Laura Perrins of the Mothers At Home Matter group had this to say regarding a recent government survey showed that women really would prefer to spend more time with their children.
'Ministers have placed relentless pressure on mothers to do exactly the opposite by bringing in policies that separate mothers from their young children. They care nothing for the needs of growing children or the desires of mothers who want to love and care for their children at home.
Until now the Government has only looked at measures of how they can lock up the toddlers in institutional care for ever longer hours.
This is not what families want. They want time to care for their children. Instead of expanding childcare, for which families have no desire, we should be moving to a family-friendly taxation system.'
'The Government thinks that the promised land lies in work, but for most families work is a means for supporting their family - a means to an end, not an end in itself.
These (middle-class) families have the option of sacrificing a salary to care at home; it is not going to break them, whereas lower income families, it seems that the choice is being more or less denied to them.'
Friday, 7 February 2014
Thursday, 6 February 2014
The Unbirthing Of The West
Mary Malone writes:
Apart from religious groups, people in Europe and North America appear to have given up on having children. The catastrophically low birthrate is presented as a choice by ordinary people, a good choice too, one brought about by Women's Liberation.
But in fact it is a choice that has been induced by our masters.
Children are corralled into nurseries and schools, out of the way of mainstream consumption, a burden to those who aspire to the 'freedom' of unrestrained wage labour and commodity capitalism.
If children were once the essence of a family, then the family has been torn apart by the state's intervention in the social institution of marriage and its promotion of divorce.
It is a brave woman who hitches herself to a man these days. In five years time he might be down the road, leaving her to deal with her children. Her man might suddenly decide that marriage is not compatible with his vast egotism and his desire for childish pleasures.
It is a brave man who hitches himself to a woman. He might well end up paying for his wife and children and their home while he is excluded, living alone in a draughty flat. Marriage for a man might well mean a lifetime of debt slavery.
In addition we have endless anti-family propaganda in the schools and the media from the Feminist establishment. A girl who aspires to motherhood and a family quickly learns to hate herself and to regard herself as a fool. Children, she soon learns, are a key element in the oppression and exploitation of their mothers. She learns that relationships are dangerous, that men cannot be trusted, that men are only out to exploit her, that fun and casual sex are the only relief in her hopeless self-harming world.
Mothers are presented to her as subjugated and limited, unable to fulfil themselves in the commodity bureaucratic world, deprived of opportunities for consumption and entertainment. Children, she is told, rob a woman of the chance to satisfy her own needs and her own desires.
The rights of Woman and the rights of the Child are presented as mutually incompatible.
The attachment to wage labour and the money it produces, and the toys that can be gained by money is the main factor in the repudiation of motherhood. The more a woman earns the less likely she is to have children. Only the very rich have as many children as the poor.
Forty percent of English women graduates will never have children.
(The only positive note is that it is the managerial classes who are breeding least)
Higher academic achievement not only leads to higher income, but also a deeper immersion in the hierarchical system, an increased passivity, and a higher level of indoctrination, leaving the women of the military bureaucratic complex unable to use the active initiative required to raise a child.
Apart from religious groups, people in Europe and North America appear to have given up on having children. The catastrophically low birthrate is presented as a choice by ordinary people, a good choice too, one brought about by Women's Liberation.
But in fact it is a choice that has been induced by our masters.
Children are corralled into nurseries and schools, out of the way of mainstream consumption, a burden to those who aspire to the 'freedom' of unrestrained wage labour and commodity capitalism.
If children were once the essence of a family, then the family has been torn apart by the state's intervention in the social institution of marriage and its promotion of divorce.
It is a brave woman who hitches herself to a man these days. In five years time he might be down the road, leaving her to deal with her children. Her man might suddenly decide that marriage is not compatible with his vast egotism and his desire for childish pleasures.
It is a brave man who hitches himself to a woman. He might well end up paying for his wife and children and their home while he is excluded, living alone in a draughty flat. Marriage for a man might well mean a lifetime of debt slavery.
In addition we have endless anti-family propaganda in the schools and the media from the Feminist establishment. A girl who aspires to motherhood and a family quickly learns to hate herself and to regard herself as a fool. Children, she soon learns, are a key element in the oppression and exploitation of their mothers. She learns that relationships are dangerous, that men cannot be trusted, that men are only out to exploit her, that fun and casual sex are the only relief in her hopeless self-harming world.
Mothers are presented to her as subjugated and limited, unable to fulfil themselves in the commodity bureaucratic world, deprived of opportunities for consumption and entertainment. Children, she is told, rob a woman of the chance to satisfy her own needs and her own desires.
The rights of Woman and the rights of the Child are presented as mutually incompatible.
The attachment to wage labour and the money it produces, and the toys that can be gained by money is the main factor in the repudiation of motherhood. The more a woman earns the less likely she is to have children. Only the very rich have as many children as the poor.
Forty percent of English women graduates will never have children.
(The only positive note is that it is the managerial classes who are breeding least)
Higher academic achievement not only leads to higher income, but also a deeper immersion in the hierarchical system, an increased passivity, and a higher level of indoctrination, leaving the women of the military bureaucratic complex unable to use the active initiative required to raise a child.
Wednesday, 5 February 2014
Democracy And Liberty
These days you rarely hear the expression 'the Free World', an expression that was common during the Cold War. The Anglo Saxon powers in particular were proud of their tradition of Common Law and the accountability of governments before the law and to representative assemblies. From the times of Robin Hood the proud boast of the Englishman was that he was free born, and although there have been many exceptions, he was free to say and to do as he pleased.
But these days leading politicians such as the Prime Minister, never refer to the free world. Instead they talk about the democratic world, which is very similar to the democratic socialist world of the Soviet Union.
In reality, most people are not that fussy about democracy, as long as they are free to go about their business unhindered either by hoodlums or the government. Such is the sentiment that has led to the growth of representative institutions and the rule of law - the desire for liberty.
The democratic mindset is entirely different. For the democrat we must all select a leader and then, all together now, do as the leader wishes.
And so, along with democracy we see the growth of patronage and bureaucracy, of ideological conformity, of police deciding who can say and what can be said, of schools teaching propaganda to the young, the thoughts and values of independence mocked and sidelined. State officials, of whom there are millions, may be sacked for displaying the wrong faith or for speaking injudicious words. People languish in jail for saying 'offensive' things. Sticks and stones may break your bones if your words hurt me - so say the Politically Correct.
As thought crime is clamped down upon and the minutiae of daily life is regulated, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, corruption is institutionalised, favours are exchanged, networks of influence are established and dissent is silenced. Theft by those in power is all around us, in the form of salaries for sitting on quangos or fake charities or governmental expense accounts. They leech on us, and to do this they have to remove our freedoms while they use their low interest rates to sink us into debt and transfer our wealth into their bank accounts.
Democracy has no way of putting right the corruption or the freedom deficit, because democracy is the problem. Only through representation and autonomy can we regain our freedoms.
In reality, if we accept government at all, we must regard it as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, democracy sees government as a necessary good, that people cannot live unless directed from above. Democracy means hierarchy, passivity, obedience, theft, the very opposite of freedom.
But these days leading politicians such as the Prime Minister, never refer to the free world. Instead they talk about the democratic world, which is very similar to the democratic socialist world of the Soviet Union.
In reality, most people are not that fussy about democracy, as long as they are free to go about their business unhindered either by hoodlums or the government. Such is the sentiment that has led to the growth of representative institutions and the rule of law - the desire for liberty.
The democratic mindset is entirely different. For the democrat we must all select a leader and then, all together now, do as the leader wishes.
And so, along with democracy we see the growth of patronage and bureaucracy, of ideological conformity, of police deciding who can say and what can be said, of schools teaching propaganda to the young, the thoughts and values of independence mocked and sidelined. State officials, of whom there are millions, may be sacked for displaying the wrong faith or for speaking injudicious words. People languish in jail for saying 'offensive' things. Sticks and stones may break your bones if your words hurt me - so say the Politically Correct.
As thought crime is clamped down upon and the minutiae of daily life is regulated, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, corruption is institutionalised, favours are exchanged, networks of influence are established and dissent is silenced. Theft by those in power is all around us, in the form of salaries for sitting on quangos or fake charities or governmental expense accounts. They leech on us, and to do this they have to remove our freedoms while they use their low interest rates to sink us into debt and transfer our wealth into their bank accounts.
Democracy has no way of putting right the corruption or the freedom deficit, because democracy is the problem. Only through representation and autonomy can we regain our freedoms.
In reality, if we accept government at all, we must regard it as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, democracy sees government as a necessary good, that people cannot live unless directed from above. Democracy means hierarchy, passivity, obedience, theft, the very opposite of freedom.
Tuesday, 4 February 2014
Fornication And Adultery
John Ball writes:
A lot of people seem to think that adultery is sufficient grounds for divorce, especially if the adulterous spouse is the woman. Indeed, our Lord said that 'whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' Most people like to equate fornication with adultery, but they are not the same thing.
It does not matter how many sexual partners a woman may have, the children she conceives are her husband's responsibility.
Such a situation would no doubt cause some friction in some households.
In traditional autonomous society a man married a woman by lying with her. Whoever a woman lay with first was her husband. There was no need for a priest or the state. Copulation led to the birth of children and men needed to be brought into the process, otherwise there would be a situation of irresponsibility and sterility and the tribe would die out.
So, in the Bible we read that a man cannot divorce his wife except for the case of fornication. In other words the wife has already had sex with another man, so her first lover is in reality her husband.
If a woman has sexual relations with other men after she is married, it is indeed, adultery, but it is not grounds for divorce. Her husband must still provide for her and her children.
Marriage is for the benefit of women and children. It is only with the introduction of relations of power and domination that these eminently sensible social arrangements have been twisted. With the growth of institutionalised violence and a hierarchy of priests, women have been reduced to the level of commodities. Thus, the patriarchy of violence introduces measures to control women's sexual activity. In hyper patriarchal Moslem societies we see extreme forms of violence against women such as female genital mutilation, but even in Christian Europe, amongst the military bureaucratic classes, we see women turned into eunuchs, their natural libidinous nature made a crime.
However, in early autonomous societies, societies that were not hyper sexualised, societies in which people were not yet commodities, societies in which the act of love was not yet mere appetite but a holy ceremony, the sensible arrangement was that a woman's first lover was to be her husband. After all, women have children, and children need a father.
By mixing up the concepts of fornication and adultery, the purveyors of power entirely change the equation. It is the laws against adultery that are at the heart of the oppression against women.
Fortunately, we peasants are quite practical about these things. It is hard to find a peasant woman who would trade her freedom for the restrictions suffered by the women of the officer class. It's not surprising that women born into a class that bases its relationships on domination have turned their backs on marriage and children. It's a shame they don't know how to be free, and it's a shame they want to spread their disease.
A lot of people seem to think that adultery is sufficient grounds for divorce, especially if the adulterous spouse is the woman. Indeed, our Lord said that 'whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.' Most people like to equate fornication with adultery, but they are not the same thing.
It does not matter how many sexual partners a woman may have, the children she conceives are her husband's responsibility.
Such a situation would no doubt cause some friction in some households.
In traditional autonomous society a man married a woman by lying with her. Whoever a woman lay with first was her husband. There was no need for a priest or the state. Copulation led to the birth of children and men needed to be brought into the process, otherwise there would be a situation of irresponsibility and sterility and the tribe would die out.
So, in the Bible we read that a man cannot divorce his wife except for the case of fornication. In other words the wife has already had sex with another man, so her first lover is in reality her husband.
If a woman has sexual relations with other men after she is married, it is indeed, adultery, but it is not grounds for divorce. Her husband must still provide for her and her children.
Marriage is for the benefit of women and children. It is only with the introduction of relations of power and domination that these eminently sensible social arrangements have been twisted. With the growth of institutionalised violence and a hierarchy of priests, women have been reduced to the level of commodities. Thus, the patriarchy of violence introduces measures to control women's sexual activity. In hyper patriarchal Moslem societies we see extreme forms of violence against women such as female genital mutilation, but even in Christian Europe, amongst the military bureaucratic classes, we see women turned into eunuchs, their natural libidinous nature made a crime.
However, in early autonomous societies, societies that were not hyper sexualised, societies in which people were not yet commodities, societies in which the act of love was not yet mere appetite but a holy ceremony, the sensible arrangement was that a woman's first lover was to be her husband. After all, women have children, and children need a father.
By mixing up the concepts of fornication and adultery, the purveyors of power entirely change the equation. It is the laws against adultery that are at the heart of the oppression against women.
Fortunately, we peasants are quite practical about these things. It is hard to find a peasant woman who would trade her freedom for the restrictions suffered by the women of the officer class. It's not surprising that women born into a class that bases its relationships on domination have turned their backs on marriage and children. It's a shame they don't know how to be free, and it's a shame they want to spread their disease.
Monday, 3 February 2014
Work Is Laziness
As I wonder the hills and valleys, I often get to thinking about life back then in the fourteenth century, when we possessed so little, yet had so much, when we worked so little, yet did so much.
Not all our days can be spent cooking and eating. Sometimes we have to do the washing up. Indeed, growing the food can be hard work too, digging, planting, reaping what we sow. (It's important to use you knees or you'll end up with a bad back, like Dick.)
In those days we had so much more time. These days you work from January to May just to pay your taxes. If the sheriff or the bishop had tried that one, they would have soon got a pitchfork where the sun don't shine, if you'll pardon the expression.
And the work you do is so tedious, so passive, so repetitive, so brain wrenching, soul destroyingly boring. And then you come home, to your absolutely amazingly luxurious houses and you carry on as if you were at work, sitting alone, unable to communicate with anyone, filling your minds with rubbish, frightened of time and space. You don't even bother to cook a meal, and for relaxation you watch a screen and listen to other people's stories instead of telling your own.
How different it was back then. I used to make up a story and tell it to my little Revoltettes every night. We used to create a whole magical world. Revoltina used to cook us all a tasty meal every night. She didn't need a cookbook. The things that woman could do with a pot and some oats and barley is truly mind boggling.
And I had a great time 'working'. When I wasn't seeing to the crops, which was most of the time, I was building, whittling, fishing, singing, playing my whistle and my pipes, chilling out drinking the loco mead.
Time wasn't regimented in them there days. The sun was the only clock we knew. But now every moment is marked down and disciplined. Even your down time is spent listening or watching, consuming. Every moment, every action, every emotion is turned into a commodity, to be viewed, and experienced as entertainment. You have exchanged the reality of the Person and replaced yourselves with the spectacle of your Life.
No one seems to have the time just to think. Even thoughts are second hand, somebody else's thoughts, bought off the peg to suit your appetite.
The time to look and listen, to gaze and to stare, is chased away by those desperate to reach tomorrow, afraid of the destruction of today.
Busyness is everywhere. Stupidity reigns supreme. People, who have learnt received culture all their lives just want to be normal, too scared to think, too idle to be lazy, afraid of freedom.
Scarcely human, only physical, consumers and consumed, drudges of a commodity capitalist society, modern people work longer hours and yet are lazier than any other people in history.
Not all our days can be spent cooking and eating. Sometimes we have to do the washing up. Indeed, growing the food can be hard work too, digging, planting, reaping what we sow. (It's important to use you knees or you'll end up with a bad back, like Dick.)
In those days we had so much more time. These days you work from January to May just to pay your taxes. If the sheriff or the bishop had tried that one, they would have soon got a pitchfork where the sun don't shine, if you'll pardon the expression.
And the work you do is so tedious, so passive, so repetitive, so brain wrenching, soul destroyingly boring. And then you come home, to your absolutely amazingly luxurious houses and you carry on as if you were at work, sitting alone, unable to communicate with anyone, filling your minds with rubbish, frightened of time and space. You don't even bother to cook a meal, and for relaxation you watch a screen and listen to other people's stories instead of telling your own.
How different it was back then. I used to make up a story and tell it to my little Revoltettes every night. We used to create a whole magical world. Revoltina used to cook us all a tasty meal every night. She didn't need a cookbook. The things that woman could do with a pot and some oats and barley is truly mind boggling.
And I had a great time 'working'. When I wasn't seeing to the crops, which was most of the time, I was building, whittling, fishing, singing, playing my whistle and my pipes, chilling out drinking the loco mead.
Time wasn't regimented in them there days. The sun was the only clock we knew. But now every moment is marked down and disciplined. Even your down time is spent listening or watching, consuming. Every moment, every action, every emotion is turned into a commodity, to be viewed, and experienced as entertainment. You have exchanged the reality of the Person and replaced yourselves with the spectacle of your Life.
No one seems to have the time just to think. Even thoughts are second hand, somebody else's thoughts, bought off the peg to suit your appetite.
The time to look and listen, to gaze and to stare, is chased away by those desperate to reach tomorrow, afraid of the destruction of today.
Busyness is everywhere. Stupidity reigns supreme. People, who have learnt received culture all their lives just want to be normal, too scared to think, too idle to be lazy, afraid of freedom.
Scarcely human, only physical, consumers and consumed, drudges of a commodity capitalist society, modern people work longer hours and yet are lazier than any other people in history.
Sunday, 2 February 2014
Robert Service - Freedom's Fool
To hell with Governments I say;
I'm sick of all the piddling pack.
I'd like to scram, get clean away,
And never, nevermore come back.
With heart of hope I long to go
To some lost island of the sea,
And there get drunk with joy to know
No one on earth is over me.
There will be none to say me nay,
So from my lexicon I can
Obliterate the word 'obey',
And mock the meddling laws of man.
The laws of Nature and of God
Are good enough for guys like me,
Who scorn to kiss the scarlet rod
Of office and authority.
No Stars and Stripes nor Union Jack,
Nor tricolour nor crimson rag
Shall claim my love, I'll turn my back
On every land, on every flag.
My banner shall be stainless white,
An emblem of the Golden Rule,
Yet for its freedom I will fight
And die - like any other fool.
Oh Government's a bitter pill
No force or fear shall forge my fate;
I'll bow to no communal will,
For I myself shall be the State.
Uncurst by man-curb and control,
My Isle shall be emparadised,
And I will re-possess my soul........
Mad Anarchist! - Well, wasn't Christ?
I'm sick of all the piddling pack.
I'd like to scram, get clean away,
And never, nevermore come back.
With heart of hope I long to go
To some lost island of the sea,
And there get drunk with joy to know
No one on earth is over me.
There will be none to say me nay,
So from my lexicon I can
Obliterate the word 'obey',
And mock the meddling laws of man.
The laws of Nature and of God
Are good enough for guys like me,
Who scorn to kiss the scarlet rod
Of office and authority.
No Stars and Stripes nor Union Jack,
Nor tricolour nor crimson rag
Shall claim my love, I'll turn my back
On every land, on every flag.
My banner shall be stainless white,
An emblem of the Golden Rule,
Yet for its freedom I will fight
And die - like any other fool.
Oh Government's a bitter pill
No force or fear shall forge my fate;
I'll bow to no communal will,
For I myself shall be the State.
Uncurst by man-curb and control,
My Isle shall be emparadised,
And I will re-possess my soul........
Mad Anarchist! - Well, wasn't Christ?
Saturday, 1 February 2014
A Verse On Sunday
The Gospel according to John, chapter 1, verse 7
'The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.'
John was sent by God not to perform service for the material benefit of mankind, but to bear witness to the Light. His mission was to get the local people of first century Israel used to the idea that the coming of the Messiah was imminent, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and to proclaim Jesus Christ to be that Messiah, the true and only Son of God.
Jesus is the Light that shines in the darkness and John's role is to bear witness to the Light.
We too are here to bear witness to the Light. Those who struggle in the darkness, blinded by narcissism, cast in the prison of the self, strain to find meaning in their long and troubled days, but for the Christian, the purpose of living is all too clear - to bear witness to the Light. God is Love and it is our pleasure to sing his praises.
John's ministry was not man centred. He did not try to make God the servant of you and me. He did not open social centres or try to reconcile reluctant Jews to Roman rule.
Rather selfishly, we might think, he took himself off to the wilderness.
There are many ways to serve the Lord, but if we want to do it right, we must put God first.
'The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.'
John was sent by God not to perform service for the material benefit of mankind, but to bear witness to the Light. His mission was to get the local people of first century Israel used to the idea that the coming of the Messiah was imminent, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, and to proclaim Jesus Christ to be that Messiah, the true and only Son of God.
Jesus is the Light that shines in the darkness and John's role is to bear witness to the Light.
We too are here to bear witness to the Light. Those who struggle in the darkness, blinded by narcissism, cast in the prison of the self, strain to find meaning in their long and troubled days, but for the Christian, the purpose of living is all too clear - to bear witness to the Light. God is Love and it is our pleasure to sing his praises.
John's ministry was not man centred. He did not try to make God the servant of you and me. He did not open social centres or try to reconcile reluctant Jews to Roman rule.
Rather selfishly, we might think, he took himself off to the wilderness.
There are many ways to serve the Lord, but if we want to do it right, we must put God first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)