Ivor Catt,


Smacking and more

"First remove the father. Then remove the mother." Recent behaviour by Hodge makes this ever clearer as the underlying threat. The heavy overlap between radical feminism and lesbianism [Note 1] shows a community of interest against conventional parenting by the sexually dysfunctional and the radical feminist. Marxist/Engels anti-marriage, anti-family dogma from a century ago is used as the intellectual base for the attack.

Anti-smacking is of course part of the anti-parenthood movement. Who decides who smacked whom?

Of course, it is also, as Whiston picked up, "In this excerpt Lord Stoddart makes the overwhelming point that the sponsors of the children Bill want it [to] inflict middle class values on the working class family." Note that Radical Feminism is also class war, with working class women opposed to the radfems because radfems reject working class values (and radfems also reject third world values).

The situation is complicated by the fact that the family is a right wing concept, to expect support from the political right, but the family is the mainstay against extreme (totalitarian) government, which might come from the right. Whereas the present attack by all arms of society on young men will trigger a rapidly rising fascist party,

it remains to be seen whether it will be too extreme to support the family. That is, the family is supported by the right, but not by the far right.

Our Tory party has been captured, for this purpose, by Portillo et al. Portillo is, according to Barbara, far more homosexual than is generally realised, and so inhibits the Tories from going for the only way they can rapidly sweep into power, by picking up the pro-family vote. (Matt told me he kept his back to the wall when he went to the Tory Party Conference.)

I agree with Melanie McDonagh, Sunday Times, 15aug04, p17; "Any sensible political party should realise that there is a great deal to play for in terms of family-friendly policy. This was once home ground for the Tories .... Is it quite beyond the wit of the Tories to reclaim what ought to be their own ideological turf by giving preferential tax treatment to married couple?" For a long time I have believed that the heavy representation of homosexuals and libertines in the higher reaches of the Tory party makes them unable to exploit the only rapid way back to power - backing the traditional family. Part of this is of course ignorance that even cohabiting couples do not generate enough babies, so the pro-marriage policy can be tacked onto the back of concern about an ageing population. The Tories are too ignorant of the key statistics to do that.

While I edited "Ill Eagle", , I published articles saying that the core problem was, not the attack on fatherhood, but the attack on parenthood. Organisations which go along with this point of view will have a better chance to recruit women (mothers), and so balance their membership. FNF has difficulty because F is in its name.

Mothers have made a Faustian contract with this attack for short term gain. The first few generations of mothers are paid off for betraying marriage and parenthood. Then marriage collapses, and the birth-rate collapses. My researcher Barbara found that the only way to achieve the required average of 2.3 babies per woman was by the married family. Nothing else comes anywhere near to the 2.3 figure needed to keep the population constant.

The second, associated attack is of course heterophobia. See "Political lesbianism" at the centre of radical feminism.

McDonagh ends her article with; "We are left with an extraordinary vacuum in terms of British social policy - the family. For the party that is prepared to state the obvious, that marriage is the preferable context for child-rearing and that children are best minded by their own, there is everything to play for. But it says everything about the warped condition of Britain that nobody will." I agree with her. The Tories would rather go down than be Politically Incorrect.

I note that the top dog in the Tory HQ research group confused mother hood with parenthood in her letter to the press. This is yet another example of the hopelessness of the situation within the top of the Tory party when it comes to the one and only obvious way back to power for them. They will be blocked by the career women in high positions in the party, who want heavily subsidised child care so they can stay there, and also by the homosexual element in the party. What a mess!


Note 1.

From “The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community”, pub. Falling Wall Press, England, 1972/3;

P19, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, “Women and the Subversion of the Community”,

“…. …. [p29] …. women want to conduct the struggle against men as such and no longer wish to use their strength to sustain even sexual relationships with them, since each of these relationships is always frustrating. A power relationship precludes any possibility of affection and intimacy. Yet between men and women power as its right commands sexual affection and intimacy. In this sense, the gay movement is the most massive attempt to disengage sexuality and power.”

Also see Dalla Costa at p39; “We must get out of the house; we must reject the home, because we want to unite with other women, to struggle against all situations which presume that women will stay at home ….”  And p47; “…. The role of the housewife, behind whose isolation is hidden social labor, must be destroyed. ….”



----- Original Message -----

From: "" <>

To: <>; <>; <>

Cc: <>; <>

Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 8:30 PM

Subject: RE: penalising working class families


> I have no wish, and in any event no power, to engage FNF in considering the
> implications of the email set out below.
> I would, however, just call to mind the difficulty I had in persuading those
> in FNF, many years ago, that DV would become a difficult issue for fathers
> in the future when custody issues were being discussed in courts.
> I feel I may again be correct in flagging up this latter day implication for
> equal parenting.
> For all our sakes, even these that may be alienated, we must ensure that the
> Children Bill and clause 106 etc of July 2004, does not proceed any further.
> For even though 5,000 children under 16 die each year the presumption will
> be that most of them are at the hands of 'wicked' fathers when the opposite,
> i.e. mothers, may be true.
> RW
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: 16 August 2004 13:18
> To:;;
> Cc:;
> Subject: RE: penalising working class families
> FNF to stay out of this argument please. Its not central to shared parenting
> and whichever way it is argued part of our membership and part of our
> potential supporters will be alienated.
> The only relevant line is the one taken by Jim P in the forthcoming McK.
> Arguments about smacking would add further acrimony to contact disputes.
> Parents accusing the other, kids being drawn in. We all agree that some
> levels of physical punishment is unacceptable but there is not a consensus
> on whether inflicting any physical pain is. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2004 4:12 PM
> To: Anne Harris; Euro-Dads@Yahoogroups. Com; John Baker FNF
> Cc: Anthony FNF; Matt O'Connor
> Subject: penalising working class families
> In this excerpt Lord Stoddart makes the overwhelming point that the sponsors
> of the children Bill want it inflict middle class values on the working
> class family.
> RW
> ______________
> 0705-10.htm
> Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am well aware of all that. But for a
> piece of legislation of this importance there should have been-and still
> should be-wide public consultation because of its implications.
> Of course, one has to be careful when speaking on amendments of this sort,
> otherwise one will be accused of being brutal to children. Let me say that,
> as a child, I was certainly slapped and caned by the teachers at my school.
> From some of the arguments that have been put, I should now be a brutal
> person myself, believing that the only way to settle disputes is by physical
> force. As a matter of fact, I have not engaged in physical
> 5 Jul 2004 : Column 545




Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website