Australia's Lost Boys and the failure of an ideology

Up until 1960 in Australia, any boy in an average family and going to the local school staffed by teachers little different in their outlook from the boy's parents would have enjoyed for the most part an unambiguous moral education on what it meant to be a man. Ideas of freedom and equality were central in that education but they were precise and taught with clarity.

Freedom, as Edmund Burke put it, was a 'manly' freedom that entailed responsibility, duty and respect for others. This was freedom with a backbone. It was not an abstract concept unconnected with daily life, its circumstances, and the cultural expressions and safeguards of daily life. It was not the jelly fish of licence.

Equality, as understood by ordinary reason and confirmed by Revelation (man is made in the image and likeness of God) was an essential ontological quality of being human. No person in any particular human society could be treated as essentially inferior to others .

Most importantly, these concepts of freedom and equality were tempered by the Christian idea of charity, so vividly taught in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Everyone is my neighbour; love God and one's neighbour as oneself.

Equality did not mean, nevertheless, that people were the same, that society when it perceived difference conceived as inequality was obliged to level.

To start with, the unchangeable nature of human society meant that there had to be a hierarchical structure of education from birth at least through to majority age. Obedience to an educational and organisational authority was required, and enforced where circumstances called for it. This sort of management and organisational structure characterised a healthy society. It was not arbitrary, nor was it elective. Society breaks down when it is missing. The implications of this understanding were wide and complex. Here I want to focus on what it meant in the education of boys and young men.

Boys were taught that there were natural qualities of being male: physical strength, agility and aggressive and competitive inclinations. Experience confirmed this. This was in contrast to the experience of being female. These natural qualities did not give cause for any inherent social superiority. To think so was ignorant; to take unfair advantage of these natural qualities was morally wrong. To mistreat or bully someone not able to defend themselves because of natural endowment was held to be despicable and cowardly. There was no greater shame for boys and young men than to be accused of such cowardice.

These unalterable facts about being male (physical strength, aggressiveness, competitiveness etc) had clear implications in the hierarchical scheme of society. Boys and young men had to appreciate and respect the nature of authority, which meant respect for the position of authority (teacher, policeman, magistrate, prime minister) as well as the person happening to fill a particular position of authority.

This was for some a harsh lesson to learn - and it had to be learned no matter how painful the process. Men as a whole took responsibility for correcting male delinquency. An occasional public clip over the ear to bring a boy into line was considered acceptable. For others, honouring authority and persons selflessly carrying out the duties attached to positions of authority was a reflection of male virtue. It was just as much a reflection of male virtue to use whatever authority, natural or designated, to protect those members of society that were vulnerable - and to do this whatever the consequences.

These notions of fairness, selflessness, and courage were no more vividly expressed than in the ancient code of chivalry that arose out of Christian Civilisation - as I have pointed out before. Elements of that code were to be found in popular stories for boys right up to the 1960s: Hopalong Cassidy, Roy Rogers, Smoky Dawson, among others. Tell the truth, keep promises, protect the weak, not retreat from evil people and evil things - this was a prescriptive part of being male.

This brief sketch of male education and the motivations behind it are part of a complex philosophical and religious system that prevailed in Western society until 1960. That is not to say that Western society governed by such a system was perfect. Indeed, an important part of the vision was that man and society were not perfect or perfectible, and that the system was designed to bring the best out of fallible human nature. On the whole it succeeded, its durability, its moral influence on other societies, and its resilience from catastrophic failure were a testimony to its soundness. Although there was some youth delinquency in Australia in the 1950s, it was far and away the exception to the way most boys and young men conducted themselves. That was all to change.

A mode of thought that had its origins in the philosophical discourse of the French Revolution and execrated all that I have described above was restricted to small groups of fanatics and feverish intellectuals until 1960. In 1951, an appeal by religious and political leaders entitled 'A Call to the People of Australia' recognised the threat to the fabric of Australian society in that discourse. It was to no avail. In fact, the appeal is now the source of much mirth among those who form the dominant political class.

When I look back to those turbulent years of the 1960s I am astounded at the sudden violence of the onslaught by well organised and coordinated groups, and the feeble resistance that met it. Few who had reached their teenage years at that time were left untouched by its sirenic appeal, even those like myself who were not for one moment fooled by the messianic promise of the theory and the hypocrisy and self-interest of the movement's leaders.

By the 1970s, the victory was complete in the sense that the necessary positions of power were taken and the structures put in place. It would be a question of time before the new 'morality' and the new 'politics' were driven through to extremities of society, befouling and corrupting whatever it could, and isolating those who dared to resist. The victory is now so complete that the weapons of keeping dissenters in check are ashamedly lies, smear and ridicule.

I have given a brief account of the fundamental materialist precepts of those that fondly think of themselves as the 'generation of 1968' (or its adherents) in past comments and in the sections politically correctness and natural law conservatism. The core of this ideological vision is its materialism. Materialist ideologies can take different forms. The face of the prevailing form of Western philosophical materialism is feminism. Feminist poison is all around us and its ravages are no more apparent than in the degeneration of men, manliness and manhood. The shocking behaviour week in week out of violent cowardly young men is the endpoint of that ideological eruption of the 1960s.

What do - what did - people expect from the new morality that was in reality no morality? Did they think (as was amply warned in the 1950s) there would be no drug abuse, alcoholism, marriage breakdown, family violence, paedophilia, sexual assault, class oppression, street violence - I could go on - following the destruction of traditional morality and the traditional structure of society. Did they think boys and young men would become nice inoffensive compassionate little feminists if only they would listen to their ideological betters?

As I write this there are news reports that a 75-year-old woman visiting from the UK was attacked on Sunday by a gang of youths on bikes. The furious comments that follow the Herald-Sun report is an expression of the outrage and powerlessness that ordinary people feel about such despicable male behaviour. They want action. They have been screaming for it for years. Nothing has happened. And it will not happen as long as morally corrupt governments like Victoria's Brumby government remain in power.

No doubt John Brumby and that high priest of political correctness Rob Hulls would scoff at such a charge as the ravings of a right-wing fanatic. That is their usual response - the response of a class who is used to protecting its territory with smear and ridicule. Their ideological self-righteousness would remain undisturbed. Their present concern is ramming class legislation through the parliament whose aim is to collapse Christian organisations. When they get that through they will turn to mandatory quotas that are at the forefront of the malignant feminist fantasy.

If boys over a period of fifty years have been put through an education and social environment that has led them to think nothing of bashing old women and gang raping a defenceless girl - these are now common occurrences - how culpable should society hold them?

It is in the unchangeable nature of things that males must answer to such acts whatever the influences. Society cannot operate otherwise. But while punitive measures are contemplated, people should reflect that the social eruption of the 1960s has bred a generation of Lost Boys. Our Lost Boys are the sacrifice on the altar of materialist ideology.

The latest reports on male violence in Victoria.

Drunken footballers charged with gang rape

Gang of youths invade school to bash fifteen-year-old boy

Comment: gerard@gerardcharleswilson.com