One of the lesser reported manifesto pledges of the Labour Party prior to its regrettable election last summer was its solemn promise to “halve violence against women and girls” within a decade – a strangely specific and unachievable promise, if you ask me. How does Labour actually plan to do this? By naïve and utopian technocratic means, as ever, such as the introduction of “domestic abuse specialists” (expert wife-beaters, perchance?) inside 999 control rooms.
Call me a cynic, but I just don’t believe such near-pointless measures will end up having the desired effect Labour imagines (or pretends to imagine) they will. And yet, when it comes to promising to “halve violence against women and girls” across the UK within the next decade, there is one single, simple, silver-bullet policy the Labour Party could indeed enact in order to vastly reduce such appalling social ills.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If you look at the relationship between the government and the governed a particular way you can argue that the government ‘farms’ the ordinary people for their taxes. Part of farming includes the ordinary people generating another generation of tax payers.
Perhaps ordinary people realise that they have been ‘farmed enough’ and don’t care enough to raise a new set of tax payers?
Possibly. Taxes are a necessary evil – the problem IMO is that the state keeps growing and wanting more and more, and people seem to accept that the state should “fix all our problems” (LOL).
A colleague of mine frequently makes the assertion…
“The problem with this country is that people don’t pay enough taxes.”
He is recently retired. Highly qaualified microbiologist. A firm believer that the PCR test is one of the most accurate tests ever produced. I make a point of rubbishing this comment of course.
Surprisingly, when it comes to parting with cash he’s always at the back of the queue or AWOL.
God help us!
I’m reminded of this:
“It was the blunt but ingenious billionaire Kerry Packer who memorably explained to a stunned Parliamentary committee exactly how the tax system works.
The late business tycoon said: “I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimising my tax and if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.””
Thanks for the Kerry Packer reminder.
I must say that my opinion on taxation has somersaulted. I firmly believe that it is now our duty as citizens to avoid paying tax at any and every opportunity.
And as for charity donations…nothing more than secondary taxation for the gullible.
I have made a similar journey.
Packer makes some good comments here: Two minutes with a brilliant billionaire: politics, legislation and tax
This is also hilarious: Trump: I Understand the Tax Code Better Than Anybody
Well, at least nothing really desperate is in store for us! They didn’t even contemplate to end state-sponsoring of childlessness so that people can have “sex lives” as substitute for anything else which might have provided some meaning to their non-sex lives.
Do you mean free contraception? I’ve never really thought about it, but I think you have a point.
At some point they will want to wipe the slate of debt clean with a Reset and CBDCs. They will use it as an answer to leaving the next generation in debt.
Once the Kommissars lead us to the potato fields of Absolute Zero, procreation will be just about the only pleasure left in life.
Throw in the ministrations of the Department of Energy, Food and Health Insecurity to re-create the infant mortality of past centuries, and no further incentivisation needed to go forth and address Babygeddon until further notice, other than a crack corps of UKHSA matrons to knock on doors with powers to confiscate illicit contraceptives.
https://www.ukfires.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Absolute-Zero-online.pdf
“crack corps of UKHSA matrons to knock on doors with powers to confiscate illicit contraceptives.”. Wow, yes, like the firemen in Fahrenheit 451, the role turned on its head
https://www.globalresearch.ca/video-denis-rancourt-there-was-no-pandemic-it-was-the-state-that-killed-granny/5876206
Further confirmation. I know we on here don’t need this but still…
As Jordan Peterson put it: any society that does not value motherhood is committing suicide. And of course the current social-economic conditions force women to be employees and taxpayers first and foremost.
But, presumably, at some point the technologically developed countries will collapse together with industrial manufacturing and then contraception will no longer be available. At that point women will start having babies again.
Plus the orthodox religious communities have more babies anyway so they will outbreed the “progressive” societies.
Nobody’s forcing women to do any such thing. We work out of free will, because it’s considered ‘normal’ in this day and age. You know, because we’re made up of unique individuals, as opposed to one hive mind, controlled by our XX sex chromosomes common denominator?Besides, if we were being “forced” to go out to work, explain how there’s so many people of both sexes collecting dole/disability benefits. So not a lot of ‘forcing’ taking place there, is there? Why’d you think they’re shipping in so many immigrants? One of the reasons is because they’re prepared to go out and perform the low-skilled jobs natives are unwilling to get off their arses ( and benefits ) and do. This is especially true of those from Eastern Europe, in my experience. They’re not afraid of hard work.
Sorry to break it to you but if there was no contraception available the other issues would still exist. Such as cost of living, child care etc, so there’s a good chance women would just avoid having sex. Unless you’d want to take that specific choice and basic right to consent/bodily autonomy away from us as well? You know, like a certain demographic whose attitude to females is stuck in the dark ages, who we spend a lot of time complaining about on here?
“This is especially true of those from Eastern Europe, in my experience. They’re not afraid of hard work.”
Thank you. I’m one of them.
In my many years of experience it’s those people, often Poles, who are over-qualified for a position, due to what their profession was back home, but they’re not afraid to role up their sleeves and get cracking with more menial jobs. They’re grafters. Whereas it’s the non-EU migrants who we’re more likely to see living on state handouts years after arriving in the country.
But we know Muslims outbreed natives, partly due to their culture, because procreation is a duty, with little in the way of choice, but partly because of the extent of government support they’re given.
A FOI request I’d personally be interested in getting data on is how many non-EU migrants, who have, say, 2+ kids, are living on benefits, and how that compares to the native population. It’s my theory that these particular migrants wouldn’t be having so many kids if they had to support them themselves. This would also include family reunification. Family should only be allowed into the country to join the ( usually ) man if he has an established income and the means of supporting a large ( usually, again ) brood. Because otherwise the whole demographic shifts due to a topsy-turvy way of dealing with this issue. The governments are incentivizing the wrong people to have larger families, hence the gradual ‘replacement’ occurs, which we know all about by now. It’s natives that need incentivized, not just third world economic migrants. Nearly said “third world scroungers”, there…
Sorry to break it to you but if there was no contraception available the other issues would still exist. Such as cost of living, child care etc, so there’s a good chance women would just avoid having sex.
Yep. Just as they did during thousands of years before this US invention for the benefit of mankind was made. The contraceptive pill was actually never invented because mankind died out five thousand years earlier because all women were so exceptionally keen to get exploited for other people’s economic benefit that they just wouldn’t have sex.
If you honestly don’t understand that working for money is a necessity for most people and not some kind of exciting hobby they’ve taken up because it’s just better than sex (!!1) which your statement seems to suggest, I pity your total cluelessness about the real world. Try talking to some shop or bar staff to find out if they really work because to them, it’s better than sex, and not perhaps rather grudgingly because they need the money.
Sheesh.
What are you droning on about? Where have I stated that going out and earning a living ISN’T a necessity for people? I haven’t got a clue what you’re on about!
Maybe re-read my post and try cobbling together a response which borders on making sense next time. Just a suggestion…
This article accurately describes how the great replacement has been implemented over many decades. We are reaching the final stage of a very long game.
According to Emile Durkheim, the “cult of the individual” is a new religion that Western society has adopted since the decline of Christianity. Durkheim believed that this religion is based on the idea that the rational individual is sacred. It’s a complex society that’s united by modern science and individual democratic rights.
The cult of the individual is an anathema to the concept of raising a family. To bring up children generally requires that you put yourself second and your children first, this goes against the modern way of living and thinking. When you hear about the way the state and the ‘authorities’ are dictating on so many issues including trans-gender, who would want to be a parent and be hectored and dictated to in that way? The so called education system seems to have become a propaganda machine that dictates and indoctrinates. Who would want to be a parent and have to contend with the plethora of climate change and gender dogma coming back from the schools?
It is a dark World we have created and it will not go well but in the end the human spirit is indomitable and new life and new times will come, albeit it will be a painful process to get there.
I agree, even though I didn’t know about this book.
The problem with the cult of the individual is that eventually the ego finds itself so unbearable, it rather kills the host than carries on.
I think maybe that’s what Matthew 16:25 means.
“For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.”
Guys – what happened to my comment?
One of the things that I thought might wake people up to the covid scam would be the dire consequences on pregnant women who took the jabs. I haven’t looked at the stats but I hear anecdotal reports that still births and miscarriages are significantly on the rise.
One leftfield suggestion as to why we are having fewer children is – car seats!! In a normal car how many car seats can you get in the back? Two. Unless you can afford one of this more seats but then those cars are no longer on sale as SUVs take over. Have more that two children and you have a space problem unless you wait to have a third until the first pair are past child seat age – whatever that is.