How did we get to the state in Britain where Orthodox Jewish children can be harassed by Ofsted inspectors and have to listen to those same inspectors tell them that their moral ideology is wrong, and have to listen to those same inspectors preach secular humanist attitudes towards sex and sexuality – to the point where these children felt threatened, intimidated and bullied?
How did we possibly come to such a situation of loss of liberty where we regularly hear of Christian bed and breakfasters going to court because they refuse to allow a homosexual couple to share a room in their home, or Christian cake makers in trouble because they refused to make a homosexually themed cake or elderly Christian people threatened with legal action for publishing passages out of the Bible related to the same theme?
Sometimes it seems that liberal societies can be the very most illiberal and totalitarian…
Historically British people valued the family, believed in the key values of Abrahamic religion, charity and community. They also firmly believed in liberty, true liberty, not the continental type which was tyranny under a different name. These things did not always solve all of Britain’s problems, but they kept things moving along comfortably for a very long time. Only the hiccup of the industrial revolution upset the balance and called into necessity a new force to protect the industrial workers from abuse in this new, untried situation.
This new force was the British Labour Movement. Initially born in the form of trades unions and eventually to develop into the Labour Party. A party that would seek to represent the interests of the majority of the people of Britain – not so much against the minority who benefited from their toil, but rather in the interests of all.
I wonder why the UK Labour Party took such a large role in replacing traditional British values with what can only be described as cultural Marxism (a worldview that all major British political parties seemingly acquiesced to in the end). The Labour party had shared many ideas with the Marxists and Marxists formed part of the early Labour membership and support, yet the bulk of the party was always Christian, with Christian values. The bulk of the party shared many of the goals with the Marxists but they did not share their secular fundamentalist philosophy.
Workers of the world unite, yes please, Anti-religious tyranny and free sex, no thanks.
The Labour party was largely born of Trades Unionism and Non-Conformist Christianity. Its values were those of the British working people, not those of the unhealthy European libertines. Labour’s original philosophical couldn’t have been further from Marx and his like. Early Labour MP’s would cite Jesus (as), the Bible, Ruskin, Thomas Moore, Charles Dicken’s and a whole host of inspirations notable for their compatibility with traditional British values.
Yet it would be the secular fundamentalism, nihilism and hedonism of those infused with Marxist ideology who would later subvert both the Labour party and British society as a whole. During the mid 20th century the Labour revisionist thinker Tony Crosland (1918-1977)* suggested that many key traditional Labour party ideas were outmoded and should be jettisoned. He also proposed that abortion and homosexuality should be allowed and that censorship should be ended.
At this point the Non-Comformist Christians who had been the key founders of the British Labour movement could well have turned in their graves.
Tony Crosland’s on-off homosexual partner was Roy Jenkins. It was he who would spearhead the implementation of Crosland’s ideas during his time as a minister in the Harold Wilson government. This was the 1960’s with its explosion of promiscuity, drug taking, hedonism and all the social ills and miseries which would go along with it.
Meanwhile marital divorce would soon become totally endemic – leaving a large percentage of children to grow up in broken homes, the infanticide popularly known as abortion would become a plague (with thousands and thousands of state approved baby killings each year).
Traditional British society, its culture, its institutions and its whole way of life were under attack. The youth had bought into a secular fundamentalist dream and the older wiser people were unable to resist them.
Over the next two decades fads and fashions came and went. Radical anti-man anti-family feminism would come and go – its replacement would first be laddism (drunken girls behaving like naughty male youths) and then soon after would follow the birth of a new sort of feminism which fitted in better with a highly sexualised consumer society. These new feminists would consider themselves liberated by such things turning themselves into supposedly empowered sex objects and would see nothing demeaning in dressing and otherwise behaving as harlots.
By the late1990’s the unwanted cultural Marxist takeover of Britain was almost complete and organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission would act as enforcers in a crusade to try and eradicate negative views towards such things as homosexuality (even though such views were diametrically opposed to the actual view of the British population – when safely behind closed doors).
The organisations that would work to lobby for, promote and protect cultural Marxism would happily use brute force and the strong arm of the law. Following on we would see gay partnerships, then gay marriage and woe betides anyone who dares say that these things are wrong or simply impossible.
Today woe betides anyone who simply restates the traditional British or Abrahamic views on these subjects. Woe betides anyone says anything against sex outside marriage (are you against it? you must be a suspect weirdo and a neurotic prig).
Woe betides anyone who says anything against the idea of homosexual “marriage” (are you against it? you must be a homophobe who wants to kill all those sweet little gay best friends we see on TV – you must be a monster! you want a gay holocaust!).
Woe betides anyone who says anything about the the popularity of divorce, state-approved, socially-encouraged, mass-promiscuity, spiraling medical baby murder or any of the other cultural Marxist impositions foisted upon the British people by the likes of Tony Crosland and Roy Jenkins.
“It seems to me as clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.”
“But a good look at permissiveness will tell us that, however much consent there may be, violence is always done to someone by permissive sex. In the long list of permissive “achievements” in the field of sex or sex-related conduct, it is very arguably true that quite a lot of moral violence is frequently done in the case of extra-marital affairs (violence done to one spouse’s right to expect loyalty from the other), and much more so in that of divorce (violence very often done to one of the spouses; and certainly to the children). Do the children normally consent to the divorce? Is tremendous violence not done to their desire that their mother and father should live together and learn to get on? And it is unanswerably true that the most extreme physical violence – the killing of an innocent child – is the essence of abortion. To legalize abortion is to legalize violence.”
“Besides, it is not only a matter of commonsense that pornography leads to violence. It is also, by now (sadly enough), a well-documented fact. One would do well to read Chapter Three of the Longford Report on Pornography (1978). Titled “Violence and Pornography,” that chapter points out how pornography tends more and more to present the violent – sadistic or masochistic – aspect of sex itself; how it has been consciously used as a means to foster political violence (as in Hitler’s Germany) or social instability (marxist tactics in Western countries); and how “hard-core” pornography fosters hatred, aggression and alienation and is clearly a main cause of the growing criminality and violence of our Western societies.”
Professor Cormac Burke
“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father’s role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts–a child–as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the dependent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters. And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners.”
“If a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me – there is nothing between.”
“I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.”
“This is a debate about out understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family, even though tiny, powerless and unwanted. “
“The fight for the right to life is not the cause of a few, but the cause of every man, woman and child who cares not only about his or her own family, but the whole family of man.”
Dr Mildred Jefferson
“All tyranny needs to get a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” …. “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an un-pitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.”
*Tony Crosland was also the inspiration behind the chimeric comprehensive school system (not as good as a grammar school in academic subjects nor as good as a secondary modern school in vocational ones) and behind the ending of the 11 plus system which had been a ladder towards meritocratic success for the intelligent people from less wealthy backgrounds. The removal of the Grammar School system would have the long term effect of nearly destroying Britain’s meritocratic successes – this has been greatly compounded by the introduction of university tuition fees (which has been effective in closing off many educational opportunities for the poor).