Saturday, June 13, 2009

Rake's Progress

My regular readers may recall an earlier post in which I replied to an article in the Guardian written by Dr Katherine Rake, then head of the Fawcett Society. Reference

It seems that Rake has now moved on to a new job as head of the "Family and Parenting Institute, a heavily state-financed organisation set up by Labour to speak for parents and children" Reference

"The organisation was set up in 1999 by then Home Secretary Jack Straw to shore up family life and encourage parents.

Last year it received nearly £8million from Ed Balls's Department for Children, Schools and Families towards its declared mission of 'supporting parents in bringing up children'.

Dr Rake, who will take over from the Institute's founding chief executive Mary MacLeod, has long declared her intention is not to support parents as they are, but to revolutionise their lives."

The appointment of Dr Rake, who is likely to earn £60,000 a year, comes at a time of growing pressure on mothers to go out to work.

Despite overwhelming evidence that a majority would prefer to stay home to bring up young children, ministers have piled pressure on them to take jobs and warned that those who fail to do so, and who rely on the income of a husband or partner, are likely to face poverty".

As one of the comments on the article asks, "Is this some sort of joke?"

It is like putting the Taliban in charge of girls' education.

"'Katherine Rake's agenda is more about reversing sex roles than helping parents.'"

The thing which is most breathtaking about ideologues like Rake is their moral arrogance, and their willingness to coerce others to accept an agenda they do not want. They know better than the rest of us. They are possessed of special arcane knowledge. The working class are suffering from false consciousness and cannot be allowed to make decisions for themselves. They need revolutionary leaders like Rake to tell them what to do.

This attitude was best summed up by Simone de Beauvoir in her now-notorious interview with Betty Friedan. "We don't believe that any women should have this choice [of staying at home with her children]. No woman should be authorised to stay at home with her children. If there is such a choice then too many women will make that one". Reference. It is worth noting that both Friedan and De Beauvoir were committed communists. De Beauvoir at that time was an admirer of Mao, the greatest mass murderer in history.

She was also a paedophile according to a recent biography 'A Dangerous Liaison', by Carole Seymour-Jones (Century, 2008). One reviewer described it thus: "Simone de Beauvoir and lover Jean-Paul Sartre, whose writing paved the way for our Godless permissive times, lived private lives of utter depravity. Today, she would be behind bars for her sexual activities with her young pupils, but in those days she got away with it." Reference

Yet this woman remains a powerful inspiration to the feminist movement.

Having previously collaborated with Mary Daly, who advocates mass extermination of men, Rake has taken over De Beauvoir's totalitarian mantle, and is on a taxpayer-funded mission to 'revolutionise' the family.

I would like to ask Rake: What if we don't want our families to be revolutionised? All the evidence shows that this is the case.

'Tough', Rake would no doubt reply, 'it's for your own good, and the long-term good of society'. OK, let's assume she is right. There is still the small issue of consent, something that feminists are usually very keen on demanding for themselves: 'My body, my choice'. Apparently, women are the only ones who are allowed to exercise consent, and only in their dealings with men, in order to refuse heterosexual relations. The rest of the time, according to feminists, even women are not allowed to choose for themselves either.

The situation is this. Rake is going to forcibly transform our families. There is coercion involved, but it us for our own good. Here are a couple of analogies.

I remember reading a news story a few years ago about a burglar in Germany who broke into people's houses and cleaned up. He would literally clean the house, and then leave. Arguably, he was doing the owners a favour, leaving the house in a better condition than he had found it. There are two points to make about this. Firstly, this behaviour is regarded as so strange that the man in question is judged to be mentally ill. The fact that he entered the house without the owners' consent means that he is judged to be a criminal. Secondly, would you want that guy to visit your house? If you found that he had paid you a visit, would you be pleased? Of course not. You would feel that your life had been violated. Choice had been taken away from you.

Here is a second, entirely fictional, analogy. You are walking down the street. Suddenly an unmarked Transit van screeches to a stop next to you. Some large men jump out and bundle you into the back. It speeds off. You find yourself taken to a secret government facility. You are tied to a table. You are being prepared for surgery. The needle goes into your arm. You are trying to scream with fear, but no sound is coming out...

You wake up, and you feel OK, a little different, but OK. A kind nurse explains to you that the government has implanted an electronic device into your brain. The effect of this device is that you are now 50% more intelligent than you were before. They give you a cup of tea and they let you go home.

How would you like that?

That is the kind of deal that feminists are offering, with regard to your family. They are going to drive a coach and horses through your human rights, but it's OK, it's for your own good.

This is nothing new. That has been the essential message of the political Left for generations.

I say to Rake, 'My family, my choice'. Get your hands off my personal life. I'm quite capable of choosing for myself, thank you very much.

I also say to Rake: What if you are wrong? Have you ever thought of that? What if your vision of the family turns out not to be viable, and you cause more problems than you solve?

These grandiose dreams of engineering a perfect world are always flawed. They never work. Twentieth Century history shows us that they result in mountains of corpses at every turn. The great philosopher Karl Popper said, "Those who promise us heaven on earth have only ever delivered hell". Reference

Left-wingers must know their plans are dubious and unpopular, otherwise, why the coercion? If what you are offering is so great, why doesn't everyone choose it?

The reality will be that, although the burglar has washed the dishes and swept the floor, he has also stolen your valuables. Although you are more intelligent, you stand a good chance of dying on the table, or losing the ability to see. The government will then form a blindness support group and make you a member, using even more taxpayers' money, employing even more cronies, and requiring even more State intervention in your life.

This is more or less what Rake is doing now. The organisation that she is leading was only formed in the first place in order to try to ameliorate the worst effects of the damage to family life that Left-wing policy had already wreaked.

It is like the government paying someone to cut you, and then paying someone else to stitch the wound, and then charging you for both.

De Beauvoir was far from unique. The kind of people who advocate these hare-brained schemes are generally a bunch of freaks and wierdos, misfits with desperately unhappy lives themselves, and who nonetheless deign to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. A historian friend of mine was discussing the Crusades and remarked, 'Only mad people go on Crusades'. Rake, Harman and the rest of the feminazi mob are on a crusade to 'revolutionise' your personal life - and you are paying them for it. £60,000 a year in Rake's case.

Have you got the message yet? Through your taxes, you are paying her to destroy your family. You have no choice in the matter.

"The chairman of the National Parenting Institute is Fiona Millar, long-term partner of Tony Blair's former spokesman Alastair Campbell.

She said that Dr Rake 'has a strong track record in research, policy and campaigning and will be a great asset to the organisation at a time when the recession is putting extra pressure on families up and down the country'"

Rake's appointment shows, even more, the need to remove the Labour Party from government.


JimmyGiro said...

Yikes, her husband probably uses hemp-paper bags... at least once anyhow!

BrusselsLout said...

And Nick Griffin next for race relations.

I doubt if Boy Cameron will have the guts to reverse anything he thinks is "unpolitical", but this present lot must still be made to pay the price of their incompetence.

Anonymous said...

My comment did not make it to the Mail but I think it bears repeating. It went something like this (I repeat from memory):

'We want to transform the most intimate and private relations between women and men.' This little charming phrase reveals all we need to know about the totalitarian, bone-chilling Soviet style mindset of the likes of Dr. Rake. She is among those who do not read George Orwell's 1984 as a stark warning to us all. She reads it as a manual...

Heretic said...

Good comment. I liked it.

KARMA said...

i will never vote Labor again.