We are all familiar with Lord Acton’s statement about how “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” but it is important to consider the context in which he expressed it in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, April 1887:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”
— Dalberg-Acton, John Emerich Edward (1949), Essays on Freedom and Power, Boston: The Becon Press, p. 364
Therefore, should anyone trust an agenda like this without having any reservations?
“President Obama is committed to helping states develop seamless, comprehensive, and coordinated ‘Zero to Five’ systems to improve developmental outcomes and early learning for all children….it will be the goal of this Administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education — from the day they are born to the day they begin a career.”
— “Fact Sheet: Expanding the Promise of Education in America,” Mar 10, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Fact-Sheet-Expanding-the-Promise-of-Education-in-America
see also: Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery Address to Joint Session of Congress, Tuesday, February 24th, 2009,
To which I only have to add this:
First they came for the fathers, then for the mothers, and now for both parents in intact families. In the end all children will be in the care, custody and control of the State.
By then it won’t matter anymore whether the control by the State will be in the hands of feminists or not.
Robert H. Bork had it right:
“Feminism is not about giving women freedom to choose; it is about taking away choices of which feminists disapprove. And one choice they disapprove is participation in a conventional family.” — in ‘Slouching Towards Gomorrah : Modern Liberalism and American Decline’ p. 204
That only describes how the tool for getting it done is being used to abolish the sovereignty of the family and to transfer it into the hands of the State.
I don’t think that anyone should look forward to that project ever being completed. We will all be bankrupt, morally and financially, long before its completion, even though it seems almost finished now.
Just think of it. That aspect of the long process for abrogating the family took only about 130 years, but without it it would not have been possible to have much success with achieving the main objective of socialism, to destroy civilized society by equalization. The process began in earnest when Bismarck mandated government-funded pensions and universal health-care insurance in 1883, from where the idea spread like a wild fire. That is when it was decided that families were no longer required because the government would take over.
I don’t want to beat this to death and stretch it out too far, but it is a sad reality that the driving force of that were the ideas of Marx and Engels. The German government was very much influenced by those ideas, because it was forced to preempt a communist take-over, by adopting socialist ideas — as incredible as that may seem, during the reign of an ostensibly absolute monarch, the Kaiser. However, those very trends were a threat then in all developed nations, and that is why the perceived solution was so eagerly accepted elsewhere.
There is not one of all of us who is unaware of the consequences of the deliberate deconstruction of the traditional nuclear family. We live with them, and they form the steadily tightening constraints that affect the quality of our lives.