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.]
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