Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Straight from the Horse’s Mouth

There are apparently 171 street gangs in London. The largest of these is the Peel Dem Crew, based in Brixton, with a membership of 2500. Its co-founder, a young man who goes by the name of JaJa, was interviewed in the media yesterday. He said “I wanted a father figure…gangs are surrogate families”.

The black community blames the decline of the family for the rise of gang culture. Everyone seems to agree, apart from Harriet Harperson and the rest of the politically-corrected Labour government. Official Labour policy is that all types of families are equally valid. The reality is that some family types are more valid than others. The present situation in the UK is such that traditional families are given incentives to break up.

Ordinary families would get £100 a week MORE benefits if they lived apart

"Three out of four ordinary families would be better off living apart than sharing a home under Labour's benefits system."

The feminist-led political Left has been working for 40 years to undermine and destroy fatherhood, marriage and the family. This is the result.

What did the feminists think was going to happen after they had forcibly abolished the family? Did they think they were going to create a nation of interchangeable worker-citizens, identically dressed in Maoist combat-fatigues, singing joyfully together as we toiled at our factory machines?

“Have you heard the good news, sister?”

“What, comrade?”

“I heard that tractor production has increased this month from ten thousand units to nine thousand!”

“Doubleplus good news comrade! Doubleplus Valor to Big Sister!”

Or maybe they thought that after gaining our degrees in Wimin and Opreshun Studeez at the University of Whatever, we would all move on to jobs managing child-abuse charities, and spend our evenings smoking joints and discussing Madonna and Andrea Dworkin.

Whatever they thought was going to happen has obviously not happened.

What happened was the Peel Dem Crew, and 170 other surrogate families. People need families. If you take the family away from them, they will try to create surrogates for themselves. The result is social carnage. It is time that Harridan Harmmen and the rest of the Left woke up to reality.

Mother Nature is not a feminist.


nick naime said...

"Mother Nature is not a feminist."

Yes indeed. In fact a lot of the policies that are getting pushed onto the public in the west (on both sides of the Atlantic) are anti-nature.

When you talk to people at street level, a lot of them are very annoyed by what's happening with this "political correctness" bullshit.

This cannot be happening by accident. Someone must be pushing these unnatural concepts onto us.

Who do you think it is?

tba said...

Mother Nature is not a feminist.

One of the GREATEST lines I've ever read in my life.

I will, with permission, make hasty and frequent use of that line.

Heretic said...

It's not mine, unfortunately. I think it was Christina Hoff Sommers who said it.

jbgood3 said...

“I wanted a father figure…gangs are surrogate families”.
JaJa is way ahead of any feminist or right on mangina. He knows where he's at and is correct in his analysis. He should apply for funding to set up a focus group to spread the word to the numbnut lefties who got him into this position along with countless other young men.

jbgood3 said...

"Did they think they were going to create a nation of interchangeable worker-citizens, identically dressed in Maoist combat-fatigues, singing joyfully together as we toiled at our factory machines?"
Yes.Although they themselves would not be doing so!

Anonymous said...

"Mother Nature is not a feminist."

You can paraphrase this by saying "feminism is unnatural".

As for the destruction of the family and its inevitable contribution to the gang culture, I am getting sick and tired of politicians who refuse to recognise what even the gang members are telling them. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Is it possible to get this useless government, and the other equally useless political parties, to face the question "where do these gangs come from?" I doubt it. They are far too busy promoting their own brands of social engineering and moving on to the next target, to worry about looking behind them at the damage that they have already created and that they haven't the foggiest clue of how to repair.

The Troll said...

looks like the trolls and fembotz destroyed the link to that video. That form of the left just LOVES censorship...
But I do not agree that there is a natural v un natural way that the human being operates.

What is natural to one may be unnatural to another. I believe in choice, but not at the expense of truth, or freedom. So when women (rightly) took on the issue of state control of their bodies, it was an issue of choice and freedom--but when they extrapolated that choice onto these young children, and created the welfare state, it was no longer choice, and this is the effect of it( gangs etc.)

But I think many miss the point entirely: the state has planned this dwebacle down to the last prison cell, and down to the last soldiers boot in Iraq, etc.

As is well known, matrilineal, matrilocal societty is a baby producing, war making enterprise--it exists for the sole purpose of creating these boys, and teaching them violence.The state is clever enough to engineer that behavior, down to the crucial component of ensuring that these boys DO NOT have fathers.

So male choice is crucial here and for the future, and needs to be defined, and protected as well.

Heretic said...

Dear Troll,

I don't believe there ever was an issue of state control of women's bodies. Certainly no more than men's, and in fact a good deal less. Have you ever considered military conscription? Look at WW1. 9.7 million men slaughtered, almost all of them coerced, almost none of them could vote. That is state contol of people's bodies. How did women's position compare to that? Not even close.

This horror about 'state control of the body' is a 1960s concept. Before that, people expected that they would have to work in the service of the state, and it was accepted. The radical individualists of the 1960s came along and said "Why should I have to do anything at all? If you pressure me into it, that constitutues 'state control of the body'". This is a highly questionable position.