by Tim Haydon.
The Left tries to deny or ignore human nature and tramples all over its implications. The results are invariably disastrous.
You might have seen it in documentaries dealing with prides of lions on the African savannahs. A roaming bachelor lion takes over a pride and then proceeds to kill off all the offspring of the male lion he has driven away. This instinctive behaviour has evolved to ensure that the lionesses are brought back into breeding condition and that it is the new lion’s genes which will survive rather than those of his vanquished rival. Such behaviour is characteristic of other animal species, such as meerkats and some primates. These latter include the human animal.
We have all heard the sad stories – the ones like that of little Peter Connelly, better known as “Baby P”. Baby P was only 17-months old when he died in London in 2009 after suffering more than fifty injuries over eight-months at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend Steven Barker and the latter’s brother, Jason Owen. His mother and the men were convicted of causing or allowing the deaths of the little boy.
Other stories such as this one have been reported in the media. One suspects though that they are merely the ghastly tip of an enormous iceberg of abuse of little children which have come to public notice only because they are the worst cases involving the death of a child. More intelligent individuals are better able to cover their tracks than the likes of the Baby P household. Their unifying feature is the absence of the natural father of the child or children and the presence in the home of a boyfriend of the mother who is the one primarily responsible for the abuse.
A recent study by scientists at University College London, the results of which have been published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences taking in 230 species of primates has found that the high risk of infanticide by rival males in primate species which have evolved monogamy was the driving force behind its appearance as the breeding pattern.
Which brings us to the point of this article, which is that marital monogamy became the norm in many societies, not as a cultural accident or as a device to keep females in subjection, as power-obsessed marxoid feminist ideology would have one believe, but as the result of millennia of evolution of the human species.
The left has sneered at monogamy and always hated marriage because it is said to be the locus of male oppression etc etc; because it stands between the individual and state control and because it is the transmitter of traditions, religions and attitudes which leftist social engineers would like to do away with. But one cannot do away with an institution like marriage, with roots stretching back aeons into our very natures as human beings, without there being very serious, inconvenient, consequences.
Marriage is a device to ensure that a man is tied to his children and their mother to protect and provide for them. At the same time as giving security to his family It gives the man himself a role and a meaning to his life as well as exclusive access to his female. This mutually beneficial arrangement is being destroyed by leftist individualistic egalitarian agenda.
The Baby P’s of this world are just one of the many serious ill results which are wide ranging as the unintended consequences of dismantling institutions with age-old roots in human nature by the tradition-hating left always are.
For example, since the state has tried to destroy marriage by assuming the male role of provider, many young men have been left leading unsocialised, pointless, beer swilling, woman–hunting, hedonistic existences. The women meantime, those who have not chosen the production of babies as a life choice and a publically funded meal ticket, that is, have to a large degree abandoned their natural role as child bearers to the point where the birthrate of the native British is at a level (1.7) which will see the end of the race in due course.
And, knowing the origins of monogamy and marriage in human societies, what is likely to be the attitude of the native British, united by blood ties as they are, towards the raising and nurturing of the children of ethnically distant people? Is it not likely to be less than enthusiastic? Does not the spectacle of British schools filled with black and brown faces and our maternity hospital wards with the screams of little black and brown babies make one very depressed? It would be better perhaps if this were not so, but it is so. And that it is so is entirely natural. And what about when it is our children and grandchildren who are in the minority in Britain? Are we seriously to suppose that they will be treated with the same respect as majority children? That is the tragedy of modern, multiracial Britain.
As the Roman Poet Horace remarked,
Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque revenit. ( You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, she will nevertheless come back).