Labour is a party for the state/public sector - not for people in general
Telegraph View: Over the years, the Labour Party’s role in British politics has been to oppose every sensible and popular Conservative reform – before finally admitting that their opponents were right all along.
In the Eighties, Labour fought tooth and nail against union reforms, yet never repealed one single law when they were in office for 13 years. Similarly, Labour opposed the privatisation of large swathes of British industry that they themselves had nationalised. Not one has been returned to the public sector.
Now, after denouncing the Conservatives as heartless for proposing cuts in welfare spending, Harriet Harman, the party’s acting leader, conceded that Labour might support some of them after all. The Opposition is now backing Tory plans to limit child tax credits and is prepared to embrace the new £20,000 ceiling on total benefits.
A British commentator: I can't be the only person who has voted Labour all their adult life who is more angry at Labour than Tories. We expect them to be heartless bastards. I have the double-edged sword of Tory-SNP and there is no alternative on the table. Utterly soul destroying. I don't even want a far-left party, just a fair, left-of-centre, principled party.
An other British commentator: Didn't Harman and Osbourne go to the same school-ish. St Pauls' Boys and Girls Schools, Hammersmith? The present Labour party is a total shambles, full of careerists and people who know nothing of socialism, the unions and the poor. Well sod 'em. It's time for a real alternative to appear, one that gives leadership, hope and a vision of the future that includes everybody, not just the rich. Harman, you have sold out. Damn you.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Dear reader, this is true inter-disciplinary research and gives you a hint of how Klevius works out his strange results!
Daily mail today:
Parents should flee UK to stop social workers taking children, says Lib Dem family campaigner
- Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming spoken out as evidence emerged suggesting children are being wrongly taken into care
Why haven't people listened to Peter Klevius?!
Although Peter Klevius, who has also worked as a solicitor in child custody cases (incl. some in the ECHR), has for decades scientifically studied, reported and informed about this at a depth (anthropology, criminology/sociology, critical studies on psychoanalysis, feminism etc) and breadth (books, web, articles, radio, TV, lectures etc) that is second to none, nothing seems to have changed. Why? And just as with islam, sex segregation is at the core of the problem. Is that why it's so difficult to digest?
This drawing was made by Peter Klevius
in the late 1970s (text and rose added later).
Here's your starter kit:
1 Angels of Antichrist - social state vs kinship (Klevius 1996)
The most important sociological paper from the last century.
2 "Pathological Symbiosis" in LVU- Relevance, and Sex Segregated Emergence (Klevius 2002)
A thesis that could be seen as just an appendix to to Angels of Antichrist but which serves you with the bedrock of data connections needed to understand the problem with state child abductions.
Warning! Pathological symbiosis is an extremely scary* thesis - despite the fact that it's purely dry science!
* Professor Tham at Stockholm University first thought that I just made it up - he could in no way first believe the scientific facts presented in text form but had to see them in original! Moreover, he then believed that this could possibly not be a common view among social workers. That's why he asked for interviews to back it up! And you, please don't miss the extremely revealing email correspondence in the appendices.
Also, have a look at Klevius Psychosocial Freud timeline (it contains important new original research revelations made by Klevius re. the background to Freud's intellectual madness - e.g. the Caton connection. You won't find an earlier reference than Klevius - no matter where you look!).
Acknowledgement: Klevius is sorry if his language feels offensive but the horrible truth is that not a single word is exaggerated - it's just you who has been misled all the time! So feel offended by universities, the social state and islam instead!
Abstract of Pathological symbiosis:“Pathological symbiosis” is a psychoanalytic concept that is incorporated 1991 as a legal criterion for compulsory separation of children from their parents. The purpose of the study is: a) To elucidate whether “pathological symbiosis” is familiar and relevant for social welfare secretaries, b) to present research on risk and prevention, c) to understand the emergence of “pathological symbiosis” in the light of sex segregated opportunity structures and traditional sex role attitudes affecting main female child psychoanalysts. The questions addressed are: 1) Is the concept of “pathological symbiosis” familiar and relevant for social workers in Stockholm?
2) Can the emergence of the concept be better understood as a result of sex segregation? The first question is answered by a semi-structured survey among 18 social districts in Stockholm in the fall of 2002. The latter questions are answered by a hermeneutical method. Data from the writings of main critics of the psychoanalytic movement, as well as from original psychoanalytic authors and their biographical material are included. The study focuses on Margaret Mahler as the main author associated with the concept and Anna Freud. According to 17 out of 18 social welfare officers, representing one district each, “pathological symbiosis” is a necessary and usable tool for their work with children. The main interpretation of the hermeneutical understanding is that the emergence of “pathological symbiosis” is intimately connected to sex segregated opportunity structures and traditional sex-roles. Research on risk and prevention suggests the lack of parental attachment as a major cause of deviancy.