Thursday, May 9, 2013

Lucia Melanie Phillips on the Left hating families and fostering family breakdown

No wonder Family First's promotion of the traditional family is not considered by the New Zealand Government to be in the public interest. We are operating in a very leftist milieu here, and it affects how many individuals and therefore government departments view the world, and family, in a leftist mindset is just not that important. Only problem is this mindset is incredibly socially destructive, which then affects the economy and the safety of citizens, and yet rather than allowing an alternative point of view to try and make it's way here, it's firmly stomped on.

Here's Melanie Phillips, writing of her realisation that the Left hates families and actively seeks to destroy them.  She started out being a Leftist herself, thinking that it was the correct side to be on:

As a university-educated young woman with hippie-style hair and an attitude, I, too, generally toed the standard Leftist line in the late Seventies and early Eighties.

Poverty was bad, cuts in public spending were bad, prison was bad, the Tory government was bad.

The state was good, poor people were good, minorities were good, sexual freedom was good.
Melanie worked for the Guardian and became the 'perfect little Guardianista'. However, when Margaret Thatcher came on the scene, she started listening to what she was saying and the scales fell from her eyes.

The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution.

By the late Eighties, it was glaringly obvious that families were suffering a chronic crisis of identity and self-confidence.

There were more and more divorces and single parents — along with mounting evidence that family disintegration and the subsequent creation of step-families or households with no father figure at all did incalculable damage to children.

Too many children lack a consistent mother or father figure,’ researchers told me.

Poverty, the Left’s habitual excuse, could not be the culprit since middle-class children were also not receiving the parental attention they required.

For me, the traditional family is sacred because it embodies the idea that there is something beyond the selfish individual.

But it was being turned into a mere contract that either side could break more or less at will.

Here in New Zealand, this undermining of the family is more advanced than in Britain, for we have the State being able to interfere in a family where there is smacking for discipline. Something Family First have put a lot of effort and energy into opposing, educating people on and helping those who have been investigated by the government for smacking, of which there have been more than a few.

Their sanity was called into question. ‘What do these people want?’ one distinguished academic said to me.

‘Do they want unhappy parents to stay together?’

Eventually, he admitted that the authors’ research was correct. But he said it was impossible to turn back the clock and wondered why there was so much concern about the rights of the child rather than of the parents.

He turned out to be divorced — revealing a devastating pattern I was to encounter over and over again. Truth was being sacrificed to personal expediency. Evidence would be denied if the consequences were inconvenient.
Yep, happening here too.  Evidence is being denied if the consequences are inconvenient.  It is inconvenient to strengthen the traditional family unit because so many want to be able to leave it at will.  They think their responsibility to their spouse and children should only be fulfilled if they are personally happy, and if their spouse and children exist for their own personal satisfaction.  Not that people really think about the consequences of their own thinking to that level, but that's what happens when the sacrificial nature of family life is discarded.
The idea that a woman could be mother and father to her children — more, that it was her ‘right’ to choose such a lifestyle — led directly to the hopeless plight of often inadequate women struggling to raise children while the men who fathered them were, in effect, told they were free to do their own thing.

I was as perplexed by this as I was appalled. I had been brought up to believe the Left stood for altruism rather than selfishness, community rather than individualism, self- discipline rather than the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest.

Instead, society was worshipping at the shrine of the self, and this was causing a rising tide of juvenile distress, crime, emotional disturbance, educational and relationship failure.

The fact that I continued to write along these lines regardless of all the abuse hurled to shut me up seemed to drive the Left nuts.

Yes, they espoused a doctrine of being tolerant and non-judgmental, but not when it came to me. I was branded a ‘moraliser’, which appeared to be a term of abuse.
Ah yes, this whole thing of talking morals to people, which is really calling them to a higher standard, does tend to drive people who disagree a little crazy.  I get it quite a lot, but I ignore it because it really doesn't bother me, and it just shows I'm effective. 

I would guess that the underlying moralising and effectiveness of Family First also bothers the Government, therefore it can only retaliate at this point by refusing to support them in any way by removing financial incentives for their supporters.

Fun and games.


Related link: Why the Left hates families: MELANIE PHIILLIPS reveals how the selfish sneers of Guardianistas made her see how the Left actively fosters – and revels in – family breakdown... ~ Daily Mail UK

15 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

What a load of self serving drivel.

It is not the Left, but the Religious Right (RR) that is attacking families.

It is the RR that is opposing increased paid family leave. See latest from The Mad Monk in Oz.

It is the RR who think it is A Good Thing that a mother die, rather than permit a lifesaving operation. Yes, to save a cluster of cells, they are happy to make orphans of living, breathing children.

It is the RR who think that they and they alone can determine under what conditions a couple have sex. Sex, a foundation stone of a relationship must only ever end in procreation, fulminate the RR.

It is the RR who think that only their extremely narrow interpretation of a family is the one to which we must all adhere.

It is the RR that has supported and cheered on the destruction of Trade Unions and the protections they once afforded to families, ensuring that a man could earn sufficient to feed, clothe and house his family.

And it was the RR who enabled the horrors of the Magdalene Laundries and their equivalents elsewhere in the world.

It is the Caring Humanist Left (CHL) that stand up for families.

It was the CHL that fought for and achieved minimum wage laws.

It was the CHL that that fought for and achieved equality of couples, married or not.

It was the CHL that fought for and achieved a woman's right to control her own fertility, to make informed choices about her own health.

It was the CHL that fought for and achieved paid parental leave as well as the ability of a parent to use leave entitlements to care for a sick child.

And Lucyna, Ah yes, this whole thing of talking morals to people, which is really calling them to a higher standard, does tend to drive people who disagree a little crazy. I get it quite a lot, ...

Yes, you do get called out for being a "moraliser", not because you are "calling people to a higher standard" but because your morality is founded upon the immorality of the JudeoChristian god. You do not consider what is right, what is wrong, what is the best way to live as a community' you accept, without question, the dogma of your church.

Morality does not come from dogma, churches, popes or holy books; it comes from thousands of years of experience, of learning how to best live together and (mostly)co-operate. Morality is Humans learning to be Humane.

ZenTiger said...

LRO, you forgot the colon at the end of your first line.Thus

"What a load of self serving drivel:"

/endquote

It makes the rest of your rant somewhat more understandable.

ZenTiger said...

Quote:

Morality does not come from dogma, churches, popes or holy books; it comes from thousands of years of experience..."

/endquote


and it tends to drive many "CHL" people crazy when they discover that all that experience gets written down by Popes, Church members, Theologians, and that much of this is contained in the Holy Bible.

the conservative said...

Zen, I read that article the other day. Like so many, including myself, Melanie Phillips started out as a liberal and then woke up. It took me many years to wake up; I really didn’t wake up until I started blogging on political correctness in another blog many years back. In that blog I tried to remain politically neutral but couldn’t as I eventually determined that all political correctness was caused by liberals.

the conservative said...

Sorry, Lucia, I thought that was Zen's post

William Stout said...

I have long said that leftist ideology is a societal caustic that breaks down the ties of society and poisons what it does not directly destroy. Latch key children, the rise of single motherhood, the dearth of morality within society, and the discarding of all things traditional have all led to the weakening of the family. The destruction of marriage is next on the list and if that can be destroyed it may well prove to be the final nail in the coffin of the family.

Leftist ideology is a nothing more than one contradiction after another and those of the left never perceive them because they have been programmed not to see the truth. They are the useful idiots who have been cast adrift since the loss of their master, but they keep carrying out their destructive mission just the same and call it progress. As proof of what I am saying I submit Europe and her troubles.

If one comes across a clear puddle and you stir up the muck at the bottom of it, the water is no longer clear. This is the best parallel to the leftist's mind. It is why emotion constantly courses through them. The sediment must never be allowed to settle, lest they lose a follower. This is what happened to Melanie Phillips. The more that she thought, the more sediment was allowed to settle. As the waters of her mind became clearer, she eventually began to see what the left truly is and the flaws in their ideology. When the sediment had completely settled she was at peace with herself. That is the last thing that the left wants.

They do not wish their followers to be at peace. To allow the sediment to settle and their minds to clear. To keep the sediment stirred they require powerful emotion. Anger is good, but it burns itself out too quickly. Disgust is better and longer lasting, but it too is soon gone. But hatred, now that is something that lasts a very long time and is not easily overcome and so they use hatred to stir up the bottom and to keep the waters of the mind cloudy.

Hatred is the universal leftist emotion for this reason and it is why when they gather violence so often follows. That hatred stokes the darker emotions of the left and soon it overflows and property is vandalized, people are injured, and fires are set. The Occupy Wall Street movement is a prime example of the left at work. They were out there to protest for more stuff and what was generated? Rape, murder, arson, vandalism, and theft.

To expect an ideology who does these things to care about children or the family is laughable because they are incapable of it. They see no value in it and they are not invested in preserving it. Therefore, they work to destroy it. It is much like the Muslim leader who ran across the ancient library in India during the conquests there. He was asked by his men what they should do with it. He answered that they should check to see if there were anything in the library that was also in the Quran, if so they should burn it because they already had it. If there were something in the library that was not in the Quran, then they didn't need it and it should be burned. The left views the family in the same manner and they shall not leave it unmolested, especially since the family is the foundation of society.

I.M Fletcher said...

I am reading one of Melanie Philips' books at the moment The World Turned Upside Down, and she makes a lot of sense, saying that the new totalitarianism is cultural.

Western liberals [stamp out dissent] by social and professional ostracism and legal discrimination. It is a kind of secular Inquisition. And the grand inquisitors are to be found within the intelligentsia— in the universities, the media, the law, the political and professional classes— who not only have systematically undermined the foundations of Western society but are heavily engaged in attempting to suppress any challenge or protest.

“Progressives” on the left believe that their secular, materialistic, individualistic and utilitarian values represent not a point of view but virtue itself. No decent person can therefore oppose them. In Manichean fashion, the left divides the world into two rival camps of good and evil, creating as the sole alternative to itself a demonic political camp called “the right,” to which everyone who challenges it is automatically consigned. Since “the right” is by definition evil, to dispute any left-wing shibboleth is to put oneself beyond the moral pale. There can be no dissent or argument at all.

Only one worldview is to be permitted. Anyone who supports Israel or the Americans in Iraq, or is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, or opposes multiculturalism or utilitarianism, or supports capitalism or is a believing Christian is “right-wing” and therefore evil. A central doctrine in the progressive orthodoxy is that “discrimination” is the supreme crime. The very idea of a hierarchy of cultures, beliefs or lifestyles is deemed to be discriminatory. According to the ideology of nondiscrimination, all self-designated “victim” groups can do no wrong, while the majority culture can do no right. Morality is redefined around subjective feelings. Any objective evidence of harm that may be done by “victim” groups is swept away; all that matters is that they must not be made to feel bad about themselves, nor be put at any disadvantage even if it results from their own actions.

Melanie Phillips. The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle Over God, Truth, and Power (Kindle Locations 2262-2269). Encounter Books. Kindle Edition.

Lucia Maria said...

William, Brilliant comment, I totally agree!

Fletch, You need to write a post on her book when you finish. Tell us what you think of it!

Isumbras said...

Behold people, you'll go a long way before you see so much delusion and cognitive dissonance packed into one comment as you see at pole position on this thread.
I'm leaning toward satire... but you can never be sure!

Lucia Maria said...

Isumbras, Yep.

LRO, do you actually believe what you are saying?

"It is the RR that is opposing increased paid family leave."

The RR or Religious Right is everyone who disagrees with you. People can disagree with paid family leave and not be against families, you know, LRO. They might actually just be trying to strengthen families in a different way other than making them beholden to the state and to the corporation, both of which really want women to return back to work after having children rather than staying at home to raise them. Paid parental leave makes it harder, not easier for women to stay home.

"It is the RR who think it is A Good Thing that a mother die, rather than permit a lifesaving operation. Yes, to save a cluster of cells, they are happy to make orphans of living, breathing children."

Oh, crap! You're most likely thinking of the Irish example, yet, from what I've read, it's doubtful an abortion would have actually saved the woman.

"It is the RR who think that they and they alone can determine under what conditions a couple have sex. Sex, a foundation stone of a relationship must only ever end in procreation, fulminate the RR."

More crap. Sex, to be a real marital union, must have the possibility of procreation. We do know, however, that not every time results in a baby, LRO.

"It is the RR who think that only their extremely narrow interpretation of a family is the one to which we must all adhere."

A mum, dad and kids is a "narrow interpretation of a family"? I would have thought it was the normative standard to which all should aspire, even though some, through no fault of their own, will fall short.

"It is the RR that has supported and cheered on the destruction of Trade Unions and the protections they once afforded to families, ensuring that a man could earn sufficient to feed, clothe and house his family."

The trade unions lost their way a while back through Marxist takeover. Marxists never had as their goal that a man could earn sufficient to feed, clothe and house his family - the opposite in fact.

"And it was the RR who enabled the horrors of the Magdalene Laundries and their equivalents elsewhere in the world."

You know the horrors of the Magdalene Laundries are exaggerated, don't you? See Catholic-bashers have embellished the truth about abuse in Catholic institutions. It's time to put the record straight and Author's family deny tales of sex abuse (2006).

ZenTiger said...

Secular institutions aren't all squeaky clean either. As a CHL you might want to look into this: Serous abuse under govt care? No further action required.

leftrightout said...

ZT, I am well aware that the Roman Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on child sex abuse, but they are the market leaders.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-africa-catholic-abuse-20130505,0,4578310.story

leftrightout said...

I am also at a loss to find any secular organisations that promote child rape by priests as better than abortion.

But, again, the Roman Catholic Church comes up trumps.

Fabio Martínez Castilla, the Archbishop of Tuxtla Gutiérrez in Mexico’s southern state of Chiapas, said during a homily at the Metropolitan Cathedral of San Marcos that when children are sexually abused "their future is dying," but that it doesn’t compare with abortion because "it is murder."
"Qualitatively, abortion is much more serious than the rape of children by priests,"


Yes, that is what he really said. Disgusting.


Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2013/05/01/mexican-archbishop-calls-abortion-worse-than-sexual-abuse-by-priests/#ixzz2T06tVNF4

ZenTiger said...

LRO, it is bigoted rubbish to say that comparing abortion to rape is to promote rape. It doesn't promote rape at all.

Here's what that priest also said: "Martínez Castilla said that priests found molesting children should not be forgiven, but instead imprisoned and banned from the Church."

That is hardly promoting rape.

It is a hard thing to fathom this point, but the field of abortion includes shoving medical instruments into the skull of a child. One can argue that is a worse crime than rape. The Priests point is everyone knows sexual child abuse is wrong, but many people are happy to believe abortions, like those done to babies just before they are born, is an intrinsic evil that we allow to exist through complacency.

There is a story in the papers at the moment of 3 girls kept locked up for 10 years, living a terrible life. One of them has had a child by their rapist captor. A terrible thing. However, we also learn they would have had 5 other children except that the captor beat and starved the girl to force 5 miscarriages. That is an intrinsically evil thing to do, is it not?

I know many people will argue that it is great those children were never born to captivity and the rapist, but I doubt many of them would suggest it is now appropriate to kill the 6 year old who has been fathered by a rapist. We can hope and pray they will go on to have a good life.

The Priest made an insensitive and inappropriate comparison, but he did not, in any way promote rape or sexual abuse. He did try to underscore the value of human life - and extends it to those not yet born. In spite of your frequent assertions - many abortions do not just mean a meaningless collection of cells is washed away. Far too many abortions include babies that would have been healthy outside the womb had they been allowed to live.

I.M Fletcher said...

Zen, interesting also that the kidnapper is being charged with murder in regard to those aborted babies. It looks like the only criteria that distinguishes a baby murder from an abortion is how "wanted" the baby is. That's it.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.