If you ever want evidence that Leftism is a virus that destroys everything it infects, look no further than ‘Girlguiding’, formerly the Girl Guides Association. This movement dates in the UK from 1910, when Robert Baden-Powell, founder of The Boy Scouts Association, established a separate organisation for girls.

Both had Christian values at their foundations and are known for challenging both boys and girls, in particular encouraging participation in outdoor activities. For decades these organisations were built up with loving devotion and plenty of volunteering. That was until Leftism took hold of them, and the Girl Guides in particular.

The first thing to go was God. The Guides no longer have to promise their devotion to God. Instead, they must be true to themselves – whatever that self might be. It could be selfish, it could be selfless, who knows. The most important thing to teach a child is to put themselves at the heart of everything. We all know that. This is the old promise:

On my honour, I promise that I will do my best:
To do my duty to God and the King/Queen (or God and my country);
To help other people at all times;
To obey the Guide Law.

The new promise is:

I promise that I will do my best
To be true to myself and develop my beliefs
To serve the Queen and my community
To help other people
To keep the Guide (Brownie) law

So me, myself and I, is the priority – before Queen and community. Obviously.

When a few dissenters said they wanted to keep God, they faced expulsion. They eventually surrendered to their new atheist/Leftist overlords.

So it should come as no surprise that the Girl Guides are now targeting girls themselves. The organisation is no longer a reserved space for girls, because boys who think they are girls can also join. Not only that, but boys will be able to able to share showers, toilets and sleeping quarters with girls on camping trips.

This will apply to all members, who are aged five to 25. And just so we know who is the boss, parents of girls as young as five will not automatically be told if their daughter is sharing facilities with a boy.

So not only are the Girl Guides no longer exclusively for girls, but the girls who do remain in it must share intimate spaces with boys, including teenagers.

This is what Leftism does. It never creates anything; it only destroys what others create. For years or maybe decades, people build up a tradition or organisation or community and then Leftism will pounce, slowly infecting it, changing various aspects of it, until eventually nothing of substance is left.

The Girl Guides are a small example but we can see it in the universities, in the Church of England and most obviously in the physical environment such as the homes we live in and the surrounding architecture. If we don’t fight back soon, there will be nothing left but ugly Leftism and its tower of nothingness.


  1. That there ‘leftism’ seems to have been quite successful at destroying a few things, Britain for example.

  2. The Guide Association caters for girls aged 5-7 (Rainbows), 7-10 (Brownies), 10-14 (Guides) and 14-25 (Seniors).
    Where have I heard this word ‘rainbow’ before? Now let me think.
    Could this be early indoctrination?

  3. ‘To be true to myself and develop my beliefs’

    Great line, I’m sure Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, all believed in it also, (to name a few)

  4. ” If we don’t fight back soon, there will be nothing left but ugly Leftism and its tower of nothingness”

    The British do not fight back. They ‘move to the country’

  5. I can see both sides of the coin here. I believe that both boys and girls need to learn to mix with one another; that should be uncontroversial.
    But it is also vitally important to recognise that there are times when they both need to have their own spaces, free from the opposite sex. What is happening now with allowing “transgendering” boys to join the guides, is really no worse than what has already been done to the scouts, where an important young male space has been destroyed by letting girls join in and inevitably take over. In fact male spaces are under attack everywhere, and it is the height of hypocrisy for females to demand that every such space be opened up for them to enter, while insisting on preserving their own spaces for themselves. There is the whiff of that hypocrisy here, and I don’t like it.

    But of course we should never have got into this mess in the first place. Closing down male spaces for no purpose other than to appease a group of posturing feminist baboons with hatred in their hearts and nothing between their ears, in the blind belief that it was striking a blow for “equality”, was to leap onto the slippery slope that has now carried us to this latest absurdity. With plenty more to come, you can be sure.

    Equally I don’t like the implication that boys are nothing but bad news for girls, that they always represent something between a liability and a threat and never anything better, and that male sexuality is something to be feared, demonised and contained. I suffered very badly from that assumption during my own growing up years. Everywhere I turned I was faced by the assertion that every single teenage boy, and thus by implication myself also, was a sex-crazed predator with a one-track mind, who would leap on any and every girl in sight if given a fraction of a chance. The reality was that I was physically attracted to girls but hugely scared of them and the sex act. That created a dilemma that was impossible to resolve and equally impossible even to talk about in the atmosphere and the culture of those times (many decades ago). It might not be much better now, because I still see the same assumptions and assertions. But I bet that I was not the only boy with that dilemma, and I bet there are still plenty more today.

    So I see this present argument about whether “transgender” boys (itself a meaningless term to me) should be allowed into the guides, as something that should never have got to such a stupid stage. We are only here because we have taken so many wrong turnings in the past. I don’t think many boys will join the guides, and I don’t think there will be many cases, if any, of sexual assaults, in either direction. They are supposed to be supervised by adults anyway, are they not. But I agree that boys should not be allowed in. There are plenty of other “girly” activities available for them if they feel compelled to indulge in them; there is no need to usurp every female space in sight. But equally, if boys should be banned from the guides, then girls should never have been allowed into the scouts, or other boys’ clubs and teams. Either keep single sex spaces for both boys and girls, or make out your case for abandoning both. But not this ugly lop-sided hotch potch of “you must share but we don’t have to”. No good will come of this.

    • A heart-felt comment. Thank you for it.

      The ideal of preserving Girl Guides for girls is not however just the issue of safety from sexual predation. It is the freedom for girls to try and accomplish hard, physical, outdoor tasks without feeling that they should automatically defer to physically stronger boys. It is the freedom to get sweaty and dirty without worrying about what boys think about your appearance. It is the freedom to do all of this without anyone suggesting you are a lesbian. These issues are perhaps more important than ever.

      • Spot on. That was the reason my daughter went to Guides. I’m against girls being in Scouts for the same reason.

    • “you must share but we don’t have to” In full agreement. It is both irritating and highly self defeating of conservative women to continue to adopt the high Victorian mode of males being “beasts”. For in fact it simply adds to the force of the cultural Marxists who can rely on such women to support the very destruction of traditional society. As timbazo comments below there are many reasons for single sex activities, and as you say it isn’t the case that just girls go through all sorts of embarrassment as they grow up, picking on the very rare possibility of a “trans” boy being in the guides as some unimaginable horror simply does the “all men are rapists” feminists work. The very success of feminism (there being few actual feminists) is built upon its use of our Victorian inheritance in the presumption that males are beasts and females angels. It has been a neat and hugely successful trick.

      • If you think this is ugly, wait until men will finally internalise the belief in our own “bestiality” and it will turn into a self-fulfilling destiny.

        As I say time and time again, model Leftist feminist society is American Black community of inner cities.

        • I hope you are wrong. I have “half full” approach to life as I observe that people appear to want do the “right thing” if given a bit of encouragement. You comment reminded me of my experience of East St Louis. At the time (over 20 years ago) it had been in the news as a bankrupt city, being unable to fund its police force etc. Visiting relatives in St Louis on the west of the river one day,against their advice, it took a trip across to East St Louis. It was truly shocking and humbling. Even though I knew Hulme and Moss Side in Manchester well, East St Louis was like entering a post apocalyptic world. It was a very important lesson that one cannot simply take the ease, comfort and peace we generally experience for granted. It was clear a once prosperous place in “the richest country in the world” could frighteningly quickly become a chaos of crime and despair. We do not have some magical “right” to all we have and it doesn’t “just happen”.
          Apart from anything else the distances in the US mean such places can be sort of “quarantined” and sort of forgotten by those who move out. In such a crowded country we don’t have even that luxury, quite apart from the moral wrong.

          • > I observe that people appear to want do the “right thing” if given a bit of encouragement.

            And what is a right thing? Is it the same that it was just 60 years ago?

            Is single motherhood a right thing now? Was it 60 years ago?

            Is a welfare dependency a right thing now? Was it 60 years ago?


            Of course, people tend to do the “right thing”. It’s just what we consider to be right that changed.

          • Well I’d agree the “right thing” could be a slippery thing. What interests me is that in my experience and research of all sorts the population tends to have remained fairly consistent about what is “right”. One of the intriguing things about single mothers and welfare is that even those who one would suppose would think it OK , don’t. In my experience its incredibly rare to hear people say its right, even when objectively they say this while being a welfare “cheat” or “determined serial single mother. In the innocence of youth I believed they were simply lying but now I think they are quite genuine. I think its underestimated by the educated and well motivated to what extent people feel life “happens” to them without any control. I think it easy to dismiss the long running dissonance between people’s expressed aspirations and what they do. Equally that often widespread support for “Gay marriage” etc. reflects simply that these things are important for celebrities etc. and have no real actual effect in people’s “world” as such.
            It is always ironic that in fact the most conservative (as opposed to Conservative) people are precisely those ignored by Conservatives.

          • Of course, everyone knows what’s right! And every person perfectly knows when he wastes his life away. But, oh how many excuses and self-rationalisations do we have now! And how eager we are to use them to defend what we deep inside know to be – laziness and cowardliness.

            If you are a religious person, you can say that we all now live in sin. If you are not, you can tell we all went wilfully blind and decided to collectively “look the other way”. One way or another, this always ends with a flood – be of The Flood of God’s fury, or the flood of Attila’s Huns, or the flood of Louisiana’s broken dams – specifics hardly matter.

            What Left does, it manufactures social consensus on acceptability of excuses people may use to avoid pushing themselves to achieve the high standards of the past. That’s what I meant to be “right thing” – socially acceptable, normal, justifiable behaviour.

    • Many teenage boys are quite shy and feel a bit nervous approaching girls. That does not just apply to “wimps.” Some of them may be quite tough when it comes to sporting activities but still be fearful of rejection by girls who are sometimes unnecessarily brusque when they are not interested.

    • “Posturing feminist baboons”.

      1 uptick & 1000 brownie points! (note the irony).

      You can always rely on this site for a purple phrase or two.

  6. This is spot on. Since the thirties (or earlier?) there have been leftist/atheist versions of Guides and Scouts (eg Woodcraft Folk). Never heard of them? That’s because they weren’t popular outside Labour and other leftist circles. For well over two hundred years liberal dissenters from the CoE have been free to create their own churches. The Quakers and Unitarians are examples. Yet in the last few decades left/liberals hijacked existing institutions, destroying their traditions and principles rather than having the courage to start their own. If they truly believed in pluralism they’d be satisfied with creating alternatives that reflect their views, rather than invading the spaces of others like parasites destroying the host.

  7. And of course Girls have long been able to join in Cubs and Scouts. Sharing facilities. Too little too late to complain now. Frankly it serves the Guides right and the women who all too eagerly demand to “join in” when it suits.

  8. Organisations like the Scouts and Guides are steadily finding it more difficult to find adults to run the local groups. One of the major problems is the Child Protection legislation with people unwilling to submit to the necessary enquiries due to the possibility of errors and mistaken identity. I certainly would not, I have a very common name; there was another boy in my class at school with an identical name (both Christian names and surname) and just three days difference in age. The risk of someone mistaking one for the other would be too high.
    This is affecting many organisations; for example there are no longer any youngsters in our Church choir.
    Even if I was prepared to go through the hassle of being cleared to work with children, I certainly would not want to take responsibility of allowing children
    of opposite sexes in my care to use the same facilities. I suspect many working with the Guides and Scouts will feel the same, with the loss of yet more leaders and the ultimate demise of the organisation.

  9. I find it amusing to consider the “leftism” to be a radical universalist deist proto-Christian fundamentalist sect. It follows “the spirit” of Christianity with all “ancient” bits (like the original sin, or the figure of God, or eternal life after death) left. It is hard for me to classify it, as I was born and raised in the country where all forms of traditional religious belief were banned after a decade of terror and executions of clergy, but it seems to be very closely related to Quakers.

    Universal all-inclusivity (because all people are born good and righteous, and it’s an unfair system that spoils them) and eternal peace (supported by an overwhelming might of the religious commune policing the others – hence discarding the idea of national sovereignty) – isn’t these sound familiar to you? I say, the “progressivist” movement of a the new left is effectively an avante-guard of good old Quakers.

    It might be that this branch of cultists left the Blighty for the New World, slowly built up their hegemony there (Revolution, Civil War, The New Deal are all milestones of ascension to power), and then extended itself to the rest of the World after the European self-destruction of the two World Wars, during the Marshal plan and “decolonization” (replacing European colonial administrations with either pro-Americans, or pro-Soviet puppet states, both countries being led by different branches of the same proto-religious cult).

    Just look at their teachings:
    “This universal saving Light is extended to all people, everywhere, and at all times. There is no predestined failure of any man or woman. The Light can bring salvation even if the Scriptures are absent. Outward knowledge of the historic Jesus is not a criteria for salvation by Him.

    Receiving and accepting the Light transforms the individual, sanctifying and justifying him or her. Good works are an inevitable indicator that this has taken place. Fully accepting the Light and becoming fully sanctified can result in a sinless earthly existence, immune from temptation, if that is God’s will. But rejecting the Light is always possible, and even after we accept God’s grace, we can through our own will turn from it and be lost.”

    We might replace the “saving Light” for “Marx’s teachings”, as people often do. But should we? This thing predates Marx by centuries.

    Of course, “accepting the Light” happens by attending the modern University. Hence the calls for “re-education” on the “Left” for people, who “rejected the Light”.

    • I was a practising Quaker for many years, and don’t recognise this description of it. What it has now become, under leftist influence, is quite another matter.

      • I am not equalising Quakerism with the Modern Left – both parties will loudly oppose this.

        I merely point out that the former might had a significant intellectual influence on the later. In short, one of the explanations for the changes of last half century is: the West is ruled by the ideological descendants of English Dissenters. Not as a conspiracy of any sort, mind you, but through the gradual domination of their value system over everything else.

        But that is just an amusing theory.

        • I would say that the main influence on the English Dissenters was the Bible. Platonic mysticism was indeed an influence,but a relatively minor one.
          If you want to find the origin of modern leftism, I think you need to look outside the Christian tradition altogether.

        • Further to my last comment, the source of Quaker teaching regarding the ‘Light within’ is the Gospel of John. This could hardly be more different from the ideas of the ‘Illuminati’.

  10. Several comments here about the Quakers, with Sargv explaining that non-conformists returned to the old country from the new world to subvert the order of society. Friends House at Euston has hosted several Islamist events. I know a few Quakers, and they are all left-wing intellectuals.

  11. I don’t know why you think that any of this is left-wing. You clearly haven’t been reading the Morning Star. Expecting the whole world to accept that you are even the very sex that you say that you are is neoliberalism at its purest. The first principle of neoliberalism is, of course, the “free” market. Like any economic arrangement, that is not a law of nature, but a political choice, and every political choice is a moral choice. There cannot be a “free” market in general but not in alcohol, tobacco, gambling, arms, drugs, prostitution or pornography. Therefore, there must not be a “free” market in general.

    • > You clearly haven’t been reading the Morning Star.

      Morning Star is the Old Left. Guardian (or, rather, NYT) is the New Left. Guess which one is more relevant.

        • NHS begs for money. Doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant, only that it is badly mismanaged.

          As for the current leader of the Labour party, I’d say that the Guardian have more influence on British domestic and foreign policy than Corbyn ever would, even as PM.

          For Britain is not ruled by elected politicians. She is ruled by the “experts”, and journalists, and the civil service. PMs is here to implement the public policies presented by the “experts”, while journalists are making sure that the moment PM steps away from the plan, the manufactured public opinion will put her back on track.

          • You tell me. I am a Russian, who start using English in my daily life about four years ago, after moving to the UK as an expat.

            A brief internet search shows this specific wording being used by various newspapers – although, given the current state of British and American educational systems, that hardly proves anything.

            I guess it might be considered to be a double negation, but it probably resides in a grey area: while not being incorrect, it certainly “scratches an ear” (as we say in Russian) of a native speaker.

  12. I see that ‘On my honour’ has been left out. I suppose because the concept of ‘honour’ is incomprehensible those who promise to be ‘true to myself’

  13. Julie Bentley, the head of the Guides, is a former CEO of the Family Planning Association, a satanic pro-abortion organisation. Lots of its senior staff also work for the FPA, and they promote homosexuality and transgenderism.

    It was an astonishing coup for these people to have captured the Guides and Scouts, but they have captured most of the institutions now. They will come for the Catholic Church.

  14. It used to be that parents and organisations like the Girl Guides were charged with the responsibility of teaching children who they were – of teaching them an identity. At the center of this instruction would be the binary differentiation between male and female. But now, in order to justify adults who do not wish to be told that their sexual desires are perverse, we have thrown that responsibility back upon the children themselves. And of course they are wholly inadequate to the task. It must lead to confusion, angst, lack of identity in children who do not have the tools to answer questions like “Who am I? What am I?” They don’t even have the security of family identification anymore as adults couple and decouple at will, scattering children across the landscape like broken pieces of glass.
    There is a price to be paid for this.

  15. Boys who claim to be girls might be welcome in the Guides, but boys who claim to be boys are most certainly not. Oddly enough though, girls who claim to “feminist girl power girls” are very much welcome in the Scouts…..

Comments are closed.