Recently, R. told me of the woman who discussed her marriage breakdown. She said that she and her ex-husband connived to falsely tell the C.S.A. that he was violent. This would secure more government funding for her. When R. told her that for fiscal gain she had connived in a lie which would add to the C.S.A.'s figures for violent husbands, which in turn would cut off R.'s children from him, she collapsed in tears.

My mind went back to my wife coming into the bedroom where I was lying in bed; lying down in tears, and saying; "I never intended to destroy you." This was after she had consulted a radical feminist lawyer Frances Hughes.

The underlying error was that radical feminists failed to establish the fundamentals of their sitation.

The root core of their world has the following two elements;

To take power, it is necessary to expropriate property. However, to retain power, it is necessary, either for the new masters to themselves create wealth, or to enable a subordinate class to create wealth.

No feminist literature has ever mentioned wealth creation.

Many years ago, my wife was stoking up her feminist quotient by doing a second degree in Sussex University entitled "Women's Studies." I met her lecturers, and told them that they had to gain information on the 'sunrise industries'; that if women only fought their way into the old, declining professions, they would always lag behind. (I worked in a sunrise industry which later became defunct, but this could not be foreseen.) The lecturers were dismissive, calling me a male chauvinist pig.

When employed in G.E.C. Borehamwood in the 1970's, the brains behind the concept of Nimrod Early Warning told me that there existed two classes of men; the wealth creators and the looters. A similar concept existed after the second world war, when a class of 'looters' was called "Spivs". Men have always divided into these two classes. The idea recurs in my 1973 book entitled "Computer Worship" in the chapter called "The Management-Technocracy guerilla war". Designers like me see such wide boys, for whom we have no respect, as being largely parasitic, riding on the back of us and of society. These concepts do not exist in feminist literature.

Study of feminist literature makes it clear that radical feminists envy the looters, and resent being kept out of their professions. Radical feminists never wanted employment in my profession, computer design, or in any other wealth-creating activity. Talk about 'Body Shop' is tokenism, and the activity is marginal in our discussion.

The reason why the radical feminist takeover is transitional is buried in these concepts.

I have only now realised that a necessary pre-condition for the confiscation of all my assets and income, as now occurs in divorce, was the destruction of my reputation. It was necessary, not accidental, that all my children develop contempt for me. However, contempt from my children was insufficient. As a divorcing father who was to be expropriated, it was necessary for my reputation to be destroyed from the perspective of all arms of society.

Expropriation has to be validated. Thus, it has to occur under cover of the demonisation of the expropriated. The case of the demon's children warrants close study. This is partly because here we will discover the reason why our present system cannot survive in the long term, since it is inherently inconsistent. It requires both the myth of the father/husband as powerful patriarch, and at the same time as contemptible and helpless.

As the divorce process begins, a child is still lodged with the myth of the patriarchal, all-powerful father. The child thus kills two or three birds with one stone by protecting the mother against the domineering father. In this process, child sees father as needing no support or protection.

Later in the process, the teenager, who Barbara Amiel recently said possesses self interest in its purest form, must look to its own survival. Now finding that the father is powerless, it develops contempt for the father. This is easy, because the individual father has failed to fulfil his role, of powerful patriarch who protects all parts of the family. At the same time, the child ensures its own survival by adhering to the power centre, which is the mother. Thus, we will see initial attacks on the father in the process of the child protecting the mother, followed later by further attacks on the contemptible, powerless father as demonstration of;

1 The child's assertion of loyalty to the mother, who is now seen to own all the assets and all the power (including total power over her children/chattels), and

2 As a makeweight, the child's assertion of adulthood, maturity and independence by moving out of the shadow of at least one part of the family. (Actually, the child is merely kicking a man when he is permanently down; a risk-free rite of passage.)

The problem with the current matriarchal regime is that it requires two opposite myths about the father. First, the domineering patriarch, and, second, the helpless wimp. Not only might children come to see the system too clearly. There is a more basic flaw in the current schizoid regime, which comes from the essential requirement of a civilisation; that it enable wealth creation.

I accept that when a man sues for divorce in England today, he is essentially criminalised. I accept that, as a divorced father, I am now excluded from the white economy, and either live off the state, or work in the grey or black economy. In my case, I would certainly lose more than 100% of any salary I might be foolish enough to earn, with lawyers crawling all over me again, at the taxpayers' expense.

We now turn to the Amneus thesis in order to discover whether the destruction of the father/husband as a wealth creator means the end of society.

First, we have to discover why the father/husband ceases to generate wealth.

The most grotesque situation, which is common, is where the courts exclude the father from the family home, but require him to continue to pay the mortgage on that home, even after the mother has brought in her lover/toyboy. This common occurrence, enforced in secret by our secret family courts, is the grotesque extreme of a continuum of enforcements by the courts, most of which make it psychologically impossible for the father to continue to generate wealth.

On the basis of something like the Boston Tea Party's "No taxation without representation", or the tradition of conscientious objection, or of no accountability without responsibility, the father ceases to generate wealth to support children who are denied any contact with him. This applies to half of the children of divorce. Judges have now even invented the concept of 'indirect contact', where, for a fee, they will potificate on whether a child should be prevented from receiving letters from its father, and vice versa. This is how extreme the intervention by lawyers into the private relation between child and parent has reached, the purpose being to increase court costs. The reality is that such obstruction, whether or not sanctioned by an English family court, is always a criminal offence, as the European Court will show in due course.

Let us now discuss the implications of divorced fathers ceasing to generate wealth. The key statistics are all suppressed for ideological reasons. However, a very rough calculation will give us an idea.

Half of marriages end in divorce. Half of children of divorce lose all contact with their father.

With a quarter of children losing all contact with their father, and the fathers ceasing to create wealth, it might appear that a manageable 25% of the wealth creation by men disappears. However, the total cut off of the father is only the extreme, and fathers who retain some contact with their children often cease to work at all. So we might think of all divorced fathers ceasing to generate wealth. That would be half of the wealth creation by men.

What fraction of the G.N.P. is lost if all divorced men or half of divorced men quit the labour force? Here we have to do further research. The best we have at present is Gilder in the U.S.A. in 1986, quoted as a footnote on page 73 of Daniel Amneus, "The Garbage Generation", Primrose Press, Alhambra, CA, USA, 1990;

The key point is to determine to what extent the motivation of the married man to provide makes him the chief engine of wealth creation. If he is, then the current wholesale expropriation of assets and income of divorced fathers, coupled with (1) their denigration and threat into the future of further expropriation and (2) their being compelled to fund the lifestyle of their cuckold, leading to their withdrawal from the taxable economy, will have a massive effect on the G.N.P., most particularly on government income.

It is at this point that the fundamental inconsistency of our new regime comes to haunt it. In the first instance, the father had to be demonised in order to validate his expropriation, using all available means of propaganda; TV, newspaper reports, plays denigrating men, total belief by the courts in any charge against an adult man, and so forth. However, now we see that he has to be lionised in order to encourage him to retain his traditional role as the main wealth creator in society. Thus, the demonisation in order to validate his initial expropriation is incompatible with the lionising of his role as provider, necessary to cause him to continue to generate wealth in the old tradition. In spite of today's pandemic suppression and censorship, the inconsistencies are bound to leak out, causing, hopefully, the only rational response from adult men - withdrawal from society. Of course, a small minority will respond violently, by suicide, fire-bombing judges' homes, destroying their own homes, murdering wife and/or children, and so on. However, even if there is negligible violent response, the new regime is only viable in the short term.

One solution would be for radical feminists to get down to it and generate wealth on the necessary scale, both to replace the efforts of married and divorced men, and to fund the extra cost of more prisons, police, mental treatment etc. They will receive my full encouragement in their brave endeavour.

Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. 26aug/27sep97

[19dec97. We have to expect the eldest son of divorce to have the highest suicide rate etc. among siblings. First, he has to defend the mother and siblings against the guilty, (violent) father. Then, when the father proves powerless, his instinct tells him to replace him as pack leader. Then he discovers his mother is pack leader. His confusion will sometimes lead to suicide. The pressure resulting from the destruction of the father rôle by radical feminists should be less disastrous for his siblings. Their rôle is less confused, as followers throughout.]