The Entirely Unsurprising Case of Alfie Patten
Tags: Alfie Patten.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Judith Woods in the Telegraph gives an excellent run down of the Patten scandal and when anyone with moral sense reads it, the reasons for the affair jump right out:
..Alfie’s dad, Dennis – father of nine, or possibly 10 children by various mothers – wearing a bizarre devil mask…
…Neighbours of “the couple” in Eastbourne report that children barely into their teens routinely have sex behind the hedges in gardens…
…Chantelle and Alfie shared a room, with her parents’ blessing, when he stayed at her house…
…Chantelle, one of five children, whose parents are both unemployed, says she was on the pill, but had forgotten to take it…
…Britain has the highest underage pregnancy rate in western Europe, despite channelling substantial resources into sex education for children as young as five…
Sex education for five year old children; parents unemployed but able to wallow indefinitely on the public dime; unmarried dad who has managed to convince many women to have sex with him; different sex children able to sleep in the same room together…this is what happens when you have this sort of situation. All that Master Alfie did was what we told him to do – he’s not at fault, and anyone who complains about his role in this affair is directing ire in entirely the wrong direction.
And this is liberalism – no judgments of a moral character, valueless education, welfare dependency. And this is just what stodgy, boring old Christians said would happen if we allowed morality to fade, failed to impart morals into children and created a welfare State. There is another bit in the article which must be noted:
While nobody would wish to return to the days when gymslip mothers were stigmatised…
Oh, yes we bloody well do – or, at least, we’d better wish to return to such days, and this time also do a much better job of stigmatising the boys who father such children out of wedlock, too (though don’t buy revisionist history which holds that such boys got off scott free). We can’t police every action people do – and this means that, ultimately, only public shaming will keep such gross immorality under control. People get what they want – what we wanted was a disgusting, nauseating society which has 13 year old boys having sex, and that is what we got. If we want to have a society which doesn’t have situations like this – and I’m talking the whole situation, not just the 13 year old father – then we have to ask for it.
And asking for it means starting to act like men and women and insisting upon decent behavior as the price for being permitted in society.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
56 Responses to “The Entirely Unsurprising Case of Alfie Patten”
Caucus of Corruption
Sergei,
And I have never failed to note that both Obama and Biden are my brothers in Christ, and Biden is one of my fellow Catholics. On the other hand, I do wonder just what message Obama received at Wright’s hate-mongering Church, and I’m dismayed at the manner in which Biden trims his sails to stay just on the right side of Catholic teachings, but never actually does anything to advance said teachings in the public square.
The thing is, liberalism is monolithic in practice, if not in theory. When it comes to policy, a dreary uniformity is imposed upon liberals. For fear of being considered in any way conservative, liberals in policy-making positions tend to remorselessly adhere to the most dogmatic aspects of the liberal worldview. And this is nothing new – it was noted by farseeing liberals as early as the late 19th century. Even someone with as impeccable liberal credentials as the late historian William Manchester noted that modern liberalism thrives on its bigotry.
Conservatives, of course, can be bigots, too – but such is not a requirement for being a senior conservative. We tolerate getting off the ranch a bit in conservative circles…you can find conservatives who are, say, definitively against any government welfare spending and other conservatives who find room for it at the table…but in the ranks of senior liberals, you won’t find anyone who dissents from a requirement of large amounts of welfare spending.
At bottom, this bigotry stems from the fact that liberalism is a Christian heresy, and can only sustain itself – as in the case of all other heresies – by relentlessly suppressing the full truth, because that full truth would lead people away from the heresy and back towards orthodoxy. The liberal heresy, in case you haven’t heard me pontificate on this issue before, is that man is perfectible by human agency. It comes down to the nature/nurture debate, with liberalism coming down quite heavily on the “nurture” side of the debate and being opposed to the concept of Original Sin. Orthodoxy holds that we are by nature wicked – we are Fallen, as it were, and only careful discipline and training can make us at all useful.
You’ll find, if you will break free from liberal dogma, that you can have a lot of your liberal cake, and eat it, too. You just have to give up any conception that anyone other than Our Lord can ultimately make things right – give up, that is, any idea that you can make society truly just, truly equal, truly merciful. You can do a lot in service of those ideals, but you’re dealing with people and thus your result will fall far short of your ideal…but, once you’ve ditched liberal bigotry, you’ll understand that this is ok, because people are people and are to be loved even when they screw up.
Mark, re: #49,
Indeed I am imperfect–just ask my wife. :-) I guess my point is this: You brought up the case of what virtually everyone–liberal or conservative–would agree is a truly bizarre, depraved family, and labeled it as representative and caused by “liberals.” That is a tremendous leap. If you are going to do that, then citing the case of Bristol Palin as representative of, and caused by Christian conservative thinking is fair game. Here is a girl who was screwing around with her high school boy friend having pre-marital sex and getting pregnant–all the things that she shouldn’t have been doing given her Christian, conservative upbringing. Not to mention the fact that her mother, as governor of Alaska, backed abstinence-only sex education. Gee, that worked well.
Now, I don’t actually believe that her behavior is representative of evangelical Christian conservatives, any more than I believe that the Pattens are representative of “liberals.” But evidently you do, so if you fail to apply the same standard to the Bristol Palin case, then I would submit that you are being hypocritical.
One more note on Bristol: She gave an interview this week to family friend, er, so-called journalist Greta Van Sustern this week in which she said that she and Levi have no immediate plans to marry. Is she still doing the right thing?
And can you at least acknowledge that President Obama’s comments cited above about personal responsibility, particularly when it comes to fatherhood, are right on the mark?
We tolerate getting off the ranch a bit in conservative circles
You must be joking. Look at how much your side hates RINOs and claims that the big problem for the GOP in the past couple elections was that it had strayed from conservative orthodoxy, meaning the solution to your troubles is to become even more hardline about conservatism. Projection is not an argument, Mark.
The liberal heresy, in case you haven’t heard me pontificate on this issue before, is that man is perfectible by human agency.
And in case you haven’t noticed, this is something that you pretty much made up and claim it is the indisputable root of all that is non-conservative. Hardly a compelling argument, much less the trump card you seem to think it is.
whatever writes:
jeremiah, so then it is your position that being raised by church-attending parents who espouse Christian values is not enough to ensure that children will not engage in pre-marital sex and become pregnant out of wedlock.
Yes, exactly. Church attendance is necessary because it gives you the necessary support of other brothers and sisters in Christ to keep you strong. You can’t go without the support of the Church. However, it can become a repetitive thing (going to church), where the pastor is not very well led to cover every area of our lives that need to be examined; take Joel Olsteen for example, who preaches a false message in that “it’s all about you” “how you can be a better person” etc. Well, he’s teaching a lie, as it’s not all about “you” … As someone once said, “Christ didn’t come to make bad people good, He came to make dead people live.” And I say a hardy AMEN! to that. If we’re not preaching to expose sin in peoples lives, and where that sin leads, we’re ultimately going to lead a awfully terrible lot of people to Hell, and will have to give and answer for it at the Great Judgment Seat of Almighty God.
So, it’s not just church, but everywhere, at all times that we must train and direct children according to Biblical principles, and if the school deviates from what you’re teaching your children then the children need to be brought out of the school so that they will not rebel against you, but more importantly, against Almighty God. Because they turn against God, and the children are sadly separated for eternity from their parents who taught them what was right.
Not only should they remove them from the school, but they should likewise be encouraging others to do so as well, as Hell is one place that no one should ignore, or not care about.
Truly caring for your children is teaching them from God’s Word, and stringently applying the Word within their little minds until such day that they are ready to strike out on their own and be equipped for the world’s many evil snares.
There is ample Scripture to go along with this that would describe it much better than I ever could, however, it seems that others don’t like it posted here, so I won’t quote any.
I would agree with that.
Well, I appreciate that. It’s very rare that I get somebody that will agree with me. So, Thanks!
Your post #36 made me think otherwise. I also agree in extending the benefit of the doubt to Bristol Palin, and I trust that you do so in all cases.
Yeah, I’m really not concerned about their private lives, as opposed to those on the internet (See: Daily Kos) who were more than eager to intrude in on and attack Sarah Palin’s family affairs. And I’m positive that Mrs. Palin wasn’t happy with it either, and you can’t blame her.
That our image is as important as what we advocate, it’s the advocating part that we need to be concerned about. And if our past image was not good, then we need to take steps improving our image and leaving the past behind, because they need to match now, and as we move forward.
Regarding your comment in #36, “Compare those parents we had 60 – 100 years ago to the parents we have today and you will find the difference, the parents today aren’t as well mannered and dressed as those of the 1800s,” what do you make of the fact that the teen pregnancy rate now is less than it was in the twenties?
Primarily education. Democrats have applied Margaret Sanger’s agenda to their agenda and since Democrats control education, they have applied it there was well, and have virtually made it impossible to reverse it by way of the Supreme Court.
Thus, you have the evil ramblings of Margaret Sanger being taught to our next and future generations, deviant, perverted sex of every kind too graphically evil to be mentioned here. And the barbaric practice of abortion which Margaret Sanger taught.
It’s all about death!
It is easy to find out. This is the sermon that brought Obama into the fold. This is the sermon Rev. Wright gave on the Sunday after 9/11. It is the source of one of the infamous quotes (specifically, the one about the chickens coming home to roost), but that is in what Rev. Wright describes as a “faith footnote”. The sermon itself is very, very impressive.
Then why do we disagree with each other so much? I have seen some spirited discussions here, but nothing like what I’ve seen at my usual haunt. Of course, this may partially be due to the limited amount of time I’ve been here.
That is the exact opposite of what liberals believe. To quote some of the earliest liberals (such that they were) in our nation’s history, the Anti-Federalists:
“[T]he experience of all ages proves that the benevolence and humility inculcated in the Gospel, are no restraint on the love of domination.”
— 1788 Address of the Albany Anti-Federalist Committee
I hate to tell you this, Mark, but in many (though certainly not all) respects, you yourself are liberal. If you would set aside this insane conflation of liberalism with atheism, you would see that.
#22, “teen pregnancy dropped significantly since the 50s and 60s because of abortions mostly..not because teens have become little angels…” FYI…
As of 2002, the abortion rate had dropped 50% from its peak in 1988.
From 1986 to 2002, the proportion of teenage pregnancies ending in abortion declined
more than one-quarter from 46% to 34% of pregnancies among 15–19-year-olds.
http://guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf