Kathy Gyngell: How the Left have stolen the foundations of life from children

Clearing up the mess the Left left: that really should have been the title of the Sunday Morning Live (45 minutes in) discussion I was invited to take part in last weekend.

One of my co-editor’s many skills is to turn a phrase and nail a point. Laura did it again discussing it with me afterwards.

But of course they didn’t promote it that way. Their ‘peg’ was the Department for Education’s decision to give Britain’s anxious teens – victims of the internet, the social media, pushy parents and exams – resilience training, coping strategies and self esteem-raising lessons. Or so to instruct schools to add to their already overcrowded PHSE extra-curricular curriculum. What was not to like? The young sage from The Self Esteem Team on the sofa with me, smilingly encouraged by presenter Sean Fletcher, was all for it and all for making kids ‘feel good about themselves’.

The idea that we might reason the need did not occur to the programme’s producers. To them, teen stress or anxiety was inevitable, a modern given with no other cause.

So I suspect it was in the name of the BBC’s residual sense of ‘balance’ (and a bit of fun setting up a rep of the old-fashioned Right) that I was encouraged to trash what they hoped I’d cast as a soppy and teacher time-wasting initiative, and tell the kids to toughen up and get on with it.

Such an approach to troubled teens may not be without merit, I grant, but it had the demerit of setting me up to be knocked down. I did not oblige. Even more importantly, it dodged the real issue.

The issue being that, uniquely, today’s teens can’t face any adversity. Not there are not pressures – there are – but snowflakes they are. They are not equipped to face adversity and why they can’t is really very simple. Their foundation in life has been stolen by the Left. A good foundation in life equals a strong (by definition married) family with a mum and a dad, ideally with mum at home at least when the kids are young, together providing love and security, setting the boundaries and passing on some solid Christian morals and values. That's what give young people strength to traverse the minefield of life.

This is the family norm that, from the day  ‘moral’ was made a dirty word (I remember being reprimanded for using it at university), Leftist ideology has all but destroyed, the ideology that the rest of society, led by our culpable political classes, has surrendered to.

What is shocking now is how little they seem to care about the result – about the havoc wreaked on society by the wrecking ball they've sent through the family. Who amongst our politicians apparently really cares at all that half of all babies are now born outside marriage (in 1950 it was just one in ten)? Do they care that by the age of two, one in four infants are not living with both natural parents, or that by the age of 16 this figure has risen to 50 per cent? Do they care that the subsequent effect of this breakdown and instability on children's mental health is as bad as poverty?

Give me the name of one.

It’s not just Harriet Harman I am aiming my fire at. I have not noted one Conservative woman MP express concern that 3million children, nearly a quarter of the total number, now live in (2million) lone parent-headed families – in which the mums are statistically far more likely to be depressed – let alone taking to a soapbox to say that this is no way to bring up the next generation. They are too busy delivering the usual platitudes that single mums are good mums, so worried are they about causing offence. Whether they are or not is not the point. Their childrens’ outcomes are poor.

Is it really surprising, after years of discrimination against marriage in the tax and benefits system, and even worse discrimination against single-earner married families, to which all politicians have ceded, that UK has the highest rate of family instability in the developed world? The Left, of course, continue to cast the plight of lone parent families and the poor outcomes for their children in terms of poverty and inequality, never on their own promotion of this socially or economically unviable ‘family form’.

Politicians of all colours remain determinedly blind to the harm caused by quite deliberately feminist-driven anti-family policies that have proved most destructive for the poorest and least able, and for those with fewest resources to cope and most in need of reliable family structures.



Marry the mothers to the State, kick the kids into childcare and send the dads to hell in a handcart. Let’s have more small children soiling and wetting themselves in their first year at school.

Welcome to the carnage.

Witness now an adolescent mental health problem reaching crisis point, a 30,000-long and growing waiting list for adolescent mental health services, and 25,000 young drug and alcohol addicts in so-called treatment – a number which may be just the tip of the iceberg. Witness teen suicide at an all-time high and self-harm statistics that bely any idea that it was ever thus for teens.

No, UK children were not always the unhappiest in the world. But they are now, as Sunday Morning Live confirms, revealing that one in four believe they won’t amount to much.

Do the Left care? No matter, they can send in a cute ‘self esteem’ pop star team (who of course are better placed than the kids’ own parents to help them) to make lonely schoolchildren feel even more inadequate because they aren’t supercool them.

What did anyone really expect to happen?

That teens left in a moral and social vacuum, beset by daft and empty equality and diversity dictums, pretty much allowed to do what they want by  parents who spend less and less time with them (no boundaries is a frightening thing), would confidently make sensible and ‘informed’ choices about their behaviour and lives? On what basis? Google, Facebook or the advice of a self esteem team and friends who are equally at sea?

If children hadn’t been sacrificed on the altar of the Left’s selfish family-wrecking polices, these young people would not be so out on a limb, or so at the mercy of their peer group and long school days, lacking the sanctuary of warm and stable homes; nor would schools always be dumped on and forever mopping up the mess that Leftist thinking has landed on them.

Kathy Gyngell

  • Magnolia

    Absolutely agree 100%

    Single income two parent families pay approx 10% extra in tax and insurance across all income groups (rich and poor) compared to a dual income family on the same level of total family wage income. Now that is unfair and it is not ‘progressive’ because the poorest of these families will be hit by this extra 10% of tax the hardest. No surprise then that lower income families are less likely to have two parents and a stay at home parent with young children.

  • Kola

    I hear what you are saying. But from the moment I gave up work to care for my daughter, I have had judgement. I’m not a role model to my child, I don’t have a purpose, what do I do all day, etc. But yet my child is happy, healthy, well behaved and good mannered. And sending her off to full time school I know I have done my best to help get her there.

    I have felt nothing but pressure to go back into paid work, that my “work” at home looking after my family is meaningless and without reward.

    • Busy Mum

      Yes. They actually do not want to admit that they have got it ‘wrong’ – in their eyes they have got it right. Stay-at-home mothers are a threat to their power. We are not ’employed’ so cannot be sacked for being un-PC – we are gloriously independent people and we have a direct line to the next generation.
      It is so subtle – I have mentioned on here before the struggles we had with one of our teenage daughters. The message she got from school was that it was ‘her choice’ whether or not to take any notice of her parents and that ‘family’ can mean anything nowadays so she didn’t need to worry about how her (real) family might think about things; she was bound to find other people ‘out there’ who would just ‘accept her for what she was’ and give her ‘unconditional love’.

      • Benedict Nasalroad

        “She didn’t need to worry about how her (real) family might think about things; she was bound to find other people ‘out there’ who would just ‘accept her for what she was’ and give her ‘unconditional love’.”

        Surely you must be joking?

        • Busy Mum

          No, I am not.

    • Magnolia

      I did and feel the same. I have referred to myself as being viewed as something of a leper by government and society and yet I look at where my children are now and they have vastly exceeded all expectations of where they would end up and I think that is due to having had a stay at home parent. I don’t think it has to be the mum but could just as easily be a dad but children need guidance and usually it is best the family does that. If you are not there you cannot answer their questions. Being a homemaker and bringing up a family is a full time job but government cannot extract any tax take from it. Government wants all the social advantages that homemakers bring but are not willing to give up their pieces of silver. It’s a very short sighted view.

      • Paul Robson

        Even if you do that there are pressures on the children ; they are almost told to feel bad about themselves as far as I can see. I suspect there are vested interests and jobs in it, people whose livelihood is dependent on the state taking over the parents job.

        All those otherwise unemployables who pop up and talk about feelings (you see them advertised at the end of soaps “if you have been affected by this laughably unrealistic fatuous television show please ring lots of state sponsored nonentities”).

        I don’t think children are more pressured socially or academically than they used to be. Exams are definitely easier, but we didn’t have Facebook, so we had to talk to each other.

        But then , we always thought exams were supposed to be challenging, and that not everyone would like us…

      • Nockian

        FWIW you aren’t a leper in my eyes. Bringing up your children to be succesful and confident is an awesome responsibility and your own personal achievement-be proud.

    • Nockian

      Tell them it’s your life, you only get one and you will support the values that make you selfishly happy, which includes looking after your precious daughter.

  • Dropbear

    Nailed it. Sadly there’s no mainstream political movement to make the changes we need to reverse this mess. Labour created it. The LibDems endorse it. The Tories have swallowed leftist identity politics whole in their fright, and now can’t squeak for fear of offending someone somewhere. UKIP are a busted flush.

    • Simon Platt

      Let’s wait and see about UKIP.

      It seems to me (I admit that I have a partial view) that there is at the moment a three-way fight for UKIP’s future: between, if I may oversimplify, libertarians, authoritarians, and conservatives. I’m praying for a conservative rebirth.

  • Belsay Bugle

    The awful effect of this leftist dogma is quite obvious across every part of modern life, with a particularly pernicious emphasis on children and young people.
    It seems to me beyond argument.

    But why has it happened? What is the reason for the almost complete capitulation to such a destructive ideology by all our organs of state, private associations, professions, educational establishments and influential individuals?
    Hardly any voice dare raise a squeak in protest or point out that we are destroying our civilisation.
    Why?
    Is it too fanciful to believe the devil is behind it?

    • Benedict Nasalroad

      Yes, because there is no devil.

    • Sargv

      > Hardly any voice dare raise a squeak in protest or point out that we are destroying our civilisation.

      Because people are having fun in the process? No families means a lot of hook ups.

  • jaundicedi

    You left out groupthink and pc purveyed by the educational establishment by which they are ill equipped to challenge the narrative they are taught. Gender fluidity is child abuse, best considered once adolescence is over as a tiny minority pursuit not an approved lifestyle.

    • Paul Robson

      Absolutely. When this insanity dies there are going to be some colossal law suits. Probably not against the nutters responsible.

      • Busy Mum

        The lawyers won’t care who is found guilty, as long as they get the money!

  • J.L.W

    I agree, it is unfortunate that the leftist monster still seems to be moving forward on its seemingly ultimate goal of destruction of our entire society. Unabated! Even Trump is now supporting it.

    • Nockian

      Except it isn’t a ‘leftist monster’ but the result of philosophy expounded by the intellectual classes. It isn’t moving towards a destination in the way Marxists once plotted. Instead we have a very fractured group of collectivists on the right and the left -though that paradigm is false, because it’s really a group who call for less freedom and individualism and greater statism and collectivism. There are nihilists on right and left who just want to destroy for the sake of destroying, their are the liberal do gooders who just want everyone to feel happy, there are the religious environmentalists who want to protect nature from man-not for man-who look at mans productivity as a primal sin. You cannot point at ‘leftists’ as a group comitted to one goal, they aren’t, they mostly don’t think of themselves as having that particular affiliation even if they will often agree with some specifics of Marxist doctrine, they don’t always- certainly the right who also share a collectivist vision of nationalism don’t share that ideology directly.

  • Stinky Britches

    ’twas always thus…

    The 19th century socialist Robert Owen described marriage as an evil that has “cursed the world since the creation of man”. Marx believed the nuclear family was a bourgeois system of social control . Engels devoted an entire book to a detailed attack on marriage and the family and identified the family as the cornerstone of a capitalist society.

    It is quite simple: the left will always strive to destroy any social construct that promotes loyalty to anything other than the state or reduces an individual’s dependence on the state.

    • Sargv

      > Marx believed the nuclear family was a bourgeois system of social control.

      And he was right! To the extent that civilisation itself is a system of social control, and without it people rapidly turn into primates.

      > It’s quite simple: the left will always strive to destroy any social construct that reduces an individual’s dependence on the state or generates loyalty to anything other than the state.

      Isn’t internationalism a Left-wing phenomenon though? Or do you consider it to be effectively an anti-national tool, with nation being a potential competitor to the State?

    • Sean Toddington

      So ‘the left’ is a construct applied to any opinion which differs from your own socially conservative views. Has it occurred to you that people live the way they do as an exercise of personal choice, facilitated by changes like the free availability of effective contraception. If you seriously think Freddy Engles has a lot to do with it then you are two stops past barking.

  • Shattah Flochasparras

    Whilst agreeing with all the points above,i don`t feel we can ignore the role of digital social media in the destruction of the family and the damage inflicted on young minds.After being raised from from an early age by CBBC and an ipad ,then risk averse teachers terrified of litigation. Who ever thought it was good idea to allow under sixteens unfettered, uncurated access to an entire world of hatred,lies and criticism is beyond me. Lazy parenting?

    • Their parents are just as habitually engrossed in games consoles, Internet, social media and phones.

      • Shattah Flochasparras

        There needs to be a cultural meme. No smartphone or unmonitored internet until the age of sixteen.
        I feel it`s necessary but not possible. The instigators of uncontrolled internet access for children should be fined and imprisoned. In twenty years time people will wonder why the hell we didn`t do something about it.

        • The Duke of Umberland, England

          As parents we have to ask ourselves: would we be at peace if our children were reading top-shelf magazines?

          If no – deprive them of Internet technology until they are no longer our responsibility.

          True, it would mean purchasing books like dictionaries and encyclopedias. Nevertheless, that would be far better than permitting pornography to consume their hearts and minds.

          The payoffs might be wholesome. Our daughters might insist that boys have impeccable manners and our boys treat girls with chivalry. I am sure all our neighbours would welcome that.

          • Shattah Flochasparras

            One of the greatest crimes perpetuated in our society has been the denigration of young men by governments and their associated media,to the point where the nations daughters are happy to accept any sub par specimen that has learned to write his name and tie his shoelaces.`Low Expections` would be a title for a Dickens novel written this century.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Our daughters need to emulate Chinese, Indian and Japanese girls.

            Boyfriends are dropped, if they show discourtesy.

            Boys, are quick to learn and be trained in new habits.

          • Welfare state has had a hand in that. Take away the child benefit and council houses for single mothers, then listen to the cacophony of legs snapping shut. This will lead to girls being far more careful and altering boys behaviour towards them. Parents will be instilling greater care in their offspring too as the family will then have to rely on itself and not the state.

          • Sargv

            > Our daughters need to emulate Japanese girls.

            Ehm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbivore_men

            As for Chinese girls, who are indeed often act like spoiled princesses, there’s a certain factor to their advantage: there are 60 millions less of them that there are men of the same age (due to a “one child” policy, preference for boys and sex-selective abortions), so those girls are in high demand and can set up hoops for boys. Meanwhile in UK, 25% of women over 40 are childless and lonely.

            I am not saying that women shouldn’t have standards, but unfortunately this might not be enough.

        • Yeah but, I suspect that same argument was used for the licensing of printing in the 17th century. One cannot legislate morality – it just doesn’t work.

          • Shattah Flochasparras

            I fear you are right,`horse has bolted` and all that. However we do legislate for alcohol and tobacco.Admittedly it doesn`t catch all, but most parents don`t hand their little sprogs a bottle of Jack and twenty Bensons for Christmas. They will however delightedly gift wrap for them the latest `Sammy` or Iphone.,,thus handing them an entire world of pain and few if any tools to cope with it. Maybe some kind of id or their parents id for internet access? I find it difficult making an eleven year old responsible for failings of its parents and the law. Like i said..a meme,if not legislation.

          • I do as well. We know many things that don’t work. What might work is educating parents, not to mention encouraging parents to hang around for the kiddos. That in itself would likely help, especially if those parents were doing something other than sitting on the couch watching the game and drinking beer.

    • Reborn

      And that access includes the ability to publish worldwide the bullying
      of other children & the libelling of teachers.

    • I agree, but I also wonder if these kids were raised in traditional families, even with both parents working – would said digital media be so invasive. I don’t know, but I do know that when I’m bored is when I surf the internet, when I have other things to do, I don’t. Wonder if it’s not the same for them.

  • Marcus Agrippa

    The left have wreaked the family, then they want to psycho analysis why teens are so messed up. Couple of reasons –
    ✅ Absence of fathers via the man hating divorce courts system
    ✅ Single mothers paid and supported by the state (taxpayers)

    • Fyodor

      Absence of fathers isn’t just because of the courts. Sometimes the absence of fathers is because of the fathers. I talk from bitter experience.

      • The Duke of Umberland, England

        True. The sex impulse has triumphed and all others are subordinate.

        • Fyodor

          If sex is the highest pleasure (it’s not but the culture says it is) and we live in a society based on pleasure then yep, sex is king. Only way out is personal responsibility and somehow shutting the noise out.

        • Sargv

          The sex impulse was always strong. But it was counter-acted by the risk to get a deadly disease (nullified with the advent of antibiotics) or to impregnate a woman. Which meant destitution and death for her, due to inability to participate in labour market and lack of social support; and a risk to be killed by him – due to other men protecting their daughters from such a fate – the dreaded patriarchy, or men’s self-policing.

          Antibiotics, contraception, women in work, welfare state = cheap sex = no incentive for a man to prove himself to a lady, and no sense for long-term no-matter-what commitment.

      • RobertRetyred

        These absent fathers have gone with the flow, possibly without understanding the consequences, or even that there were consequences.

        • Fyodor

          I’m sorry? I’m talking about the fathers who disappear into the air, have affairs or are generally abusive. I totally agree that no-fault divorces are utterly, utterly wrong but that doesn’t take away from some of the awful fathers out there.

  • The Duke of Umberland, England

    Miss

    This country has been in this situation before – pulled through and governed an empire upon which the sun never set.

    I am sure we all remember Hogarth’s sketch Gin Lane and how it dramatically depicted the condition of the English working-class in 18th century Britain.

    In The Making of the English Working Class (revised 1963) the Communist historian Prof E. P. Thompson, in a post script, launched into a furious attack against the Judaeo-Christian revivals of the 18th century led by the famous Methodist preacher John Wesley.

    The motivation for Thompson’s attack was that the Wesleyan revivals frustrated a French like revolution by the mass of the people.

    What the revivals did, was to change the trained habits of despair, hopelessness and carelessness of an entire generation of the poor; lifting them out of poverty to new levels of spiritual and material success.

    Men began to take responsibility for their wives and children; women rejected gin and cared for their children; neighbours saw each other as brothers and sisters; the duty of care for each other flourished; churches provided education and nursing care; industrialists began providing housing for their workers; and Christian community leaders began agitating for social reforms.

    All this reform, from the hearths of neighbours to the hearth of 10 Downing Street came about because this country shared a common ethical system (driven by reformed hearts); not the government throwing taxpayers’ money at problems hoping for the best.

    The fundamental problem we now have is that all parties have abandoned the fruits of those revivals – sound ethical thinking and trained habits of generations. It takes a generation to train men in good and bad habits so taught us CS Lewis (in the Abolition of Man).

    In the absence of another great revival; I can only see bleak material prospects for the poor, and glittering material prizes for the rich – and deep spiritual poverty for all: desolation.

    • The Duke of Umberland, England

      Let me give just one concrete example.

      The NHS had been seen by Christians as an attractive place to work to express their faith.
      The culture was to put in extra hours to care for patients without remuneration.
      Blair came along and hosed it down with taxpayers’ money. The unions thought ‘We’ll have some of that’ and destroyed the extra motivation for caring for patients without being compensated.

      Today, we have surgeons in one room working indefatigably trying to save the life of one unborn baby whilst in the next room they are ripping the head off a child through abortion.

      Now we have kids (and adults) claiming that they don’t feel right in their bodies and would like new ones. Result? More taxpayers’ money for mutilating perfectly healthy bodies.

      • Reborn

        pre-National Socialist Germany ?
        Surely, you mean National Socialist Germany.

        • The Duke of Umberland, England

          I do mean ‘pre’.

          There were many philosophical, ethical and social currents swirling around that prepared the way for the rise of National Socialism. Youtube videos of the inter-war years are most informative.

          This morning I learned something about the early 20th century Welsh revival and how it was rejected by Germany’s national church.

          • Reborn

            Interesting point.
            I suppose “progressives” like HG Wells & co prepared the ground for National Socialism.

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            That I don’t know as I’ve never studied Wells.

          • Reborn

            He was very keen on eugenics.
            Then he realised that with his poor eyesight & squeaky voice
            he was not up to the desired standards.

    • Magnolia

      I think we are approaching ‘Gin Lane’ again. On a recent trip by public transport I smelled alcoholic breath, watched a smooching couple down several cans of Stella, an old man having his second bottle of Newkie brown for breakfast and then saw someone relieving themselves opposite a full bus stop with alcoholic beverage in hand and all before lunch time. Add in the dreadful effect of drug addiction both here and in the states and we have a very modern version of people’s loss of control, despair and hopelessness.

  • rbw152

    After discovering that one of the goals of the Left is to undermine the family unit and replace it with the State, it became obvious to me what was happening in our society. It takes some believing but that is actually what they are trying to do.

    And since another one of their goals is to control language (‘the narrative’), they can also suppress criticism of such policies.

    So with those items ticked off the ideological agenda list there is now no effective opposition to such policies and our society continues to erode as planned.

    However, another shocking thing about the Left is not ‘how little they care about the result’ of such actions but that they are deliberately trying to bring about the collapse of our society.

    So it’s no good being shocked, we have to understand that our society is being corrupted from the inside out and tackle it head on. by treating it as a kind of treason.

    I still can’t quite believe this stuff is happening, deliberately for such reasons. And I’m sure not all those on the Left know what they’re part of. But a bit of reading up about the people who started all of this shows that, yes, this IS what they are trying to do – and have been for a long time.

    There’s two outcomes to all of this: either the Left will win eventually, which I fear is actually going to happen. Or someone with a spine (and skin like a Rhino) starts to inspire a proper opposition to it.

    Don’t believe me? Watch this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk

    • JamesB0nd

      In Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwell identified the creators of the Inner Party:

      “The new aristocracy was made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians…As compared with their opposite numbers in past ages, they were…more conscious of what they were doing and more intent on crushing opposition. This last difference was cardinal…the possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the State, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.”

  • Nockian

    This piece is all over the place primarily because most of its conclusions are emotive generalisations, it’s a pop at collectivists and statists, but it fails by ascribing all failures to the state policies on families, rather than the problem with the individuals that make up families. Indeed it falls straight into the collectivist trap of blaming ‘society’ for the behaviours of individuals, rather than addressing the reason why individuals choose to behave in such a way.

    I think the ‘self esteem’ guru actually does grasp the issue, the problem is that he believes self esteem is the result of feelings, rather than the distorted framework of principles which the teenagers have been exposed to – something alluded in this piece as requiring solid Christian morals (something equally as harmful).

    No one can deny that a loving, stable family is the basis of the emergence of a stable, confident young adult. It cannot be denied that a framework of principles for adult life is brought about in such a family. However, the fault here cannot lie with the states social family policies anymore than we can blame society for producing a murderer.

    The problem is that we have generations of families who have been through a state education system and an exposure to millions of hours of socialist philosophy through various media. They have been taught that only feelings matter, than they are not responsible for their lot in life and of course that’s it’s all down to the collective ‘society’ rather than individual responsibility. That being selfish an egoistic is bad, but being a team player and caring for each other selflessly is good. They are taught that winning causes upset amongst their peers and so no one must be seen to be the winner-personal achievement is shunned and even condemned because of the pain caused to others with less capacity.

    Self esteem cannot exist in such an altruistic world. Neither for parents, grandparent nor children. Altruism is the unreachable ideal, it tells people that their duty is to others before themselves and as such they can never have self esteem.

    These days ‘self esteem’ has become a word which simply means to feel good about oneself with the emphasis of the feeling. It’s really saying ‘I know you find that your mind is full of conflictions with reality, but hey, that doesn’t matter as long as you smile things will work out and don’t concern yourself with reality because you can’t know it’.

    Self esteem means selfish individual pride. Who teaches us the necessity for selfish individual pride ? Not the socialist, who teach us only of the collective, common pride, nor the church who teaches us that we must be humble, to have humility. We are taught that ‘pride comes before a fall’ that pride is haughty, boastful, and an unpleasant social vice of the fat headed and arrogant. Pride is anti-altruistic and selfishness is a sin. Is it any wonder teenagers are depressed ? They aren’t taught that the selfish pride is an individual necessity which comes not from feelings, but from rational principles and a competency to deal with existent reality using those principles.

    • Gloria Hole

      You have described cultural marxism perfectly.

    • Sargv

      > no one must be seen to be the winner-personal achievement is shunned and even condemned because of the pain caused to others with less capacity.

      No! They deny the very concept of “less capacity”, and this is the bigger problem!

      “All people are born equal in their potential. Hence the only reason for inequality of outcomes is that the system is unfair.” THIS is a cornerstone under for the welfare state; endless futile fight with “institutional racism” which only improves lives of tokens, but not the communities (“it is almost like those people are somehow different from us in their potential! But this can not be! We must look harder for deeper and subtle biases! For more ingrained prejudices that disadvantages them!”); “everyone deserves equal praise, no matter what their achievements are”; “no behaviour is bad behaviour, it’s all relative”; “a criminal committed a crime only due to his harsh environment, he is therefore not guilty”; etc. etc. etc.

      And that thinking can be traced all the way to Locke and Rousseau. The “blank slate” idea, and “people are all born good” idea. That’s where it all started. Marxism, – and all the rest, and a good deal of our modernity, including beautiful parts of it, – are mere logical consequences of applying these universal philosophical premises to different aspects of our lives.

      The premises are wrong. But we invested too much into them to accept that. Well then – reality will force us.

      • Nockian

        Less capacity from my angle not from theirs, just to straighten that one out.

        Everyone is born blank slate, but certainly not good, or bad. Everyone has potential cognitive and emotional faculties, but all differing in the same sense as physical characteristics.

  • Sean Toddington

    Life has changed immeasurably over the last 50 years – mostly, but not always, for the better. But this ‘left’, my goodness, how powerful and insidious it must be, to be behind all of this negative social change. The article is so delusional it’s actually quite funny. For example the idea that we wouldn’t have so many single parent families if only marriage had better tax advantages. The ‘left’ as portrayed here are a few short steps from the ‘Illuminati’ or the giant space lizards who run the world (according to Alex Jones on Inforwars anyway).

    • The Duke of Umberland, England

      Yes. Of course. After six million babies killed under the 1967 Abortion Act, the National Socialists of Germany would be proud of your achievement.

      • Simon Platt

        Nine million. Nearly.

    • Mojo

      You only have to look at the laws passed after heavy lobbying how the fabric of our society has been damaged. Why have married couples been so targeted and single parents encouraged. Why have young girls been indoctrinated aged with the feminist mantra of having it all without once talking about loving, stable marriages. To encourage women to go back to work and leave a six month baby with a stranger is irresponsible beyond measure. The sop of having to have two salaries in order to live doesn’t stand up. Most young mothers do not go back to a career because they cannot afford childcare for twelve hours a day or indeed have to take a job that allows them to take their babies in to work. Often this is in the public sector where job sharing became normal, but detrimental to everyone concerned.

      A study done a number of years ago showed that over 80% of female students put a happy marriage with children as their number one priority but didn’t think it was achievable because they would be seen as letting women down. This is disgraceful!!!! Whatever we are told, women produce children. Women on the whole are nurturers and homemakers. They have the vital role of installing values into the next generation. Only mothers can create a solid and safe community. They can equally only achieve this in a stable, happy environment, which usually means two parents taking the necessary role to successful team building and team work. The state destroys and has been destroying society for years. Ironically there are more women in Parliament than ever in our history and yet women are no further forward in contentment or stability.

    • Malcolm Marchesi

      Actually the “left” has become powerful through it’s infiltration of so many of our national institutions and the professions which administer them . And yes , it is insidious , it preaches one thing whilst practising another . Then comes the relentless propaganda assault on anything which appears to have a “far-right” origin and that covers anything at all which the class warriors don’t agree with . Anyone who doesn’t accept the left’s new-speak is by definition evil , fascist , racist etc etc . And that is no delusion !

    • Sargv

      Agreed! It’s like saying that Bolsheviks were behind the Red Terror, or Stalin was responsible for Gulag, or NSDP gassed 6 millions jews. WAAAAAAT? I call omnipowerful lizards from outer space!

  • Gloria Hole

    The long march through the institutions, as coined by Rudi Dutschke, appears to have finally got a foothold. Antonio Gramsci would be proud.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      Because ordinary people are prevented from running their own lives, without interference from the state.

    • Margaret Robinson

      More than a foothold Gloria. A Marxist culture that is destroying the fabric of our societies and affecting language free speech and where minoritiy concerns are elevated to a level the majority are unlikely to ever see and we sit here and post while letting it happen. I recently read a letter from an old man in Germany. HE said that from about 1930 onwards as the Nazi,s began to rise he was busy with his fledgling business and just thought what a loony lot. Times were hard, people were busy and mostly complacent about what was going on around them. Then one day he woke up to find the nazies had taken over and were impossible to stop. I hope for the sake of my grandchildren that we will find a way to stop this malicious and nefarious agenda before it’s too late.

  • SonofBoudica

    I was brought up without a father – by reason of his death and not the choice of my mother. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone else.

    • The Duke of Umberland, England

      Your Heavenly Father loves you, and wants nothing but the best for you.

      • Reborn

        I’d be interested to see your evidence for this assertion.
        Right now said Heavenly Father is supervising this —
        Muhammad is the top name for baby boys in the English regions of London and the West Midlands in 2016, and was the top scoring across the whole of England and Wales in the year when slight variations in spelling are taken into account.

        • The Duke of Umberland, England

          What do mean by ‘evidence’? On which standard of belief? Civil? Criminal? Scientific?

          Explain: ‘Right now said Heavenly Father is supervising this -‘

          • The Duke of Umberland, England

            Reborn, Aristotle taught us that, if you want to know the truth: first ask the right questions.

          • Reborn

            And ask them of someone who adopts rational thought processes

        • SonofBoudica

          Reborn – I think we should ignore The Duke of Umberland. He is clearly unhinged.

          • Reborn

            I think you’re right.
            How can any sane adult believe that they know the opinions & the
            powers even the gender, of the creator of everything, both known & unknown ?
            Compared to such an entity the most intelligent human being is a
            flea on the back of a flea on a rat’s bottom in the Tasmanian jungle
            claiming to speak for you.
            And often killing in your name.

      • SonofBoudica

        Have you got a point?

  • Tricia

    When Tony Blair became Prime Minister riding the wave of the song “Things can only get better” little did we know that meant destroying our cultural base and cutting the moorings of family structures.
    Before Blair we had alcohol regulations and off licences with strict opening time and pub hours restricted. After Blair we have an alcohol problems and spend a fortune policing cities at night to try and keep order.
    Before Blair single parents were few – during and after his time it’s a way to get your own flat and money from the Government.
    Before Blair homosexuality was tolerated – during Blair we gained Civil Partnership ( which we were told would not lead to a change in the marriage law. Tatchell pushing for the age of consent to be lowered ever further.
    Before Blair – salaries for those in the City and bosses in general were only around 3 or 4 times more than their staff – it’s 100 times now.
    Before Blair – we had Section 28 to protect our children in schools – now we have infiltration in the Education Department by Stonewall.
    Cameron is not known as the “Heir to Blair” for nothing he carried on the destruction!

  • PiqueABoo

    Well that’s one angle and not disagreeing, but the other one is the increasing ‘medicalistion’ of human nature e.g. I understand introversion very nearly made it into the latest DSM-V as a psychiatric ‘disorder’, or at least part of one.

    There is definitely some reification happening. At the both of the last two parents’ evenings my 14-year-old daughter’s form tutor did little else but talk about mental health and whether she was working too hard at home etc. It did tail off, but we heard a fair bit about her being “stressed” after both of those. Her biggest MH thing is social anxiety, but as mentioned above she’s a teenager and we know they become very self-conscious: if mere observation won’t cut it then there’s plenty of research around that i.e. it’s what typically happens at this stage of life, not a disease.

    More generally it doesn’t take much not-school-stuff, on top of a lot more homework than I saw in my day, to make family-life quite busy. Here both parents work to pay the bills we have just one child. I can’t imagine how a working single-parent would cope unless a child has nothing much in their life to call their own except online social media and games consoles.

  • Sargv

    These days, any man can:
    1) have many sexual partners without a major risk to get a deadly disease (antibiotics);
    2) have sex with a woman without swearing to support her for the rest of his life first (contraception/abortion; also because conceiving a child out of marriage is not a death sentence for her anymore – she can support herself, or rely on the state support);
    3) leave his family behind, and it will not perish (state support, women in work).

    Antibiotics; contraception and abortions; opening labour market for women and the welfare state – those things (and inherit selfishness of men) made the current state of affairs possible. Left supported all of them indeed – and they were cheered by big enough share of the population.

    But antibiotics and the welfare state are not forever.

  • Great article Kathy. Can I add that there have been two consequences of the sexual revolution that unconsciously destroy our youths self esteem (and I would hazard why they are such ‘snowflakes’ as they are unable to cope with any more damage);
    1. As a result of no-fault divorce children, who have 23 chromosomes from each parent, live with the image in the mirror to a greater and lesser extent of the person each of their parents left because ‘they just weren’t in love anymore’. What a message to send to a child who no doubt looks, has the mannerisms of etc of at least one spouse. After all, if the parents can fall out of love with the adult who not only looks like them, but to an extent is them, why can’t they just fall out of love and abandon them?
    2. Abortion activists, cloyingly saying what gat about the child in front of them is because they’re ‘wanted’ or sending a message to a generation of children that if they were unwanted it would have not only been acceptable, but their ‘right’ and even ’empowering’ to have killed them. Again what message is that to send to children?

  • JohnInCambridge

    Superb article. But there is no direction foreseeable but down, down, down. Ironically, Labour politicians in the 50s would have been shocked if they had been brought into the present so it isn’t leftism per se which is causing society to fall apart. It’s possibly simplistic to say so but having lived for 72 years I think the rot started in the 1960s when ‘standards’ of all sorts started to be mocked and inter alia single mothers started to be given housing and money by the state. If I am reminded by history of a similar period of rot I think of Hogarth’s portrayals of 18th century London. This implies that something deeper, more long-lasting and more impervious to political solutions is going on. I don’t think I shall live to see the bottom let alone the equivalent of the Victorian renaissance.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      I consider that you would have to go back to the Labour party of the 1930s to find them shocked by today’s Labour party antics. There were not many ex-manual workers left in the 1950s party ranks, as there were twenty years before. They were already filling with public school/university/lobbyist/MP trustafarians in 1955.
      Would Ernest Bevin find a single word to say in favour of Blair’s legacy?

    • Margaret Robinson

      Yes I totally agree. When do gooders insisted that single mothers had to be given support sometimes well in excess of married couples with only the husband working. The more kids they had the bigger the house and the income while itinerant fathers floated in and out of their lives. Then single mum’s moved in their boyfriends of the day while continuing to claim benefits. The easiest way too leave home was to have a child and demand a house and benefits. This was the norm and a smack in the face for the single mum’s who were doing their best. Morals became looser self respect unimportant and ambition lost in the knowledge the benefits were forever. Employment not worth the effort because it could not compete with benefit payments. Now the leftist have perused the agenda of me me me and with no boundaries, little sense of self achievement self respect and depleting morals children find it hard to cope with life in general.

  • Thomas Katz

    Margaret Thatcher stole their milk,
    Blair’s New Labour stole their childhood,

    one of the first things he did in his social diktat was to change the law to allow boys to be buggered at 16 years old

    • TheRightToArmBears

      And Harriet and her lefty PIE chums wanted the age-limit to be done away with.

  • Colonel Mustard

    I think they have changed the foundations of life and life itself for everyone. They are negatives who destroy on the deceit of an unattainable positive. Their “best” is the enemy of most existing good. The “progress” is inevitably coerced. Everything is judged on intentions and the consequences manipulated by suppression.

    • TheRightToArmBears

      Since you are disagreeing with the received wisdom of our betters in Whitehall, are you not aware that your heresy will soon be regarded as a hate-crime?

      • Colonel Mustard

        Our “betters” in Whitehall should be thoroghly ashamed of themselves. I view them as little better than an alien occupation force – or at least the puppet regime for one.