I strongly recommend this for ill eagle. RW
No source cited. Ivor Catt 10nov02
At last someone has said the obvious.
I have read much radfem literature, for instance Catharine A MacKinnon. For them, the married family is the seat of oppression for mother and children. The family has to be destroyed in order to save women and children from battery and sexual abuse.
The Social Services are trained on courses heavily influenced by radfem dogma. (In the case of CWO's (their old name), the nature of their training is officially kept secret from us, but we do know that it is radfem.)
It is therefore the duty of a social worker to obstruct adoption, and so save a child from the depredations of a husband.
I found out from Ostertag that the income for a child in foster care etc. is 24,000 pounds per year. That ends if the child is adopted. Thus, the financial incentive to obstruct adoption is allied to the moral duty to save the child from adoption. However, in the case of adoption by two lesbians, only the money would be lost. The child will remain safe, possible even safer than in care, where there may be men around waiting to sexually abuse or rape them.
Ivor Catt 10nov02
Social “Services” will obstruct adoption because radfem dogma says that the family is the seat of oppression of women and children.
I now remember that it was I who said that the old right/left divide had gone, and the new politics was pro-family/anti-family. [However, later on Eugen said it was Robert Whiston. – IC 16nov02]
Free France; liberte, egalite, fraternite; Vichy (right wing) France; Travaille, Famille, Patrie. Famille figures in the right, Vichy, and not in the Free France.
The battle last week when IDS self-destructed was not understood by all media and all politicians (except a little in the Sunday Telegraph Editorial of 10nov02). It was a battle for control of the Tory party by anti-family against pro-family.
The Tories would have had a future had they reverted to being pro-family. Unfortunately, there were too many homosexual (and therefore anti-family) and meta-homosexual (Portillo, Maude etc.) forces at the centre of the Tory party, and they won by ousting IDS. This means that both parties will become anti-family. Letwin and IDS (rather less) understood the issue, but they were too weak (psychologically) to save the party.
A source close to me tells me that Portillo was more homosexual than is generally thought while at Peterhouse Cambridge. Failure of Ken Clarke to understand what are the imperatives around him may lead us into a historic disaster. During the last two weeks, he has switched to favouring adoption by unmarrieds and by homosexuals. Either he does not understand, or he puts temporary political expedient before historical necessity. Probably the former. Because a pro-buggery media does not understand, because it must not, Clarke will not fully grasp the situation he is in. The role of the media today is to validate (and even adulate) decadence, including buggery. If only Clarke understood, and took a stand, he would rise to the top in the long term, as the effect of anti-family and buggery became obvious to the voter. (Similarly, IDS could have gone to the top had he understood enough.) However, he does not understand fully enough, because he lives in a hail of media nonsense about homophobia and various family forms.
If this seems strange, that the should-be pro-family right goes against its historical imperative by taking against the family, remember that we come out of a similarly aberrant era of half a century of more, when both parties were pro-family, which the left should not have been. This aberration occurred because an inherently right wing institution, the TUC, created a left wing party, Labour. Although left wing, Labour kept the conservative element in the TUC of being pro-family, which the Fabians were not (I assume, but do not know. I would think that the Fabians were promiscuous, which is why the intelligentsia of the left is anti-family, to validate their promiscuity. The respectable working class did not have the economic surplus with which to pay the added costs of promiscuity. In any case, the rejection of promiscuity is what distinguished the respectable working class, and raised them above and away from the dissolute working class, and allowed them economic take-off and rise through the class system.). [It is important to note that, under the (Norman Dennis) system that existed in the 1950s, we are today all in the dissolute working class. This is because marriage of the 1950s has been destroyed by the family courts, and no longer exists, as Brenda Hoggett (now Justice Lane(?)) has said.]
[An aberration lasted for centuries in the USA, when the political right in the south (Democrat) united with the political left in the north (Democrat), and vice versa.]
The aberration in England occurred because of Norman Dennis's two working classes; the respectable working class, right wing, and the dissolute working class, left wing. Both were in the TUC, and so aberrations occurred, and lasted for a long time. However, Engels saw marriage as the seat of oppression for women, and said it must be destroyed. Engels here expressed normative left, which is anti-family.
The essential feature of the political left is that the state is benign, and will look after children once they are got out of the grips of parents. Further, the totalitarian tendency of the political left is obstructed by other groupings and loyalties, like the family. Here we may need to remember that Hitler was "National Socialism" , and so perhaps of the left. Anyway, at the extreme, both left and right are totalitarian.
Catharine A MacKinnon, "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State", pub. Harvard UP 1989. First 80pp; "The problem of Marxism and Feminism". Pizzey says the radfems are Marxist. It is certain that radfems are on the historic political left, which wants the destruction of the family.
The political left, e.g. "Welfare State", sees an all-embracing state looking after everyone, and trying to oust other loyalties, for instance in the family. The political right, with its suspicion of agglomeration of power, favours fragmentation, for instance into multiple powerful families with internal loyalty and power.
I see Fascism as a further move beyond the "political right" direction, mentioned above. Under Fascism, I think of government as undertaken by a compromise between various powerful groups. This is thought to prevent the totalitarianism of the majority, which is the risk with one man one vote democracy. Democracy undermines the fascist tendency for fragmentation into powerful sub-groups, which can resist the unitary power of the state. The two-party (Labour-Tory) state is a move towards the fascist ideal, of fragmentation. (One has to surmise as to what is fascism, because it is nowhere defined or discussed.)
Radfems took Marxism and replaced the word "Capitalism" with the word "Patriarchy". For MacKinnon, any sexual intercourse in a patriarchy is rape. Ours is a patriarchy. This maps onto the exploitation of the worker in Marxism. Rape, and even more, ever present threat of rape maintains the supremacy of the man, mapping onto the dominating capitalist.
The capture of the right by anti-family Portillo and fellow-traveller Clarke is a further pressure leading to deepening crisis for the next twenty years. The end of family means totalitarianism and mayhem. The end of family means individuals trying to survive, and trying to face up to, the all-powerful state.
Ivor Catt 11nov02