To defend the realm, first defend its building blocks


The defence of the family and of the institution of marriage is simply not a solely Christian thing – it precedes that faith by thousands of years and is the cornerstone of all other societies to a greater or lesser extent.  Read this for a summary of ancient civilizations in a nutshell.  To defend the Family is actually a highly political act because it is acting to oppose the forces in society who are not far away from their victory.

This is what the blogosphere is all about – there are so many sites out there trying to preserve our way of life under assault from outside [terrorism] and from within.  Yet the more invidious assault is on the very fabric of society and this was what the Brown government was caught out doing – using immigration as one tool to socially re-engineer us.

And to what end?   Seven points were listed in the previous post on this matter, points which not only were published by the people behind them but were then taken up by Marx and incorporated in the manifesto.  They are still the stated goal of the Labour Party, though it’s not in the manifesto, it’s hidden away in their home page About, e.g. here and here.

It is committed to the breakdown of the institutions in our society and people who only read the manifesto swallowed it hook, line and sinker and voted them in, with the consequences you now see around you.

If you wish to reconstitute society, you must first break down its building blocks and the main building blocks are the family, religious faith, patriotism to a heritage, property and inheritance because it is through these that power descends.

Look at the Great Families in history and the obstacle they presented to the attempts to unify the country under one monarch.  Families are power bases and through the way they are interwoven, they give the roots and binding power to the society and its handed down culture.

Obviously, if you are attempting to socially re-engineer, you need to have control of all means of values being passed down generation to generation.  Therefore you must control what new children are exposed to.  You can only do that in a nanny state where people are separated from their natural bonds, from the self-actualizing tendency to join, marry and procreate.

Cherie takes me to task for being hard on Welshcakes who said that she always thought the family was based on love, not procreation.

That is just not borne out by history.

romance in marriage
[David R. Shumway: Modern love: romance, intimacy, and the marriage crisis, New York University Press, 2003, p20]

The notion of marrying for love is relatively modern outside of Shakespeare and other authors and composers – even in Victorian times, one married to advantage.  The family was not nuclear either but extended. Each family was a little Empire and as Thatcher indicated, that’s from where society gains its strength – in the same way that the grasses and roots bind the soil.

There are many ways to attack and take control of people.  One is to play on the natural discontent of women with their state and thus Feminism is a high and noble undertaking, its ultimate consequence, unintended by devotees but quite intended by the Blavatskies of the world, is to sew disharmony and discord, to set men against women and women against men.

This is its evil – the way it plays on natural resentments and so is assured of greater success.

Another way is to present to the upcoming generation, through education, film, the law and medicine, the constant notion that there exists some sort of “sexual orientation”, that there are equal and opposite choices when in fact, this is a statistical fiction.  The most extreme result of this re-engineering of society is the notion of gay marriage, equally as noble as real marriage.

We could argue that point forever but what it does, in real terms, is syphon off as much natural bonding into ultimately unproductive unions as possible, seen in terms of the survival of the society as a whole, that society heavily dependent on procreation and the natural bond of child to both parents.

A third way is to break down religion, where that religion demands that two people join in a legally binding union, either for love or not, with the ultimate result of producing children and thus the society’s mores, values and survivability are also passed down.

Societies in their death throes abandon such things and thus we have today’s situation of people increasingly living in their little boxes, alone, bringing in the opposite gender for sexual purposes but not binding in any sustainable or wholesome way.  “Wholesome” here entails “commitment” and “responsibility”.

This creates a huge vacuum and financial burden for the tax payer and no prizes for guessing who steps in to replace the Family.  Of course – the State.  This is what the Mentoring programme is all about.  As usual, people will say it is only for the most vulnerable families and that it is a noble and worthy cause.  It always is that way at the start, just as FEMA is a noble and worthy emergency service … on the surface.

It is not by accident that Orwell called his departments Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Love.  It is not by accident that the USSR called its media organ Pravda – Truth.

Who is the Mentoring Programme for?  For the dysfunctional.  And who decides that?  Social workers in the department, according to sets of criteria.  And who decides these?  The State, through its agencies.  It’s highly incestuous.

As Britain goes onto the dole, more and more families are under extreme duress and the State is ready to step in with the cash – our cash.  We ourselves are personally destitute in the sense of owing credit issuers, unemployed as businesses crash and the State assumes the role of Mother Pig, with her millions of teats.

So, the credit issuers, the Central Bank authorized minor banks, get us into penury through the disconnect between prices and incomes and who steps in to pick up the pieces?

The State.

But who is the State?  In America, it is the formers of policy – the double-headed CFR, TLC et al on the one hand and the money issuers, the private Fed on the other.  And lo and behold, the names of the firms and the Great Families behind and in a controlling position in each are the same names, the ones who’ve been bailed out and who have just posted near record profits.

Dave Cole says I go off on a tangent.  No, what I do is proceed to the next link in the chain, chains interwoven like spaghetti.  It’s just a case of which ones to focus on at any one time.

Make no mistake, people – there is social engineering going on, it has goals [as stated above and in the previous post on the matter], they are working towards those goals and have almost got there.  They will by about 2020.

What can the common man do under this assault?  Very little but he can start by reaffirming the institution of marriage and the family and if enough people work hard to preserve their family units, then the global cause will ultimately be defeated and subside for another 30 years.

If we ignore this or refuse to heed the clear warning signs, one tangential consequence is that we are heading for war, for a start.

10 comments for “To defend the realm, first defend its building blocks

  1. ivan
    October 26, 2009 at 10:07

    You missed one assault on the family – the Badman report into home education. If implemented, and it appears that it will be, it will give the state the power to stop people from teaching their children anything other than the state mantra.

  2. October 26, 2009 at 10:38

    I’m going to have to look into this. Here is one comment.

    I’m in two minds on this. Firstly, we have to keep this monstrosity of a government’s hands off education and home schooling is an attempt to escape the clutches of the socialists. On the other hand, dame schools are a known historical phenomenon and not a good one.

    While it’s right that there are guidelines which need following and the National Curriculum, by and large, sets out the areas which need teaching, even though accompanied by erroneous methodology, it is hugely problematic that this has been accompanied by raid warrants and the right to indoctrinate put words into the mouths of interview children alone, for the purpose of building cases against parents.

  3. October 26, 2009 at 13:16

    I will have to respond to this at greater length another time, but a few things jump out at me.

    1. The change caused by immigration is not predictable; note that more people are attending Catholic services as a result of immigration from countries like Poland.

    2. You link to some of Labour’s socialist societies as evidence that there is an effort to undermine religion. On that page you will see the Christian Socialist Movement and the Jewish Labour Movement, which suggests a different interpretation to me.

    3. You link to an interpretation of the Communist manifesto. Quite what this has to do with the Labour party – “the Labour party has always owed more to Methodism than Marxism” – is beyond me.

    4. Finally, you criticise said people for social engineering, even though in your first paragraph you say that to defend the family is a highly political act. That can be taken as engineering, too. You need to set out a defence of why the traditional conception of marriage is ‘the good’ to the exclusion of any other form of marriage.

    Like the new website, btw. Good design.


    • October 26, 2009 at 13:52


      You link to an interpretation of the Communist manifesto. Quite what this has to do with the Labour party – “the Labour party has always owed more to Methodism than Marxism” – is beyond me.

      Because of what is written into its programme – it is Marxist.

      4. You must have been smiling when you wrote this. Good sense of humour, Dave. 🙂

  4. ivan
    October 26, 2009 at 18:43


    Have a look at for a reasonable in depth at the badman report.

  5. October 26, 2009 at 18:50

    James the traditional idea of marriage also includes rape. On the basis of your arguments above, do you believe that a husband has a right to rape his wife in all circumstances?

    That was the law in this country until 1991 when the House of Lords abolished it. So if you believe that the traditional marriage comes without love because that was brought in at some time in the 16th century, and that that is the reason you exclude homosexuals, do you beleive that a man has the right to rape his wife in all circumstances?

    • October 26, 2009 at 19:09

      Well, as the idea does not include rape, all the rest does not follow, Tiberius. How people use something has nothing to do with what it was designed for.

      Besides, this today was not about homosexuality but about the political implications of marriage or its demise.

  6. October 26, 2009 at 21:03

    I think this post explains what you really meant better than your first one 😉

    Thanks 🙂

    • October 27, 2009 at 04:02

      Cherie – right.

      Tiberius – to go into more detail,rather than just flatly disagree with your statement, we need to go back to the 50s and 60s and take, for example, the circle of friends of my parents. We’re talking here of marriage not existing in isolation but in the context of his job [or not], the dislocation of one or more of the characters – the human condition. As one of those kids who seem to overhear or be closeby the action, I had a fair idea what was going on between them.

      You insert the word rape as if it conveys all the necessary meaning, without defining that very broad term, as well as assuming current day connotations through your very brevity. There was no rape in the sense I think you mean and an example is the old joke about the woman having a headache – that presupposes that she had her ways of regulating the supply. The woman who married didn’t do so in isolation for the most part – remember that those were still the days of courtship.

      Playboy, in those days, made a big thing of will she/won’t she. The comedy circuit was based on her being difficult. My own father, the strongest of characters, knew that if he wanted something, he needed to butter her up. Then there was the woman herself. The majority of the time, she was just as willing and marriage gave the perfect cover and respectability to the ups and downs. Perhaps one thing in existence then and not now was decency or at least a code of decency, whether or not the man was decent.

      People like actors and singers were known as Bohemian. Artists were seen as Cakes and Ale. One heard of a divorce in the circle and how he turned out to be a beast or she ran off with another man but statistically, there was none of today’s widespread lack of fibre and kids prostituted before 14. That came with the Generation X, the first without this innate assumption of what was decent or not in personal relations.

      The question of rape exists whether there is marriage or not. A bad ‘un is a bad ‘un wherever he is. Most men worked in the office, were by and large faithful and family life existed as a partnership, with at least grudging acceptance of the wedding vows, norms and mores. There wasn’t the rampant infidelity of today, nor the hatred between the sexes. There was a resigned acceptance that the other was a different species but they still hunted in pairs.

      The question is whether the institution of marriage induced rape. There was rape and some questionable things like incest dotted around various families but that is by no means diminished by non-marriage today; in fact, rape has increased and is nastier and younger today as people, feeling unconstrained by any code, do as they please – perfect satanism [le Vey]. There is a very deep disrespect for women today, far more than previously and the creation of that appalling stereotype, the Toynbee or Jacqui Smith who hugely damage women in men’s eyes.

      Back then, women still decided yea or nay and if you wanted nooky, you brought her flowers. Women have sought empowerment at the expense of men, have not achieved it but have achieved a sort of separate existence, protected by the government, an assurance most shaky indeed as it removes the necessity men feel to treat her with decency, unless he wants something. They have patently failed to create the new man they so desperately wish for – the second last was the metrosexual and they’re still hoping against hope.

      They had power in the marriage. Divorce was a stigma and was fault based [bad and yet good, as it entailed responsibility taken or established]. She went home to mother if he was out of order. Yes, there was violence and drunkenness but this was a minority, statistically. Violence is still there in this post-marriage world but what is no longer there is the willingness to talk it through, forced onto them by both society’s mores and their own upbringing. Inter-gender dialogue is more difficult today. More straight out sex and wishful thinking – yes.

      Yes, there are more fora and message boards – dialogue in that sense but look at all the complaints – largely centred on failure to meaningfully communicate. Marriage curbed the woman too [a necessary thing] and both were forced to work together. When there is no necessity to do that any more, it doesn’t happen. There are just positions taken and people separate, rather than work it through.

      Unless there is love, there is no necessity felt to acknowledge the other gender’s concerns as relevant to you, the two people as one idea. There are exceptions, like Jams and he’d argue that it’s not necessary to marry but the government also gives no incentive to marry these days. What marriage gives is a change in thinking – a huge commitment out of your life, signed on the dotted line. It creates a rethink. It forces the man to take her seriously.

      Contrast that with Muslim marriage, where there’s a good case for the woman not to go anywhere near it. Christian marriage at least held up a model in which the woman was to be cherished and loved, however well men tamed the beast inside and did that. It was a goal strived for. At a Sunday get together with my parents and friends once, I looked around and was bored by the lack of juicy stories – they were al just … you know … married.

      Only in today’s dystopia can the perspicacious see what’s been lost while the rest still clamour for “rights” they’re never going to have accepted in reality.

Comments are closed.