Impact of Ideology:
Dubious Influences on Psychology and Behaviour of Individuals and Society
I am loath to introduce politics into this space, but if we want to fix psychological and behavioural problems at the individual and societal level, then we need to understand the problem. We need to explore for the truth of the causal factors that need addressing rather than simply blaming class and poverty, thus just ‘throwing money’ at a problem or applying ad hoc band aid solutions that serve to maintain the problem. Since the obvious influences on individuals and society standards over the last fifty-odd years are ideological, based on ‘libertarian’ values which were then embraced in ‘progressive’ social policies, then it stands to reason that the underlying causes of deteriorating standards and societal problems in behaviour are these same ‘libertarian’ values and ‘progressive’ social policies.
Ideology:
‘Ideology’ is defined as a ‘set of beliefs or principles characteristic of a social group or individual, or the basis of a political system, party or organisation’. Flaw #1 in ideologies is that they are not ‘bottom up’ extracted from ‘empirical data’ but tend to be ‘ideas’ that are never permitted to be subjected to testing for validity, hence merely have the status of ‘belief’ - a ‘protected’ belief at that. Flaw #2 the ‘believers’ tend to be blinkered to any failings in the beliefs and blinkered to alternative views – so become dogma and alternative views are excluded, denied, even banned. Flaw #3 advice from wiser minds and warnings of potential negative consequences are rejected – belief in the ideology by believers is total and immovable, even when ‘unexpected consequences’ discredit that belief.
Quote: ‘Research has shown that people have proven themselves to be particularly immune to new information’. “You can’t change someone’s mind with facts if they didn’t use facts to make up their minds in the first place”.
Hence, with the best of intentions, ideologies generally planned to improve society in some way, do tend to have ‘unintended consequences’ – always of a negative kind.
The reader is free to disagree.
Q: Can the reader see a pattern, a common thread, in these embarrassing/shameful rankings of low values in moral and academic performance standards among Australian youth?
1. Aus students for last couple of decades rank #39 or #40 out of 41 OECD countries for literacy and numeracy.
2. Most recent report - a third of Aus school kids fail to reach minimum standards in numeracy and literacy.
3. Aus universities have had to lower their entry standards, complain many students from Year 12 are unable to ‘write’.
4. Aus universities lowered scores for acquiring Distinctions and High Distinctions.
5. Aus schools report weekly intimidation and bullying among student at more that TWICE the OECD average.
6. More that 40% of Aus principals reported being a victim of physical violence.
7. Aus ranks among the highest in consumption of alcohol.
8. Aus ranks among the highest in consumption of illicit drugs.
9. Aus ranks #2 globally on promiscuity (second only to Turkey).
10. Increasing, high rate in youth crime (global comparison not available).
All these rankings are markers of a deterioration in Australian values and behavioural standards in a society which has weakened over the course of recent decades. This deterioration is a direct result of overturning moral values and replacing with Libertarian values from early 1960s onwards. These values were then embraced by ‘progressive’ ideology and policies, which also endorsed the slide into ‘permissive libertarian’ behaviour. Our once-strong country has subsequently been weakened by undermining family values, attacking patriotism and increasingly fragmenting society into competing, hostile tribes, divided along the lines of ‘identity politics’.
Moral values:
Responsibility (for personal behaviour, family, health, safety), accountability (for consequences of actions), sense of duty, obligations towards society, consideration toward others (impact of personal behaviour), respect (for self, others, authority, property), manners/courtesy/compassion toward others) and delayed gratification. This also included valued virtues of character: honour, honesty, integrity, persistence, perseverance, resilience, compassion, empathy, determination, decency, inner strength, stoicism, intestinal fortitude.
Allied with these virtues was patriotism, having love, honour and pride for your country and respect for the memory of those who had sacrificed their lives in two World Wars to defend the freedom, independence, security, sovereignty and prosperity that many take for granted today – or worse, seek to trash. Children are today being taught shame and hatred of their country. Patriotism is a dirty word, and in a survey last year where the question asked was ‘if Australia came under attack by a foreign power, would they fight to defend their country’, the chilling result revealed that many people, particularly the younger generations, would leave Australia, rather than stay and defend it.
Libertarian values:
‘Me first’ values of ‘rights and freedoms to do whatever you please without consideration of impact on others or responsibility for consequences’, ‘if it feels good, do it’, ‘freedom from community obligations’, ‘instant gratification’ (reward has to come NOW), ‘hedonic priority’ (pleasure before all else, easy path), ‘permissiveness’ (rights to use illicit drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, view porn).
Rights and freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities, but Libertarian values removed responsibility and accountability. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our ‘soft on crime’ justice system which ‘ideologically’ seems to favour ‘rights’ of wrong doers over any rights of their victims. Hence, there appears to be little interest in our justice system to address increasing lawlessness among youth. Rather, there is an ‘ideological’ resistance to confronting crime and imposing ‘accountability’ on kids. A ‘progressive’ argument is that youth crime isn’t really all that bad - it is just ‘perception’ and peoples’ imagination. Therefore, the ‘progressive’ solution to fool the public that something is actually being done to actually reduce crime is by using a ‘smoke and mirrors’ tactic of ‘reducing the numbers’ by deception - ‘raising the age of criminal responsibility’.
Sadly, in spite of the self focus of Libertarianism, the most important self interest factor, one of self value, has been abolished with other moral values ie ‘self respect’.
Moral values do still exist within society, and parents who hold those values instil them into their children, but sadly, they are no longer our ‘societal’ values which are now more inclined to ‘permissive libertarian’. Moral values are now regarded by youth as old fashioned, obsolete, so have no place in a ‘progressive liberal’ society. The further Western society moves away from moral values and the more ‘permissive’ it becomes, the further we drift away from religious affiliations and spiritual guidance, seeking to become a secular society.
Religion vs Secular society:
Every country, every society, every culture (from pre-historic to modern) has some form of institutionalised religion upon which their societal standards and laws are based. In the West, our moral values and laws are based in Christianity and Judaism. Just as society needs rules and laws to maintain order, people also need spiritual guidance and sustenance for their soul, a belief that there is some power larger beyond the physical world they know, something, an existence to aspire to beyond death. However, following on from the abandonment of the ‘constraints’ of moral values in the West and the embrace of ‘permissive’ values, there is an increasing move to secularise society by eliminating spiritual values such as Christianity and Judaism completely. Contributing to this is also a disillusionment with organised religions since some are also contaminated by loss of moral standards. Oddly, not all religions are equal so while secularism demands the elimination of Christianity and Judaism, others appear to be protected, even embraced. Islam is protected from criticism and Indigenous culture of Rainbow Serpent is embraced and held sacred, as are all associated sites.
In this rejection of institutionalised churches, some replace religion with ‘spirituality’, New Age mysticism, some flirt with Satanism, many worship the Almighty Dollar, some follow cults such as ‘global warming’ (which, like the Aztecs, believe they can influence the weather by making sacrifices) and many fill their ‘spiritual void’ with illicit drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex, porn, gambling and gaming. Some simply identify as atheists – seemingly they regard intellect as superior to ‘superstition’ of religion that cannot be proven (or disproven) but relies on ‘faith’ (although, ironically, much of intellect also relies on ‘theory’ which until proven also relies on ‘faith’).
Failed Education Policies:
Education and social policies tend to not be based on the sciences of psychology, cognitive and emotional development or learning – but are based on ideology (specifically, ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’) which is the basis for political dogmas. Social engineers lack any understanding of psychology, cognitive development and emotional development and/or they lack the capacity to foresee obvious negative ‘unintended consequences’ – or else, the ‘unintended consequences’ are the actual goal, since they tend to ignore warnings from wiser minds.
* Social engineers dumbed down the education system and teaching methods several decades ago (and rankings show they have been quite successful at that).
* In a misguided move to boost Self Esteem, policies were later introduced to protect kids from experiencing negative feelings such as failure, frustration, hurt and disappointment by eliminating consequences of competition. Hence, the policy of “Every child gets a medal – just for turning up”. This dis-incentivises ‘effort’ if there no reward to motivate achievement, thus fostering mediocrity in performance outcomes. Ironically, the plan to boost Self Esteem failed miserably. When every child gets a medal ‘just for turning up’, it has no value to the child since reward without effort is meaningless and hence without the euphoria or ‘self satisfaction’ of success, is meaningless. If it does teach anything, it is ‘entitlement’ to reward without effort. The sad reality is that by ‘protecting’ kids from negative experiences, they are deprived opportunities of ‘learning’ and ‘growth’ - such as persistence, perseverance, determination, learning from mistakes, overcoming obstacles, personal satisfaction from improving on past efforts, resilience, ‘bouncing back’ – which all contribute to building Self Esteem.
* As for the high rates of so called ‘mental illness’ or ‘mental ill health’, this is in part a consequence of kids being denied the opportunity to develop ‘coping skills’ such as ‘resilience’. Anxiety, stress, worry are all natural psychological states in response to threatening situations that beset our lives from time to time or sometimes on a daily basis. They are signals or messages from our subconscious mind that we really need to address a problematic situation. The mind-body has the ‘inner resources’ to cope with these feelings and get over them and if permitted to do this, capacity to cope effectively increases. Instead, we hear of ‘cotton wool’ kids or ‘bubble wrap’ kids where parents think that by protecting their kids from negative emotional experiences (and situations that ‘cause’ these feelings) they are doing them a favour – when the truth is they are harming their kids, ‘infantalising’ them, preventing them from maturing, from growing into independent, capable adults. Instead, we have the ‘snow flake’ generation.
Instead of aiming to foster resilience and ultimate development of ‘inner strength’, the latest ‘progressive’ suggestion is that kids should be entitled to take a ‘stress day’ if they do not feel like going to school. Predictably, an ‘unexpected consequence’ of this is it would be open to abuse. Other predictable ‘unexpected consequences’ would be increased stress at having to catch up with missed lessons and ultimately the psychological/behavioural problem of ‘school avoidance’.
When kids are protected from facing unpleasant situations and feelings – in addition to failing to develop resilience - what the kids learn is to cope by ‘avoidance’ – ‘avoidance’ becomes their ‘coping style’ and they may develop an ‘avoidant personality’.
However, in this era of ‘instant gratification’, people also want the ‘quick fix’ for mental and emotional problems. This means medication instead of some form of psychological therapy to address underlying causal factors (such as with depression and anxiety). Alternatively, they ‘self medicate’ with substances or activities that have the known potential to become addictive (such as illicit drugs, alcohol, ‘comfort food’, promiscuous sex, porn, gambling, gaming). Addiction then becomes a ‘secondary problem’. Or in the case of ‘comfort eating’, obesity becomes a distressing problem.
* Disruptive behaviour in schools: Teachers are being blamed for not being able to manage classroom behaviour so the solution is seen as training teachers better. Teachers complain they have to negotiate with kids to get them to cooperate. However, the teachers’ job is to educate kids – they should not have to be trained police negotiators. Students disrespecting and assaulting teachers is not the fault of teachers. ‘Behaviour’ is the responsibility of parents – and this begins in early childhood. Preparation for kindergarten and school should include training in appropriate behaviour such as ‘focusing in class’, obedience in following instruction and ‘respect’ for the teacher.
The only tools schools have to deal with unacceptable behaviour are ‘suspension’ and ‘expulsion’ which are not a solution but merely ‘kicking the can down the road’ – which is likely to mean criminal behaviour, police and the justice system.
* Education in core subjects is taking second place to indoctrination with ‘progressive’ ideologies, ‘wokeness’ and fostering identity politics and ‘activism’ (taking part in political marches in school time). Instead of fostering social unity and honour of their country, ‘patriotism’ is denounced as ‘racism’ and is replaced by shame and hatred for Australia. ‘Climate alarmism’ results in kids being terrified that the world will be destroyed before they even grow up – creating ‘climate’ anxiety.
* Universities used to be bastions of higher learning, a place for exchange of ideas, debate of opposing views, pushing boundaries in thought and ideas, researching by testing hypotheses. However, the lowering of grades as a consequence of the abandonment of the ‘pursuit of academic excellence’ has been the cost of universities being dominated by a single ‘progressive’ ideology. Sadly, adherence to that ideology stifles independent thought by banning alternative views. Speakers who dare to challenge the only accepted narrative are ‘cancelled’ or ‘deplatformed’. Visiting speakers are met with loud mob violence and their voices drowned out. The student activists are never held to account by university authorities even though their anti-West rhetoric has recently escalated to open anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist activism. The long-term consequence is that as graduates adhering to an ideology that stifles ‘free speech’ move into businesses, professions and leadership positions in government, they may carry this ‘censorship’ model as their ‘value’ or frame of reference.
Distorted facts and devalued words:
(i) ‘It takes a village to raise a child’:
This is a cop-out by parents abrogating their parental responsibilities/obligations to teach kids how to behave, to instil values, such as respect and a code of moral decency in behaviour. ‘Primary’ responsibility for child raising, providing guidance and teaching values and behaviour belongs to the parents. The role of the ‘village’ is purely ‘secondary’ or ‘complementary’.
There are ‘progressive’ policy factors that may have contributed to this abrogation of ‘primary’ parental responsibility and the fallacy that ‘the village’ is wholly responsible for raising kids. There is another fallacy that ‘the village’ is actually undertaking that responsibility:
a) Parents were stripped of authority to discipline kids, so they abrogated their responsibility to schools and this has led to abrogation of increasingly more parental responsibilities to teachers. Subsequently, teachers and childcare workers complain that they are increasingly expected to ‘pick up the slack’ of parenting responsibilities.
b) Following on from ‘libertarian values’ which were based on ‘rights and freedoms to do as you please without consideration for impact on others and responsibility/accountability for consequences’, children were accorded ‘adult rights’ including ‘freedoms and rights to do as they please without responsibility’ – and without any obligation to listen to parental guidance. What was ignored in this was the ‘right’ of kids to have parents fulfilling their ‘parental responsibilities’ to provide guidance and raise them equipped to function optimally in the adult world.
c) However, schools have been stripped of authority to discipline kids, consequently, no one ‘in the village’ is providing guidance or disciplining the kids and they are not being held accountable for their behaviour. In schools, this has resulted in abuse and assaulting teachers.
We can see the eventual inevitable consequences of this: (i) upholding/promotion of ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’ values extended to kids ‘rights’, (ii) banning discipline and (iii) abrogation of parental responsibility - in the escalation of bad behaviour that is allowed to go unchecked. Kids are ‘progressing’ to ‘adult’ crime (assaults, stabbings, home robberies, vehicle theft, violent crimes, murder) euphemistically labelled ‘youth crime’ and since the ‘law is soft on crime’ and ‘progressive’ ideologues push to ‘raise the age’ of criminal responsibility, young criminals are still not being held accountable. Again, ‘no one in the village’ is actually accepting responsibility to raise the kids.
The response from social engineers is generally that the problem of ‘disruptive or violent’ behaviour is ‘poor socio-economic’ circumstances or ‘violence in the home’ (which is an insult to the many families living in poor financial circumstances who do maintain values and instil them into their kids) so the ineffective solution is always to ‘throw money’ at a problem. Alternatively, ‘youth crime’ is blamed on drugs – yet it is the same ideologues who endorse drug use and now want to decriminalise/legalise all illicit drugs. So, rather than the ‘village’ accepting responsibility to protect kids from drugs, the push is to expose them to greater risk.
Authorities are unable/unwilling to acknowledge that ‘disruptive and violent’ behaviour in schools and ‘youth crime’ are a consequence of deterioration in societal values, permissiveness and lack of accountability embraced in social policies. Confirming that ‘no one in the village’ is accepting responsibility for taking care of the kids, no one is providing guidance. Meaning, ‘The village raises kids’ is a MYTH.
(ii) ‘Respect has to be earned’:
If this statement were true, then it means we would have the ‘right’ to be disrespectful to all strangers and new acquaintances – who obviously would not have had the time and opportunity to ‘earn our respect’. The truth is, ‘respect’ says more about the ‘giver’ than the ‘receiver’. A person who has ‘self respect’ will always treat others with respect, whether they deserve it or not. It is the parents’ responsibility to teach their kids about respect – ‘self respect’, respect for authority (eg parents, teachers and police), for others and for property. A person who treats others with disrespect based on the justification that ‘respect has to be earned’ is simply projecting their subconscious belief that they do not deserve to be treated with respect.
The kind of respect that has to be ‘earned’ is not respect per se, but is ‘acknowledgement’ of a person for achievement in long term service in a professional capacity or service to community.
(iii) Gender Equality=Same:
Much of the emotional or ‘mental health’ issues experienced by kids can be sheeted home to feminism.
In the era of Women’s Liberation (wimmin’s lib), during second-wave feminism, women ‘burnt their bras’ in protest against ‘patriarchal oppression’ of women. Among the most vocal leaders in Australia there were misandrists who had no interest in marriage or having kids. So, the ‘emotional developmental needs’ of kids were ignored – or even subjugated to the ‘rights’ of women. Their agenda was exclusively about elevating women’s rights to ‘above all else’.
Feminism has been based on a fundamental flaw that ‘gender is just a social construct’, thereby denying that any differences are real. (Ironically, prominent feminists have later acknowledged their surprise when they had children of their own and experienced their sons and daughters as being different, even though they were treated the same). ‘Gender equality’ has thus been interpreted as men and women being the ‘same’ thus women sought to be the ‘same as men’. Women used to be the ‘moral guardians’ of society but in aiming to be the ‘same as men’, rejected the ‘guardianship’ role and adopted the lower male standards of behaviour. An example of women wanting to be the ‘same as men’ is ‘going to work and leaving child care to someone else’ – like fathers did.
Devaluing Motherhood
Hence, feminists ‘devalued motherhood’ with slogans such as: ‘there is nothing special about mothering’, ‘anyone can raise a child’ and ‘paid childcare is just as good as mothering’. Mothers were told that taking care of their family was ‘not real work’, mothers were led to feel that they were second class citizens, only worthwhile as people if they were doing ‘paid work’. Hence, feminists promoted institutionalised non-maternal childcare so mothers could work in paid jobs. Politicians paid ‘lip service’ to supporting women’s ‘right to work’ by subsidising childcare although their true motive was more likely thoughts of the extra income tax they could collect. The economy adjusted to the increased spending and taxable capacity of the ‘two-income’ family. (The financial struggle from easy divorce and single parent families came later).
Feminists also claimed that children ‘did not need a father’ so single women were encouraged to have babies on their own, thereby making the decision to deny them the right of having a father. (There is a whole body of research that debunks the feminist claim, by supporting the role of fathers and the complementary roles of having a mother and a father). Teen mothers were also incentivised to keep their babies and raise them as single mothers.
Impact on Kids
Feminism has been great for elevating status of women, but there has been a cost and that cost is born by kids. Many kids spend substantial time separated from their mothers from infancy onward, during the critical time of ‘emotional developmental foundations’. Lengthy and frequent separations can interfere with a healthy development of Attachment with the mother (which has long term impact on capacity for healthy close relationships with others). This can also create in the child a sense of ‘not being important to Mum’, of being ‘less important’ than Mum’s job. There is frequently some degree of anger which is unlikely to be obvious to the mother, because it has to be ‘repressed’. These losses or deficits in ‘emotional developmental needs’ being met can contribute to a lifelong poor sense of Self Worth. This may underpin later ‘mental health’ issues, particularly if there is ‘repressed’ anger. Without a healthy sense of Self Worth as a strong foundation for later building their Self Esteem, that Self Esteem may be fragile, no matter how confident the image the individual presents to the world.
When young children spend substantial time separated from their ‘primary attachment’ figure (Mum), they may transfer this ‘primary attachment’ to a substitute parent figure or ‘surrogate’ carer such a favoured childcare worker, nanny or family member substantially responsible for care. This has now been formalised in institutionalised childcare in the role of Key Educator (described as a ‘primary carer’ role), based on Circle of Security (which is derived from John Bowlby’s ‘Attachment Theory’). However, this is a ‘sanitised’ version of ‘attachment’ because Feminist theory is incompatible with Bowlby’s work on Attachment. Hence, this Key Educator is a ‘surrogate’ carer role and to call this person a ‘primary carer’ is to suggest equal status with the mother, thereby diminishing the importance and ‘uniqueness’ of the mother’s role (ie unique means ‘only one of its kind’). This legitimises replacing the mother as ‘primary’ carer in the facilitation of ‘transfer of attachment’ to the surrogate. However, this transfer of attachment from ‘primary’ carer (Mum) to ‘surrogate’ carer, is NOT a healthy emotional development for the child. Hence, it has been known for households dependent on nannies for much of the childcare, to have frequent change in nannies to PREVENT the kids from becoming too attached to them.
The important role of fathers is not detailed here because my focus is the maternal-child attachment that is critical during these early developmental years.
Mothers justified their decisions to put infants into childcare, even long daycare, and return to work by telling themselves that ‘working made them a better mother’ and they were being a ‘role model for their daughters’. However, they have been unaware of the truth of what their children’s emotional and perceptual experiences were, hence long term consequences for ‘unmet’ or ‘violated’ ‘emotional developmental needs’, in particular the negative impact on their long term sense of Self Worth (the foundation for them to build their Self Esteem). For many mothers, working is a financial necessity. For many, juggling work and family commitment is a stressful struggle. For many, reliance on alcohol to cope with stress has created its own problems. Instead of celebrating the differences as ‘equal value’, feminism, aiming to prove men and women are the ‘same’ has come at a heavy social cost.
Liberation -> Confusion for Men
Women’s Liberation was a confusing time for men. Feminists abused men for treating them with courtesy – being courteous and protective towards women was regarded as ‘demeaning’ to women. Men became emasculated while women were encouraged to be masculine. Girls used to be taught to have ‘self respect’ and boys used to be raised to ‘not hit girls’ and ‘women are to be respected and protected’. Then, gender equality meant boys treating girls the ‘same as they treat boys’. So, how much of the devaluing of respect, by Libertarians and feminists, has contributed to the disrespectful way many men of subsequent generations treat women now? Gender ‘equality’ also meant ‘liberation’ for men from traditional male roles - many younger men no longer seem to feel they have financial responsibility to support a partner or family – even commonly urging a breast-feeding mother to put the baby in childcare and get back to work. (Admittedly there is also the factor that the economy has adapted to absorb the increased spending capacity of the ‘two-income family’). Likewise, now rare is the sense of responsibility to protect women but many are more likely to sexually exploit a drunken woman. (Of course, decent men do still exist, but the values they live by are no longer the values upheld at a ‘societal’ level).
In spite of feminism, I have experienced acts of courtesy by male Baby Boomers who have not abandoned the values they were raised by – and perhaps, they realise that older women can appreciate such gestures.
Impact of Sexual ‘Liberation’
Sadly, drunkenness has become an issue - so many young women lacking ‘self respect’ appear to think they have a ‘right’ to get drunk without any responsibility for their personal safety. Particularly when hooking up for casual sex with strangers - and regard that as being ‘liberated’. Paradoxically, although this means not treating themselves with respect, they complain about men not treating them with respect.
Hence, beginning from the lofty ideals of gender ‘equality’, some of the ‘wins’ for feminism have been of dubious benefit. The unfortunate consequence of translating ‘equality’ into the ‘same as men’ has meant rejecting the positives and strengths of traditionally what it meant to be a woman in favour of the adoption of behavioural male standards. The embarrassing result - a ‘strong, liberated’ woman means nothing more than being ‘loud and opinionated’ and ‘sexually promiscuous’.
The Sexual Revolution ‘liberated’ women to be the ‘same as men’, who historically, have tended to seek ‘no strings attached’ sex in random sexual opportunities with willing women. Ironically, whilst ostensibly the intention was for women to ‘gain’ sexual equality here, the real gains were for men. It was men who were the real winners since they now found no shortage of unlimited willing partners for ‘no strings attached’ sex. Unsurprising, an ‘unintended consequence’ was women eventually complained that men were ‘toxic’ and ‘wouldn’t commit’. (Hey, you know the one about ‘why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free’?). Commonly, many women seek online hookups or pursue footballers for casual sex then when it turns pear shaped, rather than accept responsibility for foolish choices, they forget they are ‘strong liberated women’ and resort to playing the ‘victim’ card and cry ‘rape’.
Sadly, with increasing sexual permissiveness and the further society drifts away from moral values, ‘self respect’ is unheard of by the young. Subsequently, ironically, in spite of the ‘gains’ of feminism, being ‘strong independent women’ and girls being encouraged to play football, girls appear to believe that the way to be ‘liked’ by boys is to be sexually compliant (even do stuff seen in online porn) and/or sext them photos of their genitalia. In fact, there appears to be a societal expectation that kids will be sexually active – so does this expectation place pressure on girls? How is that ‘progress’ for women? It would be more appropriate if feminists provided guidance for girls on how to set standards for male behaviour - by exercising ’self respect’, thereby commanding they be treated with ‘respect’. Then again, there is the influence of online pornography being relationship role models for boys thinking that rough, degrading sex is what girls like. And, since girls lack the ‘self respect’ to resist, boys think this behaviour is acceptable. Is this just another ‘unintended consequence’ of the ‘permissive Libertarian’ values embraced in and ‘progressive’ policies that demanded everyone has the ‘right to access pornography’? Once again, we have evidence in the ‘progressive’ era, that providing guidance, care and protection of kids (including teaching about ‘respect’) is definitely NOT a priority for the ‘village’. Which does beg the question, “Whose responsibility is it”? Nobody’s? And there we have the answer – in this ‘progressive’ era, kids are not supposed to have to abide by any rules but have ‘rights to do as they please – without responsibility for consequences, of course’. Because in this era of ‘freedom and non-responsibility’ the ‘village cannot be expected to accept responsibility to raise the kids’.
(iv) Nanny State Utopia:
It is laudable that the STATE takes care of its citizens. So, in addition to community services such as education, hospitals, law and order, mail delivery, roads and rubbish collection, STATE also provides a social security safety net by subsidising health care, childcare, social housing and provides financial support for those unable to support themselves. However, there is a downside to the STATE taking on personal responsibilities and community obligations - when people relinquish their personal responsibilities and obligations to the STATE, they also relinquish their ‘personal power’ to the STATE. Individuals taking on responsibilities and obligations requires/builds self sufficiency, self-reliance, self discipline, intestinal fortitude, commitment, independence - which are personally ‘empowering’. Hence, the reverse when relinquishing responsibilities, becoming dependent on the STATE is ‘disempowering’.
This relinquishing of responsibilities to STATE leads to further abrogation of responsibilities and community obligations, with an attitude that everything is someone else’s responsibility or the responsibility of ‘the government’. The provision of Medicare has resulted in people not accepting responsibility for taking care of their health but instead, indulge in enjoying unhealthy lifestyles (involving alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, unhealthy food and lack of exercise), then expect a free or cheap quick fix when they subsequently become ill. Parents become dependent on institutionalised subsidised childcare and abrogate their parenting responsibilities to childcare and schools. Childcare workers and school teachers complain they have to ‘pick up the slack’.
Childcare has also been abrogated to technology – at the cost of cognitive development for young kids being exposed to ‘screens’ from infancy. And significantly, the unsupervised access to social media which exposes kids to danger from sexual predators, bulling by peers and the real tragedy is the addictive nature of this technology – which is no ‘unintended consequence’ because addicted kids are a lucrative market and addicted kids grow up into addicted adults. Algorithms have been proven to be addictive and even more telling, is that bosses of Big Tech have been known to admit not allowing their own kids access to this technology. Parents are not accepting responsibility for supervision of children accessing the internet and clearly, the ‘village is not accepting responsibility either’.
People are less inclined to accept personal responsibility for their own safety and consequences of foolish or careless actions – someone else has to be found to blame. Consequently, we have become a very ‘litigious’ society, to the extent that community volunteering and many social activities are no longer possible because of high cost of ‘public liability insurance’. As new generations grow up under the Nanny State, the benefits become taken for granted and eventually are accepted with a sense of entitlement so more is demanded.
The sad consequence of this ‘disempowering’ effect of ‘non-responsibility’ and ‘dependency’ by individuals, the STATE becomes ‘more powerful’, more emboldened to become more intrusive, more regulating, more controlling - while the psyche of society as a whole has become weakened. When individuals put their own lives on the line to save others from danger, this is ‘newsworthy’ and whether through bravery or unthinking instinctive action, they are lauded as heroes and awarded a medal. The implication is not just that they are ‘brave’ but their actions in an era of ‘me first’ and dependency on STATE being responsible to take care of everything, acts of personal sacrifice are unexpected or regarded as abnormal in today’s society.
Fortunately, community spirit does still exist and this becomes obvious in times of disaster when the community makes financial donations or pitches in to help with ‘cleanups’. Unfortunately, the underside of humanity also shows itself in looting and scams targeting victims.
(v) “We are not role models”:
This sounds like a disclaimer for the ‘village accepting responsibility for raising the kids’. Who are the Role Models for kids? When overpaid, privileged, boof head footballers are reprimanded for drunkenness or other anti-social behaviour AND for being ‘poor role models’ for youth, they generally protest, “We are not role models”. The fact is that being a role model is not a position open just to ‘volunteers’. The fact is that every adult who kids are exposed to IS a role model - whether in person (as a parent, other family, family friend, neighbour, teacher, sports coach, bus driver, police officer, shop employees - even a casual passerby); live entertainment and sporting events; characters in movies, tv shows, social media; anyone in the public eye – ‘celebrities’, sporting ‘heroes’, politicians. Major factors that determine the extent/significance of the influence will depend on ‘frequency and duration’ of contact (eg family, teachers) and how ‘rewarding’ the life of the person is eg attention (in the limelight, hero worship), easy access to sex (attract easy women), money (wealthy lifestyle).
(vi) Drug use is a ‘right’:
Early in the Libertarian influence, there was a ‘demand’ for the ‘right’ to use illicit substances. This invoked core values of ‘rights and freedoms’ and ‘instant gratification’. While the sale of drugs was illegal, a blind eye was turned toward the actual use. Then as ‘unexpected consequences’ (of addiction, health and social problems) became obvious, ‘progressive’ policies openly endorsed drug use with ‘harm minimisation’ programs that served to maintain both the use of drugs and the associated problems. This ‘endorsement’ of the rights to use illicit drugs has incrementally expanded, culminating in a push to finally decriminalise/legalise all illicit drugs.
The focus has always been a ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’ one, of the rights to consume mood/mind/behaviour altering substances, ostensible serving the need for ‘instant gratification’, as implied by the euphemism ‘recreational’ or ‘party’ drugs. It appears that there has never at any time been the desire to question why people, particularly youth would want to consume substances that provide a brief hit, but overwhelmingly have a harmful impact on their body, mind, behaviour, health and finances - even ruining their life. Why do they need to consume these substances that are potentially addictive in order to enjoy their social activities, music, the company of friends? It is obvious that drugs are not just about ‘fun’ but also to cope with life and emotional pain. Are they lacking inner resources to enjoy life and to cope? Why has this aspect not been explored and addressed?
It is obvious that different types of drugs are used by different types of people in different circumstances. With a little bit of knowledge on biology of the brain, it becomes obvious that these different drugs elicit responses from specific neurotransmitter/hormones in the brain thus producing specific effects on the mind/mood/behaviour of the user. This suggests that when choosing which drugs they take, users are seeking a specific experience to achieve a specific purpose. In effect, they are ‘self medicating’ – broadly speaking, for psychological deficits to capacity for enjoyment or to blot out emotional pain. (Explanation of the ‘Self Medication Model for Drug and Alcohol Use’ is covered in a separate page on this website).
However, instead of addressing the psychological deficits and resolving emotional issues causing pain, focus appears to be exclusively in vested interests in supporting drug use via the ‘harm minimisation’ industry. Strategies such as provision of ‘drug testing’ at music events is pseudo-legalising thus endorsing drug use by authorities. Inevitably, legalising all drugs will send a misleading message to kids that drug use is just ‘harmless fun’ thereby encouraging their usage and also inevitably, contributing to more problems associated with addiction and more risk of OD. Hence, expanding the drug use by legalising drugs will inevitably ensure ‘career paths’ and solidifying the role of the ‘harm minimisation’ industry. Further evidence that ‘the village’ has no interest in raising kids and keeping them safe.
(vii) Honesty:
Has been stripped of any connotations of ‘honour’. It has been degraded to use as an excuse to be insensitive, mean and nasty to someone, and justifying this with a smug, sanctimonious, ”I was just being honest”. I prefer ‘integrity’ which is honesty combined with honour, but then, the word ‘integrity’ has also been devalued through misuse.
(viii) Integrity:
Used to refer to the character of a respected individual who acted with honesty and honour. Now, it is cynically used in a label to give credibility to a body (eg Integrity Commission) set up to clear or ‘white wash’ privileged, protected, ‘valuable’ individuals who have engaged in nefarious behaviour.
(ix) Ethics:
Ethics used to be based on moral principles but with the abandonment of moral values, ‘ethics’ has lost its original meaning and value. A more appropriate definition of modern ethics: “Pushing boundaries, engaging in whatever dubious practices you can get away with - without actually breaking the law”.
(x) So-called ‘Mental illness’:
As society has weakened over recent decades – due to devaluing morals and strength of character qualities such as self sufficiency and stoicism, replacing delayed gratification with instant gratification, abrogation of personal responsibilities to the Nanny state – poor ‘mental health’ has become a major issue. However, ‘mental illness’ is a bit of a ‘catch all net’ extending from occasional minor anxiety to certifiable psychiatric disorders. We hear complaints of ‘stigma’ towards mental illness but the truth is the only place that stigma exists is in the main stream media. Far from being stigmatised, ‘mental illness’ has been ‘normalised’ – likewise long term prescription medication to merely ‘manage’ symptoms. People are actively encouraged to identify as having a ‘mental illness’ - like a virtual recruitment drive for club membership - and public figures who make public admissions are lauded for their ‘bravery’.
The loose use of the term ‘mental illness’ diminishes the suffering experienced by those with an actual ‘mental illness’. Experiencing some occasions of anxiety, depression, distress, confusion, emotional issues are all ‘normal’ part of the ups and downs, trials and tribulations of life – NOT an illness that needs to be medicated. Some issues resolve themselves and some are persistent. Some are one-off and some are recurring or longstanding. We have ‘inner resources’ to deal with this ‘stuff’ – whether it be taking action to create ‘change’ or using ‘coping strategies’ to deal with an unchangeable situation, drawing on stoicism, intestinal fortitude - and an essential sense of humour. Often, just being able to talk about a problem with a supportive friend or family member is sufficient to get a situation in perspective or recognise a solution that can be acted on. There are times when it is beneficial to seek professional help. Whichever, it is important having the ‘resilience’ to bounce back – but resilience does not develop from ‘avoidance’. Facing up to these ‘life tests’, (whether they be recent or old unresolved stuff) and dealing with them effectively improves resilience, facilitates ‘personal growth’ and “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger”.
A ’socially engineered’ school policy aiming to boost ‘Self Esteem’ and ‘protect’ kids from negative emotional experiences has failed miserably – which is no surprise to anyone with any understanding of human behaviour (even just from observations in life experience). The policy, eliminating any competitive situations and instead, ‘giving everyone a medal just for turning up’ - has proven not just to be a failure for Self Esteem but also detrimental by ‘preventing’ development of ’resilience’. Kids being protected by parents in ‘bubble wrap’ are learning to use ‘avoidance’ as a ‘coping’ strategy. The lesson with kids should be clear – facing and dealing with upsetting situations are opportunities for improving coping capabilities and for personal growth – avoidance creates the opposite. Instead of facing and addressing ‘issues’, many adults too are using ‘avoidance’ strategies such as psychotropic medications (eg antidepressants, anxiolytics, mood stabilisers, antipsychotics). Alternatively, they are self-medicating with alcohol, illicit drugs, gambling, casual sex – or comfort eating which often results in secondary problems of obesity and obesity-related diseases. They too, are missing out on opportunities for personal growth. For example, 90% of depression cases are psychological/social in nature but instead of addressing the unresolved underlying causal issues of the depression, many choose to avoid that discomfort with long term medication. If they faced those issues and resolved them, they would not only alleviate the depression, they would also experience personal growth. The truth is that many who claim to have a mental illness do not – they have a poor sense of Self Worth and much like those who cling to ‘victimhood’, it merely serves to provide them with a ‘sense of identity’, to be used as an excuse to avoid responsibilities and expectations being put on them.
As an example of authorities not having learnt anything from the failure of school policies regarding ‘resilience’ and ‘avoidance’, a recent suggestion has been made that kids should be able to take a ‘stress day’ leave if they do not feel like going to school. With policy makers like that in charge, then the outlook for ‘mental health’ of future generations is grim. Further evidence that relying on the ‘village to raise the kids’ is a very bad idea.
Conclusion:
We must be allowed to evaluate social policies and their consequences with honesty and decide objectively what has been beneficial, therefore is worth keeping, and what has been detrimental so needs to be reversed, abandoned. However, there is a lot to unpack here – a lot of damage to undo - so where to start? When faced with a seemingly overwhelming task, break it down by identifying goals, principles and targets.
The ideological goal has been to weaken society and that has been successfully achieved by attacking or undermining everything that was strong in society. Focus has thus been on two broad targets: (i) ‘Me first’, self centred, indulgence, abrogating personal responsibilities and obligations/duties to society, and (ii) ‘Fragmenting’ society, destroying unity, division, fostering hostility between ‘identity’ groups, fostering national hatred.
A plausible approach therefore is to reverse the strategies for those two targets: Set the primary goal at strengthening society via strength in unity through common values and individual independence, democratic freedom, national pride, love of country, civic duty, service to country ie Patriotism. The complementary part of this strategy of prioritising building a strong united society to be proud of, is that focus needs to be balanced between ‘inwards’ to self and ‘outwards’ to cooperation in contributing to society which inevitably means accepting responsibility, not just for society and developing a sense of selflessness, but also personal responsibility, independence and pride in self sufficiency. Plus – every adult accept the responsibility/civic duty to be a responsible role model for kids as in, “It takes a village to raise a child”.
This is summed up in John F Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration speech: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Q: But how to get this movement off the ground?
Ideology:
‘Ideology’ is defined as a ‘set of beliefs or principles characteristic of a social group or individual, or the basis of a political system, party or organisation’. Flaw #1 in ideologies is that they are not ‘bottom up’ extracted from ‘empirical data’ but tend to be ‘ideas’ that are never permitted to be subjected to testing for validity, hence merely have the status of ‘belief’ - a ‘protected’ belief at that. Flaw #2 the ‘believers’ tend to be blinkered to any failings in the beliefs and blinkered to alternative views – so become dogma and alternative views are excluded, denied, even banned. Flaw #3 advice from wiser minds and warnings of potential negative consequences are rejected – belief in the ideology by believers is total and immovable, even when ‘unexpected consequences’ discredit that belief.
Quote: ‘Research has shown that people have proven themselves to be particularly immune to new information’. “You can’t change someone’s mind with facts if they didn’t use facts to make up their minds in the first place”.
Hence, with the best of intentions, ideologies generally planned to improve society in some way, do tend to have ‘unintended consequences’ – always of a negative kind.
The reader is free to disagree.
Q: Can the reader see a pattern, a common thread, in these embarrassing/shameful rankings of low values in moral and academic performance standards among Australian youth?
1. Aus students for last couple of decades rank #39 or #40 out of 41 OECD countries for literacy and numeracy.
2. Most recent report - a third of Aus school kids fail to reach minimum standards in numeracy and literacy.
3. Aus universities have had to lower their entry standards, complain many students from Year 12 are unable to ‘write’.
4. Aus universities lowered scores for acquiring Distinctions and High Distinctions.
5. Aus schools report weekly intimidation and bullying among student at more that TWICE the OECD average.
6. More that 40% of Aus principals reported being a victim of physical violence.
7. Aus ranks among the highest in consumption of alcohol.
8. Aus ranks among the highest in consumption of illicit drugs.
9. Aus ranks #2 globally on promiscuity (second only to Turkey).
10. Increasing, high rate in youth crime (global comparison not available).
All these rankings are markers of a deterioration in Australian values and behavioural standards in a society which has weakened over the course of recent decades. This deterioration is a direct result of overturning moral values and replacing with Libertarian values from early 1960s onwards. These values were then embraced by ‘progressive’ ideology and policies, which also endorsed the slide into ‘permissive libertarian’ behaviour. Our once-strong country has subsequently been weakened by undermining family values, attacking patriotism and increasingly fragmenting society into competing, hostile tribes, divided along the lines of ‘identity politics’.
Moral values:
Responsibility (for personal behaviour, family, health, safety), accountability (for consequences of actions), sense of duty, obligations towards society, consideration toward others (impact of personal behaviour), respect (for self, others, authority, property), manners/courtesy/compassion toward others) and delayed gratification. This also included valued virtues of character: honour, honesty, integrity, persistence, perseverance, resilience, compassion, empathy, determination, decency, inner strength, stoicism, intestinal fortitude.
Allied with these virtues was patriotism, having love, honour and pride for your country and respect for the memory of those who had sacrificed their lives in two World Wars to defend the freedom, independence, security, sovereignty and prosperity that many take for granted today – or worse, seek to trash. Children are today being taught shame and hatred of their country. Patriotism is a dirty word, and in a survey last year where the question asked was ‘if Australia came under attack by a foreign power, would they fight to defend their country’, the chilling result revealed that many people, particularly the younger generations, would leave Australia, rather than stay and defend it.
Libertarian values:
‘Me first’ values of ‘rights and freedoms to do whatever you please without consideration of impact on others or responsibility for consequences’, ‘if it feels good, do it’, ‘freedom from community obligations’, ‘instant gratification’ (reward has to come NOW), ‘hedonic priority’ (pleasure before all else, easy path), ‘permissiveness’ (rights to use illicit drugs, engage in promiscuous sex, view porn).
Rights and freedoms come with corresponding responsibilities, but Libertarian values removed responsibility and accountability. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our ‘soft on crime’ justice system which ‘ideologically’ seems to favour ‘rights’ of wrong doers over any rights of their victims. Hence, there appears to be little interest in our justice system to address increasing lawlessness among youth. Rather, there is an ‘ideological’ resistance to confronting crime and imposing ‘accountability’ on kids. A ‘progressive’ argument is that youth crime isn’t really all that bad - it is just ‘perception’ and peoples’ imagination. Therefore, the ‘progressive’ solution to fool the public that something is actually being done to actually reduce crime is by using a ‘smoke and mirrors’ tactic of ‘reducing the numbers’ by deception - ‘raising the age of criminal responsibility’.
Sadly, in spite of the self focus of Libertarianism, the most important self interest factor, one of self value, has been abolished with other moral values ie ‘self respect’.
Moral values do still exist within society, and parents who hold those values instil them into their children, but sadly, they are no longer our ‘societal’ values which are now more inclined to ‘permissive libertarian’. Moral values are now regarded by youth as old fashioned, obsolete, so have no place in a ‘progressive liberal’ society. The further Western society moves away from moral values and the more ‘permissive’ it becomes, the further we drift away from religious affiliations and spiritual guidance, seeking to become a secular society.
Religion vs Secular society:
Every country, every society, every culture (from pre-historic to modern) has some form of institutionalised religion upon which their societal standards and laws are based. In the West, our moral values and laws are based in Christianity and Judaism. Just as society needs rules and laws to maintain order, people also need spiritual guidance and sustenance for their soul, a belief that there is some power larger beyond the physical world they know, something, an existence to aspire to beyond death. However, following on from the abandonment of the ‘constraints’ of moral values in the West and the embrace of ‘permissive’ values, there is an increasing move to secularise society by eliminating spiritual values such as Christianity and Judaism completely. Contributing to this is also a disillusionment with organised religions since some are also contaminated by loss of moral standards. Oddly, not all religions are equal so while secularism demands the elimination of Christianity and Judaism, others appear to be protected, even embraced. Islam is protected from criticism and Indigenous culture of Rainbow Serpent is embraced and held sacred, as are all associated sites.
In this rejection of institutionalised churches, some replace religion with ‘spirituality’, New Age mysticism, some flirt with Satanism, many worship the Almighty Dollar, some follow cults such as ‘global warming’ (which, like the Aztecs, believe they can influence the weather by making sacrifices) and many fill their ‘spiritual void’ with illicit drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex, porn, gambling and gaming. Some simply identify as atheists – seemingly they regard intellect as superior to ‘superstition’ of religion that cannot be proven (or disproven) but relies on ‘faith’ (although, ironically, much of intellect also relies on ‘theory’ which until proven also relies on ‘faith’).
Failed Education Policies:
Education and social policies tend to not be based on the sciences of psychology, cognitive and emotional development or learning – but are based on ideology (specifically, ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’) which is the basis for political dogmas. Social engineers lack any understanding of psychology, cognitive development and emotional development and/or they lack the capacity to foresee obvious negative ‘unintended consequences’ – or else, the ‘unintended consequences’ are the actual goal, since they tend to ignore warnings from wiser minds.
* Social engineers dumbed down the education system and teaching methods several decades ago (and rankings show they have been quite successful at that).
* In a misguided move to boost Self Esteem, policies were later introduced to protect kids from experiencing negative feelings such as failure, frustration, hurt and disappointment by eliminating consequences of competition. Hence, the policy of “Every child gets a medal – just for turning up”. This dis-incentivises ‘effort’ if there no reward to motivate achievement, thus fostering mediocrity in performance outcomes. Ironically, the plan to boost Self Esteem failed miserably. When every child gets a medal ‘just for turning up’, it has no value to the child since reward without effort is meaningless and hence without the euphoria or ‘self satisfaction’ of success, is meaningless. If it does teach anything, it is ‘entitlement’ to reward without effort. The sad reality is that by ‘protecting’ kids from negative experiences, they are deprived opportunities of ‘learning’ and ‘growth’ - such as persistence, perseverance, determination, learning from mistakes, overcoming obstacles, personal satisfaction from improving on past efforts, resilience, ‘bouncing back’ – which all contribute to building Self Esteem.
* As for the high rates of so called ‘mental illness’ or ‘mental ill health’, this is in part a consequence of kids being denied the opportunity to develop ‘coping skills’ such as ‘resilience’. Anxiety, stress, worry are all natural psychological states in response to threatening situations that beset our lives from time to time or sometimes on a daily basis. They are signals or messages from our subconscious mind that we really need to address a problematic situation. The mind-body has the ‘inner resources’ to cope with these feelings and get over them and if permitted to do this, capacity to cope effectively increases. Instead, we hear of ‘cotton wool’ kids or ‘bubble wrap’ kids where parents think that by protecting their kids from negative emotional experiences (and situations that ‘cause’ these feelings) they are doing them a favour – when the truth is they are harming their kids, ‘infantalising’ them, preventing them from maturing, from growing into independent, capable adults. Instead, we have the ‘snow flake’ generation.
Instead of aiming to foster resilience and ultimate development of ‘inner strength’, the latest ‘progressive’ suggestion is that kids should be entitled to take a ‘stress day’ if they do not feel like going to school. Predictably, an ‘unexpected consequence’ of this is it would be open to abuse. Other predictable ‘unexpected consequences’ would be increased stress at having to catch up with missed lessons and ultimately the psychological/behavioural problem of ‘school avoidance’.
When kids are protected from facing unpleasant situations and feelings – in addition to failing to develop resilience - what the kids learn is to cope by ‘avoidance’ – ‘avoidance’ becomes their ‘coping style’ and they may develop an ‘avoidant personality’.
However, in this era of ‘instant gratification’, people also want the ‘quick fix’ for mental and emotional problems. This means medication instead of some form of psychological therapy to address underlying causal factors (such as with depression and anxiety). Alternatively, they ‘self medicate’ with substances or activities that have the known potential to become addictive (such as illicit drugs, alcohol, ‘comfort food’, promiscuous sex, porn, gambling, gaming). Addiction then becomes a ‘secondary problem’. Or in the case of ‘comfort eating’, obesity becomes a distressing problem.
* Disruptive behaviour in schools: Teachers are being blamed for not being able to manage classroom behaviour so the solution is seen as training teachers better. Teachers complain they have to negotiate with kids to get them to cooperate. However, the teachers’ job is to educate kids – they should not have to be trained police negotiators. Students disrespecting and assaulting teachers is not the fault of teachers. ‘Behaviour’ is the responsibility of parents – and this begins in early childhood. Preparation for kindergarten and school should include training in appropriate behaviour such as ‘focusing in class’, obedience in following instruction and ‘respect’ for the teacher.
The only tools schools have to deal with unacceptable behaviour are ‘suspension’ and ‘expulsion’ which are not a solution but merely ‘kicking the can down the road’ – which is likely to mean criminal behaviour, police and the justice system.
* Education in core subjects is taking second place to indoctrination with ‘progressive’ ideologies, ‘wokeness’ and fostering identity politics and ‘activism’ (taking part in political marches in school time). Instead of fostering social unity and honour of their country, ‘patriotism’ is denounced as ‘racism’ and is replaced by shame and hatred for Australia. ‘Climate alarmism’ results in kids being terrified that the world will be destroyed before they even grow up – creating ‘climate’ anxiety.
* Universities used to be bastions of higher learning, a place for exchange of ideas, debate of opposing views, pushing boundaries in thought and ideas, researching by testing hypotheses. However, the lowering of grades as a consequence of the abandonment of the ‘pursuit of academic excellence’ has been the cost of universities being dominated by a single ‘progressive’ ideology. Sadly, adherence to that ideology stifles independent thought by banning alternative views. Speakers who dare to challenge the only accepted narrative are ‘cancelled’ or ‘deplatformed’. Visiting speakers are met with loud mob violence and their voices drowned out. The student activists are never held to account by university authorities even though their anti-West rhetoric has recently escalated to open anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist activism. The long-term consequence is that as graduates adhering to an ideology that stifles ‘free speech’ move into businesses, professions and leadership positions in government, they may carry this ‘censorship’ model as their ‘value’ or frame of reference.
Distorted facts and devalued words:
(i) ‘It takes a village to raise a child’:
This is a cop-out by parents abrogating their parental responsibilities/obligations to teach kids how to behave, to instil values, such as respect and a code of moral decency in behaviour. ‘Primary’ responsibility for child raising, providing guidance and teaching values and behaviour belongs to the parents. The role of the ‘village’ is purely ‘secondary’ or ‘complementary’.
There are ‘progressive’ policy factors that may have contributed to this abrogation of ‘primary’ parental responsibility and the fallacy that ‘the village’ is wholly responsible for raising kids. There is another fallacy that ‘the village’ is actually undertaking that responsibility:
a) Parents were stripped of authority to discipline kids, so they abrogated their responsibility to schools and this has led to abrogation of increasingly more parental responsibilities to teachers. Subsequently, teachers and childcare workers complain that they are increasingly expected to ‘pick up the slack’ of parenting responsibilities.
b) Following on from ‘libertarian values’ which were based on ‘rights and freedoms to do as you please without consideration for impact on others and responsibility/accountability for consequences’, children were accorded ‘adult rights’ including ‘freedoms and rights to do as they please without responsibility’ – and without any obligation to listen to parental guidance. What was ignored in this was the ‘right’ of kids to have parents fulfilling their ‘parental responsibilities’ to provide guidance and raise them equipped to function optimally in the adult world.
c) However, schools have been stripped of authority to discipline kids, consequently, no one ‘in the village’ is providing guidance or disciplining the kids and they are not being held accountable for their behaviour. In schools, this has resulted in abuse and assaulting teachers.
We can see the eventual inevitable consequences of this: (i) upholding/promotion of ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’ values extended to kids ‘rights’, (ii) banning discipline and (iii) abrogation of parental responsibility - in the escalation of bad behaviour that is allowed to go unchecked. Kids are ‘progressing’ to ‘adult’ crime (assaults, stabbings, home robberies, vehicle theft, violent crimes, murder) euphemistically labelled ‘youth crime’ and since the ‘law is soft on crime’ and ‘progressive’ ideologues push to ‘raise the age’ of criminal responsibility, young criminals are still not being held accountable. Again, ‘no one in the village’ is actually accepting responsibility to raise the kids.
The response from social engineers is generally that the problem of ‘disruptive or violent’ behaviour is ‘poor socio-economic’ circumstances or ‘violence in the home’ (which is an insult to the many families living in poor financial circumstances who do maintain values and instil them into their kids) so the ineffective solution is always to ‘throw money’ at a problem. Alternatively, ‘youth crime’ is blamed on drugs – yet it is the same ideologues who endorse drug use and now want to decriminalise/legalise all illicit drugs. So, rather than the ‘village’ accepting responsibility to protect kids from drugs, the push is to expose them to greater risk.
Authorities are unable/unwilling to acknowledge that ‘disruptive and violent’ behaviour in schools and ‘youth crime’ are a consequence of deterioration in societal values, permissiveness and lack of accountability embraced in social policies. Confirming that ‘no one in the village’ is accepting responsibility for taking care of the kids, no one is providing guidance. Meaning, ‘The village raises kids’ is a MYTH.
(ii) ‘Respect has to be earned’:
If this statement were true, then it means we would have the ‘right’ to be disrespectful to all strangers and new acquaintances – who obviously would not have had the time and opportunity to ‘earn our respect’. The truth is, ‘respect’ says more about the ‘giver’ than the ‘receiver’. A person who has ‘self respect’ will always treat others with respect, whether they deserve it or not. It is the parents’ responsibility to teach their kids about respect – ‘self respect’, respect for authority (eg parents, teachers and police), for others and for property. A person who treats others with disrespect based on the justification that ‘respect has to be earned’ is simply projecting their subconscious belief that they do not deserve to be treated with respect.
The kind of respect that has to be ‘earned’ is not respect per se, but is ‘acknowledgement’ of a person for achievement in long term service in a professional capacity or service to community.
(iii) Gender Equality=Same:
Much of the emotional or ‘mental health’ issues experienced by kids can be sheeted home to feminism.
In the era of Women’s Liberation (wimmin’s lib), during second-wave feminism, women ‘burnt their bras’ in protest against ‘patriarchal oppression’ of women. Among the most vocal leaders in Australia there were misandrists who had no interest in marriage or having kids. So, the ‘emotional developmental needs’ of kids were ignored – or even subjugated to the ‘rights’ of women. Their agenda was exclusively about elevating women’s rights to ‘above all else’.
Feminism has been based on a fundamental flaw that ‘gender is just a social construct’, thereby denying that any differences are real. (Ironically, prominent feminists have later acknowledged their surprise when they had children of their own and experienced their sons and daughters as being different, even though they were treated the same). ‘Gender equality’ has thus been interpreted as men and women being the ‘same’ thus women sought to be the ‘same as men’. Women used to be the ‘moral guardians’ of society but in aiming to be the ‘same as men’, rejected the ‘guardianship’ role and adopted the lower male standards of behaviour. An example of women wanting to be the ‘same as men’ is ‘going to work and leaving child care to someone else’ – like fathers did.
Devaluing Motherhood
Hence, feminists ‘devalued motherhood’ with slogans such as: ‘there is nothing special about mothering’, ‘anyone can raise a child’ and ‘paid childcare is just as good as mothering’. Mothers were told that taking care of their family was ‘not real work’, mothers were led to feel that they were second class citizens, only worthwhile as people if they were doing ‘paid work’. Hence, feminists promoted institutionalised non-maternal childcare so mothers could work in paid jobs. Politicians paid ‘lip service’ to supporting women’s ‘right to work’ by subsidising childcare although their true motive was more likely thoughts of the extra income tax they could collect. The economy adjusted to the increased spending and taxable capacity of the ‘two-income’ family. (The financial struggle from easy divorce and single parent families came later).
Feminists also claimed that children ‘did not need a father’ so single women were encouraged to have babies on their own, thereby making the decision to deny them the right of having a father. (There is a whole body of research that debunks the feminist claim, by supporting the role of fathers and the complementary roles of having a mother and a father). Teen mothers were also incentivised to keep their babies and raise them as single mothers.
Impact on Kids
Feminism has been great for elevating status of women, but there has been a cost and that cost is born by kids. Many kids spend substantial time separated from their mothers from infancy onward, during the critical time of ‘emotional developmental foundations’. Lengthy and frequent separations can interfere with a healthy development of Attachment with the mother (which has long term impact on capacity for healthy close relationships with others). This can also create in the child a sense of ‘not being important to Mum’, of being ‘less important’ than Mum’s job. There is frequently some degree of anger which is unlikely to be obvious to the mother, because it has to be ‘repressed’. These losses or deficits in ‘emotional developmental needs’ being met can contribute to a lifelong poor sense of Self Worth. This may underpin later ‘mental health’ issues, particularly if there is ‘repressed’ anger. Without a healthy sense of Self Worth as a strong foundation for later building their Self Esteem, that Self Esteem may be fragile, no matter how confident the image the individual presents to the world.
When young children spend substantial time separated from their ‘primary attachment’ figure (Mum), they may transfer this ‘primary attachment’ to a substitute parent figure or ‘surrogate’ carer such a favoured childcare worker, nanny or family member substantially responsible for care. This has now been formalised in institutionalised childcare in the role of Key Educator (described as a ‘primary carer’ role), based on Circle of Security (which is derived from John Bowlby’s ‘Attachment Theory’). However, this is a ‘sanitised’ version of ‘attachment’ because Feminist theory is incompatible with Bowlby’s work on Attachment. Hence, this Key Educator is a ‘surrogate’ carer role and to call this person a ‘primary carer’ is to suggest equal status with the mother, thereby diminishing the importance and ‘uniqueness’ of the mother’s role (ie unique means ‘only one of its kind’). This legitimises replacing the mother as ‘primary’ carer in the facilitation of ‘transfer of attachment’ to the surrogate. However, this transfer of attachment from ‘primary’ carer (Mum) to ‘surrogate’ carer, is NOT a healthy emotional development for the child. Hence, it has been known for households dependent on nannies for much of the childcare, to have frequent change in nannies to PREVENT the kids from becoming too attached to them.
The important role of fathers is not detailed here because my focus is the maternal-child attachment that is critical during these early developmental years.
Mothers justified their decisions to put infants into childcare, even long daycare, and return to work by telling themselves that ‘working made them a better mother’ and they were being a ‘role model for their daughters’. However, they have been unaware of the truth of what their children’s emotional and perceptual experiences were, hence long term consequences for ‘unmet’ or ‘violated’ ‘emotional developmental needs’, in particular the negative impact on their long term sense of Self Worth (the foundation for them to build their Self Esteem). For many mothers, working is a financial necessity. For many, juggling work and family commitment is a stressful struggle. For many, reliance on alcohol to cope with stress has created its own problems. Instead of celebrating the differences as ‘equal value’, feminism, aiming to prove men and women are the ‘same’ has come at a heavy social cost.
Liberation -> Confusion for Men
Women’s Liberation was a confusing time for men. Feminists abused men for treating them with courtesy – being courteous and protective towards women was regarded as ‘demeaning’ to women. Men became emasculated while women were encouraged to be masculine. Girls used to be taught to have ‘self respect’ and boys used to be raised to ‘not hit girls’ and ‘women are to be respected and protected’. Then, gender equality meant boys treating girls the ‘same as they treat boys’. So, how much of the devaluing of respect, by Libertarians and feminists, has contributed to the disrespectful way many men of subsequent generations treat women now? Gender ‘equality’ also meant ‘liberation’ for men from traditional male roles - many younger men no longer seem to feel they have financial responsibility to support a partner or family – even commonly urging a breast-feeding mother to put the baby in childcare and get back to work. (Admittedly there is also the factor that the economy has adapted to absorb the increased spending capacity of the ‘two-income family’). Likewise, now rare is the sense of responsibility to protect women but many are more likely to sexually exploit a drunken woman. (Of course, decent men do still exist, but the values they live by are no longer the values upheld at a ‘societal’ level).
In spite of feminism, I have experienced acts of courtesy by male Baby Boomers who have not abandoned the values they were raised by – and perhaps, they realise that older women can appreciate such gestures.
Impact of Sexual ‘Liberation’
Sadly, drunkenness has become an issue - so many young women lacking ‘self respect’ appear to think they have a ‘right’ to get drunk without any responsibility for their personal safety. Particularly when hooking up for casual sex with strangers - and regard that as being ‘liberated’. Paradoxically, although this means not treating themselves with respect, they complain about men not treating them with respect.
Hence, beginning from the lofty ideals of gender ‘equality’, some of the ‘wins’ for feminism have been of dubious benefit. The unfortunate consequence of translating ‘equality’ into the ‘same as men’ has meant rejecting the positives and strengths of traditionally what it meant to be a woman in favour of the adoption of behavioural male standards. The embarrassing result - a ‘strong, liberated’ woman means nothing more than being ‘loud and opinionated’ and ‘sexually promiscuous’.
The Sexual Revolution ‘liberated’ women to be the ‘same as men’, who historically, have tended to seek ‘no strings attached’ sex in random sexual opportunities with willing women. Ironically, whilst ostensibly the intention was for women to ‘gain’ sexual equality here, the real gains were for men. It was men who were the real winners since they now found no shortage of unlimited willing partners for ‘no strings attached’ sex. Unsurprising, an ‘unintended consequence’ was women eventually complained that men were ‘toxic’ and ‘wouldn’t commit’. (Hey, you know the one about ‘why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free’?). Commonly, many women seek online hookups or pursue footballers for casual sex then when it turns pear shaped, rather than accept responsibility for foolish choices, they forget they are ‘strong liberated women’ and resort to playing the ‘victim’ card and cry ‘rape’.
Sadly, with increasing sexual permissiveness and the further society drifts away from moral values, ‘self respect’ is unheard of by the young. Subsequently, ironically, in spite of the ‘gains’ of feminism, being ‘strong independent women’ and girls being encouraged to play football, girls appear to believe that the way to be ‘liked’ by boys is to be sexually compliant (even do stuff seen in online porn) and/or sext them photos of their genitalia. In fact, there appears to be a societal expectation that kids will be sexually active – so does this expectation place pressure on girls? How is that ‘progress’ for women? It would be more appropriate if feminists provided guidance for girls on how to set standards for male behaviour - by exercising ’self respect’, thereby commanding they be treated with ‘respect’. Then again, there is the influence of online pornography being relationship role models for boys thinking that rough, degrading sex is what girls like. And, since girls lack the ‘self respect’ to resist, boys think this behaviour is acceptable. Is this just another ‘unintended consequence’ of the ‘permissive Libertarian’ values embraced in and ‘progressive’ policies that demanded everyone has the ‘right to access pornography’? Once again, we have evidence in the ‘progressive’ era, that providing guidance, care and protection of kids (including teaching about ‘respect’) is definitely NOT a priority for the ‘village’. Which does beg the question, “Whose responsibility is it”? Nobody’s? And there we have the answer – in this ‘progressive’ era, kids are not supposed to have to abide by any rules but have ‘rights to do as they please – without responsibility for consequences, of course’. Because in this era of ‘freedom and non-responsibility’ the ‘village cannot be expected to accept responsibility to raise the kids’.
(iv) Nanny State Utopia:
It is laudable that the STATE takes care of its citizens. So, in addition to community services such as education, hospitals, law and order, mail delivery, roads and rubbish collection, STATE also provides a social security safety net by subsidising health care, childcare, social housing and provides financial support for those unable to support themselves. However, there is a downside to the STATE taking on personal responsibilities and community obligations - when people relinquish their personal responsibilities and obligations to the STATE, they also relinquish their ‘personal power’ to the STATE. Individuals taking on responsibilities and obligations requires/builds self sufficiency, self-reliance, self discipline, intestinal fortitude, commitment, independence - which are personally ‘empowering’. Hence, the reverse when relinquishing responsibilities, becoming dependent on the STATE is ‘disempowering’.
This relinquishing of responsibilities to STATE leads to further abrogation of responsibilities and community obligations, with an attitude that everything is someone else’s responsibility or the responsibility of ‘the government’. The provision of Medicare has resulted in people not accepting responsibility for taking care of their health but instead, indulge in enjoying unhealthy lifestyles (involving alcohol, cigarettes, illicit drugs, unhealthy food and lack of exercise), then expect a free or cheap quick fix when they subsequently become ill. Parents become dependent on institutionalised subsidised childcare and abrogate their parenting responsibilities to childcare and schools. Childcare workers and school teachers complain they have to ‘pick up the slack’.
Childcare has also been abrogated to technology – at the cost of cognitive development for young kids being exposed to ‘screens’ from infancy. And significantly, the unsupervised access to social media which exposes kids to danger from sexual predators, bulling by peers and the real tragedy is the addictive nature of this technology – which is no ‘unintended consequence’ because addicted kids are a lucrative market and addicted kids grow up into addicted adults. Algorithms have been proven to be addictive and even more telling, is that bosses of Big Tech have been known to admit not allowing their own kids access to this technology. Parents are not accepting responsibility for supervision of children accessing the internet and clearly, the ‘village is not accepting responsibility either’.
People are less inclined to accept personal responsibility for their own safety and consequences of foolish or careless actions – someone else has to be found to blame. Consequently, we have become a very ‘litigious’ society, to the extent that community volunteering and many social activities are no longer possible because of high cost of ‘public liability insurance’. As new generations grow up under the Nanny State, the benefits become taken for granted and eventually are accepted with a sense of entitlement so more is demanded.
The sad consequence of this ‘disempowering’ effect of ‘non-responsibility’ and ‘dependency’ by individuals, the STATE becomes ‘more powerful’, more emboldened to become more intrusive, more regulating, more controlling - while the psyche of society as a whole has become weakened. When individuals put their own lives on the line to save others from danger, this is ‘newsworthy’ and whether through bravery or unthinking instinctive action, they are lauded as heroes and awarded a medal. The implication is not just that they are ‘brave’ but their actions in an era of ‘me first’ and dependency on STATE being responsible to take care of everything, acts of personal sacrifice are unexpected or regarded as abnormal in today’s society.
Fortunately, community spirit does still exist and this becomes obvious in times of disaster when the community makes financial donations or pitches in to help with ‘cleanups’. Unfortunately, the underside of humanity also shows itself in looting and scams targeting victims.
(v) “We are not role models”:
This sounds like a disclaimer for the ‘village accepting responsibility for raising the kids’. Who are the Role Models for kids? When overpaid, privileged, boof head footballers are reprimanded for drunkenness or other anti-social behaviour AND for being ‘poor role models’ for youth, they generally protest, “We are not role models”. The fact is that being a role model is not a position open just to ‘volunteers’. The fact is that every adult who kids are exposed to IS a role model - whether in person (as a parent, other family, family friend, neighbour, teacher, sports coach, bus driver, police officer, shop employees - even a casual passerby); live entertainment and sporting events; characters in movies, tv shows, social media; anyone in the public eye – ‘celebrities’, sporting ‘heroes’, politicians. Major factors that determine the extent/significance of the influence will depend on ‘frequency and duration’ of contact (eg family, teachers) and how ‘rewarding’ the life of the person is eg attention (in the limelight, hero worship), easy access to sex (attract easy women), money (wealthy lifestyle).
(vi) Drug use is a ‘right’:
Early in the Libertarian influence, there was a ‘demand’ for the ‘right’ to use illicit substances. This invoked core values of ‘rights and freedoms’ and ‘instant gratification’. While the sale of drugs was illegal, a blind eye was turned toward the actual use. Then as ‘unexpected consequences’ (of addiction, health and social problems) became obvious, ‘progressive’ policies openly endorsed drug use with ‘harm minimisation’ programs that served to maintain both the use of drugs and the associated problems. This ‘endorsement’ of the rights to use illicit drugs has incrementally expanded, culminating in a push to finally decriminalise/legalise all illicit drugs.
The focus has always been a ‘libertarian’ and ‘progressive’ one, of the rights to consume mood/mind/behaviour altering substances, ostensible serving the need for ‘instant gratification’, as implied by the euphemism ‘recreational’ or ‘party’ drugs. It appears that there has never at any time been the desire to question why people, particularly youth would want to consume substances that provide a brief hit, but overwhelmingly have a harmful impact on their body, mind, behaviour, health and finances - even ruining their life. Why do they need to consume these substances that are potentially addictive in order to enjoy their social activities, music, the company of friends? It is obvious that drugs are not just about ‘fun’ but also to cope with life and emotional pain. Are they lacking inner resources to enjoy life and to cope? Why has this aspect not been explored and addressed?
It is obvious that different types of drugs are used by different types of people in different circumstances. With a little bit of knowledge on biology of the brain, it becomes obvious that these different drugs elicit responses from specific neurotransmitter/hormones in the brain thus producing specific effects on the mind/mood/behaviour of the user. This suggests that when choosing which drugs they take, users are seeking a specific experience to achieve a specific purpose. In effect, they are ‘self medicating’ – broadly speaking, for psychological deficits to capacity for enjoyment or to blot out emotional pain. (Explanation of the ‘Self Medication Model for Drug and Alcohol Use’ is covered in a separate page on this website).
However, instead of addressing the psychological deficits and resolving emotional issues causing pain, focus appears to be exclusively in vested interests in supporting drug use via the ‘harm minimisation’ industry. Strategies such as provision of ‘drug testing’ at music events is pseudo-legalising thus endorsing drug use by authorities. Inevitably, legalising all drugs will send a misleading message to kids that drug use is just ‘harmless fun’ thereby encouraging their usage and also inevitably, contributing to more problems associated with addiction and more risk of OD. Hence, expanding the drug use by legalising drugs will inevitably ensure ‘career paths’ and solidifying the role of the ‘harm minimisation’ industry. Further evidence that ‘the village’ has no interest in raising kids and keeping them safe.
(vii) Honesty:
Has been stripped of any connotations of ‘honour’. It has been degraded to use as an excuse to be insensitive, mean and nasty to someone, and justifying this with a smug, sanctimonious, ”I was just being honest”. I prefer ‘integrity’ which is honesty combined with honour, but then, the word ‘integrity’ has also been devalued through misuse.
(viii) Integrity:
Used to refer to the character of a respected individual who acted with honesty and honour. Now, it is cynically used in a label to give credibility to a body (eg Integrity Commission) set up to clear or ‘white wash’ privileged, protected, ‘valuable’ individuals who have engaged in nefarious behaviour.
(ix) Ethics:
Ethics used to be based on moral principles but with the abandonment of moral values, ‘ethics’ has lost its original meaning and value. A more appropriate definition of modern ethics: “Pushing boundaries, engaging in whatever dubious practices you can get away with - without actually breaking the law”.
(x) So-called ‘Mental illness’:
As society has weakened over recent decades – due to devaluing morals and strength of character qualities such as self sufficiency and stoicism, replacing delayed gratification with instant gratification, abrogation of personal responsibilities to the Nanny state – poor ‘mental health’ has become a major issue. However, ‘mental illness’ is a bit of a ‘catch all net’ extending from occasional minor anxiety to certifiable psychiatric disorders. We hear complaints of ‘stigma’ towards mental illness but the truth is the only place that stigma exists is in the main stream media. Far from being stigmatised, ‘mental illness’ has been ‘normalised’ – likewise long term prescription medication to merely ‘manage’ symptoms. People are actively encouraged to identify as having a ‘mental illness’ - like a virtual recruitment drive for club membership - and public figures who make public admissions are lauded for their ‘bravery’.
The loose use of the term ‘mental illness’ diminishes the suffering experienced by those with an actual ‘mental illness’. Experiencing some occasions of anxiety, depression, distress, confusion, emotional issues are all ‘normal’ part of the ups and downs, trials and tribulations of life – NOT an illness that needs to be medicated. Some issues resolve themselves and some are persistent. Some are one-off and some are recurring or longstanding. We have ‘inner resources’ to deal with this ‘stuff’ – whether it be taking action to create ‘change’ or using ‘coping strategies’ to deal with an unchangeable situation, drawing on stoicism, intestinal fortitude - and an essential sense of humour. Often, just being able to talk about a problem with a supportive friend or family member is sufficient to get a situation in perspective or recognise a solution that can be acted on. There are times when it is beneficial to seek professional help. Whichever, it is important having the ‘resilience’ to bounce back – but resilience does not develop from ‘avoidance’. Facing up to these ‘life tests’, (whether they be recent or old unresolved stuff) and dealing with them effectively improves resilience, facilitates ‘personal growth’ and “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger”.
A ’socially engineered’ school policy aiming to boost ‘Self Esteem’ and ‘protect’ kids from negative emotional experiences has failed miserably – which is no surprise to anyone with any understanding of human behaviour (even just from observations in life experience). The policy, eliminating any competitive situations and instead, ‘giving everyone a medal just for turning up’ - has proven not just to be a failure for Self Esteem but also detrimental by ‘preventing’ development of ’resilience’. Kids being protected by parents in ‘bubble wrap’ are learning to use ‘avoidance’ as a ‘coping’ strategy. The lesson with kids should be clear – facing and dealing with upsetting situations are opportunities for improving coping capabilities and for personal growth – avoidance creates the opposite. Instead of facing and addressing ‘issues’, many adults too are using ‘avoidance’ strategies such as psychotropic medications (eg antidepressants, anxiolytics, mood stabilisers, antipsychotics). Alternatively, they are self-medicating with alcohol, illicit drugs, gambling, casual sex – or comfort eating which often results in secondary problems of obesity and obesity-related diseases. They too, are missing out on opportunities for personal growth. For example, 90% of depression cases are psychological/social in nature but instead of addressing the unresolved underlying causal issues of the depression, many choose to avoid that discomfort with long term medication. If they faced those issues and resolved them, they would not only alleviate the depression, they would also experience personal growth. The truth is that many who claim to have a mental illness do not – they have a poor sense of Self Worth and much like those who cling to ‘victimhood’, it merely serves to provide them with a ‘sense of identity’, to be used as an excuse to avoid responsibilities and expectations being put on them.
As an example of authorities not having learnt anything from the failure of school policies regarding ‘resilience’ and ‘avoidance’, a recent suggestion has been made that kids should be able to take a ‘stress day’ leave if they do not feel like going to school. With policy makers like that in charge, then the outlook for ‘mental health’ of future generations is grim. Further evidence that relying on the ‘village to raise the kids’ is a very bad idea.
Conclusion:
We must be allowed to evaluate social policies and their consequences with honesty and decide objectively what has been beneficial, therefore is worth keeping, and what has been detrimental so needs to be reversed, abandoned. However, there is a lot to unpack here – a lot of damage to undo - so where to start? When faced with a seemingly overwhelming task, break it down by identifying goals, principles and targets.
The ideological goal has been to weaken society and that has been successfully achieved by attacking or undermining everything that was strong in society. Focus has thus been on two broad targets: (i) ‘Me first’, self centred, indulgence, abrogating personal responsibilities and obligations/duties to society, and (ii) ‘Fragmenting’ society, destroying unity, division, fostering hostility between ‘identity’ groups, fostering national hatred.
A plausible approach therefore is to reverse the strategies for those two targets: Set the primary goal at strengthening society via strength in unity through common values and individual independence, democratic freedom, national pride, love of country, civic duty, service to country ie Patriotism. The complementary part of this strategy of prioritising building a strong united society to be proud of, is that focus needs to be balanced between ‘inwards’ to self and ‘outwards’ to cooperation in contributing to society which inevitably means accepting responsibility, not just for society and developing a sense of selflessness, but also personal responsibility, independence and pride in self sufficiency. Plus – every adult accept the responsibility/civic duty to be a responsible role model for kids as in, “It takes a village to raise a child”.
This is summed up in John F Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration speech: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Q: But how to get this movement off the ground?
