General Quotes and Comments
intervenes between the children and the parents, claiming to support
them, protect them, and educate them for its own ampler purposes.
Socialism, in fact, is the State family. The old family of the
private individual must vanish before it ... They are incompatible
with it" [H.G. Wells, Socialism and the Family, 1906].
"Bring up the child in
an atmosphere of a widely developed Socialist family"
Kollontai, People's Commissaire, Decree: Child Welfare, 2nd
Principle, Department for Safeguarding Motherhood and Infancy, 31
"We must remove the
children from the crude influence of their families. We must take
them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them"
given at a congress of Soviet educators in 1918, cited in Sheldon
Richman, Separating School and State: How to Liberate America's
Families, p.xv, quoted at
"When an opponent
declares, 'I will not come over to your side', I calmly say, 'Your
child belongs to us already. ... What are you? You will pass on.
Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short
time they will know nothing else but this new community.'"
[Adolph Hitler, speech given 06
November 1933, quoted at
"This new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take
youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing"
[Adolph Hitler, 01 May 1937, quoted at
"[The Soviet family] is
an organic part of Soviet society. Parents are not without authority
... but this authority is only a reflection of social authority. ...
In our country he alone is a man of worth whose needs and desires
are the needs and desires of a collectivist. ... Our family offers
rich soil for the cultivation of such collectivism"
theorist Anton S. Makarenko, The Collective Family, A Handbook
for Russian Parents, 1967, pp.xi-xii, p.42, quoted at
"The first thing
that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children,
to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families,
and indoctrinate them in their rulers' view of the world"
Court, Judgment, The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord
Advocate (Scotland), 28 July 2016, para. 73,
"No woman should be
authorised to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be
totally different. Women should not have the choice, precisely
because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that
one" [Simone de Beauvoir, quoted at
"A variety of ways have
been suggested for reducing [women's] desire for babies. One
commonly suggested proposal to achieve this goal is greater
encouragement of labor-force participation by women. ... [Perhaps
girls could] be given an electric shock whenever they see a picture
of an adorable baby until they very thought of motherhood becomes
anathema to them" [Jessie Bernard, quoted at
"If we want to talk
about equality of opportunity for children, then the fact that
children are raised in families means there's no equality. ... In
order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them" [Dr. Mary Jo Bane, in Dolores
Barclay, The Family: It's Surviving and Healthy, in 'Tulsa
World, 21 August 1977, quoted at
"Ever since Plato, the
idea of capturing the hearts and minds of children has fascinated
social planners. ... Hilary Clinton summarised the attitude well when she
insisted Americans 'have to start thinking and believing that there
isn't really any such thing as someone else's child'. In her book,
It Takes A Village, she reveals that babies of all classes
are born in a state of crisis so profound that immediate state
intervention is required. They need immediate aid from the 'helping
professions' [aka the Professional Busybodies and the Child Snatchers'] since even wealthy parents
feel stress and 'we know that babies sense the stress'. If ever
there was a utopian goal for government, the elimination of parental
stress must be it. Like so many progressives, Clinton seems ignorant
of how her ideas might come across to people who don't already agree
with her. For instance, those with a memory of Orwell's 1984 might
be disturbed by her idea that the government should mount giant
television screens wherever 'people gather and have to wait'. The
screens would play, on a continuous loop, official instructions on
how to care for your children. Across the Western world, the
politically correct micro-managing of daily life continues to
intensify. ... In Australia last month [Dec 2008], a local
government ruled that its beaches must be cleansed of sharp
seashells that might cut children's feet" [Jonah Goldberg, Daily
Mail, 04 January 2009].
"This has been going on
for decades and it's part of the Marxist/socialist agenda to break
the family unit, straight from the Frankfurt School of Socialist
Policy. It operates in this country [UK] as the Common Purpose
Charity, a 5th column in the UK and rife in our local authorities
and the establishment [Comment
had a kind of private notion of children: 'Your kid is yours and
totally your responsibility.' We haven't had a very collective
notion [that] these are our children. So, part of it
is, we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids
belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and
recognise that kids belong to whole communities"
[Melissa Harris-Perry, MSNBC host,
'Lean Forward' at
thinks that, after they're born, children fundamentally belong to
the state. ... if, as Harris-Perry holds, '[t]he cost to raise a
child [is] $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year', and if children
should be viewed as collectively 'owned' by 'society', then taken to
its logical extension, a woman's choices about having a child should
be informed by the economic considerations of the 'community', would
it not? But of course, that logic would take someone to justify, for
example, the 'one-child' policy in Communist China. What's morre, the notion of collective responsibility for children
was a philosophy that undergirded the Cultural Revolution in
Communist China under Chairman Mao. I bring that up because, as you
may recall, another Harris-Perry 'Lean Forward' spot contains a
reference to a 'great leap forward', which calls to mind the
disastrous agricultural reform plan which starved millions of
Chinese to death in the 1950s"
"First it was Hillary
Clinton's It Takes a Village to raise children by community
effort and cost. Now it's über-leftist Melissa Harris-Perry who says
it takes a 'community' to care for children. By 'community' she
means the State. ... Like all good liberals, Harris-Perry believes
that she and her cadre of social do-gooders are better equipped to
raise other people's children, ... Former Texas Republican senator
Phil Gramm tells the story about the time he was on an interview
show with an educationalist elitist who held to a worldview similar
to that of Harris-Perry. He told her, 'My educational policies are
based on the fact that I care more about my children than you do'.
She said, 'No, you don't'. Gramm replied, 'Okay, what are their
"When liberals say,
'It's everybody's responsibility', they really mean it's the State's
responsibility to be paid for by everybody. ... When a liberal says
something about 'making better investments', we have to
automatically assume that the government - the State - must involve
itself in the life of children so they are taught so-called
Progressive ideals, with money confiscated from working families and
implemented by the State" [source].
"No where in the Bible does it say kids belong to the community.
They in fact do not. They really do not 'belong' to anyone but God
and themselves. But God, knowing children's inexperience, gave them
to parents, to bring them up and raise them in a Godly fashion and
guide them throughout life. Children belong to God first, their
parents second, the church third, and the corrupt government never.
It has always been the parents' job to educate and disciple
[discipline?] their children, the church usually helped in this
process, but the [decisions] were always ultimately left up to the
parents. ... Yes, support your local kids, love them and care for
them, but remember, you are not their parents, respect their parents
and leave [decision] making to them and God, it's none of your
business" [comment at
"'Increasingly, decisions about our children's wellbeing are being
taken out of our hands. Not just education, but sex, health,
lifestyle, even political life is taught to children by people
outside the home.' That is the nature of the New World Order. You
can't build a new society without first dismantling the old one and
to do that you need to destroy the family unit and take control of
the children" [comment at
agenda has been pushed for many decades now. Radical social
engineering is a big part of why we now readily part with our own
babies and toddlers, giving them to complete strangers to look after
during their most crucial stages of life" [source].
"We know that as the family goes, so
goes the nation. No society can survive without strong families.
That is why the enemies of society in the West have always worked so
hard, targeting families. Once the family is weakened or destroyed,
so will be the nation. All the radicals have known this.
Vladimir Lenin said, 'Destroy the family, destroy the nation.'
Simone de Beauvoir said the family is an 'obscene bourgeois
institution'. All these radicals worked overtime to see the family
undermined and decimated. Thus the defence of the family is always a
fundamental task of the rest of us. ... [O]ur first duty is to
protect and promote the most enduring, the most valuable, and the
most child-friendly institutions known to man"
"Family is about children and their welfare. An attack on family is
an attack on children, for family is the fortress and well being of
children" [comment at
"I wrote a book a few years ago about
religion and science and I summarised the difference between them in
two sentences: 'Science takes things apart to see how they work.
Religion puts things together to see what they mean'. And
that's a way of thinking about culture also. Does it put things
together or does it take them apart? What made the traditional
family remarkable, ... is what it brought together: sexual drive,
physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and
love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their
early education and induction into an identity and a history. Seldom
has any institution woven together so many different drives and
desires, roles and responsibilities. It made sense of the world and
gave it a human face, the face of love. For a whole variety of
reasons, ... some to do with moral change like the idea that we are
free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some
to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the
state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the
West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now
been split apart. ... This is creating a divide within societies the
like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of 'two
nations' a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow
up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them
into being will, on average, be healthier physically and
emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will
have more successful relationships , be happier and live longer.
And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all
cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic
instances of what Friedrich Hayek called 'the fatal conceit' that
somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the
lessons of biology and history. ... [O]ur compassion for those who
live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the
single most humanising institution in history. The family, man,
woman, and child, is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the
best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations
and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It
is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how
to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is
where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is
where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the
continuity of a civilization. For any society, the family is the
crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children's future,
we must be its defenders" [source].
"The UK Government is committed to
tackling childcare as an obstacle to women's economic activity
[EMcD: please see
this article for the communist origin of this thinking].
It launched the Out of School Childcare Grant Initiative in April
1993 to offer parents of school aged children the opportunity to
participate more fully in the labour market, by increasing the
quantity and quality of out of school childcare. 45 million is being
channelled through Training and Enterprise Councils (LECs in
Scotland), with the aim of creating up to 50,000 new after school
holiday places for children under 5 years of age" [source].
"Stop the nationalisation of the
family. Subsidised childcare is cynically used by politicians
desperate to force more women out to work as a short-term fix for
deep-seated economic problems. It is also favoured by the kind of
high-flying women who become career politicians, but is not wanted
by the majority of women, who consistently say in surveys they would
like to spend more time with the children rather than going out to
work. However, it effectively nationalises both the role of the
father and the mother, with long term very damaging
consequences: as the state increasingly assumes the role of
provider, both sexes start to see fathers as superfluous to family
life, and single parenthood increases"
"Another SNP measure hits at the
autonomy of the family. This is the Named Persons Act, which
provides for the state to appoint a named guardian, usually a social
worker or teacher, for every child and adolescent in Scotland. This
is, of course, dressed up as a means of providing protection for
vulnerable children and young people. Who, they say, could possibly
object to this? The answer is anyone who believes parents are better
judges of their children's interests than the state or social
workers. The SNP claims parents and children have asked for these
guardians, but, for me, the assumption is clear: parents can't be
trusted and children belong not to their parents but to the state,
just as in Mao's China" [source].
"Early intervention is driven by the
power of wishful thinking. The notion that there is a window of
opportunity before the age of three within which adults can
decisively influence infantile development is an old dogma of
psychoanalysis now dubiously reinforced by speculative neuroscience.
Massive research into Sure Start has confirmed that the evidence for
its efficacy is very weak - yet it is stronger than that for any
other form of early intervention. The downside of early intervention
is that it pathologises whole communities, inevitably communities
that already suffer poverty and neglect. By replacing family and
social links with therapeutic relationships between targeted
individuals and professionals, early intervention further undermines
personal resilience. Rather than strengthening individuals and
communities, it renders them more atomised and more dependent on
state support" [source].
correct Britain you can starve and beat a child and very little is
done, but if you have the wrong political views children will be
taken from you immediately. If you work in education as I do, or any
public sector job, you are in grave danger of losing your job if you
express the wrong political views. Children in our schools are
immediately withdrawn or suspended if they break the taboos of
political correctness in relation to race or gender. Young children
are reported to the police for saying the wrong things in the
playground, especially if it is related to Islam or immigration. The
agencies of the state are very quick to crush dissent and any
questioning of the multiracial utopia they are creating. However
when it comes to a starving and beaten four-year-old whose parents
are immigrants the agencies of the state are not so quick to act" [source].
"Of course we should not
be surprised by this, shocking as it is. We have recently witnessed
the systematic rape and sexual abuse of young white girls by
Pakistani men all over the country, and the police and social
services simply refused to intervene in order to ensure good race
relations and 'community cohesion'. When both the police and social
services were finally forced to take action they made sure that the
ethnicity of the perpetrators was kept well under wraps and denied
that this had anything to do with Islam when it became obvious to
all that those involved were men of Pakistani origin. There is no
question that children continue to be let down by the agencies
designed to protect them and it is clear that much of this is to do
with political correctness, especially where immigrants are
concerned. The whole system is rotten and must be replaced by decent
people not infected with the disease of political correctness and
"The nanny state ... so obsessed with Political Correctness, box
ticking, form filling, they have missed the bigger picture, the
health and wealth of the children they are supposed to be helping.
Time for Nanny state to back off and let parents make decisions"
"Parliament should assert clearly that parents not the State has
[sic] responsibility, primarily, for their own children. But has not
Parliament itself legislated for the very laws that have, bit by
bit, undermined this totally essential, natural situation where it
is the parent who first and foremost has both control and
responsibility for the child. We have a way too mighty State that
needs shrinking, and at the same time everyone must be told to step
up and take personal responsibility for their own offspring. This is
[a] huge cultural and legal problem that we need to chip away at,
bit by bit, to shrink the State and 'grow' responsibility amongst
the relatively few who have insufficient"
"A system that does not recognize the
existence of male and female would be free to ignore the parentage
of any child. You might be recognized as your child's 'legal
guardian', but only if the state agrees to that. Anybody can be a
guardian to your child if the state decides it's in the child's
'best interest'. In this vision, there is nothing to prevent
the state from severing the mother-child bond at will. In such a
scenario, the state controls all personal relationships right at
their source: the biological family. The abolition of family
autonomy would be complete, because the biological family would
cease to be a default arrangement. The 'family' would be whatever
the state allows it to be" [source].
"The true goal of the left is to
decimate Christianity; they intend to do this by any means, even if
the price is Sharia law. Socialism always starts out with noble
intentions but ends in tyranny. Collectivism = Communism/Socialism =
Totalitarianism (as delineated by Sartre to Marx to Mao to Stalin
right on up to Obama). By definition, collectivism degrades the
status of the individual and places salvation as an exclusive
phenomenon of collective humanity, with the individual having zero
status. This is why the collective left is perfectly willing to
accept as moral the cold blooded murder of hundreds of millions of
individuals under Communist dictators... not to mention the cold
blooded murder of the unborn in holocaustic proportion.
Collectivism/Socialism decimates the whole concept of a personal
relationship with Almighty God; it absolves personal responsibility
and degrades the individual to a simply algorithmic sub-process in
the overall scheme. Collectivism (Socialism) is indeed the
antithesis of Christianity" [comment at
University of Central Lancashire
Study: "Based on FOI requests to 114 local councils, [the
University's study] showed that, since Baby P, there has been a huge
increase in the number of cases where social workers have intervened
because of 'concerns' raised by teachers, health visitors, doctors
or members of the public that something suspicious might be going
on, even if this may be only a small bruise on an arm or a neighbour
overhearing a mother and father shouting at each other. Thanks to
such 'referrals' ... social workers investigated no fewer than one
in five of all children born in 2009/10. But ... many of the
cases I have investigated over the years were set off like this,
leading to tragic outcome where social workers successfully based
their case almost entirely on those initial ill-founded suspicions,
without having to produce any further evidence to support them" [source].
"If an unaccountable omnipotent state
can take away the power of life from babies what else can it also
'justify' taking away? ... Then there is the rest f the population.
Why not neglect the old, infirm and poor because it is the cheaper
"[A]ny trial should be in front of a
jury to deal with the question of fact and to decide what is morally
correct. Twelve good me (or women) and true are more likely to
understand the major issue here, that a hospital (backed by the
state) is trying to legally kill a British citizen [sic] and human
"The court decided that Charlie's
best interests could not be represented by his own parents, and
appointed a 'guardian' to represent him ... was it necessary to
appoint a guardian ...? There was no disagreement between Charlie's
parents, who believed ... that 'they, as his parents, should speak
for Charlie in court hearings that are deciding his fate'. This
accords with the government website on 'Parental rights and
responsibilities', which lists 'agreeing to the child's medical
treatment' as a parental responsibility - and of course, every
responsibility has a reciprocal right" [source].
"GOSH has irreparably tarnished its
reputation by allowing its doctors to play [G]od. The only people
who have the right to decide Charlie's future are the two who
brought him into the world, not doctors, the hospital, judges or
juries. If these parents had been responsible for injuring the baby,
they would have been arrested, charged, tried and punished by
officials who would have held them responsible for causing him harm.
How, then, can it be justified for officials to prevent the parents
taking him abroad to try to save his life? This is a travesty of
justice, appalling hypocrisy and double standards" [comment at
"There is something very sick and
wrong with a society that ignores the trauma, terror, pain and
grievous bodily harm caused every day to little girls suffering FGM,
yet expends so much time, energy and the full force of the law to
intimidate and frustrate loving parents who want to find help for
their baby" [comment at
"A shocking case [re Charlie Gard] in
which some person or persons unknown, with the power to do so,
decided that the child would die, no matter how hard the parents
tried to save him. There is something very disturbing about the
refusal of every authority to relent on the grounds of compassion,
and the failure of the government to interceded on the grounds of
the laws cited [in this article]" [comment at
"In both the Ashya King and Charlie
Gard cases the parents were plainly loving, well-informed, capable,
ingenious and resourceful parents. As such they should have been
free to take advice from any doctors they chose, then act according
to their best judgment in the interests of their child. To me it
seems blindingly obvious that the critical decisions that had to be
made were parental. And therefore should have been theirs" [comment
Social Care: A Poem
become apparent that, in this modern day,
our health and social services are rife with compliancy.
"And if you
dare to tell them, this system isn't right,
Prepare yourself for battle; you're going to have a fight.
and turn the subject; to them we're all the same,
They will take away your dignity, and blacken your good name.
you'll be abandoned, to suffer a bureaucratic fate,
Targeted by the social sharks; that use our babies as bait.
destruction of the family will be their only goal,
It has become apparent: the social care system has no soul"
"God gave children to parents,
the State, to love, nurture, teach, discipline, and train up into adulthood. It does
not take a 'village' or the
'Collective' or State-run 'Care' homes to raise a
child; it takes a loving and biological/adoptive/foster family.
Please see the article
Communism and the Family for the ideology underlying the
"The issues are:... [continue
"And he that stealeth [a child], and selleth him..."
"The words of a talebearer
are as wounds,
and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly"
"Every fool will be meddling ... Withdraw thy foot
from thy neighbour's house:
lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee"
(Proverbs 20:3b; 25:17)
thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope
of a fool than of him"
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
and that write grievousness which they have prescribed"
"Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!
when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the
power of their hand. ...
So they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage"
is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through
whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he cast into the sea,
than that he should offend one of these little ones"
"Let none of you suffer ... as a busybody in other
(1 Peter 4:15)
anywhere in the Holy Bible will you find God giving civil government
authority to rear or direct the rearing of children ...
God told parents, not the government, to 'train up' their children."
(Laura Rogers, Societal Structures vs. Restructuring, as quoted in Berit
Kjos, Brave New Schools, p185)
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position.