by whomever has power, and appearances are more important than reality.
Why they reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favour of their political agenda.
Why they refuse to debate, don't believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views.
Why they behave like a quasi-religious cult, or like the Red Guard.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that feminism is Communism by another name. Having failed to peddle class war, Communism promoted gender conflict instead. The "diversity" and "multicultural" movements represent feminism's attempt to forge "allegiances" by empowering gays and "people of color." Thus, the original CPUSA trio of "race, gender and class" is very much intact but class conflict was never a big seller.
The term "politically correct" originated in the Russian Communist Party in the 1920's. It usage in America today illustrates the extent society has been subverted. Feminist activists are mostly Communist dupes. The Communist goal is to destroy Western Civilization, which is dedicated to genuine diversity (pluralism), individual liberty and equal opportunity (but not equal outcomes).
We have seen this destruction in the dismantling of the liberal arts curriculum and tradition of free speech and inquiry at our universities. We have seen this virus spread to government, business, the media and the military. This could only happen because the financial elite in fact sponsors Communism.
"Political correctness" has dulled and regimented our cultural life. Recently here in Winnipeg, Betty Granger, a conservative school trustee referred to house price increases due to "the Asian invasion." Granger was pilloried mercilessly in the press. People sent hate letters and dumped garbage on her lawn.
At a School Board meeting, the Chairman acknowledged that she is not a racist. He acknowledged that Asians have married into her family. Nonetheless, Granger was censured because, and I quote, "appearances are more important than reality." This slippage from the mooring of objective truth is the hallmark of Communism.
The atmosphere at the meeting was charged. Mild mannered Canadians, all champions of "tolerance" they behaved like wild dogs ready to tear apart an wounded rabbit. Betty Granger repented and voted in favour of her own censure.
These rituals of denunciation and contrition, typical of Stalinist Russia or Maoist China, are becoming commonplace in America. They are like showtrials designed to frighten everyone into conforming. We have "diversity officers" and "human rights commissions" and "sensitivity training" to uphold feminist shibboleths. They talk about "discrimination" but they freely discriminate against white heterosexual men and feminine women. They use the charge of "sexual harassment" to fetter male-female relations and purge their opponents.
In 1980, three women in Leningrad produced 10 typewritten copies of a feminist magazine called Almanac. The KGB shut down the magazine and deported the women to West Germany. In the USSR, feminism has largely been for export. According to Professor Weigand, her "book provides evidence to support the belief that at least some Communists regarded the subversion of the gender system [in America] as an integral part of the larger fight to overturn capitalism."(6)
In conclusion, the feminist pursuit of "equal rights" is a mask for an invidious Communist agenda. The Communist MO has always been deception, infiltration and subversion. The goal is the destruction of western civilization and creation of a new world order run by monopoly capital.
Kate Weigand's Red Feminism demonstrates that the Communist agenda is alive and well and living under an assumed name.
"Gloria Steinem": How the CIA Used Feminism to
Destabilize Society
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
March 18, 2002
Since writing these words last week, I have discovered that before she became a feminist leader, Gloria Steinem worked for the CIA spying on Marxist students in Europe and disrupting their meetings. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA.
Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings." In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.
Steinem has always pretended that she had been a student radical. "When I was in college, it was the McCarthy era," she told Susan Mitchell in 1997, "and that made me a Marxist." (Icons, Saints and Divas: Intimate Conversations with Women who Changed the World 1997. p 130) Her bio-blurb in June 1973 MS. Magazine states: "Gloria Steinem has been a freelance writer all her professional life. Ms magazine is her first full-time salaried job."
Not true. Raised in an impoverished, dysfunctional family in Toledo Ohio, Steinem somehow managed to attend elite Smith College, Betty Friedan's alma mater. After graduating in 1955, Steinem received a "Chester Bowles Student Fellowship" to study in India. Curiously, an Internet search reveals that this fellowship has no existence apart from Gloria Steinem. No one else has received it.
In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots.
One of Steinem's CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960's, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women's lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route. Despite its anti establishment image, MS magazine attracted advertising from the cream of corporate America. It published ads for ITT at the same time as women political prisoners in Chile were being tortured by Pinochet, after a coup inspired by the US conglomerate and the CIA.
Steinem's personal relationships also belie her anti establishment pretensions. She had a nine-year relationship with Stanley Pottinger, a Nixon-Ford assistant attorney general, credited with stalling FBI investigations into the assassinations of Martin Luther King, and the ex-Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Latelier. In the 1980's, she dated Henry Kissinger. For more details, see San Francisco researcher Dave Emory.
Our main misconception about the CIA is that it serves US interests. In fact, it has always been the instrument of a dynastic international banking and oil elite (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) coordinated by the Royal Institute for Internal Affairs in London and their US branch, the Council for Foreign Relations. It was established and peopled by blue bloods from the New York banking establishment and graduates of Yale University's secret pagan "Skull and Bones" society. Our current President, his father and grandfather fit this profile.
The agenda of this international cabal is to degrade the institutions and values of the United States in order to integrate it into a global state that it will direct through the United Nations. In its 1947 Founding Charter, the CIA is prohibited from engaging in domestic activities. However this has never stopped it from waging a psychological war on the American people. The domestic counterpart of the "Congress for Cultural Freedom" was the "American Committee for Cultural Freedom." Using foundations as conduits, the CIA controlled intellectual discourse in the 1950's and 1960's, and I believe continues to do so today. In "The Cultural Cold War," Francis Stonor Saunders estimates that a thousand books were produced under the imprint of a variety of commercial and university presses, with covert subsidies.
The CIA's "Project Mockingbird" involved the direct infiltration of the corporate media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news outlets. "By the early 1950's," writes Deborah Davis, in her book "Katherine the Great," the CIA owned respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communication vehicles, plus stringers, four to six hundred in all." In 1982 the CIA admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have acted as case officers to agents in the field. Philip Graham, publisher of the Washington Post, who ran the operation until his "suicide" in 1963, boasted that "you could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple of hundred dollars a month."
I was born in 1949. Idealists in my parent's generation were disillusioned when the Communist dream of universal brotherhood turned out to be a shill for a brutal despotism. My own generation may discover that our best instincts have also been manipulated and exploited. There is evidence that the 60's drug counter culture, the civil rights movement, and anti-war movement, like feminism, were CIA directed. For example, the CIA has admitted setting up the (National Student Association as a front in 1947 http://www.cia-on-campus.org/nsa/nsa2.html). In the early 1950's the NSA opposed the attempts of the House Un American Activities Committee to root out Communist spies. According to Phil Agee Jr., NSA officers participated in the activities of SNCC, the militant civil rights group, and Students for a Democratic Society, a radical peace group.
According to Mark Riebling, the CIA also may have used Timothy Leary. Certainly the agency distributed LSD to Leary and other opinion makers in the 1960s. Leary made a generation of Americans turn away from active participation in society and seek fulfillment "within." In another example of the CIA's use of drugs to interfere in domestic politics, Gary Webb describes how in the 1980's, the CIA flooded Black ghettos with cocaine.
I won't attempt to analyze the CIA's motivation except to suggest what they have in common: They demoralized, alienated and divided Americans. The elite operates by fostering division and conflict in the world. Thus, we don't realize who the real enemy is. For the same reason, the CIA and elite foundations also fund the diversity and multicultural movements.
Feminism has done the most damage. There is no more fundamental yet delicate relationship in society than male and female. On it depends the family, the red blood cell of society. Nobody with the interests of society at heart would try to divide men and women. Yet the lie that men have exploited women has become the official orthodoxy.
Man loves woman. His first instinct is to nurture ("husband") and see her thrive. When a woman is happy, she is beautiful. Sure, some men are abusive. But the vast majority have supported and guided their families for millennium.
Feminists relentlessly advance the idea that our inherent male and female characteristics, crucial to our development as human beings, are mere "stereotypes." This is a vicious calumny on all heterosexuals, 95% of the population. Talk about hate! Yet it is taught to children in elementary schools! It is echoed in the media. Lesbians like Rosie O'Donnell are advanced as role models.
All of this is calculated to create personal confusion and sow chaos among heterosexuals. As a result, millions of American males are emasculated and divorced from their relationship to family (the world and the future.) The American woman has been hoodwinked into investing herself in a mundane career instead of the timeless love of her husband and children. Many women have become temperamentally unfit to be wives and mothers. People, who are isolated and alone, stunted and love-starved, are easy to fool and manipulate. Without the healthy influence of two loving parents, so are their children.
Feminism is a grotesque fraud perpetrated on society by its governing elite. It is designed to weaken the American social and cultural fabric in order to introduce a friendly fascist New World Order. Its advocates are sanctimonious charlatans who have grown rich and powerful from it. They include a whole class of liars and moral cripples who work for the elite in various capacities: government, education and the media. These impostors ought to be exposed and ridiculed.
Women's oppression is a lie. Sex roles were never as rigid as feminists would have us believe. My mother had a successful business in the 1950's importing watchstraps from Switzerland. When my father's income increased, she was content to quit and concentrate on the children. Women were free to pursue careers if they wanted to. The difference was that their role as wife and mother was understood, and socially validated, as it should be.
Until Gloria Steinem and the CIA came along.
Source: http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html
________________________________________________________
Russo: Rockefeller Admitted Women's Lib Agenda
The Truth Will Set You Free | August 19 2006
Russo recalls his conversation with one of the Rockefellers, who told him that
they created and financed the womem's lib movement so they could tax another
half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in
government schools rather than in the context of the family unit.
| FEMINISM IS SOCIALISM |
|
by: Humberto Nunez The first thing communists do to expand their power is put the women to work in order to take over the family unit. Putting them to work separates both parents from the children so that they can be indoctrinated and propagandized in the government/socialist schools and preschools. Increasing the workforce also decreases wages - Economics101 - basic simple concepts of supply and demand. Women in the workforce doubles the workforce which decreases wages, and this lowering of wages was deceptively hidden through deflation and devaluing the dollar. (example: Let's say I own a factory. I have 500 employees knocking on my door everyday looking for work; I can then decrease wages and say, "If you don't like it there's the door. I have 500 people knocking on my door everyday looking for work." On the other hand, if I cannot find enough people to work in my factory, I would have to increase wages within my ability to make a profit. Read again from top now and Continue)... That is why in the 1950's, the average American
family lived fine on one income. Today the average American family
needs TWO incomes just to get by because the progressive income tax
(the second plank of the
Feminists are being used and they don't even
realize it. They have complained about power control freak men and
husbands, only to have this alleged tyranny replaced by an even
worst Power-Control-Freak Democratic Totalitarian Police STATE.
Fabricating a so-called "social problem" such as male chauvinism or
discrimination in order to justify the excuse for more government
power to solve it is the oldest Dictator ploy in the book.
Either Fathers own their children or the STATE OWNS
the children. Law of the Jungle: women want security
so they look for the best provider. When the best provider becomes
the STATE (i.e. the Welfare State), she then uses the marriage
license to marry (into) the STATE and now the STATE OWNS or at least
controls her children (see our article entitled
5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Get a State Marriage License,
which shows that doing so amounts to polygamy because you are also
marrying the state!). That's right, when you get a state marriage
license, you are committing polygamy because you are marrying both
the state and your spouse, and the state is the only one that can
change the terms of state's prenuptial agreement called a "marriage
license". (see article by Stephen Kimbol entitled "Who owns the youth owns the future!" - Adolf Hitler ... Thus the US Dept. of (in)Human(e) Services is the
Division of Family Destruction. Either the man/husband/father is
the Head of His Household ... or the STATE is the HEAD of your
Household! When the STATE is the head of your household and your
family, then you become the slave and the chains that hold you in slavery are the law! (see
our article by Charles Davidson entitled
i.e. immigrants who come here and prosper come from patriarchal family structures because Patriarchy = family unit = efficiency. Name me one time when Government Sponsored Propaganda was not Totalitarian in Nature. Feminism is Government Sponsored Propaganda - to weaken society; weaken the family unit; weaken it's men ... for more STATE CONTROL.
Society today promotes, advocates, and supports homosexuality while at the same time endorses, protects, advocates, and fully supports destroying heterosexual males with alimony and child support and isolating them from their children... this is SATANIC and destroys the ability and the willingness of future generations to challenge or question authority!!! The #1 Group to benefit from Affirmative Action are white women (thus) they are using mathematics to keep a large percentage of minority men DOWN "He who rules mathematics rules the Universe" This is the mathematics of racial eugenics. This is the mathematics of the New World Order. Even after DNA proves that he is NOT the biological Father, Judges in the US still force thousands of men to pay child support even with the DNA evidence in front of them !!!
Not even Saddam Hussein would force a man to pay child support for a child that is NOT his !!! Feminism is a Weapon of Mass Destruction: "First You Get the Women, Then You've Got the Children, So Follow the Men" -Adolph Hitler "The `perennial' father is a menace to society and must be treated as such. Like the mental defectives and those afflicted with certain hereditary diseases, he should, after due warning, be rendered incapable of further parentage." -W.J. Ruth. "Population Control For Unemployment." Birth Control Review, Volume XVII, Number 5 (May 1933), page 134. Why aren't former Enron Execs forced to pay child support to all the families who lost their money? Why should Corporations have more rights then Individuals? The Constitution spoke of Rights of the Individual (not of the rights of Corporations). Women today can dump their babies off in garbage
dumpsters and not be prosecuted for it (a new law was passed
allowing them to turn their babies over to hospital emergency rooms
with no questions asked!
In the Book of Genesis, when Satan attacked Adam and Eve, he attacked through the weaker vessel: the woman. Just like The STATE is doing today, attacking us through feminism, through the 'woman'. Falsely "empower" the woman for her to make the wrong choices that way to weaken the man to control him. This is how evil attacks man, who was made in the image of God. In the Book of Exodus, Pharaoh of Egypt decided to kill all the male Israelite infants to weaken the Israelites militarily. This is nothing new. Think about it ! ! ! Statism is Antichrist plain and simple. God should be the King and Head of an individual man, and the man/husband should be the head of his household, not the Anti-Christ STATE. In this last century alone, governments around the world have killed over 500 million people of their own people. All this government sponsored propaganda about Domestic Violence is just a smoke screen to divert attention from the real abuse: Government Abuse Against It's Own People. Government is the Big Brother and Father to all...the Parens Patriae. This is the real Domestic Violence! The Bible depicted governments as Beasts in Daniel and Revelations. Look at old Nazi films: their Armies marching like ants mimicking the Animal Kingdom and therefore subhuman. Individual Freemen become just another cog in the Wheel of the Predator Beast State which becomes the Alpha Male which today IT is doing through the propaganda of feminism. By feminizing society and thus emasculating its males for more State Control. “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.” Benjamin Franklin "We ought to obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:27-29, Bible, NKJV] Paying child support kills children by Funding/Subsidizing the #1 KILLER of children: single-mother-households: Children from single-mother households, compared to children of two-parent families where the biological father is present, are more likely to go to prison by 20 times, to commit suicide by 5 times, to have behavioral problems by 20 times, to become rapists by 14 times, to run away by 32 times, to abuse chemical substances by 10 times, to drop out of high school by 9 times, to be seriously abused by 33 times, to be fatally abused by 73 times, to be one tenth as likely to get A's in school, and to [per Lenore Weitzman] have a 72% lower standard of living. "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." - Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861 (1809-1865) America used to be free. Not anymore. America has turned into Amerika, a totalitarian socialist democracy. We abandoned our Republican heritage based on individual rights long ago. Don't believe me? Read this article. Question to America:
Question to America:
Feminism is a military psychological weapon to feminize/emasculate society for more State Control by weakening the State's Main Competitor: Men. The U.S. Federal Government is the Biggest Deadbeat Parent (see Parens Patriae): $5.7 TRILLION on the National Debt - (financial-future of 'our children'). The STATE kidnaps children from their Fathers and then demands ransom/extortion deceptively called 'child support.' Then they erect a big expensive socialist bureaucracy paid for by taxpayer slaves to administer the program bent on harassing, enslaving, and persecuting men on behalf of the mother in violation of God's law in Eph. 5:22-25. This big bloated bureaucracy justifies its own existence by promoting the false "presumption" that all men are irresponsible and bad parents. They're guilty until proven innocent, and there's no way to prove a negative, or prove that you're NOT something in law, as every good lawyer knows. Everyone who has read the bible, by the way, knows that being "presumptuous" is a sin: See Psalms 19:12-13 and Numbers 15:30. Maxim of law: The children that belong to the mother are those of slaves and animals. But the children that belong to the Father are those of Freemen (see Bible, Gen. 21:9-14). This maxim is why the Slave Masters used to separate the black slave Father from the black slave mother and child to weaken them to better control them. Divide & Conquer: this is nothing new. And now they are doing it to men today in Amerika:
2002. Even after DNA proves that he is NOT the biological Father,
thousands of men in America are still FORCED to pay this
ransom/extortion deceptively called child support even with DNA
EVIDENCE PROVING he is NOT the Father: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Thomas Paine All Praise and Glory to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob the Only True God - The Creator of both the Heavens and the Earth in the NAME OF JESUS THE CHRIST |
Child support spies to watch parents - AAP, June 23, 2008
PRIVATE investigators will be used by the Child Support Agency (CSA) to spy on parents who are not meeting their child support payments. [full report]
Welcome to the Matriarchy
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
TORONTO - If you live in Toronto, you may have noticed the Bathurst Street billboards sponsored by Jewish Women International Canada (JWIC).
They all display the same emotive ad, featuring a shame-suffused, Jewish-looking woman, submissively tilting her face to offer a brutalized eye to the public gaze. The caption reads: "There is a Jewish woman you know being abused."
Community response has so far been equivocal, but muted. Now imagine public reaction to an alternative billboard message: an anguished man staring down from a 12-story ledge, captioned "There is a desperate Jewish man you know contemplating suicide because a woman falsely accused him of abuse, alienated his children and ruined his life ..." Such a hypothetical men's ad would reflect a verifiable truth: Vengeful women of all provenance routinely (and usually with impunity) falsely allege abuse or otherwise block fathers' access to children; and while women's suicide rates remain constant after separation, the suicide rates amongst their ex-partners skyrocket.
The JWIC billboard is partly true: It dispels a popular myth that domestic violence isn't a Jewish community problem. At the same time, the ad's unnamed Everywoman indirectly reinforces two feminist myths: that Everyman, rather than individual males with personality disorders or other pathologies, is a potential abuser; and that women are always victims, never perpetrators.
But as University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton points out in his new book, Rethinking Domestic Violence, partner abuse is almost always a predictable, bilateral problem springing from intimacy issues, with psychological roots in both sexes' early family dynamics. And despite what you read in the media, it's not always the man who strikes the first blow-not by a long shot.
As Prof. Dutton further notes, myths around domestic violence extend into the shaping of all social policy, meeting little public resistance because indifference to men's needs is constantly endorsed through reinforcing public gestures.
For example, the offices of Jewish Family and Child Services (JF&CS) in Toronto have prominently displayed a poster of the battered woman ad where no arriving male client can avoid seeing it. There are also several pictures of "families" in the waiting room, in which no fathers-only mothers and children-appear. Of the 30 or so pamphlets on the rack, not one addresses the interests of fathers and children, only women. Men who visit this centre-not in reality a "family" but a women's agency-are made to feel pre-judged, reflexively guilty and superfluous to family life. On the evidence, it is difficult to imagine this effect as anything but the result of a calculated strategy.
I single out JF&CS because it is a good example of a general anti-male syndrome in social services (and because a group of Toronto Jewish men are in the process of organizing a class action civil suit on their own and their children's behalf against JF&CS). But all social service agencies are women-centric in pretty much the same degree. For we now live in a matriarchy, at whose highest official levels men are unloved at best, with fatherhood itself perceived as a largely vestigial social function. As former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dube once cavalierly opined, even loving non-custodial fathers only belong "in the background" of their children's lives.
In August, 2003, Supreme Court Justice Beverley McLachlin followed suit with: "We have to be pro-active in re-arranging the Canadian family" (my italics). Equating people with furniture or chess pieces is a totalitarian use of language, but consistent-substituting gender for class-with radical feminism's Marxist worldview.
All revolutions require an enemy to justify their depredations. For radical feminists, the dogma of inherently aggressive men and helpless victim women (nevertheless equipped to bring up children single-handedly!) is key to achieving the revolution's end: the transfer of moral authority from the traditional family to women and the state.
Feminist groups such as Jewish Women International Canada and JF&CS seem to
be willing pawns in this mother-friendly, father-hostile, and ultimately
child-busive scheme. Canadian Jewish women, with every reason to take pride in
their civilized and sexually wholesome cultural heritage, should be offended
at being linked to it by association. So should all Canadian women. I
certainly am.
I'll continue writing on anti-male bias in Canada next week, focusing on
feminist fellow travellers in the criminal and family-law system, who exile
disenfranchised fathers to a Kafkaesque non-custodial limbo.
C2005-06 - Barbara Kay is a columnist at Canada's National Post newspaper.
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/writergroup/welcome_to_the_matriarchy/
Are the courts really biased against women, and feminist nut bars claim? [Click HERE for comprehensive survey of the highest court in Ontario]
See also: CIA DRUG LORDS & CIA NAZI COVER-UP
Yet another study refutes feminist canard about domestic violence.
3 in 10 men victims of domestic abuse, research shows - Canwest News Service, May 21, 2008
NEW YORK -- A rare study of men as victims of domestic violence shows nearly three out of 10 have been battered or otherwise abused.
The study, headed by Canadian researcher Dr. Robert Reid, found abused men often remain in the home even though the expectation is they could more easily leave than an abused woman.
"These experiences happen repeatedly over multiple years in a similar way that reporting on women victims has shown they will stay," Reid said in an interview from the Group Health Co-operative Center for Health Studies in Seattle, where he is as associate medical director for preventive care.
The study, which will be reported in next month's issue of American Journal of Preventative Medicine, looked at a sample of 420 men, with more than 19 out of 20 having female partners.
Two said they had suffered forced intercourse or unwanted sexual contact, while more common forms of physical abuse included hitting, kicking and slapping. Non-physical abuse included threats, expressions of anger and controlling behaviour.
The study found men under 55 are more likely to be victims of abusive partners, but older men suffer greater mental anguish when they are targeted.
The aim of the study was to raise awareness among health-care providers that domestic violence against men was a significant problem, Reid said.
In Canada, seven per cent of women and six per cent of men said they'd been victims of spousal abuse in the previous five years, the second of a five-yearly General Survey on Victimization reported in 2004.
Go here to see similar findings of well over 150 studies. Contrary to feminist hysteria, domestic violence is one of the most studied and documented social issues, and in every study the levels of violence were consistently at or near equal levels for both men and women. So ask yourself, where are the facilities for men to take the children when the wife is throwing ashtrays & knives and is a threat to the children, as well as the husband?
Exposing 'women's shelters' hidden agenda....
A candid interview with a mother who was a resident of a women's shelter in
Ontario, Canada. This mother's testimony is similar to that given to Canada
Court Watch by other Canadian women who have also stayed at women's shelters
in other Ontario cities and towns.
Contrary to what the public have been led to believe by government funded
women's shelter advocates, many womens' shelters are not the place of safety
for women that they claim to be, but anti-father, anti-family organizations
dedicated to the promotion of lesbianism and the destruction of traditional
families - all being funded by the taxpayers!
This is the first in a series of such videos to be released.
Women who have experienced abuse while a resident of a women's shelter and
would like to make their stories public by way of video, should contact
Canada Court Watch. This will help in efforts to make women's shelters more
accontable and professional and help to provide a truly safe place for those
unfortunate women who legitimately need such facilities. Shelters should be
providing helpful services to women, not being used by special interest
groups to promote thier own agendas.
Approximate running time: 45 minutes (Click below)
Exposing the morally corrupt women's shelter industry ONE VIDEO AT A TIME! from Canada Court Watch on Vimeo.
A modest proposal for dealing with unwanted husbands
David Warren, Ottawa Citizen, June 22, 2008 David Warren
Last Sunday I wrote, and was chastised by several correspondents for
writing: "The keystone of the feminist order is 'domestic violence.' Men are
so universally presented as having 'anger management issues,' that even in
the extreme case, where a woman has murdered her husband, the court will
invite feminist 'experts' to argue that the man must have deserved it. And
the man in this scene is unable to defend his own posthumous reputation, for
dead men tell no tales." As if in response to this cue, an Ottawa court --
veritably, an Ontario Superior Court -- reached that very evening a
"Father's Day Verdict" in the trial of one Teresa Pohchoo Craig. By way of
precisely illustrating my remark, the jury responded to "expert" feminist
testimony by quashing both first- and second-degree murder charges,
convicting her instead only of "manslaughter" for stabbing her husband while
he slept. Widow Craig's "support group" was also out in force to hear this
latest legal vindication of what we might call "the woman's prerogative" in
the postmodern age.
Feminist "experts" argued that, even though there was no evidence the late
Mr. Craig had physically abused his wife, ever, in any way, he was
nevertheless guilty of "verbal abuse," for telling her it was "my way or the
highway." This amounted to "battered wife syndrome," according to Dr. Evan
Stark, author of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life,
and the star defence "expert." Widow Craig was also victim of "battered
mother's dilemma," since the dead man had allegedly told her he'd get
custody of their child if she left.
The notion that a man would get custody of the child in such circumstances
is risible. Mrs. Craig had only to make one phone call to the police, or one
visit to the nearest women's shelter, and a living Mr. Craig would have been
family court toast. The notion that the man in such circumstances will get
custody even of his own paycheque, after any kind of "abuse" has been
alleged, is similarly risible. One must assume that not only Mrs. Craig, but
the entire jury, was born yesterday.
I am not entirely without sympathy for the widow. I'm sure it was an unhappy
marriage. Moreover, I can make an argument for her lawyers: for once courts
have begun to accept such metaphysical arguments, as abuse without abuse, a
defence lawyer is bound to use them in the interest of his client. I can
think of no way to excuse the courts.
To grasp the injustice of this case, and of many preceding cases across
Canada and around the Western world, one has only to reverse the "genders."
Let my gentle reader imagine, if she will, that Mr. Craig had put the pillow
over Mrs. Craig's face, while stabbing her in her sleep. He admits to that,
but his lawyers argue that he was suffering from "battered father's dilemma"
since he would never see his son again if Mrs. Craig left him. Let us also
bring in some neighbours to tell the court that the hypothetically deceased
Mrs. Craig was a shrew, a scold, an alewife, constantly ordering her poor
husband about. True, she never hit him, but the hapless fellow was suffering
from "battered husband syndrome" all the same, to say nothing of
"post-traumatic stress disorder." Further comment is unnecessary.
But I don't want to leave this unpleasant subject on a negative note. Let me
suggest one practical reform, to make our present legal arrangements less
painful, and by way of introducing "feminism with a human face." I propose
that some sort of constitutional challenge be brought to the Supreme Court,
or even presented to Parliament (though I would prefer it go to the more
powerful legislature), arguing for the restoration of a form of capital
punishment in Canada on humanitarian grounds.
We wouldn't be asking for it in cases of murder, terrorism, etc., but only
in those where a woman has decided to terminate a husband or boyfriend. The
argument would be that in such cases, the woman herself should be spared the
disagreeable necessity of performing the deed, and the man of having to
endure an amateur execution that might prove cruel, unusual and prolonged.
Under the system I propose, where a man is to be terminated, his wife or
girlfriend would simply provide his name and address to the police, who
would then deliver him to a kind of "Morgentaler clinic" for unwanted men.
There'd be a slight, but unavoidable paperwork delay, while the police
assured themselves that all the man's property would be transferred to his
widow or girlfriend by a proper will. (We might also need a court ruling to
prevent life insurance companies from refusing to pay out after a man has
been "euthanized.") As a legal formality, there might at first be a standing
committee of qualified feminist experts at every "men's clinic," to
pronounce judgment before each execution is performed. Later, our Supreme
Court could strike down this formality, as an unwarranted interference in
women's "equality rights."
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=6d406efd-716f-4f73-949c-9503c4da652c
David Warren's column appears Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday.
C The Ottawa Citizen 2008
Distributed by Jeremy Swanson - Fathers and Mens Rights Activist
Ottawa Ontario Phone: (613).237-1320 ext 2438
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A big piece of stone just fell out of the Domestic Violence version of the Berlin Wall
October 15, 2008 Barbara Kay
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month and I am sure that to 99% of readers the two words "domestic violence" means violence against women. Only. The politically correct view that all domestic violence (DV) can be accounted for either by the inherent aggression and controlling instincts of men or by women's defensive reactions against those instincts is so deeply entrenched in our culture that it has become the Berlin Wall of the gender wars - or rather the war of feminism against men. In fact women initiate violence against their partners in an almost equal ratio to men. And in many cases the violence they inflict is severe (as one woman in a woman's shelter told the director, "knives make great levellers").
For all the men who have suffered at the hands of battering women, a chunk of stone just fell out of that huge gendered wall. In a taxpayer lawsuit by four male victims of DV, the Third District appellate court in California reversed a previous ruling holding that because they are not statistically situated with women, men are not entitled to equal protection. The new ruling declares the exclusion of men from Domestic Violence programs unconstitutional.
The presenting case, that of David Woods and his daughter Maegan, now in her early 20s, was compelling because the evidence was irrefutable, the worst case of gender bias in this area I have ever seen. David Woods is a handicapped man in a wheelchair, incapable of living on his own, and dependent (or was during the relevant period, the 1980s, when Meagan was a young girl) on his wife Ruth, who is bi-polar with violent tendencies. David frequently attempted to get help from a Sacramento DV agency, who always told him "We don't help men," explaining that men were perpetrators of violence, never victims, the usual mantra so clearly inapplicable to his situation. Churches and various other programs were equally unhelpful.
If David had fled with his daughter, he would have been arrested for kidnapping, unlike women with children who are offered shelter and sympathy. He would certainly have lost custody in a divorce, so neither flight nor divorce would have served Meagan's interests. Bias in the law enforcement system exacerbated the problem. In one 1995 incident, Ruth aimed a shotgun at Meagan. David managed to wrest it from her. Ruth called the police, telling them she wanted to kill her husband, but when the police arrived, they immediately handcuffed him.
[Yet more evidence that our police departments are hiring mentally challenged trolls to serve us..... and illustration of the reason why police data on domestic violence levels are totally unreliable and skewed.]
People who have followed the heartrending story of the Woods family can only rejoice at this moral victory, which of course comes too late to rewrite the tragic trajectory of Meagan's unhappy childhood, but hopefully will provide a strong foundation for the reversal of the tide of gender bias the case represents.
The entrenched prejudices against men in the DV industry know no borders. California today, other states tomorrow. And Canada? The issues are the same, the right of taxpayers to equal access to services is the same, the bias in the legal system is the same, and the cultural blindness to the plight of male suffering is the same.
It would be a grace note for judges here to take note of the chunk of wall on the ground, and pick up a proactive hammer. The faster this wall comes down, the better for democracy and for gender relations, soured by years of feminists' indifference to the suffering of male victims and their children.
Slight increase in spousal homicides
Police reported 78 spousal homicides, 4 more than in 2005 and the first increase in the last five years. The spousal homicide rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s. Spousal homicides are those that involve people who are married, separated or divorced, and people in common-law relationships, including same-sex spouses.
The increase in spousal homicides was due to an increase in the number of men killed by their wives, up from 12 in 2005 to 21 in 2006. The large majority of spousal homicides against men were committed by their common-law spouse. [Full report]
Note that murders of men rose a whopping 75 percent.
Few Women In Abuse Shelters Are True Victims Of Violence - October 3rd, 2008 By Carey Roberts
A former worker at the YWCA Emergency Shelter in Enid, Okla. reveals, “In all the time that I volunteered there, I saw one woman who showed signs of physical abuse.” Likewise, the former director of a mid-Atlantic shelter reports, “only about one in 10 women had experienced any kind of physical injury.”
Recently, researchers at Florida State University interviewed persons residing at abuse shelters in the state. “Medical/health” needs were mentioned only 9% of the time, and these were mostly women who needed to catch up on overdue dental and medical checks.
November was Domestic Violence Awareness month. Truth in advertising suggests it should be Y-Chromosome Apartheid Month. Far from promoting "awareness" of a social problem or remedies for men and women with anger issues, the month is basically a radical feminist war dance around the Original Sin of maleness, cheered on by "progressive" media sympathizers.
The annual verbal pogrom will find its apotheosis in to-day's 19th observance of the Montreal Massacre anniversary, our domestic violence industry's shrine to feminism's Big Lie of male unilateralism in domestic violence.
It's awkward that the Dec. 6, 1989 massacre of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal -- unlike ritual wartime massacres of men and boys, such as the 8,000-death horror of Srebrenica -- remains a freak one-off in the West, perpetrated by a lone sociopath, with neither prequel nor sequel to suggest a pattern. But emotion, not reason or facts, drives the Domestic Violence industry.
The truth is that the more precisely identified phenomenon of "intimate partner violence" (IPV) in Western culture is gender neutral, an acting out of psychological problems around intimacy that afflict men and women alike. IPV is initiated by both sexes in about equal proportions. Self-defence is rarely the motive for women's violence against men. Literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, community-based studies, including StatsCan's, confirm this. But they don't reach the public. (Under pressure from feminist organizations, for example, a Quebec health agency recently sequestered a commissioned psychosocial study showing men and women are equally culpable for IPV.)
But most damaging is the suppressed fact that even bilateral IPV in general is a relative rarity in our culture. A woman is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by her spouse. IPV simply isn't the systemic epidemic that hysteria-mongering feminist organizations so shamelessly project.
Since 1980, the Quebec government has sanctioned the "fact" that 250,000-300,000 women over the age of 15 suffer IPV from their partners or husbands annually. Actually, about 14,000 Quebec women and 2,500 men annually report themselves victims of conjugal violence. Allegations deemed worthy of trial, however, are dramatically fewer in number.
Recently, the Quebec government abruptly withdrew its wildly conjectural 300,000 figure from Google-accessible circulation, after a pertinacious group of independent researchers demanded to know its source through the Access to Information Act. There was no source, of course. Yet financial allocations remain pegged to the mythical 300,000 and are exclusively awarded to women's projects.
This year, the Quebec Auditor-General's report focused an accusatory light on fiscal profligacy and lack of oversight in the women's abuse industry. Grants to abuse-related women's projects have soared from $30-million in 2002-2003 to $60-million in 2007-08. One six-bed shelter's grants in that period bounced from $58,832 to $406,817, even though the shelter only served nine women throughout 2006-07.
Almost half a million dollars to house nine women? Yet a bamboozled public believes thousands upon thousands of battered women are seeking refuge.
Reality just doesn't jibe with that picture. In 2004, the Yellow Brick House, an Aurora, Ont., shelter closed during a labour dispute. It emerged that of the eight women and three children residing there, only one woman was fleeing abuse. The others were homeless.
Exceptions, believers will say. Everyone "knows" violence against women is epidemic.
Really? Edmonton Police Service reports from 1999-2000 indicate the police responded to 3,000 domestic incidents. They referred exactly 24 women--less than 1% -- to shelters.
That 1% figure recurs again and again. The co-ordinator of Cornwall Commmunity Hospital's Assault and Sexual Abuse Program in Cornwall, Ont., claims that "17-30% of all women treated in hospital emergency departments are victims of domestic violence." Reality check: Her own hospital's screening for abuse of 157,000 in-patients turned up only 150 IPV-related injuries (both sexes).
I'll conclude with the words of a former batterer, Linda Kinsella. When her unprovoked anger turned to rage, Kinsella used to scapegoat her disabled husband by tipping over his wheelchair and otherwise abusing him. Adding to his nightmare, the police (typically, stupidly) arrested him when called to the scene.
Therapy for Linda saved their marriage. A repentant Kinsella asks: "If women are able to do all the good things that men can do in [the] professions ... then why [do] we, as a society, deny that women can do the bad too? It is my fondest hope that someday there will be true equality in our society and that domestic violence will be seen not as a gender issue but as a societal one that will end when we work together to stop it."
Amen, brothers and sisters.
bkay@videotron.ca
Feminists taking their orders from the globalist United Nations issue their annual propaganda campaign, that violence against 'women and girls' is somehow more intolerable and more widespread. Of course stats consistently report that the overwhelming number of victims of violence are men and boys, but facts have seldom gotten in the way radical agendas.
Notwithstanding the indisputable facts, gender should never be a factor in whether or not someone receives tax payer funding, yet the 'Status of Women Canada' continues to receive hundreds of millions to openly promote such sexist programs.
Our courts have ruled that this is indeed a clearly biased (read UNLAWFUL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL) practice, but deliberately manipulate equality law by inventing a term they call "substantive equality" to allow this practice to openly continue with the blessing of the government.
Just this year (2008) a ruling in the BC Supreme Court found the Status of Women Ministry was guilty of producing defamatory material targeting dozens of men's groups and individuals, by putting them on a black list, which they then used as examples for monitoring and mass arrest via amendments to the "Anti-Terrorism" legislation. Can you see where they are going with that one?
Here is a link to the above mentioned court case...... [Wiebe v. Bouchard, 2008 BCSC 249]
This is proof that the alleged government of Canada is using the cover of "policy research" to foment hate against men's' groups, and individuals calling for adherence to equitable law in regard to violence prevention and child custody.
Also see BC Fathers website for more detail of this case, and to sign up in support and/or donate to Mr. Wiebe's legal fund...
Trivia Question: What does the alleged government of Canada have in common with Nazi Germany?
Answer: Both created 'statutory law' that permitted the forceful seizer of children from their families.
It is also an unlikely coincidence that the phrase "status of women" is an expression that was first popularized by the apostles of the radical feminist ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in their "Communist Manifesto".
-------
The New "Freedom" Initiative?
President Bush plans to unveil next month a sweeping mental health
initiative that recommends screening for every citizen and promotes the use
of expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs favored by supporters
of the administration.
The New Freedom Initiative, according to a progress report , seeks to
integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," the British Medical Journal reported.
Critics say the plan protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.
The initiative began with Bush's launch in April 2002 of the New Freedom
Commission on Mental Health, which conducted a "comprehensive study of the
United States mental health service delivery system."
The panel found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go
undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for
"consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools
and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The commission recommended that the screening be linked with "treatment and
supports," including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions."
The Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the panel as
a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
The TMAP -- started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and
corrections systems of Texas -- also was praised by the American Psychiatric
Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall
plan.
But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government
employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received
money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.
Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General
says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance"
that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more
expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the
recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to
consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat
mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit
and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of
the tab."
Jones points out, according to the British Medical Journal, companies that
helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's election
funds. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on
advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to
TMAP.
Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, one of the drugs recommended in the
plan, has multiple ties to the Bush administration, BMJ says. The elder
President Bush was a member of Lilly's board of directors and President Bush
appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to the Homeland
Security Council.
Of Lilly's $1.6 million in political contributions in 2000, 82 percent went to Bush and the Republican Party.
Another critic, Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of "Mad in America,"
told the British Medical Journal that while increased screening "may seem
defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers."
Exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job
training and shelter program," he said.
However, a developer of the Texas project, Dr. Graham Emslie, defends
screening.
"There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who
are aggressive, you can intervene ... and change their trajectory."
Rep. Ron Paul seeks to yank program, decries use of drugs on children
WND |September 9, 2004 - By Ron Strom
Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, plans to offer an amendment in the House of
Representatives today that would remove from an appropriations bill a new
mandatory mental-health screening program for America's children.
"The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children
is, yet again, under attack," writes Kent Snyder of the Paul-founded Liberty
Committee. "The pharmaceutical industry has convinced President Bush to
support mandatory mental-health screening for every child in America,
including preschool children, and the industry is now working to convince
Congress as well."
As WorldNetDaily reported, the New Freedom Initiative recommends screening
not only for children but eventually for every American. The initiative came
out of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which President Bush
established in 2002.
Critics of the plan say it is a thinly veiled attempt by drug companies to
provide a wider market for high-priced antidepressants and antipsychotic
medication, and puts government in areas of Americans' lives where it does
not belong.
Writes Snyder: "The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced
drugging of children that will result - as we learned tragically with
Ritalin - even when parents refuse."
Paul's amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 would take the new program out of the funding bill.
The congressman, who is known for his strict adherence to the Constitution,
wrote in a letter to his colleagues: "As you know, psychotropic drugs are
increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children's
typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects
from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse
for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not
promote national mental-health screening programs that will force the use of
these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin."
The New Freedom Commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental
disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental-health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children.
The commission said, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools
and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional
disorders."
Schools, the panel concluded, are in a "key position" to screen the 52
million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.
The state of Illinois has already approved its own mental-health screening
program, the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003, which will provide
screening for "all children ages 0-18" and "ensure appropriate and
culturally relevant assessment of your children's social and emotional
development with the use of standardized tools."
Members of the Illinois Children's Mental Health Partnership have held
several public hearings on the program in recent months, hearing from
parents and others who oppose the mandatory screening.
Karen R. Effrem, M.D., is a physician and leading opponent of mandatory
screening. She is on the board of directors of EdWatch, an organization that
actively opposes federal control of education.
"I am concerned, especially in the schools, that mental health could be used
as a wedge for diagnosis based on attitudes, values, beliefs and political
stances - things like perceived homophobia," Effrem told WorldNetDaily.
"There are several violence-prevention programs that do say if a person is
homophobic, they could be considered potentially violent."
Continued Effrem: "This mental-health program could be used as an
enforcement tool to impose a very politically correct, anti-American
curriculum."
Effrem emphasized the new program has no guarantees of parental rights,
noting some children have died because parents were coerced to put their
kids on psychiatric medications.
Snyder says the following groups have come out in opposition to the
screening program: Eagle Forum, Gun Owners of America, the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons, Concerned Women of America, Freedom 21,
the Alliance for Human Research Protection, and the International Center for
the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology.
A screening program in Paul's home state began nearly ten years ago. The
Texas Medication Algorithm Project, or TMAP, was held up by the New Freedom
Commission as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an
evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."
The TMAP - started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the
pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas and the mental health and
corrections systems of Texas - also was praised by the American Psychiatric
Association, which called for increased funding to implement the overall
plan.
But the Texas project sparked controversy when a Pennsylvania government
employee revealed state officials with influence over the plan had received
money and perks from drug companies who stand to gain from it.
Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General
says in his whistleblower report the "political/pharmaceutical alliance"
that developed the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more
expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, was behind the
recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which were "poised to
consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat
mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit
and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of
the tab."
Jones points out, according to a British Medical Journal report, companies
that helped start the Texas project are major contributors to Bush's
re-election. Also, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to
TMAP.
Mental Health and World Citizenship
Dr. Dennis Cuddy | August 11 2004
In a recent article, I related that the Bush administration's Secretary of
Education Rod Paige last October 3 declared that the U.S. is pleased to
rejoin UNESCO where we could develop common strategies to prepare our
children to become "citizens of the world."
Then on June 21 WorldNetDaily published "Life With Big Brother: Bush to
screen population for mental illness" describing President Bush's "New
Freedom Initiative" that would have every citizen receive a mental health
screening. What one needs to guard against is the use of mental health to
pursue world government.
The theme of the administration of President Woodrow Wilson was "The New
Freedom" and it pursued the ideals of PHILIP DRU: ADMINISTRATOR, written in
1912 by President Wilson's chief adviser, Col. Edward M. House, who wrote of
"socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." Education would be a primary vehicle
for achieving the objective, and John Dewey, the father of progressive
education, promoted socialism. He said the society or group is most
important, and that independent individualists have a form of "insanity."
By the late 1940s, Dewey's progressive education was becoming dominant in
American public schools. And in 1948 an International Congress on Mental
Health was held in London with publication of a document "Mental Health and
World Citizenship," declaring that "world citizenship can be widely extended
among all peoples through the application of the principles of mental
health." The Congress promoted the U.N. as the vehicle for promoting this
objective, and UNESCO's director-general Sir Julian Huxley the same year
wrote in UNESCO: ITS PURPOSE AND ITS PHILOSOPHY that "political unification in some sort of world government will be required."
The 1950s and 1960s saw the growing strength of Dewey's progressive
educational philosophy and mental health advocacy, and in 1965 the Joint
Commission on Mental Health of Children was established. In 1969, the
Commission released its report, which stated: "As the home and church
decline in influence...schools must begin to provide adequately for the
emotional and moral development of children....The school...must assume a
direct responsibility for the attitudes and values of child development. The
child advocate, psychologist, social technician, and medical technician
should all reach aggressively into the community, send workers out to
children's homes, recreation facilities, and schools. They should assume
full responsibility for all education, including pre-primary education."
In the 1970s, a representative of HEW (U.S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare) approached North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. about
developing a model for child health care around the nation. The N.C. Plan
was called "Child Health Plan for Raising a New Generation," and included
establishing a "health care home" for every child, stating "responsibilities
belonging to child and family are required." The plan was released in 1979,
the same year the N.C. State Health Plan was adopted, linking in two places
religion with mental illness and mental retardation.
In the same year (1979), Bill Clinton (supported by Hillary Clinton) began
Arkansas' Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented, modeled after the
first Governor's School in the nation which was established in 1963 in N.C.,
was funded in part by the Carnegie Corporation, and was attended by the
writer of this article. We were given various psychological tests which, I
believe, looked at us as guinea pigs to be remoulded for the Brave New World
of the future.
When Hillary Clinton became First Lady of the U.S. in 1993, she was in
charge of a health care task force, about half the members of whom were
connected with the Robert Wood Johnson (RWJ) Foundation. On the NBC "Today Show" (January 23, 1990), Dr. Michael Lewis of the New Jersey Robert Wood Johnson Medical School had claimed: "Lying is an important part of social
life, and children who are unable to do it are children who may have
developmental problems."
What Hillary Clinton's task force was proposing was basically socialized
medicine. Hillary's friend, former N.C. Gov. Hunt, became director of RWJ's
Mental Health Services for Youth program. And regarding a January 4-5, 1996
symposium in Frankfurt, KY, attended by attorney Kent Masterson Brown, the
attorney said: "He (former Gov. Hunt) came to Governor Wallace Wilkinson in
Kentucky and told him that RWJ would like Kentucky to become part of this
mental health program for youth, and said we'll give you $100,000 to plan a
program....That's what they do. I mean, you think that's just buying
legislation. Well, it is."
The next year, early in 1997, former Gov. Hunt was chairman of the National
Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and promoted the Early Childhood Public
Engagement Campaign that actor Rob Reiner and others were starting, with the
Carnegie Corporation once again playing a critical role (the Carnegie
Institution in 1904 had financed the establishment of a biological
experiment station related to eugenics at Cold Spring Harbor, NY). The NEGP
indicated a desire for the creation of a nationalized system of child care
from age zero based upon the principles of brain research (mental health).
Roy Roemer, Governor of Colorado at the time, stated: "The ideal system
would be...in every community or county you have an organizational structure
that is responsible for the zero to 6, zero to 3 age level for the
child....And then finally put in a hooker and say, 'Hey, you don't get any
payments from state on their highways until you do this job.'"
It may be this same type of coercive tactic that is used to facilitate the
current New Freedom Initiative. Mental health screenings may be attached to
the current vaccines most children are required to receive to attend public
schools. And for older people, they may be asked by insurance companies to
"voluntarily" accept the screenings if they don't want their premiums to
increase.
In 2001, President George W. Bush worked with U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy to
pass the federal "No Child Left Behind" legislation, which includes
provisions for expanding school-based mental health programs. This fits with
the report of The New Freedom in Mental Health Commission, which stressed
that "schools must be partners in the mental health care of our children."
Where is all this leading? In the third volume of Arthur Calhoun's A SOCIAL
HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN FAMILY, published in 1919 and widely used as a
social service textbook, one reads: "The new view is that the higher and
more obligatory relation is to society rather than to the family; the family
goes back to the age of savagery while the state belongs to the age of
civilization. The modern individual is a world citizen, served by the world,
and home interests can no longer be supreme....As soon as the new family,
consisting of only the parents and the children, stood forth, society saw
how many were unfit for parenthood and began to realize the need of
community care....As familism weakens, society has to assume a larger
parenthood. The school begins to assume responsibility for the functions
thrust upon it....The kindergarten grows downward toward the cradle and
there arises talk of neighborhood nurseries....Social centers replace the
old time home chimney....The chlld passes more and more into the custody of
community experts....In the new social order, extreme emphasis is sure to be
placed upon eugenic procreation....It seems clear that at least in its early
stages, socialism will mean an increased amount of social control....We may
expect in the socialist commonwealth a system of public educational agencies
that will begin with the nursery and follow the individual through
life....Those persons that experience alarm at the thought of intrinsic
changes in family institutions should remember that in the light of social
evolution, nothing is right or valuable in itself."
Relevant to this, Clinton administration official Mary Jo Bane said almost
30 years ago that "in order to raise children with equality, we must take
them away from families and communally raise them." (TULSA SUNDAY WORLD, August 21, 1977) And about that same time, HEW Executive Assistant Eddie Bernice Johnson (who would later become a Congresswoman from Texas) advocated the licensing of parents before they would be permitted to have children. Licensing of parents has also been proposed by Prof. Gene Stephens (THE FUTURIST, April 1981) and Dr. Jack Westman (LICENSING PARENTS, 1994).
Under the American socialism planned for our future, government will
increasingly control our lives via mental health screening and education,
among other means. Only if the American people resist these efforts as soon
as possible will we be successful in thwarting the plans of the power elite.
Also See:
Over 5200 Concerned Adults Refuse to Comply with New Freedom Initiative for
Mental Health Screening in the Schools
White ribbon kooks, hysterical conclusions and "the conspiracy against women".
A brief analysis of the farcical "white ribbon campaign", and how they actually use
a lack of "patriarchal obligation" in yet another attempt to blame all men after an act
of aberrational psychotic behaviour.
Not that individuals with such low self esteem, so as as to feel the need to associate
themselves with man haters, deserve much time, but we thought this portion of the
following article too strange, and indeed comical, to pass over.
Despite what feminist fibbers might wish to believe, Lepine was far more likely
to have been abused by his mother, not his father - his father did not even live
with them, so that would tend you rule him out, wouldn't it. Furthermore his
alleged blame of "feminists" had nothing to do with his "difficulties" at school,
his grades in his final year were good, so if he did hate feminists it was for
another reason.
The rest of their diatribe is based on pure speculation in an effort to support
their already biased and incoherent framework. Most of their speculation is apparently
based on a
letter that was never officially made public, but was leaked in November1990 and was alleged to have been written by Lepine. No confirmation of the letter's
authenticity has ever been proven, and strangely enough, nowhere in his letter does
he express any hatred of women.
How or why this letter was secretly held in custody by the federal government's
CSIS agency, desperately looking for reasons to toughen Canada's guns laws,
has never been investigated either. People wishing to foster hatred of men's
groups, (seeking merely for the right to equally parent their children) have
embraced the letter as proof of some globally based male conspiracy against
women. Lepine's mother, however, recently admitted to interviewer Harold Gagné
that she "still wonders whether she was the real target of his rage". Monique Lepine
separated from her husband when her son was five years old, so perhaps the
blame rests more on the very issues that fathers groups have sought to fix, but
have been hated for by feminists - a touch of irony or what?
Marc Lépine was described by everyone that knew him as a shy and uncommunicative
person who showed little emotion, hardly the image of the aggressive male brute that
the white ribbon lunatics would have you believe. He was said to be very organized
and precise, and had problems accepting authority, which caused some difficulties at
school and work. He did not drink or take drugs. Lepine was likely a very depressed
individual, cut off from society's safety nets, grieving the loss of his father, as well as the
resent separation from a close friend.
Lepine, was desperate to find a cause it seems. Evidently he admired Denis Lortie,
a former Canadian army corporal who stormed the Quebec legislature some five
years prior, and not because he hated women.
Another fact you were probably never told by any radical feminist organization is that
Lepine wounded four men, and there is a very good reason for their silence on this
issue - it destroys their major premise. The fact these men didn't have the common
courtesy (or chivalry) to die from their wounds, apparently only supports the radical
feminists contention that, these men too, were women haters. How so? We'll let the
feminist rant below explain it.
One last point: the very obvious fact is, that if his target were "feminists", then as
male feminists these "white ribbon" whacko's are evidently now also targets, and the
"women as targets" myth is destroyed immediately, but this seems to totally escape
them. Lets not let logic get in the way of a good feminist rant, however....
Do note as well that they don't advocate for anyone's right to conceal carry for self
defence; no apparently, we men are all supposed to fight armed gunmen with harsh
"man to man" language, or perhaps throw ourselves in front of potential female victims,
or we're showing hatred of women.
Well at least we know a little about what it means to wear a white ribbon, and why
I sure as heck won't be found dead wearing one. No real thinking man would.
- Mason Tyler
----------------------------
Gift-Wrapping The Men's Movement: Canada's White Ribbon Foundation Campaign
Roberta Spark MA
Why Nobody Tried to Stop Lepine
I grant that many at the scene would have been in shock, especially those
who had been in direct contact with Lepine, taking orders from him or watching
as he murdered women. Nevertheless, it is my contention that there must have been
opportunity to challenge or confuse Lepine as he targeted and shot women, all the
while ignoring both pleas and fervent claims that they were "not feminist." I am
convinced by personal experience that had I been there, I would have felt compelled
to take intervening action23. I think there must have been opportunity to take action
of some sort. After all, Lepine climbed stairs, spoke to and separated people, went in
and out of rooms and hallways, was very loud as he shot randomly or targeted
women. Clearly, all of this took time, offering opportunities –risky though they might be-
to intervene in his murderous rampage.
My words may seem harsh, but I am accustomed to speaking my truth. I was
and still am shocked, dismayed, and ashamed that no-one attempted to avert the
subsequent tragedy at the school. The relatively safe male students, staff, faculty,
or security forces mounted no attempt to stop Lepine. Arguably, the women he
targeted did not have the ability to influence the misogynist Lepine; indeed, their
words might have even fuelled greater tragedy. Therefore only a man or group of
men might have altered the bloody history of Ecole Polytechnique. That is, the women
who were Lepine's target could not possibly be expected to reason with an enraged Lepine.
Notably, and in support of my opinion, the few women who tried to convince Lepine that
they were not feminist were killed anyway. I contend, however, that the men present
should have tried, and might have been successful, in reasoning with Lepine. Therefore,
harsh as it may be experienced or deemed, in my mind men were compliant in the
Massacre. They took neither action nor control, responding only to terse orders from
Lepine to leave the premises. I argue, however, that in a situation of such horror and
magnitude, it should have been incumbent upon the specifically non-targeted
men to stop one of their own in their beloved ‘brotherhood of man’.
I believe that a man could have reasoned with Lepine because in a similar situation
where a single and brave man convinced a different assassin, also intent on a
multiple-victim blood bath, only in the Quebec Legislature on May 8, 1984. In that
incident, Corporal Denis Lortie killed three people when he opened fire with a
machine gun in the National Assembly of Quebec24. Equally convinced of
the “discrimination” against him, Lortie was persuaded not to continue shooting
by a man who was the Gendarme at the Legislature. The Gendarme first identified
himself as ex-military and commiserated with the killer, and finally he talked Lortie
out of his plan to kill more people - speaking to Lortie “man to man”25. Furthermore,
Lepine knew the story about Lortie, he held Lortie up as a role model and his last
written words include a reference to Lortie's bloody rampage.
I had already tried in my youth to enlist in the Forces as an officer cadet, which
would have allowed me to enter the arsenal and precede Lortie in a rampage26.
I am persuaded that Lepine, who admired the Lortie subdued by a male Gendarme,
might also have been convinced to stop killing "feminists" by a man at the site.
However, no man tried to do so. Why did no man attempt to talk Lepine out of his
plan to murder women? After all, according to my analyses, Lepine simply
represented the fanatical fringe of a common male point of view that feminists call
“backlash”. However, not a single man took any action unless specifically directed
to do so by Lepine, or do anything at all except to take action to get away from
Lepine's threat and in doing so protect himself from harm. A poignant question
ricochets in my mind: What did those escaping, compliant men think Lepine was
going to do to the women he was professing to hate except to kill or harm them?
The urgency of the situation, and the fact that Lepine hunted and killed only women
should have propelled some man to action. I do not argue for a Rambo-like
response from a testosterone-driven male who would subsequently pit himself
against the ultimate evil, Lepine. I do not even refer to a physical confrontation.
What I am unable to comprehend is why no man attempted to even talk Lepine
out of his plan. In my mind, this makes all men present at the time of the massacre
complicit in Lepine's misogynist and bloody fantasy-cum-reality.
Single Women More Likely Than Single Men to Own a House - June 2/2007
So much so that they now account for 27 percent of the nation's first-time home buyers, according to the National Association of Realtors, and 21 percent of home buyers overall - more than double the rate of 20 years ago.
Single men, meanwhile, account for just 9 percent of home buyers, the same percentage as 20 years ago.
Please help us defend your Freedom and Liberty with a donation of
your choosing... Click 'make a donation' button below. Thank You!