Friday 11 May 2012

The Things That Can't Be Said

Another awful QT last night. I think Dimmo might be losing it, he couldn't stop the bickering and grandstanding by the ridiculous Chris Bryant. I am ambivalent about academics on the programme. On the one hand their specialisation should provide a better, more considered and structured answer to questions, but of course so many of them will only participate through a Left wing filter. It is the only thing academia takes pride in across the board; being politically naive.

The most telling section though was the absolute and overwhelming inability of anyone to answer the question, asking whether the recent grooming convictions of an Asian gang, had racial overtones. Firstly, we should recognise that if it had been a white gang targeting Asian girls our media and politicians would be screaming about its racist nature. Secondly, that it is culture not race that is the issue.

A man in religious garb got himself in an almighty mess by trying to make valid points, but tip toeing around them. Naturally he felt he had to do this due to current 'sensibilities', but even so Bryant was shaking his head vigorously, as he spotted a politically correct issue being abused.

To summarise what the poor fellow was trying to say; the case featured white girls as young as 13 becoming friendly with men in their mid forties, because they were offered free chips. He questioned where this lack of discretion came from. He also said that the vogue for girls to dress skimpily doesn't help and sends out the wrong message (cue the Bryant head shaking). And finally, to show his complete ignorance of left wing orthodoxy, he wondered what their parents were doing about them, or social services if they are in care. He even corrected himself when he almost mentioned a 'normal' family.

His points were valid, spot on and entirely relevant. This had the left shouting him down of course. Why do girls dress in very revealing clothes? Because it is fashionable we are told, usually by people who don't trouble themselves with thinking before saying. But it is not is it. They dress like that because we have removed social principles from ourselves and moral codes just don't exist (look at how high Brown claimed was his moral rectitude, when all the evidence showed he doesn't have any, at all).

They dress like that to appear 'sexy', to attract males. That it is done ever younger is due, again, to the efforts of the Left to sexualise children (through 'education') and the lack of parental control. To a group of men from a community that, on the whole, sees women as very much second class objects and requires them to cover themselves from head to foot we get another extreme reaction. They see the overtly sexual dress of these girls as proof of their lack of concern for themselves as sexual objects.

To be clear, the culture provides a different way of looking at these girls, which generally just manifests itself as disgust and lack of respect. These men took that further and acted on their own urges, which makes them as criminal and as evil as anyone else who cannot act in a decent manner. This is the clash of multiculturalism and it is why the Left do not allow this debate. It is yet more evidence of the faulty nature of their ideology, so must be hidden. However for some, multiculturalism causing these divisions and strive, is exactly what is intended.

From my cultural background, I have a lack of respect for a medieval creed that treats women as inferior, however, I still think that, having attained a degree of choice, a little restraint should be shown in public. It was interesting to note that none of the QT audience, including the raging Lefties, was dressed in micro skirt, boobs hanging out, stockings and high heels. Maybe they didn't think it appropriate though heaven knows why, because apparently, it doesn't have a 'meaning' it is just a form of garment.

On the subject of race, it was kept very clearly to meaning colour of skin, at no point was anyone allowed to suggest that the culture of Pakistan, through the backward nature of the interpretation of Islam they have chosen, means that a clash with our own failings was inevitable.

So what are our failings? Our cultural misdeeds?  Well, our religious friend covered all of that too. Our so called culture is no such thing, it is a thread of historic traditions and institutions, hanging together loosely in an almost forgotten way, assaulted on all sides by Leftist doctrine that relentlessly ridicules it. Gay marriage is not all the rage to right some inalienable wrong, it is a political crusade to destroy our society by undermining the basic unit of family. We know, absolutely, that the nuclear family of a married father and mother raising children results in the best outcomes for those children.

The Left deny this at every turn, not by facts but by ideology. It must be wrong they say to allow one system of relationship but deny another. Why must it? That people who cannot have children get together in relationships that are either platonic or sexual is of no concern or consequence to other people. Marriage however need never come into it. What are they forming a family unit for? They don't need to tie themselves to each other. And yes, the marriage and its vows, so spat upon by the Left these days (guess why), is in some ways supposed to be a coercion to stay together, for the sake of the children.

So, a little personal rectitude, a belief in decency and respect for others, self respect and a caring, supportive family would alleviate many of the problems that are making these children vulnerable, (as opposed to the Left construct of 'vulnerable children', something quite different). Interestingly, these concepts are the very ones espoused by the Christian faith, which has (with some admittedly pretty big hiccups along the way) served Western civilisation so well over the centuries. How it sticks in the throat of the Left in its attempt to control your lives.

Imagine the chaos without their central controlling influence; of people able to do what they wanted when they wanted, with respect and thought for others. To someone not of the privileged elite of course, this would seem an eminently desirable system, but the work of decades needs to be undone if we want that. Why, even people with a conscience and a clear idea of what is wrong around them, cannot speak openly in our 'free' society because he fears to 'offend'.

Chris Bryant. Let me summarise his position; race and culture are not and cannot be an issue, it is just Right wing intolerance that causes problems, that girls should be allowed to wear anything or nothing without it being interpreted as a conscious decision on their part, to send a message about their personality and intentions. Bryant doesn't think that the police failing to investigate a complaint for 4 years is a problem either, as it just showed they were exercising the right amount of sensitivity, to people of a different race and culture (not that they noticed that anyway).

Bryant also feels that the Coalition are making a mess of getting the country out of financial ruin, by adopting policies identical in all but the tiniest detail, to those of his own party. Although he applauded (as did the Lib Dem Lord, apparently an economist) the succession of Francois Hollande to the Presidency of France, promising to save the country by taxing the rich heavily and spending it on 'the people'. Cheers all round.

'The rich' however, will move their cash and probably themselves if he tries his reverse Robin Hood stunt. He will never raise the sums he imagines and his belief that moving money around inside France will change things, is idiotic at such a level, that it possibly creates a class of its own. The Conservatives know they need to regrow the economy to generate the wealth that drags us out of the mire, but somehow cannot turn that belief into action. Again it seems, it is just something you cannot say in public.






No comments:

Post a Comment