Years of liberal dogma spawned a generation

[Socio]

This is a good read it gives some perspective on the underlying causes of what is going on in the UK today and similarly the US.

Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters

A few weeks after the U.S. city of Detroit was ravaged by 1967 race riots in which 43 people died, I was shown around the wrecked areas by a black reporter named Joe Strickland.

He said: ‘Don’t you believe all that stuff people here are giving media folk about how sorry they are about what happened. When they talk to each other, they say: “It was a great fire, man!” ’

I am sure that is what many of the young rioters, black and white, who have burned and looted in England through the past few shocking nights think today.

It was fun. It made life interesting. It got people to notice them. As a girl looter told a BBC reporter, it showed ‘the rich’ and the police that ‘we can do what we like’.

[conspiracybeliever]

If it were truly liberal dogma that created this mess how is it the capitalists gained so much from it?

[questionmark]

If it were truly liberal dogma that created this mess how is it the capitalists gained so much from it?

[Blackwhite]

I would bet that a lot, if not most, of the thugs causing trouble were from single parent families who have never seen their fathers.

For years, the Left in Britain have, for some reason, been against marriage and, unlike other countries, there are therefore no measures in place in Britain to reward marriage, such as tax breaks for married couples.

However, the Left in Britain loves to reward single motherhood by lavishing a huge and unnecessary amount of benefits and subsidies to single mothers.

However, a lot of research by experts over the years has shown that young people, especially boys, who grow up with no father and therefore no proper male role model are more likely to join violent gangs. This is because males are tribal and need to belong to a tribe or family. Having a father in the picture gives them this sense of alliance. Studies show that with no father figure in their lives boys are likelier to join gangs because they have to look outside the family for social acceptance. These gangs then take to our streets every night of the year - not just during riots - and cause ordinary people in many neighbourhoods to be too scared to leave their homes at night. And boys in Afro-Caribbean families in Britain are likelier to grow up in single parent families than boys of other ethnic persuasions.

Despite this, the Left for too long in this country has seen marriage, and the normal nuclear family of two parents - a father and a mother - as unnecessary (they love to promote marriage of people of the same sex, though).

So it was good to see Cameron in Parliament today giving two fingers to the Left by saying the Conservatives are to bring in measures, already in place in a lot of other countries, which will encourage and reward marriage - such as tax breaks for married couples - to try and get the number of young people in this country with no fathers in their lives cut dramatically and therefore reduce the number of young people joining violent gangs.

The anti-marriage policy of the Left has helped Britain's violent gangs to flourish.

http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/10/8-ways-black-dads-benefit-black-boys/

Edited August 11, 2011 by Blackwhite

[conspiracybeliever]

I would bet that a lot, if not most, of the thugs causing trouble were from single parent families who have never seen their fathers.

For years, the Left in Britain have, for some reason, been against marriage and, unlike other countries, there are therefore no measures in place in Britain to reward marriage, such as tax breaks for married couples.

However, the Left in Britain loves to reward single motherhood by lavishing a huge and unnecessary amount of benefits and subsidies to single mothers.

However, a lot of research by experts over the years has shown that young people, especially boys, who grow up with no father and therefore no proper male role model are more likely to join violent gangs. This is because males are tribal and need to belong to a tribe or family. Having a father in the picture gives them this sense of alliance. Studies show that with no father figure in their lives boys are likelier to join gangs because they have to look outside the family for social acceptance. These gangs then take to our streets every night of the year - not just during riots - and cause ordinary people in many neighbourhoods to be too scared to leave their homes at night. And boys in Afro-Caribbean families in Britain are likelier to grow up in single parent families than boys of other ethnic persuasions.

Despite this, the Left for too long in this country has seen marriage, and the normal nuclear family of two parents - a father and a mother - as unnecessary (they love to promote marriage of people of the same sex, though).

So it was good to see Cameron in Parliament today giving two fingers to the Left by saying the Conservatives are to bring in measures, already in place in a lot of other countries, which will encourage and reward marriage - such as tax breaks for married couples - to try and get the number of young people in this country with no fathers in their lives cut dramatically and therefore reduce the number of young people joining violent gangs.

The anti-marriage policy of the Left has helped Britain's violent gangs to flourish.

http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/10/8-ways-black-dads-benefit-black-boys/

So in other words we should push marriage? Force women to stay home and drop babies and watch soap operas and cook and clean and wait on their man? That's the answer?

[questionmark]

So in other words we should push marriage? Force women to stay home and drop babies and watch soap operas and cook and clean and wait on their man? That's the answer?

For all those who are less competent than the average woman, yes. That way they would get a job.

[conspiracybeliever]

For all those who are less competent than the average woman, yes. That way they would get a job.

That's what I thought.

[Socio]

In a nutshell when you convince the masses that they are entitled to the fruits of other peoples labor you get what we see today in the UK, else where in Europe and will happen in the US.

This is a direct result of years of liberal dogma exactly as the OP article suggests, the liberal left aganda whether it is in Europe, the US or anywhere else does not work, never has, never ever will, they are perpetually wrong with a permanent inability to learn from their mistakes.

[conspiracybeliever]

In a nutshell when you convince the masses that they are entitled to the fruits of other peoples labor you get what we see today in the UK, else where in Europe and will happen in the US.

This is a direct result of years of liberal dogma exactly as the OP article suggests, the liberal left aganda whether it is in Europe, the US or anywhere else does not work, never has, never ever will, they are perpetually wrong with a permanent inability to learn from their mistakes.

So if it's liberal dogma why did the capitalists gain so much from it?

[itsnotoutthere]

In a nutshell when you convince the masses that they are entitled to the fruits of other peoples labor you get what we see today in the UK, else where in Europe and will happen in the US.

This is a direct result of years of liberal dogma exactly as the OP article suggests, the liberal left aganda whether it is in Europe, the US or anywhere else does not work, never has, never ever will, they are perpetually wrong with a permanent inability to learn from their mistakes.

Spot on.

I would bet that a lot, if not most, of the thugs causing trouble were from single parent families who have never seen their fathers.

For years, the Left in Britain have, for some reason, been against marriage and, unlike other countries, there are therefore no measures in place in Britain to reward marriage, such as tax breaks for married couples.

However, the Left in Britain loves to reward single motherhood by lavishing a huge and unnecessary amount of benefits and subsidies to single mothers.

However, a lot of research by experts over the years has shown that young people, especially boys, who grow up with no father and therefore no proper male role model are more likely to join violent gangs. This is because males are tribal and need to belong to a tribe or family. Having a father in the picture gives them this sense of alliance. Studies show that with no father figure in their lives boys are likelier to join gangs because they have to look outside the family for social acceptance. These gangs then take to our streets every night of the year - not just during riots - and cause ordinary people in many neighbourhoods to be too scared to leave their homes at night. And boys in Afro-Caribbean families in Britain are likelier to grow up in single parent families than boys of other ethnic persuasions.

Despite this, the Left for too long in this country has seen marriage, and the normal nuclear family of two parents - a father and a mother - as unnecessary (they love to promote marriage of people of the same sex, though).

So it was good to see Cameron in Parliament today giving two fingers to the Left by saying the Conservatives are to bring in measures, already in place in a lot of other countries, which will encourage and reward marriage - such as tax breaks for married couples - to try and get the number of young people in this country with no fathers in their lives cut dramatically and therefore reduce the number of young people joining violent gangs.

The anti-marriage policy of the Left has helped Britain's violent gangs to flourish.

http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/10/8-ways-black-dads-benefit-black-boys/

Ditto.

[itsnotoutthere]

The riots were not political, they were envy and greed. You have what I want, so I will take it. If I cannot have what you have, I will destroy it. You have given me every opportunity to have what you have, but you have also given me every opportunity to not bother. You paid me to go to school and fail. You paid me to stay at home on the sofa all day and fail. You will pay for my housing, my taxes, my heating and my beer. I will repay you with spite and destruction. It is my right. I am equal to you. You cannot touch me because I have chosen to be “deprived” but I can threaten, rob and steal from you because you gave me a label that says I can have anything I damn well like.

So, the much lauded “equality” that we have built over the past 50 years is nothing more than an excuse to be feckless and lawless and have others rebuild what you have torn down in a fit of jealous rage. And it’s my fault, of course.

We have tolerated the expansion of a feral class of youth. We have celebrated “diversity” whilst they have celebrated the freedom under the auspices of “equality” to turn parts of London into gang run shooting alleys.

We have spawned an entire generation that is not educated enough to earn a living from anything other than drug dealing and crime. A dangerous generation that values “status” above morals, materialism above society and has no concept of “improvement”

WE told kids it was OK to be a gangsta. We protected them from the consequences of their actions under the banner of equality and diversity. We told them it was fine to act and behave as a lawless thugs as if challenging that behaviour would somehow offend them.

Whilst “da bruvvers” are celebrating an intake of free widescreen TVs, those who defend them by inaction against their lawlessness are preparing to complain to me that no businesses or jobs will come to the areas they trashed. And it will be my fault. Again.

None of the looters over the weekend is “trapped”. All of them make a choice, as we all do. Live your life as you see fit. If you choose drug dealing, theft and violence as a career choice, don’t you dare call me a bigot when I refuse to support your “diversity”

Here’s a plan.

You get nothing. You want it, go and get it with hard work, application, self discipline, ambition, pride and self respect. You will not get a “certificate” for trying, you will not have your bills paid by me “to get you started”. You are entitled to nothing from me. You will stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own life. You will not rely on the endless handouts of hardworking taxpayers, you will not beg Politicians for a bigger slice of the cake you refuse to help bake and you will not cling to the apron strings of the State whilst throwing tantrums because others might have what you do not.

Edited August 11, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[quillius]

The riots were not political, they were envy and greed. You have what I want, so I will take it. If I cannot have what you have, I will destroy it. You have given me every opportunity to have what you have, but you have also given me every opportunity to not bother. You paid me to go to school and fail. You paid me to stay at home on the sofa all day and fail. You will pay for my housing, my taxes, my heating and my beer. I will repay you with spite and destruction. It is my right. I am equal to you. You cannot touch me because I have chosen to be “deprived” but I can threaten, rob and steal from you because you gave me a label that says I can have anything I damn well like.

So, the much lauded “equality” that we have built over the past 50 years is nothing more than an excuse to be feckless and lawless and have others rebuild what you have torn down in a fit of jealous rage. And it’s my fault, of course.

Here’s a plan.

You get nothing. You want it, go and get it with hard work, application, self discipline, ambition, pride and self respect. You will not get a “certificate” for trying, you will not have your bills paid by me “to get you started”. You are entitled to nothing from me. You will stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for your own life. You will not rely on the endless handouts of hardworking taxpayers, you will not beg Politicians for a bigger slice of the cake you refuse to help bake and you will not cling to the apron strings of the State whilst throwing tantrums because others might have what you do not.

Im am sure we have clashed in the past itsnotoutthere on other topics.....

but you make a lot of sense here and I fully agree, I especially love the opening part (bolded) this I think sums the attitude up of those involved and many more that havent yet taken part.

[itsnotoutthere]

Im am sure we have clashed in the past itsnotoutthere on other topics.....

but you make a lot of sense here and I fully agree, I especially love the opening part (bolded) this I think sums the attitude up of those involved and many more that havent yet taken part.

[conspiracybeliever]

I still don't get how it was liberal dogma but the capitalists gained so much from it. How do you think that happened?

[itsnotoutthere]

So in other words we should push marriage? Force women to stay home and drop babies and watch soap operas and cook and clean and wait on their man? That's the answer?

Wow, what an outdated & old fashioned vision of marriage you have.

I've been married for twenty years & i don't recognise anything you've written in that sentance. Perhaps you were thinking of some victorian book you've read.

Edited August 11, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[TSS]

I still don't get how it was liberal dogma but the capitalists gained so much from it. How do you think that happened?

Maybe some examples would help people understand what you are referring too!

[itsnotoutthere]

I still don't get how it was liberal dogma but the capitalists gained so much from it. How do you think that happened?

I think you are taking the phrase 'liberal dogma' in totally the wrong way. What's liberal dogma got to do with capitalists gaining anything?

My interpretaion to the op's thread is the dire results our wishy washy liberal approach to crime & punishment has spawned a generation of disrespectful thuggish unintelligent pond life.

Edited August 11, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[Cyberfly]

I began reading this thread and thought to myself, "Wow. How anybody can twist a simple statement around to mean whatever they want?" Then itsnotoutthere comes in and lays down the smack and puts it so succinctly that I applaud you! Thank you for putting into words what I could never do.

To take a simple concept of 'children raised by a single parent are lacking something, therefore they feel compelled to join gangs' to mean that if you SUPPORT marriage then the female MUST stay home, barefoot, watching soap operas and popping out babies?! OMG! How...ludicrous can one be to twist things around?

I'm OLD, but even back in MY day when I had to take child psychology classes the very same experts of those days stated that children raised by a single parent (and they didn't specify the mother) were LACKING and tended to become problem children...it's an old concept, but one realized by statistics. No, that isn't to say that ALL children raised in single parent homes will turn out that way. So please don't twist my words or theirs. But just as children raised by abusive parents tend to have a higher tendancy to grow up violent...but that doesn't mean that ALL will. Just as children who are sexually abused tend to grow up to become abusers themselves, but that doesn't mean that ALL do.

It just goes to show that there are patterns.

And patterns show that children who grow up in healthy, two parent families tend to be better off finanically, tend to be better adjusted, tend to do better in schools, etc. So why not SUPPORT marriage?

Oh, yeah. Because it goes against the liberal agenda.

I forgot.

[WoIverine]

In this day and age, I'd personally stay far away from conservative and liberal brandings. They have both failed us, repeatedly.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Spid3rCyd3

[Rlyeh]

And patterns show that children who grow up in healthy, two parent families tend to be better off finanically, tend to be better adjusted, tend to do better in schools, etc. So why not SUPPORT marriage?

Oh, yeah. Because it goes against the liberal agenda.

I forgot.

Wait, how is it the liberals fault if people don't want to marry?

Maybe you should be replacing the word SUPPORT with FORCE.

[conspiracybeliever]

Wow, what an outdated & old fashioned vision of marriage you have.

I've been married for twenty years & i don't recognise anything you've written in that sentance. Perhaps you were thinking of some victorian book you've read.

It's possible. I haven't been married in a while. I still don't get having to be legally tied to someone for the rest of your life but that's just me.

[conspiracybeliever]

I think you are taking the phrase 'liberal dogma' in totally the wrong way. What's liberal dogma got to do with capitalists gaining anything?

My interpretaion to the op's thread is the dire results our wishy washy liberal approach to crime & punishment has spawned a generation of disrespectful thuggish unintelligent pond life.

I assumed liberal dogma meant liberal beliefs and actions. Maybe I did misunderstand something.

[conspiracybeliever]

I began reading this thread and thought to myself, "Wow. How anybody can twist a simple statement around to mean whatever they want?" Then itsnotoutthere comes in and lays down the smack and puts it so succinctly that I applaud you! Thank you for putting into words what I could never do.

To take a simple concept of 'children raised by a single parent are lacking something, therefore they feel compelled to join gangs' to mean that if you SUPPORT marriage then the female MUST stay home, barefoot, watching soap operas and popping out babies?! OMG! How...ludicrous can one be to twist things around?

I'm OLD, but even back in MY day when I had to take child psychology classes the very same experts of those days stated that children raised by a single parent (and they didn't specify the mother) were LACKING and tended to become problem children...it's an old concept, but one realized by statistics. No, that isn't to say that ALL children raised in single parent homes will turn out that way. So please don't twist my words or theirs. But just as children raised by abusive parents tend to have a higher tendancy to grow up violent...but that doesn't mean that ALL will. Just as children who are sexually abused tend to grow up to become abusers themselves, but that doesn't mean that ALL do.

It just goes to show that there are patterns.

And patterns show that children who grow up in healthy, two parent families tend to be better off finanically, tend to be better adjusted, tend to do better in schools, etc. So why not SUPPORT marriage?

Oh, yeah. Because it goes against the liberal agenda.

I forgot.

Or we could find other ways to fix the problems rather than force people into marriage. You're seeing better marriages than I do obviously. Most marriages I see are not happy marriages. Most people are bored and pretty much given up. It's that "this is it" thing. They usually can't get out of it for financial reasons. Money or lack of is keeping them together more than anything. I don't see how that is good for children. And I also don't see the patterns you speak of.

[andrew_matthias]

I agree with the OP, too many are being rewarded for doing nothing but scratching their ass all day and drinking beer/watching soaps cause they can, the dole just keeps on coming every month and that is more then enough for them.. Especially if they have 15 kids running around dirty and unwashed, that also improves the situation since the more kids you dropped the more money you get and screw educating, clothing and caring about them. And yes I am not PC nor will I ever be when it comes to speaking the truth...

[conspiracybeliever]

Ok but I just don't see how it's years of liberal dogma when the capitalists gained so much.