It Takes a Village
It Takes A Village
It takes a village (so we're told), to raise a child today.
It takes a village (we reply), to steal his heart away,
To purge old-fashioned do's and don'ts from his enlightened
To leave old fashioned Ma and Pa a hundred years behind.
It takes a village, verily, to teach some
To steal and gamble, smoke and swear, and vandalize for
His mother didn't teach him that! His father?
No, not he.
It takes a village to corrupt, a village, verily.
It takes a village, this we know, to
teach the maidens sweet,
To dress and act, to look and talk, like women of the
It takes a village, not a doubt, to teach a maiden mild,
To save the monkeys, owls, and whales, and kill her unborn
It takes a village public school, some
subtle classroom chats,
To teach the little boys and girls to act like alley cats.
To teach them of the birds and bees, without morality,
To teach them what to do, and how, and tell them they are
It takes a village, yes indeed, to
brainwash all the youth,
With notions and with fallacies, In place of sense and
Abortion rights! The right to die! The rights
Creative spelling! Unisex! The rights of
It takes a village, well we know, to turn
their minds away,
To stand for fancied "children's rights", and
parents' rights deny.
To honor human nature less, And trees and rivers more.
To sacrifice to Mother Earth, and Father God ignore.
"It takes a village," so they
say, but something more they mean.
United Nations. Washington. The liberal
Society. The "Brave New World." The
The global ideology. The New World Order dream!
|Just in case you wondered how it could happen that our society turned away
from the moral standards that were the foundation based on which our country became great
but is great no longer, it took:
Intentional straying from The Ten Commandments
to make a society turn away from God,
A Village to make it possible by actively participating in that and to
Anti-Christian Governments to cause it to happen. (E. g., the
circumstances of the memorial service for the victims of the crash of Swissair Flight 111:
"Christ's name banned from memorial service").
Incongruously, the current Canadian Prime Minister is ostensibly a Roman Catholic.
Follow-up (2005 01 26)
The successor of that prime minister is ostensibly a Roman Catholic, too.
Yet he is ready to make an election issue out of the Canadian Conservative
Party's opposition to his intention to ram through parliament at any cost
legislation that will make same-sex marriages legal and the norm by which
we measure all others.
Editorial cartoon in the Fort Record (2005 01 25, p. 2)
Access TV is the Alberta Athabasca University's channel by
which it transmits some of its education programs, some of which broadcasts
are part of its curriculum and can be applied to obtain credits for some of
its correspondence courses. Just on the night of the 25th of January,
2005, the Athabasca University transmitted such a program on family issues.
It was quite obvious, after watching the program only for a couple of
minutes, what its aim was. The program was not so much a program on
family issues but one to promote same-sex marriages. The program
had been produced by the CBC, with Hanna Gartner being the narrator and sole
For the first 20 minutes of the program, not a single married couple in a
traditional family was interviewed. All that was presented were
representatives of aberrational families, single mothers. To be fair,
there were also a few single dads, but all of the single parents were single
by choice, some through the circumstances of divorce. A lesbian couple
in the process of getting married was presented as well. All of them
were made out to be the new norm in society. It was shown what the
problems were that faced them, the struggle of balancing work with caring
for children, the problems arising out of an inadequate single income, the
costs of daycare, and more. The overriding message was that this now
was the new reality, that the anachronism of the traditional nuclear,
two-parent, single-income earner family had been successfully replaced with
the new reality, and that even in two-parent families there were now 70
percent that had two income earners, simply on account of the necessities
arising out of the fact that the average family income had not changed from
its $43,000 per year since about 1984
A few important things were not shown or discussed. It was not
explained that the purchasing power of a $43,000 income is now substantially
less than what it was in 1984, of which, moreover, now a substantially
higher portion has to be paid in taxes. It was mentioned that the
deductions for child expenses that once-upon-a-time could be made of a
taxable income had vanished, along with the universal family allowance.
It was not explained that the increasingly more and more inadequate
purchasing power of the average family income is entirely the result of
deliberately family-hostile government policies.
The program did not show a single male gay couple with children. I
can't blame Hanna Gartner too much for that. Such couples are
exceedingly hard to find. They are very rare in Canada, much more rare
than even the rare instances of lesbian couples with children.
However, Hanna Gartner did not even gloss over that very important omission.
She was much, much too busy promoting the new reality of aberrational
families being the norm.
She could have mentioned that Canada has about 3,000 same-sex
"families" with children. (1) Most of the children
involved in such "families" were born into heterosexual families that later
ended in separation and divorce, and about 2,500 of same-sex "families"
with children are headed by lesbian couples. She could
have asked the man at the source of that information, right in her program.
She extensively and repeatedly interviewed him during the course of her
program, Robert Glossop, of the Vanier Institute of the Family.
To the credit of Hanna Gartner, she asked Robert Glossop about whether there
is anything at all about the traditional nuclear two-parent family that would make
it a better and preferred alternative for the upbringing of children.
Instead of answering that question and to corroborate his answer with hard
and cold facts, Robert Glossop nimbly side-stepped it and engaged himself in a
warm-hearted tirade about the new social reality that the traditional
nuclear family is now more or less a thing of the past, and that therefore
we have an obligation to concentrate on the task at hand to make people that
wish to experiment with alternative life-styles but wish to raise children
loved, liked and welcomed in our brave new world. He didn't put it
exactly into those words, but he said that it was our social responsibility
to welcome all comers that no longer wish to adhere to the standards that
once were the norm.
Robert Glossop could have shown that the escalating epidemic of divorce is
closely connected to the escalation of juvenile crime rates, child poverty,
enormously increasing rates of fetal alcohol syndrome in newly-born
children, catastrophically increasing social and medical costs for the
treatment of such children (the costs of that now exceed the cost of the
national debt), let alone the costs of government-sponsored daycare
programs for children and welfare for single moms that have trouble paying
for daycare out of their minimum wage incomes and therefore have little
choice but to live on government handouts.
Robert Glossop has all of that information right at his fingertips, but he
mentioned none of it. Hanna Gartner did not even mention to him that
he had evaded giving her an appropriate answer to her question.
Nevertheless, given the drift of her program and the fact that it had been
carefully scripted and edited, there is no doubt in my mind that all she had
wanted was to get the answer that Robert Glossop gave her, and that he
Why did Robert Glossop not read his answer right from a report published by
the Vanier Institute for the Family? He had his answer well-memorized.
If he would have read it verbatim, his answer would have been little
...at the civil level, in individualistic, democratic
societies such as Canada and the U.S., everyone is entitled to his or her
religion and moral beliefs about family life. Except for abusing one's
children or one's partner, or practicing polygamy, liberal individualistic
democracies ensure individuals' rights to live their lives and establish
their relationships according to their personal beliefs. But this
democratic right of individuals as family members also presumes an
obligation: the tolerance of the different ways and values of other
families, and this includes same-sex-parent families and couples.
We must remember here that as of now the right that Robert
Glossop assigns to same-sex-parent families and couples is nothing of the
sort. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to rule on it, and
Parliament, although it decided once before that there shall be no such
right, is to vote on it one more time, perhaps as many times as necessary,
until Paul Martin, our prime minister, gets the answer he wishes to receive,
or, alternatively, until he and his party are voted out of office.
Let us also remember that Paul Martin was the finance
minister during much of the time during which increasingly more and more
punitive taxation became a big part of the new Canadian reality for our
Of course, in addition to harried parents with jobs and
children, Hanna Gartner had to illustrate also what life is like in a family
that represents the anachronism that the CBC's social engineering wishes to
do away with, a traditional nuclear family Christian, one income earner,
stay-at home mom (who had foregone a career as a lawyer so she could engage
herself in home schooling her four children, so that the state would not get
the opportunity to indoctrinate them), and a father earning $75,000 a year
(no word on what his take-home pay actually is), a father who said prayers
at dinner time and whose kids cheerfully bade him "bye Dad" when he left for
work, with his wife struggling to get the kids dressed.
In Hanna Gartner's illuminating liberal commentary, that
family properly came across as a religious right-wing extremist family.
The family lives in Calgary, Alberta. We would not want to have the
CBC admit that families like that exist in every Canadian province in far
greater numbers than lesbian "families" with children do. After all,
those traditional families are not the norm that the CBC, our government or
the Vanier Institute of the Family wish to establish.
One of the single mothers interviewed on the program expressed the thought
that she very strongly believes in the concept that it takes a village to
raise children, that it is the responsibility of a community to help single
mothers with that. One quarter of her income goes towards paying for
daycare for her single daughter that she conceived with a man that had a
motor-cycle accident in which he got brain-damaged (upon which she
apparently no longer had any use for him in her life).
Let's never forget that the woman expressed, in different words, precisely
the very sentiments that Marx and Engels expressed in their writings and in
the Manifesto of the Communist Party that they co-authored in 1847/48.
The bourgeois marriage is in reality the community of the wives. One could at best accuse the communists
that (43) instead of a hypocritical, hidden one, they want to introduce an official, open-hearted women's
community (44). Furthermore, it goes without saying that with the abolition of the present circumstances of
production the women's community that results from it, that is, official and unofficial prostitution, will vanish
The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity.
The workers don't have a fatherland. It isn't possible to rob them of what they don't have. Because
the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45),
constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the
....Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation
of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry
[that is, make women part of the labour force --WHS] and that this in turn
demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of
....In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered.
But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant
change. With the transfer of the means of production into common
ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society.
Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and
education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all
children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the
anxiety about the consequences, which today is the most essential social
moral as well as economic factor that prevents a girl from giving
herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring
about the gradual growth of unconstrained sexual intercourse and with it a
more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maidens honor and a womans
shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy
and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable
contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution
disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?
According to Engels, the positions of men and women would be
significantly changed if society adheres to and implements his prescription
for a better society, the socialist state. That is exactly what we
have done and what institutions like our government and the CBC are
promoting. Then the CBC, as directed by taxpayer-funded social
engineers in government and other institutions, can produce programs such as
that re-broadcast by Access TV to educate us in the need for adapting our
lives to the consequences of that calamitous social engineering.
It appears to be of no concern to anyone that the USSR came into existence
on the foundation of the Communist Manifesto and Engels' prescription, that
consequentially it collapsed catastrophically, and that Canada and all other
developed nations that adopted Marx's and Engels' deadly cure for societies
and civilizations that aren't broken to begin with exhibit strong signs of
approaching their catastrophic demise now as well.
After writing about Hanna Gartner's and Robert Glossop's efforts to
contribute what they can to the destruction of the last remnants of the
once-thriving Canadian traditional nuclear families, the foundation of a
once-thriving society, I must wonder what turn the CBC National's program on
family issues would have taken if at its core would not have been the effort
to sugar-coat the sad realities of our brave new world but to tell it as it
is told in the poem "It Takes a Village", at the beginning of this page.
Shame on Hanna Gartner, the CBC, Robert Glossop, Access TV and Athabasca
University for not doing that.
However, there is still hope.
Men speak and dream a lot
of better, coming days;
after an auspicious, golden goal
one can see them running and chasing.
The world grows old and then grows young again,
yet Man hopes always for improvement.
Hope leads man into life,
and it flutters about the cheerful boy.
The young man is enraptured by its magic shine;
it is not buried with the gray-haired old man,
for although his weary run ends in the grave,
he still plants by his grave - Hope.
It is no empty, flattering delusion
created in the minds of fools.
In the heart it proclaims itself loudly:
"We were born for better!"
And that which the inner voice proclaims
will not mislead the hoping soul.
Translation from German to English copyright © by Emily
Based on a text in German by Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805)
- Quoted from a report published by the Vanier
Institute of the Family:
What is more relevant to our discussion below is the 2000 U.S. Census
estimate that 1% of all couples sharing a household (married +
cohabiting) are same-sex ones and the 2001 Canadian census estimate of a
prevalence of 0.5% (Statistics Canada, 2002). It is likely that these
proportions are somewhat higher in reality. Thus, it is among this 1% of
the couple population that we will find those [homosexuals] who will be
seeking marriage and parenthood.
Furthermore, the 1990 U.S. census revealed that about 22% of households
headed by lesbian couples had a child under 18 compared to 6% of those
headed by gay partners (Black et al., 2000). In Canada, the 2001 census
revealed that 15% of households headed by lesbian couples had children
versus 3% among male same-sex households (Statistics Canada, 2002).
Again, these numbers probably underestimate the situation to some
extent. Moreover, these data omit lesbigays who are single (not
partnered) and have a child living with them and those who are married
heterosexually and have a child or children living with them. Black et
al. estimate that over 28% of all lesbians and 14% of all gays have
children living with them. Still, these numbers omit lesbigays whose
ex-spouse has custody of their child or children following a
The exact number of children living with two homosexual parents is not
known. What we know from the 2001 census is that at least 3,000 same-sex
couples are raising children in Canada today. A majority of these
children were born to a mother-father unit [see, it's no longer a
traditional nuclear family --WHS] that ended in divorce and the lesbian
or gay parent obtained custody. Thus, a majority of these children have
another parent who is heterosexual and, presumably, a good proportion of
the children remain in contact with this parent. In addition, other
homosexuals have children from a previous marriage and these children
are in the custody of the non-gay parent....
- Same-Sex Couples and Same-Sex-Parent Families:
Relationships, Parenting, and Issues of Marriage, by
Anne-Marie Ambert (2003); Vanier Institute of the Family:
Questions of morality and religion (the last paragraph of that section
of the report)
Communist Manifesto, by Marx and Engels
- Friedrich Engels' 1884 paper in which "The Origin of
the Family, Private Property and the State" is rolled out.
2001 02 11 (format changes)