We all know by now that the official doctrine of our new PC state is transmitted to the populace by means of the State broadcaster, the BBC. This morning provided a very pertinent example.
No, I am not going to add to the plethora of nonsense and non news around the Tory party leadership contest. The superficiality and the increasing irrelevance of that party are self evident.
No, I want to look at what was said this morning just after 07.30 by Doctor Stephen De Wijze, Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester on BBC Radio 4’s religious”Sunday” programme [link below for the podcast].
Now, you may wonder why a professor of Politics should be on a Religious programme at all. But in the mindset of today’s official thinking there is no discrepancy. You see the learned Doctor went on to explain the totalitarian Credo of the modern British State – though he called it “Liberal Democracy”.
I must explain to you firstly, however, the subject on which the learned Doctor of Politics was called to pronounce.
The issue being discussed concerned demonstrations by mainly Muslim parents outside Anderton Park Primary school in Birmingham this week. There is a link to a video clip on Sky News below.
The parents were objecting to their children being taught that it was normal for a child to have same sex parents.
The learned Doctor was called in by the BBC to explain the State’s requirements in today’s British “liberal democracy”.
It was particularly paradoxical that this academic was not entirely academic in his treatment of the subject. This was evident from what he did not do. He did not question the assumption that it was normal for two people of the same sex to parent children.
Now it may well be legal in Britain today; and it may well be normal in the eyes of those who hold a politically correct worldview.
But it is not normal from a biological perspective; it is not normal from a historical perspective [the assumption of man and woman as parents has been the generally accepted and perceived norm since the dawn of man]; it is not normal from the perspective of the world’s Monotheistic religions, as traditionally understood.
But our academic did not explain those distinctions as I would expect a university academic to do; isn’t that the academic’s raison d’etre ….
No, the learned Doctor’s role was not academic today, but propagandic. He was there to give academic credibility to the State line. His academic approach was confined to considering Rights ie the terms of debate which the PC worldview obliges.
The learned doctor therefore simply assumed that the PC worldview and the assumptions of that worldview were correct. Indeed not only correct, but objective truth.
He also assumed that his assumptions about “liberal democracy” provided an objective definition of the words, “liberal democracy”. So he did not bother to explore the fact that his view of “liberal democracy” is quite different from the understanding of those words 50 or 100 years ago…
And this man is a learned Doctor of Politics in one of our top Universities …
Having taken this highly partisan view, the doctor then went on to state that the parents view of the matter was simply a point of view. Thus the historical and biological norm that a child has two parents of different sex was instantly redefined by the doctor as merely a point of view.
Having abandoned his role as academic for the role of BBC PC propagandist, the learned Doctor then proceeded to define the parameters to liberty in this new Orthodoxy. And there are two disturbing and related aspects to what he said.
Firstly, he asserted that the State has an equal right with the parents to teach their children.
Now he was not talking here about the state stepping in to ensure that all children have the opportunity to be educated in the 3 Rs etc. That the state should make material provision so that all children have the basic tools and knowledge to participate in society as self reliant and independent people.
Just as the State has stepped in to provide health care for all.
No, the learned doctor was saying that the State has the right equally with the parents to teach the children British values as defined by the government. And his rationale for this was that the children are as much children of the State as children of their parents. They are citizens of the State. Therefore, the State has a duty and obligation to teach them citizenship – and he also assumed, according to the State’s view.
I think the learned doctor is suffering a surfeit of Plato’s philosophy in his intellectual diet – and we all that Plato provides justification for every totalitarian regime.
His assertion therefore shocked me …
It is totally at odds with out traditional English conceptions of liberty.
Both our identity and our culture are traditionally derived from the family and from our appreciation of our cultural heritage as a nation. Our traditional conception that the family is the place where we are nurtured and socialised as individuals and as responsible members of society – a society which has a national, not ideological, identity.
The idea that the government should interfere with that process has been progressively tolerated because of the departures from the norm of family life when children are at risk.
But state intervention to protect in the minority of cases where children are at risk does not confer on the State the right to intervene in all families.
Nor does it confer on the State the right to determine right and wrong, politically; to determine our national culture, divorced from our national history and culture.
But that is what the doctor presumed.
It is the same mindset as compulsory vaccination for all children regardless of the parents wishes because the State determines from a collective perspective. All must be vaccinated for vaccination to work at all. The collectivist perspective must triumph over the individualist.
Which brings me to my last comment. In presuming upon the State’s right to teach our children what the State regards as orthodoxy [an orthodoxy which the doctor does not care to hold up to the light of examination], the State is actually asserting a superior right.
This learned doctor clearly assumed that what the State wanted to teach the children at Anderton Park Primary school must take precedence over the parents beliefs. The State worldview should prevail over the parents.
The State Doctrine that same sex parents is normal must take precedence over the parents traditional and orthodox worldview of family.
The doctor dresses up this totalitarian worldview as “liberal democracy”.
It is no such thing.
It is Social Engineering according to the Marxist mindset in which the enlightened ideological few must show the ignorant masses The Way, by whatever means necessary.
It is offensive and worrying when academics fail to question the part of their own worldview in their analysis. It is offensive and disturbing when the State broadcaster seeks to dress up propaganda in academic respectability.
for the BBC Sounds recording of the programme, please go to the following link – the segment in question is introduced after 22 minutes 30 seconds and the interview itself runs from 24 minutes to 31 minutes
regarding which note the PC slant which Sky News puts on the report – it ignores the objections made by the demonstrators and picks up on the Muslim affront to Feminism [an affront also to Christian teaching, I might add…]