Monday, February 16, 2009

Destroy the Family, Control the Society

Strong families make strong communities, and strong communities keep government power in check. Break down the families, and the door is wide open to centralizing power in government. Once families break down through divorce, welfare, cohabitation, etc. government gets more and more involved in everyday life. More and more centralized government control.

The family, nuclear and extended, is under attack. It has been for a long time. Sometimes the useful idiots of the agenda let it slip out. Or maybe they feel the time is right to put forth the indoctrination of what they have accomplished and make it acceptable.

A leader in the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has declared that the breakdown of traditional families, far from being a “crisis,” is actually a triumph for human rights.

Speaking at a colloquium held last month at Colegio Mexico in Mexico City, UNFPA representative Arie Hoekman denounced the idea that high rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births represent a social crisis, claiming that they represent instead the triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy.”

"In the eyes of conservative forces, these changes mean that the family is in crisis," he said. "In crisis? More than a crisis, we are in the presence of a weakening of the patriarchal structure, as a result of the disappearance of the economic base that sustains it and because of the rise of new values centered in the recognition of fundamental human rights."

Fundamental human rights? You mean the total dehumanization of both individuals and families to further enslave them. The same old 'divide and conquer ' theories applied to biological families in order to control them from birth to death.

The triumph of “human rights” against “patriarchy?” The wording is deceptive. It implies that men are the problem and that by eliminating men from the equation 'human rights' will be achieved.

"Destroy the family," as Lenin said, "and you destroy society." Thereby he merely repeated what Socrates had said before and what Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx put into words. Lenin set out to do just that, hoping that a new society -- with the State as the ultimate father -- could be constructed.

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. ? Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman -- Do I hear YFS / DSS / CPS here??
"The care of children infinitely better left to the best trained practitioners of both sexes who have chosen it as a vocation...[This] would further undermine family structure while contributing to the freedom of women." Kate Millet, Sexual Politics 178-179

[I]f even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young.... This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.? ~ Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p. 100

"How will the family unit be destroyed? ... the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." -- From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ... -- Functions of the Family, Linda Gordon, WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969.

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." -- From article, "Is Marriage the Answer?" by Barbara Findlen, Ms magazine, May-June, 1995

The mechanisms of the destruction of the family are many. War is the most immediate and obvious. The other more subtle ways are numerous and include the 'entertainment' industry. How many TV shows or movies have a functioning stable family unit of man and wife, children and an extended family of support? Oh, that's passe. Dysfunctional in in.

One does not have to be religious, spiritual or philosophical to see what is happening. One only needs to be practical.

Without strong families as the backbone of our culture we allow the state to become the 'patriarch.'

A patriach that will never allow freedom and human rights.



    What's up with The Huffington Post hiring right-wing pseudo-liberal writters:

    Take a look at this article bashing The Venezuelan Revolution, Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Participative Democratic project

    F*CK THE HUFFINTON POST WITH THEIR ZIONIST, RIGHT-WING ARTICLES (What's up with Ariana Huffington with hiring right winger writters).

    Give me 1000 Bill O' Rilley over 1 pseudo-liberal progressive democrat political commentator of The Nation Magazine, Commondreams, Oped news and the Huffington Post


    During the days of the Pinochet dictatorship there was that joke about the Chilean dictator going on a state visit to Bolivia, a long-time rival of his own nation.

    At a state dinner, the Bolivian President introduces his Chilean counterpart to Senor so-and-so, Secretary of the Bolivian Navy. Feeling slightly mocked by the leader of the landlocked nation, Pinochet raises his eyebrow and says "You have a Minister of the Navy?"

    The Bolivian President doesn't bat an eyelash and responds, "What's the problem? After all, you have a Minister of Justice."

    In that respect, if Hugo Chavez wants to call himself a socialist and pretend that the armed forces that currently hold the levers of power in his country and who swear an oath to defend the fatherland, revolution and socialism are the armed representatives of the working class, I suppose that's his right. After all, if Dick Cheney can call himself a defender of democracy, why can't Hugo claim to be a tribune of socialism?

    There have been worse characters in history who have claimed the title of socialist. From Stalin to Pol Pot to the younger Mussolini.

    But Chavez is hardly in their league. He's much more of a cross between Peron and Fidel with a dash of the Woody Allen character in Bananas. Make that two tablespoons.

    I, on the other hand, venture to believe that Mssrs. Marx and Engels had a rather different species in mind when they were theorizing about a post-capitalist world and who might lead it.

    But then again, Venezuela is hardly post-capitalist. If what Chavez has got going there has anything to do with the democratic and egalitarian notions that have inspired generations of socialists throughout history, please count me out.

    No question that Chavez --utilizing all the state resources of an incumbent that controls ALL branches of the government, much of the media and manipulates the levers of oil-financed patronage-- won a clear victory Sunday in the referendum that will allow him to indefinitely run for re-election when his current term (and his FIRST 15 years in power) expires in 2013.

    In broad terms, the vote can be called democratic. More or less the same as what passes for democracy in many places of the world. And Chavez was democratically re-elected president last time out. And, in case, anyone attempts to put some unsanitary words in my mouth, Chavez is the legal and constitutional ruler of Venezuela. Duly elected, lawfully elected.... and so on.

    But he is the ruler. As none of the above negates or contradicts the rather obvious fact that Chavez intends to never leave office -- at least, not alive. His usurpation of any pluralism, of any semblance of debate and consensus in the most important levels of government is something that merits no celebrations and certainly bodes nothing very uplifting about the Venezuelan future.

    Legal or not, democratic or not, Chavez is bent on and has effectively already achieved one-man rule. And that, brother, ain't got nothing to do with socialism.

    Socialism should mean more democracy, not less. More transparency, not less. More distribution of power, not centralization in the hands of an ego-maniac who lends himself to five hour Sunday TV spectacles and who refers to any and all critics as "squalid...terrorists...and fascists."

    No question that when Chavez initially came to power, his opposition was led by rather doltish and corrupt representatives of a corrupt and discredited oligarchy. What a gift to a demagogue like Chavez!

    But things have changed in Venezuela in the last five years. The opposition has broadened and deepened, now extending far beyond its original right-wing and sometimes hysterical base. There are plenty of democrats, centrists, and even leftists (and socialists) in what is now a much more mature and pluralistic opposition.

    And it's now their move. They have a limited historical window in which to pull it together and forge a credible, progressive, and attractive alternative to the brutish Chavez. Either that, or they should be prepared to have their grandchildren listening to Chavez rants and raves thirty years from now.

    P.S. I am now going to contradict what I just wrote. I am willing to bet real cash that Chavez will not make it for another decade. He has given far too much power to the Venezuelan military and that will be his eventual downfall. The world economic recession and the plummeting price of oil, Chavez' failure to invest in a diversified economic development program, rampant corruption (and a horrific murder rate), will inevitably -- and probably sooner rather than later - lead to massive discontent. I would guess that such popular disillusionment (of the sort that usually lends itself to a yearning for an iron fist) will kick the doors wide open for a military coup by one or another general not anxious to go down with Chavez' dingy. This seems a more likely end to this story than an opposition victory anytime soon. I would not cheer nor support such a coup. It would probably produce something worse than the status quo. I just find it the most likely of outcomes.



    Well i am just stating this, because the coming economic global collapse will not only lead to revolutions, wars, riots, and bloody conflicts. But also to a deep psychological state of depression in the masses, to nihilists, negative thoughts, something like in the Dark Ages.

    Which will result in a very sad, depressive, and painful existential-frustration, and existential-vaccum in the majority of people being victims of this global capitalist paradigm.

    We will see suicide-rates increased at alarming rates, family breakups, increased divorces, family violence, death and blood all over.

    Many will choose the suicide path, since dying will be better than facing the coming ugly reality.

    We are doomed as a human species indeed


  3. The general public need to know what is actually going on "out there" in the monetary system - most people seem to have no idea, and I would expect that you would feel a sense of responsibility to educate the public about the true foundational causes of this "global financial crisis."

    I wish to direct your attention to some very important information, which covers the true root causes of our socio-economic problems while offering a sane solution. What needs to be recognised is that equal rights mean absolutely nothing unless there is equal access to all things at all times to all people - anything less is deprivation, this is easy to understand.

    Please take time, when you can, to read this Orientation Guide ( or alternatively view it in Video Format (

    They are both from a global social organisation called "The Zeitgeist Movement" which currently has over 250,000 members, and will have surpassed (according to our current growth rate) 1 million by 2010. On March 15th we held over 450 events, and this was the official beginning day for our movement, many of these events were hosted in Australia. The main event was in NYC, if you'd like to know about that event please see the New York Times review:

    For additional information, please visit our website ( and view the viral internet documentary "Zeitgeist: Addendum" which covers these issues further, but in a more aesthetically pleasing style than the other video presentation. It is this documentary which has had millions of views and is responsible for educating growing numbers of people about these issues.

    Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further. We look forward to having you join us.

    We can restore the nuclear family. But we need to eliminate the rotten food behind the fridge to stop the ants coming out.