|
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]
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:
-
Agenda for Children, Web Site of the
NZ Ministry for Social Policy
-
UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
November 20, 1989, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
-
UN survey on what ails the world's children
— The state of children in Canada,
comments by Eeva Sodhi, Walter Schneider
-
Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of the
Communist Party, February/March, 1848, (the
abolition of
the family)
-
O'Leary, Dale —
The Gender Agenda: Redefining Equality
(Lafayette, Louisiana: Vital Issues Press, 1997. 213 pp.)
-
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
-
Fathers in families,
not families without fathers, by Walter Schneider
-
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.
- 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)
-
UN Population
Policies, World Demographics, Job Fatalities and the Extermination of Men
-
Suicide
Rates in Selected Countries
-
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)
-
The
Planned Destruction of the Family, by
Erin Pizzey
-
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
2001 11 10 (added link to Perverts, Pornographers And
Liberals)
2003 08 01 (added reference to From Marxism to Feminism:
The planned destruction of the American family) |
