# Occupy The loss of Family values has been the key to destroying Social cohesion.

I recall a TV program named “Bread”.

It was about a Liverpool family consisting of a devout R.C. mother, four brothers, a sister and a come-day-go-day father. Although the children were all obviously of the same father, their personalities suggested otherwise.

The thing that kept them all together, apart from the strong personality of the Mother, was the family bond.

As the Mother often said “the family that prays together, stays together” ; although, sometimes substituting alternatives to the word “prays”. T

he importance was the the staying together.

This could be variously put as “blood is thicker than water”; “All for one and one for all”; “we’re all in the same boat”; “united we stand, divided we fall”; “It’s us against them”;”If we don’t stick together, we’ll hang separately” and “we’re all in it together”.

The last is the odd one out, because it was spoken by David Cameron. The other’s, spoken by a plebian, is acknowledgement of a hard learned lesson of civilised society.

To the common man/woman, it’s an acknowledgement that we will come across many instances where we will think “there, but for the Grace of God go I”.

It’s even enshrined in most religions as some variation of “do unto other’s, as you would have them do unto you.”

It’s an acknowledgement that when misfortune strikes, we need to be able to rely on others to support us.

It’s an acknowledgement that when attacked, our only chance is to guard each other’s back.

It’s the reason why whole Nations have embraced Various modern religions.

It’s why Socialism grew out of a reaction against harsh and autocratic rulers.

It’s why The Occupy movement has sprang up, globally, in opposition to the excesses of a new Globalist doctrine, grown out of the death of Communism.

In Britain, politicians have often tried to exploit sense of unity, by calling on The Dunkirk spirit.

The only problem is that “them and us” have a different perspective on this Dunkirk Spirit.

For us, it was individuals trying to assist friends and family, or their friends and family, in a time of great need.

For them, it was organising The People to protect their assets (soldiers counting as consumable assets).

This was exemplified for me by an anecdote from the TV series “The World at War”, in which Churchill was said to have visited The East End, after a bombing, to speechify to those digging out survivors.  He called out to them the message “we can stick it out” and received the reply ” not we, Mister. You’re safely out of this” .

Abrupt but truthful, as Churchill, being “important” had something better to shelter under than a piece of corrugated iron. Another example, often expressed to me by my father, in reference to Tory politicians was the old, so old refrain:

“The World does not owe us a living. We can not go on paying ourselves so much, You must tighten your belts” (circa 1958)” .

The shift from “We” to “You” .

For them, particularly the Tory them, “We are all in it together” is typical of this . “We” means “you”. It’s why the Titanic didn’t have lifeboats for those travelling steerage. It’s why I(?)PSA will award MP’s an 11% pay-rise, while telling the elderly poor that they have had their pensions stolen and they must work until they drop (preferably sooner, rather than later).

I didn’t mean to drop down into a tirade against the Greed of our rulers.

It actually started with an attempt to denote how plebian values grew out of the family unit and the values it inculcates. Since the Seventies, the family unit has been attacked and encouraged to break down.

It has been encouraged by promotion of two admirable concepts:  Female emancipation and protection of children.

Female equality should logically have been strongest just after the War, when Women had been doing men’s jobs.

My contention (having lived through that period) is that having failed to reduce wages by importing cheap Labour fom the West Indies and exploiting Ugandan refugee’s, feminism was belatedly encouraged to displace men from the workforce, with women, who traditionally worked for less.

Women were encouraged to become the breadwinner in the family, in the name of equality.

The equality -of pay- still hasn’t arrived for most women, but men have lost their role as breadwinner and family provider. In fact, with child maintenance legislation, an admirable social concept, in some cases, father’s have become superfluous, for many women.

This is along with the need for marriage and the traditional family unit.

Unfortunately it has led to many children now being solely dependent on a single non-working mother, living on  maintenance payments; or benefits, where the father is unemployed.

The protection of children grew out of concerns about the abuse of children in some parts of the World, where child slavery, genital mutilation and under-age marriage were deemed to be shameful. (This was also back in the 80’s ).

Looking at Today’s headlines, it’s obvious that The U.N not only missed its target but these practices have spread to the “Civilised” West.

What “The Year of The Child” did achieve was Childline and the ending of caning in school’s.

Again commendable, in many ways, but it also led to children being taught that they had rights and to be vocal in claiming them.

If a parent beats a child then we should step in and protect them.

Correct.

But my newspaper tells on one page of tiny children being beaten to death, after years of, what is, effectively, torture.

The facing page tells me of a parent fined for not being able too persuade their child to attend school, or another parent being put on a register, because they were found to have slapped a misbehaving child, causing a reddening of the skin, whilst ib Public, in a shop.

If an adult attempts intimacy with a child, then they should be censured.

Correct.

But I read on one page of my newspaper about a teacher being sacked and put on a register for trying to restrain a misbehaving youth, whilst the opposite page is a detailed account of a parish priest protected by his superiors for decades, or someone like Jimmy Saville, likewise protected by BBC executives.

We have, since the 80’s, a generation of adults, where a significant portion of people have grown up believing that they have no responsibility to others. They have not had the benefit of a sense of belonging to a family, least of all the family of man.

They have grown up believing that they are owed a living and that other’s should pander to their wishes, as their mother and the State have done.

They believe that no-one has the right to restrain them, not their father’s, their teacher’s, or the Police.

It’s not too late to change this but it’s not in the interests of our political master’s to heal this, because individuals are easier to deal with than those united in a common cause and the knowledge that they can rely on the person standing by their shoulder.

We need to find a way to educate our political master’s, even if it’s only ny constantly nagging them.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: