logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

 
 
 
 

The UN agenda: Some things for men to think about

On the UN agenda for the planned destruction of the family


A few days ago [in 2001] Jim, from New Zealand, sent me a few documents that relate to children, families and fathers.  One of the references he gave was to the NZ Government's Agenda for Children.[1]  That agenda is based on the sentiments driving the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),[2] which is not too surprising.  The radical feminists (more accurately called redfems) in New Zealand comprise a big contingent of the non-governmental organizations who are pushing the UNCRC.  What better place to drive that destructive agenda home than right at home, in New Zealand.

All UN conventions are somewhat deceptive, but none more so than those that pertain to rights and issues relating to the family.  It was not clear to me whether Jim was for or against the UNCRC, but just so there will be no mistake on what the convention is all about,  I wrote to Jim.  The letter is shown below, with slight formatting changes to include more formal footnotes and bibliographical references.

Jim responded to my comments and is in agreement with them.


Dear Jim,

You need to make it more clear where you stand on the issues that are being promoted through your government's Agenda for Children [1], but be under no illusions. The focus of that agenda is not the promotion of the right of children to have fathers in their lives, not even the promotion of the right of any society to insist that there can be no successful nation without fathers in families.

Any nation stands or falls with its families, and families stand or fall with their fathers. Fatherless "families" are not a viable foundation for a well-functioning and thriving society. [3]

If it is true that you do have the best interest of our children and of all of society at heart, then nothing in the following will be perceived as being critical of your views, and you'll have no trouble accepting it.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [2] is not designed to promote family values. The overriding goal of that convention is to promote the abrogation of parental rights and to promote the destruction of the very "euro-centric" values that have given us a thriving civilization and that the NZ government now derides. That civilization is based on the very same family-centered moral values that the family-hostile NGOs driving the UN are bent on abrogating in their reckless push for the abolition of the family that Engels and Marx called for and promoted through their teachings.[4] Those teachings are at the very core of the Gender Agenda that the radical feminists at the UN promote.[5]

_______________
Note: The abolition of the family is one of four major aspects of socialism.  That is because "abolition" implies in the minds of many people a gradual, somewhat benign cessation of family formation or of the existence of families (e.g.: "non-fault" divorce).  In reality, "abolition" is not quite the correct term and the term "destruction of the family" more accurately describes the circumstances.

No-fault divorce is hardly ever seen as being what its name identifies.  Almost invariably (but wrongly in about half of the cases) the man is seen as the guilty party at fault and as deserving to be sentenced to life-long punishment for having dared to be married.  Moreover, it can hardly be seen as a benign process if people are so afraid of the liabilities incurred on account of being punished for wanting to form a family that they forego that pleasure to the extent that their deliberate resolve not to have a family and not even children causes their nations to die out.  That is the case with all developed nations. (See Demographic Winter)

At this website, the term "abolition of the family" is used infrequently and the term "destruction of the family" is used far more frequently.  You can perform a site-specific search at the website of Fathers to find instances of web pages that refer to or discuss the destruction of the family.

Nobody with a clear conscience can agree with statements such as these:

...Children's rights, as with other human rights, are often defined and applied in a euro-centric way. However, if you look beyond the 'rights-talk' to the principles and ideas that underpin rights, they [rights] become just one way how we protect and provide for children in our society. ...

Children's Rights in the Next Five Years [6]

In what way is that different from any other communist dialectic addressing (abolishing would be better) human or family rights? The NZ government dismisses the history of the successful evolution of our western civilization by stating that it is "just one way how we protect and provide for children in our society." Can anyone who objectively has the interest of our children at heart truly agree with that? It should make our skin crawl instead, because it is an extremely destructive ideology. The history of the social deconstruction during the last century should have taught us that much.

If we want to do something to preserve, protect and promote the well-being of our children, we give them fathers in families, not families without fathers.[7] That will make our children proud to remember us by, not the promotion of their early sexualization and elevating their rights over those of their parents, not putting emphasis on racial or sexual differences in the name of multiculturalism or equality for women and minorities while relegating men and the majority of people to be inferior to all others, instead of encouraging cooperation for the creation of an objectively shared society in which all are truly equal, notwithstanding the NZ government's ostensible assertions to the contrary. Those assertions are classic Orwellian double-speak.

"Fathers in families, not families without fathers," that is the "euro-centric" way, the only way that was successful in creating thriving societies and nations wherever it was the guiding principle in social politics. It is beyond any doubt the best possible of all ways to raise children; far superior to all other possible arrangements.

Any man promoting the rights of his or anyone else's children must first and foremost consider that children must have the right to have fathers in their lives. It is not in the best interest of our children to uncritically promote the UN gender agenda. The UN Gender agenda intends not only to abrogate fatherhood but motherhood as well.  At the UN women's conference in Beijing it was declared that there is no more such thing as motherhood, that it will be replaced with the concept of "women during their interval of child raising." [8]

Credible and reputable social scientists from all over the world got news for the family-hostile social engineers at the UN and elsewhere, although those news are as old as civilization. Parenthood, for fathers and mothers alike, is a life-long mission that is not even terminated by death but lives on in the memories that children have of their parents. The family, comprised of father, mother and their children, is the first teacher of moral standards. Only someone who wants to abolish moral traditions will want to abolish the family or even only one or the other parent in families. Only an enemy of the people will promote family- and father-hostile legislation and try to redefine motherhood.

All attempts to substitute the State for parents produced dismal results wherever they were tried. What could not be made to work on a local basis in any of the totalitarian systems that ever abrogated family rights will most certainly not work on a global scale, no matter what name we give it, be it the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), UN Agenda 21[*], or even only daycare.  [* Text of UN Agenda 21]

What is behind those conventions is the UN Gender Agenda. It promotes a global socialist gynarchy and is built on nothing less than the implementation of the Communist Manifesto.[4] The UN Gender Agenda, promoted most strongly by radical feminists, is Marxism without economics, still attempting to bring an end to all class struggle through the destruction of our families. Marx and Engels considered, and their disciples still do, the family to be the foundation of the patriarchy that they want to deconstruct.[9] That is the very patriarchy that "oppresses" women but causes men in the world to die on average five years sooner than the women they "oppress." In countries that now have "full equality for women" men die off much sooner yet, such as in the Russian Federation, where women live to be 72 and men 58 years on average[10], and where the suicide rates for men and women are many times higher than in those countries in which relatively more traditional families still exist.[11]

The methods for the realization of the Communist Manifesto were designed by Antonio Gramsci and refined by the Frankfurt School, a communist think tank in which the blueprints for the modern mass-marketing methods were developed that were and still are so successfully used for indoctrinating the masses with ideologies, both in totalitarian nations and in the "free" West.[12]

The non-elected bureaucracy of the UN excels in ensuring that the goal of the planned destruction of our families becomes reality. There is no other organization in the world, other than perhaps the NGOs from the "progressive" nations who are the leaders in the push for that agenda, that is so intent on making the planned destruction of our "euro-centric" moral traditions a thing of the past.[13]

Check to see which side of the fence we all should be on and where the fence is. We need viable alternatives for a better society and a clear mission for the Fathers Rights movement [14]

For that fathers must be quite clear on their goals as to what fathers are and how the public perceives them to live up to that image. Only then can we once more have fathers in families, not families without fathers. [7]

Sincerely,

Walter H. Schneider

Fathers for Life — Canada

__________________
Footnotes and References: 

  1. Agenda for Children, Web Site of the NZ Ministry for Social Policy

  2. UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

  3. UN survey on what ails the world's children — The state of children in Canada, comments by Eeva Sodhi, Walter Schneider

  4. Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of the Communist Party, February/March, 1848,  (the abolition of the family)

  5. O'Leary, Dale — The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality (Lafayette, Louisiana: Vital Issues Press, 1997. 213 pp.)

  6. Seminar on Children's Policy: Children's Rights Discussion Paper: Children's Rights in the Next Five Years — Priorities for the Future, prepared by the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Youth Affairs [NZ], June 2000

  7. Fathers in families, not families without fathers, by Walter Schneider

  8. The 1995 UN Women's Conference in Beijing essentially declared motherhood to be an interruption of a woman's working career that will end when she re-enters the work force after having taken time off for childbearing and child-raising. That is not all. It also includes contraceptive use in women's reproductive roles and functions. See: UNITED NATIONS FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN Beijing, China 4-15 September 1995: REPORT OF THE FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN

Actions to be taken

165. By Governments:

(c)Eliminate discriminatory practices by employers and take appropriate measures in consideration of women's reproductive role and functions, such as the denial of employment and dismissal due to pregnancy or breast- feeding, or requiring proof of contraceptive use, and take effective measures to ensure that pregnant women, women on maternity leave or women re-entering the labour market after childbearing are not discriminated against;

In other portions of the report it can be found that much emphasis is being placed on perhaps not necessarily abrogating the very same "reproductive role and function" of women, but demanding that women, not society, have the sole right to determine when and whether they will exercise their reproductive role and function through abortion on demand, engaging in even promiscuous sexual intercourse at will, and to take birth control measures without any interference from anyone.

  1. Knopff, Rainer, Ph.D. & Morton, F.L., Ph.D. — The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (2000, Broadview Press, ISBN 1-55111-089-X),

Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as "Marxism without economics," since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct.  Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed.  This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family.  Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther.  The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such. (The Charter Revolution & The Court Party, p. 75, Review)

  1. UN Population Policies, World Demographics, Job Fatalities and the Extermination of Men

  2. Suicide Rates in Selected Countries

  3. The Sexual Revolution and its role in the social revolution from within

Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist of the early 20th century, had proposed that 2,000 years of Judeo-Christian social evolution could only be done away with by psychological subversion from within the family and other social institutions.

The potentially successful tactics developed by the Frankfurt School were in 1933 exported to the US, along with many of the members of the Frankfurt school that fled Germany in 1933. 

The immigrants from the Frankfurt School took their ideology with them and promptly proceeded to turn it into reality in the US.  The process of the cultural subversion of the US is still ongoing and now almost complete. (More about the sexual revolution)

  1. The Planned Destruction of the Family, by Erin Pizzey

  2. Alternatives for a better society — The mission for the Fathers Rights movement

The Fathers Rights movement made little progress toward unification over the decades, although the problems that brought it into existence and it intends to address are now more prevalent than ever....

If you want respect for fathers, then draw a line between those objectives [the politically-correct ones that gender activists piggy-backed onto the Fathers Rights movement] and what the objectives for a vibrant and healthy fathers' right movement must be.  The [politically correct] alternative  results ostensibly in a better society but has demonstrably and spectacularly failed to deliver, with disastrous consequences.

If you want to work to restore society's respect for families and fathers, then begin to act and talk like a father must, and educate people about the better alternative: [the 'unacceptable' one] ...


Additional Reading:

The planned destruction of the family was part of the communist agenda from its inception by Karl Marx and Frederic Engels.   It became government policy in the USSR in about 1917. It was so successful in the USSR that it threatened to destroy society in the USSR.  Curiously, while in the 1940s the USSR took steps to repair the damages its family-hostile policies had caused, American communists imported the Soviet agenda for the planned destruction of the family into the USA.  It has been and continues to be promoted by left-leaning liberals in the West ever since.

When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s.  Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America. America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components. 

From Bill Wood's testimony to the
Ways and Means Committee

__________________
Posted 2001 05 06
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism: The planned destruction of the American family)