|
This
vicious mix of half-truths and lies by Griffiths will hold the fore in the
media for more than a decade into the future. The article is a typical
spoiler, and it is a disaster that it appears in the newspaper which should be
one of our main supporters. It illustrates the iron grip that radfems still
have on the media. - Ivor Catt 22mar04 |
F4J and bin Laden |
|
A way out for children
caught in the divorce crossfire -
Sian Griffiths, Sunday
Times, News Review, 21mar04, p5-11 “…. Davies,
from the Midlands, thinks the law is “very much in favour of dads having
contact, no matter what, unless maybe he is a paedophile or mass murderer. …. In
only 1% of disputes from 1997-2002 was contact refused by the courts – even
though a quarter of cases involve allegations of domestic violence. Margaret
Hodge, the children’s minister, told The Sunday Times …. …. In
fact, she said, contrary to what fathers’ groups argue, outside court
disputes, ‘most resident parents, who are usually mothers, want children to
have more contact with the dads. It is the fathers who feel they have
enough’. …. Hodge
denied the problems with contact orders were a further sign that the
secretive family courts – rocked by allegations that children have been
wrongly taken away from their parents as a result of discredited expert
evidence – should be opened up to public scrutiny. Cases should be heard in
private, she said. ….” @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ I
phoned Matt recently because an article implied that Matt, and also Geldof,
were in favour of the presently trumpeted “way out for children”. He assured
me that both he and Geldof were opposed. Oliver Cyriax too is opposed. They
know that the present doomed-to-failure initiative by Hodge. Filkin and the
rest is a cynical (with ignorant fellow-travellers) holding action to confuse
and delay true reform. It reinforces my view that these dreadful radfems are
implacable, and will fight to the end to destroy marriage and fatherhood as
an institution. After all, their intentions are clearly and repeatedly stated
in their writings and those of Engels; “Marriage is the seat of oppression of
women. We must destroy marriage.” [Note
that the phrase “risk assessment” has appeared in the current Hodge spoiler
literature. “Risk assessment” is an idea taken from what is now a Quisling
organisation, ManKind, who will presumably support the Hodge mediation
“reforms”. I feel honoured that ManKind expelled me and also their Chairman
Robert Whiston because we stood out against this betrayal of membership.] Radfem
propaganda funded by government Ivor
Catt 22mar04 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The Madrid bombings, in which 200 died, is
a disaster for the direct action non-violent initiative of F4J. F4J’s leader,
Matt, was wrong to rubbish the leaders of the Fathers’ Movement when he began,
because he was almost certain to be vulnerable to the same criticism as he
levelled, that they had achieved nothing in 25 years, when he in turn would
be outflanked, as was inevitable. However, it was very unfortunate for him to
be outflanked so soon and so spectacularly. I have for a long time looked to three
phases in the reform movement. The first was the gentlemanly phase, where
excluded fathers showed how reasonable they were and asked for understanding
and sympathy. I felt that ten years should have been enough for fathers to
give up that approach, which means it should have been given up in around
1985 or 1990. Next would come the non-violent direct action phase, which F4J
represents. This too was bound to fail, leading a decade or two later to the
terrorist phase. At each stage, the bitterness and damage to children and
fathers would increase greatly. The second phase has now been outflanked by
a crude expression of the third phase, leaving F4J with nowhere to go. The present Al-Qaeda terrorist movement
represents the third phase in its crudest, most extreme form. It would
probably have been more damaging had it occurred during the coming authentic
third phase, a milder form of terrorism by excluded fathers,
which it would also have outflanked. The fanatical Islamist movement is extreme
patriarchy, including four wives for the patriarch. The reality of the Iraq
incursion is illustrated by the earlier intention by the USA to put a female
army general in charge of Baghdad. It sometimes leaks out that the sticking
point, delaying the formulation of the new Democratic Constitution in Iraq,
is the American insistence on imposing a major role for women in government.
(Since radfems are Marxist, we know that that role will be the launchpad for
takeover of the political process, by Communists in Czechoslovakia in the
1950s, by radfems in England in the 1990s, now by radfems in Iraq in 2010.)
We have the extraordinary picture of American male soldiers risking their
lives to impose matriarchy on Iraq while back home their wives divorce them
and confiscate their homes and children. They fight against the expression of
extreme patriarchy, Al-Qaeda, rather than fighting for their children back
home, as they will start to do at some point in the future, when the scales
fall from their many eyes. Mandela is interesting because he worked in
all three phases; attempt to persuade; direct non-violent action; and then
terrorism. He believes that his third, terrorist, phase is what succeeded in
ending Aparteid’s assault on human rights. Similarly, terrorism is the phase
which will end gender-racism and the assault on human rights in Britain and
the West, in a couple of decades from now. Whereas Mandela was personally
involved in all three phases, including leading MK, the terrorist wing of
ANC, it is more normal for different people to take up the cudgels at each
stage, as will happen in England. Leaders of each stage ridicule and
calumniate their predecessors for their failure to cause reform to occur. “In planning the direction and form that MK
would take, we considered four types of violent activities; sabotage,
guerrilla warfare, terrorism and open revolution. For a small fledgling army,
open revolution was inconceivable. Terrorism inevitably reflected poorly on
those who use it, undermining any public support it might otherwise garner.
Guerrilla warfare was a possibility, but since the ANC had been reluctant to
embrace violence at all, it made sense to start with the form of violence
that inflicted the least harm against individuals: sabotage.” – Nelson
Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom, pub. Abacus 1994, p336. There are some parallels between the fight
for freedom and fundamental human rights in South Africa and today in England
and the West. We see that a high proportion of the population can be
successfully oppressed for a long time. We also see that the oppressed group
is charged with sexual crime, violence and other crimes on a broad scale.
Also, of course, the ruling fascist group have control of all the levers of
power and of the media. It is often said in our media that we need
to try to understand the motivation of Islamist extremists. However, all our
media will carefully ignore the question as to whether Al-Qaeda would target
Britain less if the British government were not making war on the family as
an institution, and on fatherhood. In this field, censorship is extreme in
Britain, and generally in the west. Similarly, the conjunctioin between
imposition of women’s rights in Baghdad and a rampant Al-Qaeda will be
ignored. Should men be willing to die in Baghdad in order to ensure that more
fathers are driven from their homes and their children? @@@@@@@@@@@@ The lines between alternative strategies
are not clear-cut. For instance, the founder of F4J has written that he used
“Retreat”, and he was successful. This flies in the face of the overall
argument here given. The
Retreat Strategy, doggedly ignored by fathers, could circumvent this
inexorable slide into civil disorder and increasing damage to children and
their parents, and to the state. It addresses the real issue, which is one of
power. Fathers, since they are the chief engine of wealth creation, have the
power to confront the problem and impose their will without violence, even
without civil direct action. I wonder how many skyscrapers and railway
termini will be destroyed before excluded fathers make any effort to take
“The Retreat Strategy” seriously. When will they come to see that the writing
is on the wall for shallow attempts to influence events, like FNF, F4J and
terrorism, and that an alternative, very powerful, non-violent approach might
be worth at least cursory examination? Ivor
Catt 22/23mar04 |
|