"Destroying the family to create a "level playing field."

Reducing people to numbers is central to the Creators plan of eternal stupidity.

Some people on this planet are so open-minded that their brain has fallen out.

This is one of those people.

ETA- I don't know why this repeat was posted, it is some sort of glitch I didn't do purposefully.

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.

I don't feel so sure that there is so much danger as that. The "slippery slope" argument is so often used by everyone, on every topic, to disparage their opponents...sure, give them an inch they'll take a mile! Using critical analytical thought on things is the only antidote to the slippery slope, and I'd rather encourage that than complete ignorance and suppression of whatever specific ideas I do not agree with.

Public schooling exists in many countries of the world, and though it is a socialistic action, in the majority of cases, that did not grow to taking over the whole society. The assertion that it would fall short to me.

The whole argument being put forth in this thread that "sure, he said he is not for taking all kids away from their parents, but secretly, he is for it and is trying to make that happen" is irrational claims. With that logic what anyone actually says doesn't matter at all - you can just claim whatever you want, and ignore the actual words.

I don't support the idea proposed, of eliminating exclusive schools and having a standardized public school system.
Though, in Australia, though private and public schools exist, they have a basic standard curriculum for all, that allows for some flexibility, but with the same basic structure for all.

It is not because I do not feel behind that concept, that I am going to lie and and say I don't agree with the part that it might be better for us all, as a collective, if we considered that good parenting is not about buying your kids expensive things, it is about spending time and attention on them. That is what will give them the best start to maximize their capabilities in the future.
I tend to identify with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and have experienced that no matter what opportunities are available to a person, if they are in need of some of the basic lower levels, they will be unable to jump above them. The person in need of a sense of love or belonging will be limited to only seeing those opportunities.

This is where we get problems like single teen mothers and such - trying to find or create a family sense of relation. You can throw all the money you want at them, all the job opportunities you want, the problem is in human relations not material or physical.

Welfare systems which offer them this stuff will fail, because the problem is in the culturally held belief that all a person needs in life is money.

The problem being attacked here is - how could we encourage or stimulate a cultural revolution in this aspect?
Is there any actions one could take which might encourage people to consider their family relations as more important and invest more time and energy into those?

I don't think the question is a bad one, you might call it socialist because it is one of shared culture - whenever we look at ideas of culture, americans flip out, "we have no culture! we're all different! we're all individuals, with totally different values! " those who say that are in denial. A collective culture exists, and if you deny it it doesn't cease to exist, it is just manipulated and driven by your masters, instead of the people themselves. By those who want you to chase money and give it to them.

But anyway, this is in Australia. The cries of him trying to take over or destroy america are really irrational!
Jeezus, other countries can't even discuss ideas for their own nation without americans taking it as being about them!
MY freedom yes, but certainly not for those people on the other side of the world!
Don't allow them to discontinue adherence to our values we are spreading over the globe! If they stopped believing that money is the only need in life, they might just stop chasing it and giving it to our corporations we send over there!!

a reply to: coop039

This is Luciferian Satanist agenda at work.

Satan is sitting at throne of US shadow government.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: infolurker

Well THAT is certainly an interesting post. Thanks!

Wow, I thought that list was common knowledge. It came out of the red scare of the 1950s. Recent history gets brushed under the carpet pretty quickly these days.

45 Communist Goals by Dr. Cleon Skousen (1958)

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.

It just gets soo bonkers this stuff that the people behind must be placing sidebets on how far the cattle can be effed with.

What a joke of a world. There's been a war going on and we all lost to a tiny, feeble, bunch that simply played ourselves against our own best interests and basic instincts.

Up is down, bad is good, black is white, etc.... LOL!

These wacko liberal ideas are not held by the people putting them out there. These are tailor made efforts to further deliver you to their agenda, which is, no more YOU.

a reply to: Bluesma

I can see much wisdom in your words and I agree with almost all of it though I still see danger in what I see as an unfolding agenda.

When there really is a plan in motion, if there really is a plan in motion that is steadily unfolding, a slippery slope is exactly what we'll be seeing even if there is merit to the fallacy. That is how you get a Church controlling almost all aspects of civilisation in dozens of cultures for more than a thousand years. It is how the Nazis collectively turned evil, by normalizing certain thoughts, certain ideas - a certain ideology.

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? It's the same strain of thought that has schools teaching kids they can't win, or that everybody wins. It's not understanding and pedagogic, it's learning kids not to deal with failure. They'll have to deal with life eventually. These people want total fairness? Alright, it's already playing out, they call it karma. You're living it, now deal with it!

They're also inculcating these kids that they can depend on the state for everything. Sure, in this example of schools giving out free prizes the idea that they'll be looking for the state for all their problems and solutions might seem distant and ridiculous. But we're not talking about this one example, we're talking about a range of situations and problems, some increasingly wacky situations. And that's what they're doing, they're normalizing a range of ideas and thoughts that are not true for one, that are not really fair despite claiming it, and that are not really conducive to a healthy society. In fact they are so extreme in what seems like this "faith" of theirs that they're spawning whole movements seething with resentment and anger. Because they don't even make sense and they're rabid bullies to boot. They're polarizing society acting like useful idiots to the state, but in the end to the powers that be.

I don't find it helpful or healthy, at all. I am one of those young people that have reacted in disgust to this and been more or less radicalized intellectually - set off in the opposite reaction by this. And of course, by me realizing this I'm taking steps to try to remain objective. But this is the whole game, their game of playing with dialectics, and it doesn't matter if I realize it when the outcome is the same. In the end, they're trying to control the evolution of society to further their goals that are more or less diametrically opposed to the goals and wishes of the common man. And they seem to be succeeding, unless people are waking up to this(?), which might be happening. But even if that happens, a whole lot of damage is already done.

So I am seething with rage because in addition to this, this particular ideology would see my culture and my people destroyed by it's self-righteous and thoughtless bumbling about(but that is another topic).

It's just not an ideal position. It's ridiculous really, but we the people are paying the price and we'll be the ones that get the short end of the stick whether we're deluded social justice warriors or bigoted Texan cowboys(I'm not a cowboy btw).

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.

I agree. This is what I am usually referring to as the danger of anything getting to an extreme.
What is interesting is that so often people perceive that concerning ideologies that are not of their own preference, but deny the principle when it comes to their own. For example, denying that there could be any danger of going to an extreme with individual power and freedom. I am for it, and yet still see that there is a point where it becomes destructive instead of beneficial. Like when "individuals" are multinational corporations.... but that doesn't have much to do with this particular topic.

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.

Nothing should ever be limited or suppressed..... except any drive towards social cohesion, bonding, collective action, discussion of cultural mores and values? To let that be expressed by anyone (even in a far off country, concerning their own country) is a threat to justice, in the USA?

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?

That is exactly what he (and he said "we", so apparently this was some group of thinkers brainstorming together) did.
Though, in looking at measured facts, came to the conclusion that the biggest inequality in terms of a childs development and ability to use the opportunities available, is in the family relationships.The quality of attention, time, and interaction they get with their parents.

No matter whether they are poor or rich, that is what makes the difference.

The very fact that we have comments in this thread like "Having a parent who reads a child bedtime stories is more advantageous to a child's development than going to an exclusive school? That is the most insanely ridiculous thing I have ever heard!
influences me to think he is right with the observation that many people these days are ignorant of that importance, and will choose to spend money on their child instead of time and attention, in an attempt to give them advantages in life.
Your reference to "impoverished families" , sound like you are speaking of "financial impoverishment", am I mistaken?
No matter that the dialogue were discussing here delved specifically into the concept that what is important is to focus on emotional, relational abundance in a family, and not financial?

These types of reactions increase my perception that he is right, and that the biggest problem with the modern world is that people are too focused on wealth, and not enough on relations!

I don't see any relation to what he said with the "everybody gets a prize" movement in the US.

If all kids went to the same school, they'd be in competition with each other.

I'd like to point out that in Australia, there are currently both public and private schools. They have a standard curriculum, that they all adhere to. There is some flexibility in that, mostly with what can be added (prayer time, for example, in religious schools) but the basic framework remains the same.
That means that, a person who went to an exclusive expensive school
had the same education as the one that went to a public school.
Yet, the very fact that their parents had money to pay for such a school gives them an advantage, people automatically apply a "superior" assumption upon their character and personality development.

It is important to take his views in their context!

I don't see him saying anything about doing away with intellectual, or physical, competition as a child grows.
I heard his opinion that we could put some thought and effort into strengthening the psychological base of a child, to give them the best chances in that ring.
If we are going to look at these ideas within the context of American values, I could point out that individual merit is one of the important ones. That is destroyed if individuals are limited in taking part in the competition according to their parents economic status.
That was one of the things the founders of our country attempted to escape from.

Even if communism is one extreme that is destructive, so is a caste system. Opposing ends, of ideologies gone wild.
It takes subtle and alert analyzation to keep from sliding into one or the other.

The rest of what you wrote does not seem to address the topic - this particular persons idea and words.

It sounds like it is going into some movements and groups which exist in the US, (like our definition of affirmative action)and were not proposed here.

It still seems to me like the title of the OP, which was false, continues to influence the way people are responding to this. What was said was twisted and misinterpretted to spark particular emotional buttons in Americans. It is a waste of my time (and yours) to follow along reposting reminders-

-The speaker did NOT suggest parents stop reading bedtime stories to their children.
-The speaker did NOT suggest they feel guilty for doing so.
-The speaker said it is important to spend quality time with your child, and encourages such activities.
-The speaker is NOT American, and his proposed ideas for change are not directed towards the USA.


I'll step out now. I am the only person who heard this, so I'll just let you guys rant and rave about dirty commies in America, instead of the topic. (eta- I apologize for sounding irritated and rude. I only got frustrated for a minute. I'm over it. )

Okay, I lied. I have no integrity sometimes. I'm human.
I'm posting once more, but promise to stay out after!

I thought it would be a good idea to type out a transcription of the audio, so that specific statements and phrases could be used in the discussion. It might help the dialogue.

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.

In philosophy, it is necessary to question ones assumptions and ideas, in order to get at the core of them.
Questioning, okay, WHY do I think it is a bad idea to do this? Doesn't mean you are challenging your feeling on that, it only means you are trying to be more precise on what exactly is your reason for it; what is the motivation, or value, or reasoning.

Because family relations are very very important, and one must not put obstacles in the way of that.
That is what they determined.
The exact opposite of "we should stop people from doing it" or even "people should feel bad about doing it.".

The idea of creating more equal starting ground for children in one way or another, hits our sensitive charged buttons, as Americans- I get that. We believe competition is good- for the individual as well as the society as a whole.
I am onboard with that!!

On the other hand, individual merit cannot even come close to happening if elitism and castes are part of the system children start out in. That destroys all basis for individual merit and competition.
Some kids get a free pass, without having to compete, some cannot get in the ring at all, no matter how much they work or how intelligent they are.

I can shrug and say, whatever, in the end, it is no big deal. I had neither advantages, and I got out anyway. (though I'd have to admit that it might be highly due to my having found a mate who had them, which stirs up a whole 'nother crock of issues...).

But as a philosophical concept, it has some merit to consider. Anyone who believes in the value of individual merit cannot deny there is some rational ideas here. -And that is all it is! A philosophical exploration into thought and ideas!

This is not a terrorist coming to turn the USA into a communist country!

a reply to: Bluesma

I am not American. I speak of the West generally, because these culturally relativistic ideas are the strongest here.

My posts have been careless, but ok, let me quote this guy then.

‘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.

Unfairly disadvantaging other people's children? Nah, that ain't right. This thought is illogical. First off, we're not necessarily dealing with a zero sum game here. Secondly, one family trying to do their best to raise their children is really not directly connected to any other family raising their kids and blaming them for supposedly disadvantaging other people's kids is really disingenious and ridiculous. He's saying that like it's a foregone conclusion, like it makes sense. And that's it. I don't think there's much else to discuss, I think this is what people are reacting to.

I do see a connection. It is this obsession with equality that is a trademark of cultural Marxism. That often has this annoying capacity to make me feel like I stepped into the Twilight Zone. What I am trying to get at is the kind of thought and ideology that underpins many of these situations that a lot of us find bizarre and irrational.
What it comes down to in the end is that these people want to control the way people do things, how they think about things. They want us to think the correct way and act the correct way and if people don't and some of these control freaks have the power to do it they'll use the state to enforce their utopian micromanaged tidy little society. Their little experiment. If they want to play gods they should practice spiritual cultivation for a few aeons and earn some good karma, maybe then they'll be reborn as one on Mount Sumeru.

This whole discussion, this transcript is all about what they would like to ALLOW people to do. Sure, don't beat your kids and don't blow your smoke in their face. But next thing they'll be talking about what parents should be allowed to eat. Which the state already seems more and more interested in doing. If given half the chance you'd have people of this persuasion micromanaging the lives of everyone in society. If you've seen the movie the Island, that would be a good description of their utopia. They're control freaks and that's it.

They're probably also terrorists on their way to the US to turn it into a communist country!
Unfortunately I already live in one.. So heed my warning, this is always how it starts!.. "It's all for the greater good!"