It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Bluesma
The problem I see is that the proponents of cultural Marxism are always tentatively advancing a given set of ideas. You can be sure that if given half the chance they would seize the power to dismantle the family in lieu for increased influence from whatever Orwellian institution that they would seek to replace the family with. This misguided and frankly, immature belief in some kind of universal equality that doesn't really exist all founded on a mountain of flawed reason and self-deceptive emotional manipulation.
I really think of it as a sickness, this ideology, this blatant fantasy. And I'm surprised that they aren't rightly challenged by either the media or the public in a consistent way, with reason and logic. Because there's so many crazy ideas out there like this that it's really getting quite outrageous that anyone would even give them the time of the day. Yet they are the dominant ideology, the modern dogma and religion of the West. Be a saint, fight for justice, you're a social justice warrior!(So much better than all those lowly bigots).
I think the cognitive dissonance and the outright delusions, contradictions and inconsistencies that are so fundamental to this line of thinking ought to be so obvious that any reasonably adult would dismiss this and similar ideas categorically. These people really don't even argue with reason in the public sphere or on the internet. Their favorite tool is sanctimoniousness and ad-hominem attacks, always sitting on their high horse. They'll just grind on and on calling all their opponents names and they'll still make progress. And it's gotten this bad because they aren't sufficiently challenged and they're supported by the majority of the media as well as most Western governments, education and even the corporate World.
This kind of skewed worldview is now mainstream politics and every nook and cranny of our modern civilisation is now saturated by this degenerated ideology. Always pushing the envelope just a little bit further.
Ultimately I don't think TPTB are completely in support of this however. I think they mean to continue exaggerating and blowing up this disaster until it spawns an equal and opposite reaction. A reaction they would seek to control the evolution of. Their wished for synthesis will probably be a nightmare though. Of course, this reaction will initially have many legitimate grievances just like the progressivism of yesteryear but they'll probably try to polarize both ideologies to extreme levels therefore barring any real political unity.
In Silicon Valley they've already got intellectual nerds of the "new right"(neo-reaction) preaching monarchy and ideologies diametrically opposed to classical liberalism in itself. I can't help but feel concerned about where that might take us eventually. Extremism will breed more extremism.
Just some conspiracy speculation towards the end there eh. I do think there's a vast agenda unfolding but I would be hesitant in really trying to define it in detail.
originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Bluesma
The problem I see is that the proponents of cultural Marxism are always tentatively advancing a given set of ideas. You can be sure that if given half the chance they would seize the power to dismantle the family in lieu for increased influence from whatever Orwellian institution that they would seek to replace the family with. This misguided and frankly, immature belief in some kind of universal equality that doesn't really exist all founded on a mountain of flawed reason and self-deceptive emotional manipulation.
originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: infolurker
Well THAT is certainly an interesting post. Thanks!
The following is a list of Current Communist Goals as revealed by Dr. Cleon Skousen in The Naked Communist, written in 1958 and read into the Congressional Record in 1963. Of the 45, I can provide specific examples to at least 40 of them. While they may be masqueraded under the guise of something other than communism, the final result is the same – the dissolution of the Constitutional Republic that is the foundation of the United States of America. It’s interesting that the Representative was a member of the Democratic Party, the very party that has been largely enveloped by those with Communist and Socialist beliefs. Let’s see where we are in 2013. As you read, keep in mind that this list was written in 1958.
originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Bluesma
When an ideology reaches a certain treshold of influence it will be able to saturate any given society and step by step it can grow into monstrous shapes.
It doesn't matter that this guy doesn't really want it, it's the faulty logic behind the thought. That if any given thing happens to be superior to another, one should be razed down in tribute to some hellishly misguided sense of justice.
The correct thing to do would be to look at the inferior situation and ask some questions, what could be done better? What could be done to increase equality? To increase the quality of life and options for, say, an impoverished family?
But everybody, I think, even philosophers, (nearly all philosophers, that have talked about this), think that would be a really bad idea. It would be a really bad idea to have children raised by state institutions…..you know, except as default when something has really gone wrong.
And so, we were trying to think about, well, why exactly would that be a bad idea?
Why exactly is it good that children be raised by parents?
So what we realized we needed was a kind of way of thinking about what it was we wanted to allow parents to do for their children and what it was we thought in fact we didn’t need to allow parents to do for their children- if allowing that would create unfairnesses for other people’s children. (very, very roughly).
So, we developed this idea of what we call “familial relationship goods”.
The way we do it, the kind of sloganistic or neat way of doing it is to kind of contrast, on the one hand, elite private schooling, which typically is a way that advantaged parents are able to benefit their children, confer upon them a competitive advantage upon their children, relative to other peoples children who aren’t able to afford any private schooling.
Elite private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods – it’s just not the case that in order for a family to realize these intimate, loving authoritative, affectionate, love based relationships, you need to send your kid to an elite private school.
On the other hand, bedtime stories, which are just as advantage-transmitting as elite private schools… in fact I think the evidence shows that things like bedtime stories are MORE advantage transmitting than things like elite private schooling. By which I mean, the difference between kids who get bedtimes stories and those who don’t, the difference in their life chances is bigger than the difference for those who get to go to elite private schools and those go to just ordinary state or public schools.
But nonetheless, we think, you HAVE to allow parents to engage in bedtime story time activities – in fact we would encourage them to do that. Because those are the kinds of interactions between parents and children that do indeed foster and produce these familial relationship goods.
And that’s why you can see why inheritance looks more like elite private schooling.
At the moment, we do indeed allow parents to do that for their children, but we could prevent them from doing that without any real hit to healthy family relationships.
Whereas if we were to say, well, “okay, you’re not allowed to read bedtime stories to your kids, because it’s just not fair that some kids get them and some kids don’t”, that would be too big a hit. That would be a hit right at the core of family life.
‘I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,’ quips Swift.