27nov98 Ivor Catt
In a recent email to Erin Pizzey I wrote that the traditional family survives if it is shown that it is not over-prone to violence. However, two factors make me revise that statement.
1. David Yarwood produces numerous research findings, which indicate significant violence by wives as well as by husbands.
2. The domestic violence industry is driven to inflate the statistics on violence, and also to broaden the definition.
Of particular significance is research finding of the massive rate of violence in lesbian relationships. Also I find his reporting of a great deal of violence in society at large (outside the traditional family) to be significant.
As background, I should mention the AIDS industry and the Global Warming Industry, each worth about 4 billion dollars per year. I was amazed to come across convergence in their development. The general descriptor for study of these growing industries is "Public Choice Theory". In the former case, the failure of AIDS incidence to increase sufficiently has put enormous pressure on AIDS professionals to falsify the statistics, partly by broadening the definition of AIDS. In particular, the clinical definition of AIDS in Africa is different from the clinical definition of AIDS in the West. This is concrete evidence of manipulation in a way that has never before occurred. (The AIDS industry is far larger than any previous medical scam.) In spite of this, the numbers still fail to increase enough to justify the continued employment of all the AIDS parasites (human type). Also, there is clear evidence that AIDS is an iatrogenic disease; diagnosis leads to treatment which in its turn creates the symptoms, and which treatment also causes death. (Look up the side effects of AZT in a medical book.) In the latter case, the Global Warming Industry seems to rely on polemic and the strangulation of reporting of scholarly research on global warming. After many years of failing to find any competent, scholarly research results, I have finally found Climate Change ed. Julian Morris, pub. IEA dec97, tel. 0171 799 3745. "If 'big' research plays its cards right, it may be allowed to research climate change for another decade or so. It will continue to predict warming by relatively simple mathematical computations that are easily manipulated." - p69. "In the climate change debate, political and economic pressures have corrupted the scientific process." - p73. The evidence for climate change is inconclusive, and the economic damage to Bangladesh by reducing economic growth will probably exceed damage from global warming induced flooding. However, the proper conclusion today is that vacuum exists rather than scholarly analysis and discussion. Similarly for AIDS. Why are those employed and "concerned" about these issues so keen to suppress proper discussion?
The revenge of the unintended consequence.Started by sexually dysfunctional, power crazy radical feminists, the man-bashing cloaked as concern about child sexual abuse and marital violence served their perverted interests for two decades. However, like all witch-crazes, it finally, recently, burst forth to submerge all, including radical feminists, who include many lesbians. I attended a meeting of Quakers, and was astonished to find that the sixteen dear old ladies present (there being only two men present) were hyping themselves up to the idea that they harboured latent, unknown, tendency to sexually abuse children when they left the Quaker Meeting to teach Quaker Sunday School in the next room. The children needed to be chaperoned! Thus, these manipulative processes finally burst out to enmesh us all. It must be particularly galling for a somewhat lesbian Radical Feminist movement to have forced out into the open the reporting by lesbians that 52% of them have experienced violence in their lesbian relationships. Similarly, the aggressiveness of the homosexual movement forces into the public gaze the fact that the expectation of life of a homosexual is 45 years. It would have been far better if they had held their tongues and gained sympathy, rather than fought for equal recognition, and promotion to children, of a lifestyle whose practitioners are doomed, as are smokers. Promotion of a lifestyle centred on sodomy equates with promotion of smoking. (This is linked, to a minor degree, with the fact that AIDS will continue to fail to break out of the ghetto.)
The compendium of research results furnished by David Yarwood leads me to reappraisal of my suspicion that little violence exists in the traditional family. Already, public planning includes a massive building programme to house the large percentage of the population that will be living alone in the near future. Does the violence and sexual abuse propaganda lead us to decide that humans must live alone; that it is too dangerous to live with another human? That appears to be the crucial research study for the immediate future. At that point, comparative analysis of violence inside the traditional family with violence to and by people excluded from the traditional family needs to be made. (There seems to be an assumption that a father driven from his home never suffers or inflicts violence elsewhere.) If, as now (probably exaggeratedly) reported, 20% of violence is in the traditional home, then the home seems to be much safer than anywhere else, since so much time is spent in the home. Mark Twain said the most dangerous place was in bed, since most people died in bed.
Backlash against fraudulent "statistics" on violence and sexual abuse put out by radical feminists has led their (more or less totally censored) opponents (including Erin Pizzey) to produce equally valid figures of equal or greater amounts of violence and sexual abuse by women. This forces us to do two things.
1. Definition. We have to tighten up on definition and also on statistics gathering, in order to try to reduce all figures being bandied about, not just increase figures on misbehaving women up to and beyond misbehaviour by men.
2. Where is safer? We have to consider proper public policy if the currently accepted, continually increasing, figures are correct. The proper course is not to drive men out of homes. It is to drive women out as well. Current policies based on current "statistics" lead to the conclusion that for safety, each must live alone. However, fallout from further work on current statistics indicates that violence is pandemic outside, as well as inside, the traditional home. So if we remove people from the traditional family, on the basis of current statistics, do they and those left behind become safer? Current falsified statistics, taken in toto, indicate that a man evicted from his home is immediately assaulted in the street, and his truncated family is burgled, his wife raped and his children abused by an intruder. Is it logical to drive men out of their homes if those same statistics supposedly justifying that action lead to more injury to all parties? Of particular interest is the child taken into care as a result of "inappropriate behaviour" by an adult in the home (part of the definition of child sexual abuse in a recent book on the subject, behaviour unspecified,) is taken into care, where the probability of its being sexually abused is very high, and the known statistics for later outcome for children in care make extremely grim reading.
What I am arguing is that we should not merely defend against each false statistic in isolation. We should feel free to take the totality of the idiotic world view of such as Dworkin, and apply logic to her deluded view of society. Her own expansion of the definition of violence drags so a large proportion of women into being classed as violent. Logic does not drive us to exclude men from society. Logic leads us to requiring that each person live alone. That will increase poverty enormously, and poverty is linked to abuse of various kinds. It will also lead to a massive increase of possible abuse of children in care, and certainly very poor final outcome for children in care.
Power is not with those who cry, "wolf". Power and control is with those who begin to demand proper definition of terms.
A further thought. We need discussion as to the level of violence (or of sexual abuse) which would justify intervention by the state into a family, with all the concomitant risk of damage to family members (ending up in care etc.). A proper analysis of damage in dysfunctional families contrasted with damage in care or damage to homeless men needs to be made.
I personally feel that economic damage from intervening in families needs to be researched. I know many men who will never earn again on the white economy, as protest against the state's intervention in their family. However, such research is perhaps asking too much of our currently deranged society. I note that lawyers all refuse to advise on a viable course of action for one who has been the target of perjured charges in our secret courts. (See my book The Hook and the Sting, on this website. It is agreed that perjury is rampant in our courts.)