For the original Article/Video click this LINK with thanks to George Rolph
Comments and Credits below
But first – Comment from George-R
Written in responce to an Article by a British opposition and Tory MP known as Ian Duncan Smith.
This pathetic article is why I cannot and will not trust any Tory, Lib Dem or Labour politician and I refuse to vote for them. Instead of looking at the causes of what has gone wrong with our society, they all start looking for intellectually pleasing “solutions” by combining ideas found in various “studies” in order to come up with something “new” and “radical” and look like they know what they are doing. Again and again they appeal to often wacky pseudo-scientific studies and lefty inspired “solutions” that sound good but almost always fail to get to the heart of the real problem. IDS has done exactly that again and while I had hope he would not, I see my hope was misplaced. Once again I see that you cannot trust a modern politician to have the guts to face the truth about what is wrong with our society. It sickens me.
For those among us who are old enough, cast your mind back. For those who cannot, go talk to your grandparents. In the nineteen fifties Britain was a pleasant, if austere place to live for most of us. It was just after the war and there were still shortages in many areas and lots of sub standard housing about. Authority figures were almost all ex army and so there was a lot of excessive discipline around also. Parks, for example, had hundreds of little green signs dotted around with, “Do not walk on the grass” written on them. “No ball games” was another favourite. Park keepers were often little Hitler types themselves, but they did stop vandals because they were often big men and had big Alsatian dogs with them.
In schools and homes discipline was the order of the day. Neighbourliness was normal. Everyone looked out for everyone else. If a child misbehaved a clump around the ear did not bring lawyers and policemen to your door. The do-gooder, hippy-lefty was still a nightmare away and adults ruled. Policemen were respected because they had latitude to think for themselves and were not yet full of the “Nick ’em to get promotion and hit your targets” ethos of today. A few coppers were bent but most were honest men who had joined to help society deal with crooks and not to become bullies, thugs and state revenue collectors themselves.
Immorality was under the surface of our society as it always is, but it stayed under the surface because it was still frowned on. This was not hypocritical as many “radical progressives” claimed later and neither was it a wilful blindness. It was instead a determination not to let the immoral justify their behaviour by giving them a voice. They were kept firmly and powerfully in their place by social sanctions imposed by the society around them and in schools, disruptive pupils faced the same treatment. There was therefore, huge peer pressure to conform for the good of the whole society whether you were male, female or a child. If you did not, you were excluded from common society in all sorts of ways. Some temporary and some permanent. You could be effectively banished socially. It was seeing what happened to the banished that kept the rest of society together.
Dads went to work. Mums raised children. They were married to each other. Many of them were members of their local Church and a vicar was not someone who hid in a Church building but he got on his bike and made social visits to people in their homes. There he imparted his wisdom and learning in simple ways that everyone could understand and in return he could learn about their condition and galvanise his congregation to take steps to aid their own people. Thus putting the precepts of the Bible to practical use.
Pornography was, like crime itself, a part of the “underground scene.” Everyone knew about it, most kept away from it. When TV began to make inroads in the home, the programs were clean and fun. Family entertainment was the order of the day because, back then, real families still existed. Again, everyone knew that many of the performers and film stars were as gay as a fairy in a flowerbed, but they were kept in the underground scene because everyone knew what would happen if they were allowed out, along with all of the other dissenters from normal society. Censorship of programs and films was considered important for the same reasons. The whole system was set up to protect itself and the rest of society from those who would naturally want to destroy it. This meant that a firm lid was kept on anything that threatened that society. That this approach worked is reflected in the crime figures from those days. It is also reflected in the abortion figures, the marriage figures and all of the other social indicators. This was a determination to focus on and reward those who did positive things for society while keeping those considered to be negative under strict and firm control. When those minorities trapped beneath the social lid burst out, as they had in the nineteen twenties and in the war years, they were slowly and carefully pressed back down again by the conforming majority. In those days, Tories knew who they were and what they stood for and they represented the majority view. Then, after the war, they were outed by the voters because the voters knew that the big fault of the Tories was that they tolerated people living in hellish conditions and poverty. So many were now living in the misery of post war social conditions that they wanted change and they wanted it fast. The Labour Party, sensing the public mood, promised that change. The price though, was the lifting of the lid on the “bad uns” they just “forgot” to mention that price in their speeches.
So, along came the lefty revolutionaries disguised as do-gooders and they started to lift the lids that the people had put in place on the “bad uns.” Little by little they subverted the reasons for the lids being there. Piece by piece they undermined the core values of our society. At the same time, they built new, cheap and nasty but glittering homes and what were to become, the sink estates of today. They embarked on road building projects that opened up travel for a people who often had never been to the sea side in their lives. Holiday camps sprang up for the working people. Employment began to return with better wages so people could afford to buy cars of their own to drive on the new roads. Having “fun” and being “entertained” became the order of the the day and for a people who had known terrible hardship during the two great wars, this seemed like heaven on earth. Cinemas were built everywhere and the prices were cheap and even catered for children. Coffee bars sprang up. The new music from America swept the country and inspired the young to follow suit. It seemed like one big long party was going on. The people even had a free health service. All of this was great and not to be complained about. However, behind it all, other changes were also going on that were not so desirable. The carefully placed and regulated lids were being prised up. To the lefties, this new freedom was to be enjoyed by everyone, regardless of their behaviour. The rational being (and at the risk of over simplifying) that if everyone was having fun, no one would want to spoil the party. This reasoning was crassly stupid but it fitted the new left wing revolutionary model.
The Tories, in the meantime, were utterly bowled over by this surge of lefty action and they had no answer to it. For that reason, they leaped aboard the passing cart and joined in. It was the only way they were going to get back into power. What they failed to do was reestablish those lids. They tried, but the left skillfully made them look like party poopers and the right wing retreated. One or two of them tried to warn the people about what was going on but the people were having too much of a good time spending their newly acquired cash and the swinging sixties arrived with a bang. During the sixties, the left were busy removing the remaining lids. Discipline in the homes, schools and on the streets went out of the window. Discipline looked “old fashioned” “unjust” and “repressive.” Freedom was the cry of the day but that freedom was a fake. It was the freedom to do what you want, when you want, to who you want. It was not the real freedom of being in control of the darker elements of society. It was, a free for all.
The family, censorship, discipline (both self discipline and societal discipline), the Church and its teachings, men and male values, in fact, everything that had kept our society glued together came under constant and sustained attack in a Tsunami of new leftist theories and ideas. The old and the wise were swept aside by the youth. Revolutionary talk was everywhere. Drugs surfaced in society and became freely available with horrendous consequences. Crime took off in big ways. Abortion numbers went through the roof. Neo pagans openly ridiculed Christian beliefs. Pornography went mainstream. Living together became the new “marriage.” Single parenthood was praised and supported with new legislation. Benefits became so generous that the social security paid for you to take a cab to go and sign on. They would redecorate your house for you. Clothe you. Buy you a pram and baby clothes if you were pregnant. Give you a house and pay the rent for you. Feed you. Buy you a new TV. It was free money and the young queued up to take it. Who wouldn’t? Homosexual repression was seen as nasty. New theories about banning discipline in the classroom left teachers helpless to control their wards. Political Correctness and thought control became the new discipline. Little by little, everyone one of the lids were taken away and the inmates beneath freed to cause the chaos, immorality and the self indulgence we see today. This was the reality of the new “freedoms.” Heaven had turned into hell.
The British people had been conned by the promise of jam today. The genii was out of the bottle and the stupidity of the new left revolution became clear. All attempts to get back to the stability of the past are ridiculed. Those wanting to replace the lids and get back to sanity are accused, by those who crawled out from under the old lids of, “wanting a mythical nineteen fifties golden age” that was,. in fact, neither mythical nor golden but at least it was sane and society pulled together in one united direction.
The theory is that you cannot make a virgin out of a whore so going back is not possible. This is overly pessimistic. The truth is, that if you take the children of the whore you can teach them not to make the errors of their parents. That should be the goal of IDS and the Tories and if they only could see it, that is what would make them strong again. Instead, they have been so cowed by the bombardment of lefty politics and ideas that as he says in this horrendous and stupidly misguided article, they now work with the very people who created this mess. The Tories have still not understood that the left are their enemies and anything they say and do should be looked at with great suspicion based on what they have done to the social fabric of our nation. Instead, they are locked into trying to work with them and they do so, because they have swallowed half of the leftist bullshit taught to them by leftist professors in Uni.
In other words, the Tories have become closet lefties. Voting for them is a waste of time because they are no different from New Labour. Have no new ideas and are terrified of being accused of being “nasty” if they try and screw the lids back on. In short, they are weak, stupid, cowardly and lost. Not fit to govern because they have failed to learn the lessons of our recent history and instead have become embroiled themselves in the new left wing revolution that has so damaged us all. IDS has proven that here, yet again and all of my respect for him has vanished under the weight of this stupid and foolhardy analysis.There is no right wing alternative because there is no right wing except out on the extremes and Nick Griffin is one of those the Labour Party allowed to crawl out from under the lids that kept them were they should always have been kept.
on September 06, 2009
at 01:12 PM
Schoolboy torturers: Save the mother, and you will save the generations to come
There is a way to stop the dysfunctional raising the more dysfunctional, says Iain Duncan Smith.
By Iain Duncan Smith
Published: 8:03PM BST 04 Sep 2009
We need a system of support for dysfunctional families Photo: Getty
No one who has opened a newspaper or watched the news in the past few days will have been left unaffected by the terrible case of two brothers from Doncaster, aged just 10 and 11, who carried out a grotesque attack on two other young boys.
The story was accompanied by the usual, polarised public commentary: depending on one’s viewpoint, this is either an utterly isolated incident and we shouldn’t make too much of it, or these two are scum and they should get a dose of their own medicine. In cases like this one, we become locked into a familiar, depressing cycle. First, look for someone to blame; then ask why the last set of recommendations in this area were not fully implemented; next, task some worthy with undertaking a further review to ensure “the system is tightened up”; then the political caravan moves on. We deal with the symptom rather than the cause.
The inconvenient reality is that, in Britain today, there are a growing number of dysfunctional families with multiple children who will, in turn, go on to breed even more dysfunctional children. They are living on benefits; often, the children are abused and grow up in a culture where the taking of illegal drugs is the norm and where education has no value; violence against women is commonplace. Such families are more often than not centred on the mother, who herself is the product of a similar background; at the heart of her life are a series of relationships with transient, maladjusted and often violent men.
There is research to tell us why. A study in New Zealand followed a thousand children as they grew up, commencing when they were born in 1972. At the age of three, they were assessed to determine which of them came from “at risk” family backgrounds; they were then reassessed at the age of 21. The results were revealing. At 21, it was found that the “at risk” boys had nearly three times as many criminal convictions – the vast majority of which were for violence – as the others. Also, half the “at risk” group of males abused their partners, a figure nearly five times higher than among the other men.
Of the females, all the teenage pregnancies occurred in the “at risk” group. Of those young mums, just under half were living in abusive relationships; also, the fathers of their children were drawn from the “at risk” group of males. The authors were able to conclude that immature mothers, with no strong parenting skills and violent partners, had already given birth to the next generation of “at risk” children. These families form a growing underclass, devoid of hope or aspiration, whose life experiences are completely detached from those of the majority.
Yet it is possible to get ahead of this problem. There is general agreement that the most critical time in a child’s life is in the first three years: the brain develops at its fastest, setting the intellectual scope for the rest of childhood. In other words, what happens before a child enters the nursery or school outweighs all that takes place subsequently. It is in these first three years that a child’s future is shaped and, in some senses, predicted.
Neuroscientists have been able to show us that children brought up in families where there is abuse and neglect, will by the age of three have smaller brains than their equivalent, functional counterparts. Furthermore, it isn’t just about the relative size of the brain; it is also about the way the brain is able to communicate at different levels at the same time. Reading someone’s visual responses while talking to them relies on the development of links known as the neural pathways. In dysfunctional children, these are often undeveloped, leaving the child uncommunicative and reactive.
Enough work has been done to narrow down the most important components that must be present if the child is to flourish and its brain to develop properly. At the top of the list is the need for the child to receive unconditional love, empathy and nurture from a parent. It is essential that a mother plays with and talks to the baby, as its brain slowly begins to imitate all that it sees and hears. Reading to the baby also stimulates its capacity to communicate.
In the US, there are over 60 remedial programmes for troubled families, such as the Nurse Family Partnership and Roots of Empathy. These have succeeded in turning lives around, by getting to and working with children and their mothers. One successful programme in the UK, “Save the Family”, believes in taking mothers and children into care so that they can be assisted together as a unit: as they say, save the mother and you save the child. Where these programmes have been used in a concerted fashion, the results have been remarkable – one study of “at risk” families who had been given support, found that when the children grew into adults the number of arrests fell by 56 per cent and there were 81 per cent fewer convictions. By 15 years old, the children had had 63 per cent fewer sexual partners. Among the mothers, there had been an 83 per cent increase in employment by the child’s fourth birthday.
Our prisons are full of those who have grown up in dysfunctional families. The majority of prisoners come from broken homes and have serious drug and alcohol addictions, going back to childhood. Half were excluded from school and a third played truant regularly. It is small wonder that nearly 70 per cent have a numeracy age below that of a child of 11, and well over half struggle to read at all. This is expensive: in the last 10 years, the cost of the criminal justice system has risen in real terms by nearly 50 per cent, and working age benefits by 30 per cent.
The pattern of life for the two brothers from Doncaster has been set. Their lives have been conditioned by their upbringing. Without empathy or concern for others, they are destined to become part of the furniture of the criminal justice system.
Over the past year, the Labour MP Graham Allen and I have come together to try to persuade all political parties to make intervention in dysfunctional families a priority. Over 15 years or so, we can reduce the scale of the problem and save money at the same time.
But it will take political courage to set such a long-term programme in place. To those who prefer to deal only with the symptoms of social failure, I can only say that the burgeoning criminal justice costs show you cannot arrest your way out of this problem. Unless we intervene now to change the lives of the next generation, our children and grandchildren will bear an almost impossible social and financial cost.
Iain Duncan Smith is MP for Chingford and Woodford Green
Comments: 102 – Go to the LINK at the top for many more comments
Onward – Jim