This is supposed to be "informed comment" on a very complex topic!
But then again what would you expect from someone who is a member of the self-appointed "National" Civic Council.

I just don't see any possible connection to theoretical marxism and so called sexual freedom?

And just another of those red herrings trying to turn the tide, back towards sexual control and repression?

And given that is the aim, bring on the plebiscite and or a government with the courage of its convictions an allow a free vote!

For mine, the very next election could be that plebiscite?
Rhrosty.

This is a really sad thing, to see a person half demented given space for the offering up of evidence of a foolish, dislocated and deranged persecution complex.

Pat, the bogy-people are after you... hiding behind every shrub and pot plant, they are watching, every move noted in minute detail before microfilming and off to Moscow.

Hi Rhosty,

As an ex-Marxist, I see clear connections between this idiocy and the Gramscian 'march through the institutions of bourgeois society' , how to tear down the society from within if you can't overthrow it (i.e. if the proletariat refuse to play their destined part and throw themselves on he guns of the bourgeoisie, the useless bastards).

Marxism contains the seeds of psychosis within it - how to destroy what exists, no matter how. Putting the doubts about one's sexuality into the heads of very young children, when they hardly know the difference, and are utterly unable to demonstrate one way or the other whether they are male or female (or LBGTHKYSGHJYRJYLUIY) - yeah, that should do it. Yeah, let's totally fmqk up society, hee hee !

Joe

Why do we need a sexual revolution? Who is stopping people from doing what they want in terms of sexual behaviour so long as it does no harm to others.

These people do not want a sexual revolution they want a revolution that condemns all criticism of what they do in terms of sexual behaviour. They can already do what they like they just do not like any criticism of what they do and they want anyone who does not agree with their behaviour to be silenced. It has got nothing to do with sex and everything to do with freedom of speech.

They want everywhere to be ‘safe’ which means to be free of criticism. If young people commit suicide because not everyone agrees with their sexual behaviour then they have serious issues of insecurity that go way beyond their sexual issues. No one would be so irrational as to commit suicide over criticism of their sexual behaviour so there must be other problems in a person who would do that.

If children are being told that their sexual behaviour can never be criticised then how long before it extends to other types of behaviour? We are breeding a generation of kids who will become adults who are too afraid to leave the house lest they stumble across some unsafe individuals who would dare to criticise them for something.

What happened in communist Russia is completely irrelevant to the situation in 2016.
Furthermore the sexual "moralism" proposed by the NCC in 2016 has very much in common with the sexual "moralism" now promoted by the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia. A situation that has the full "moral" backing of that well known champion of "morality" and "freedom" Vladimir Putin.

But who or what "marched through (all of) the institutions" and inevitably ground all previous forms of humanising culture to rubble and dust?
Global capitalism and its now 24/7 propaganda machine TV and the advertising industry. Such TV "culture" now rules the entire world and it is fundamentally indifferent towards the health and well-being of all human beings, and all traditional forms of culture. And of course all the non-human beings that live on this mostly non-human planet too.

Meanwhile the next generation of children is being systematically brain-washed
by TV, their mobile phones, computers and I-pads to become "faithful consumers", dutifully buying all of the brand-name-products that have been implanted in their brains thousands of times by the time they are pre-teenagers.

Some pre-packaged "conservative" "education" programs featured in many schools in the USA, and probably here in Australia too require the students to watch slabs of corporate advertising/propaganda every day - such watching being a COMPULSORY part of the package. I believe they are popular with some conservative Christian schools

Sharon Beder describes the nature of the all-pervading electronic propaganda brain-washing phenomenon in her truth-telling book:
This Little Kiddy Went To Market: The Corporate Capture of Childhood.
It is introduced here: http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/kiddy.html

Years ago Jules Henry pointed out that THE truly significant cultural revolution occurred when the "advertising industry" inserted itself in the space between children and their parents. Thus becoming the driving force of children's desires for the "good life" with the dominant credo/paradigm now being:
I consume/shop therefore I am.
If in doubt, boredom or discomfort go shopping.

Oh Pat you should be doing a show at the Adelaide fringe.

Must have been a hard knock when your Tony got dumped?

this program is about as much about bullying as Tony Abbott believed in man made gw. It is a program set up by deviants, condoned by deviants and ignored by totally gutless politicians. Private schools will be the winners as parents with any concerns about morals will not allow the sickos to brainwash their kids.

It says a lot to me that the National Civic Council has existed for more than 60 years and I've never heard of it.

Oh, how fringe daaaarling.

Crackpots speak to crackpots and worry about how other crackpots are leading our youth astray.

Somehow I think we'll survive.

//Putting the doubts about one's sexuality into the heads of very young children, when they hardly know the difference, and are utterly unable to demonstrate one way or the other whether they are male or female (or LBGTHKYSGHJYRJYLUIY) - yeah, that should do it. Yeah, let's totally fmqk up society, hee hee !//

Yep, gays are all closet commies.

Fun Fact: AIDS was invented by the CIA to kill junkies; the gay men were just collateral damage.

The American government faked the 9/11 attacks so they could attack Iraq.

They also faked the moon landings to win the space race.

The CIA can control the weather.

And your thoughts, unless you wear one of my patented thought-protection helmets (TM).

Available now at all good stores who sell to paranoid weirdos.

Hi Toni,

No, not all ratbags are commies: but in relation to Gramsci, check out Chris Uhrlmann's article in today's Australian, Inquirer section, p. 26.

The problem with 'commies' as you irrelevantly put it, is that what they/we believed didn't come to pass. None of the fundamental assumptions were valid. So-called socialist societies rapidly became - de facto, of course - fascist, in every case. Every vase. So if anything, communism moved Right, and took many of its adherents with them. There's nothing 'Left' about gulags. It's just that, again and again, communism moved Right and betrayed itself and its followers. We've had a combined three hundred years or so of experience of that now, across the world, Russia, China, Ethiopia, Vietnam, eastern Europe, Cuba - all gone bad.

And as Uhrlmann points out, the working class immediately after the failure and/or distortion of the socialist revolutions around 1917-1920, had more sense than to follow Gramsci's wishes, so he had to rely on the other disaffected class, the intellectuals, another class with - from its own point of view - so much to offer but powerless, ignored, spurned by an uncaring world. So how to bring that uncaring, hedonistic, unprincipled world down ?

If you look at some of the 'progressive' issues of today, and ask yourself what would Marx and Engels have thought, it seems to me - as perhaps an unreconstructed Marxist ex-Marxist - that they would be appalled. 'What, a bunch of perverts are now supposed to be leaders of the Revolution ?!' Surely, they would have assumed, there are far more crucial issues than bloody sexuality ? No ? What about defending human rights against patriarchal Islam ? Worker' rights around the world ? No ? I think they would have despaired and retired to Manchester and their cigars and claret.

Go for it.

Joe

Interesting to note the usual "useful idiots" dived on this article, and despite the author of the program, Roz Ward, outing it as having a political agenda, deny this to be the case. She must have been suffering a bout of false consciousness when she addressed the Marxist conference!

But while supporting the right of Marxists to put this sort of twaddle into school curriculums they would doubtless dispute the right of, for example, Christians, to do the same thing. The secular state only works in one direction it would appear.

And yes, Chris Uhlmann's article is well worth a read. You guys are just lucky I'm in the Uhlmann camp and am prepared to provide an open space where ideas can be debated without fear or favour. You've got somewhere you can practice your indoctrination and where the rest of us can observe how absurd it is.

Oh yah, you're sooo impartial Graham, I love you.

If I have an opinion that I won't listen to crackpots, I will voice it. This does not mean that I think that crackpots should not be allowed to say what they have to say.

I am reminded of a preacher guy at uni who used to turn up in the major greenspace and loudly yell out the bible at the students at lunch time.
Noone asked him to leave, but noone listened either. After the lunch hour was over he packed up his bag and left, possibly happy in the knowledge that he had done his spreading of the Good Word for the day, who knows?

This site is the equivalent of that lunchtime greenspace. After lunch, everyone goes back to work.

One last thing though, I think I might scream the next time someone uses the term 'useful idiot' again non-ironically. It's just another throwaway phrase used to denigrate those who don't agree with the user of it. There are plenty of other descriptors you can use for the same purpose that won't make you look like a sheep regurgitating talking-point crap.

So, what's normal ? How do you distinguish between 'legal' and 'normal' ? How do you distinguish between 'legal' and 'approved for general exhibition etc.' ?

I'm a bit of a drinker, red wine usually (hey, I've got one here at my elbow) and although of course it's legal to drink, even to drink heavily, could you say it was normal ? To be approved of as an example to the kiddies ? No, I don't think so, I wouldn't drink in front of my grandkids, for example, or at least not get blotto. Which is legal, by the way, if not 'normal' or 'approved'.

Homosexuality is legal, but I don't have to like it. If anybody has some pissy issues about whether they are really a man in a woman's body, etc., etc., or have fallen in love with their best mate or a tree or their dog and want to marry it, that's their business, leave me out of it. Nobody else has to approve of me staggering down the street half-shot, why should anybody have to pretend they fully approve of some other legal but not-fully-approved-in-their-view behaviour ? It might be legal but nobody has to like it. Or rush to the barricades to defend it.

Speaking from my own limited experience, kids don't understand much about the human body, their own or those of the other gender, until much later than 10 or 11, perhaps 14 or so when they undertake an intensive self-study course, seeking to gain from as much extramural activity as possible. Some kids are a bit fragile, so they might have all sorts of doubts about their sexuality, and these proposed courses might be just the thing to really fnnk them up.

And if it happens frequently enough across all schools, and into the future, the Gramscians can look back with pride that they have disrupted bourgeois society in yet one more creative way. Well done, Ros.

Joe

In regards to your drinking metaphor, Joe:

All the education that many people want would be to say to kids: "drinking is a sin, don't do it".

Would you consider that approach to be beneficial or even work in practical sense?

Any education on topics that 'they' don't like is likely to fnnk kids up isn't it? Nobody needs to know anything about anything, nothing to see here, move on.

Let's go back to the good ol' days when guys I knew used to bash the poofters in the public toilets.

Just leave me out of it.

Hi Bugsy,

Sin ? I'm all for all sorts of sin, of many pleasurable kinds, but I suppose to answer your question, I probably advised my kids to drink in moderation, if they ever felt like drinking at all, which thankfully they don't seem to have done.

But if what you are getting at is that 10- or 11-year-old children should have some sort of early experiences run by schools (perhaps Friday afternoons?) in how to drink, that perhaps each week, they should try white wine, red wine, port, beers (full-strength and light), and all sorts of spirits, as part of their social-awareness curriculum, I would caution against it. Perhaps not even for 15- or 16-year-olds. Perhaps not in schools at all: good god, have I become a prude ?

But maybe you're right: let kids drink; let them explore each others' bodies and orifices from 10 or 11. Let them ponder and experience the intricacies of inter-, trans-, bi-, mono-, auto-, homo-sexual combinations and permutations, perhaps while also experiencing the joys of drink. Should make for pretty riotous Friday afternoons. Six or seven years of that should teach the kids a thing or two.

As for your other point, I can't recall ever bashing a poofter in a public toilet, or anywhere. If they left me alone, I was happy to leave them alone. Chacun a son gout.

Joe

You may not have indulged in 'poofter bashing' Joe, but I knew a few people that did. Nice baptist boys too, raised by teetotalling parents. Funny that.

I think you have taken your own metaphor a bit far there. Quite absurdist really, if 'drinking' equates to 'having homosexual sex' in this metaphor, you are of course being patently ridiculous.

However, would adolescents be better informed if 'drinking' was what they wanted to do if they had a bit more knowledge of the subject? Perhaps more knowledge of the health implications, what it means for society, what social problems heavy drinkers have, what's considered 'normal' etc? There's a whole wealth of information about 'drinking' that children can benefit from before actually partaking. Some will be interested, many probably won't, but if whatever was introduced reduced the number kids growing up bashing drunk people, then I would consider it on its merits.
You don't have to open a pub in the school grounds to learn about it. That's just being obtuse.

I doubt these lectures would be any more fun for the students than being hectored by the actual Marxists and Maoists we had to put up with in the 1980's. I'll never forget our social studies teacher in about 84 and his epic anti-Reagan polemics, the only upside was that he refused to fail anyone LOL.

We do not need a Safe Schools Coalition nor do we need to radically change society by a Marxist strategy or any other strategy so whatever the aim of Roz Ward might be she needs to get a real life.

Some people just dramatise situations in order to magnify their own sense of self-importance. You can’t be a Messiah unless you convince people they need to be saved and people like Roz Ward spend their life doing that with missionary zeal.

They would have you believe that every kid is on the verge of killing themselves over their sexual ‘problems’. In the first instance it is extremely arrogant to presume to know why anyone kills themselves – no one has ever actually come back from the dead to tell us. We simply can never know for sure but these zealots seem to know for sure because they base their actions on such certainty. They set up ‘safe zones’ because they know without any doubt that not having safe zones causes suicides. There is absolutely no ambiguity in their reasoning at all.

Secondly they see any kind of questioning or insecurity about sex as being a ‘problem’ of such tremendous proportions that only a true Messiah can save them. Kids struggle with their sexual feelings for all sorts of reasons - it is part of growing up. They wonder how such good feelings are repressed by some of the adults they see around them. What seems so good to them appears as bad to some others. These dilemmas appear when a young person is old enough to question but not necessarily independent enough to disagree with adults on whom they depend for basic needs. This may cause problems for some but not everyone. It is not a problem about sexual feelings but about the burgeoning need to break free of their adult carers in many areas of life.

The last thing they need is some ‘do-gooder’ radical indoctrinating them with their views about what is good or bad about sex. Leave them alone and they will work it out for themselves.

Bugsy, "You may not have indulged in 'poofter bashing' Joe, but I knew a few people that did. Nice baptist boys too, raised by teetotalling parents"

The alleged prevalence of 'poofter bashing' is yet another myth put about by activists. Where are the reported cases, ones where that intent was accepted in court? They must be very few and far between, in living memory anyhow.

However, finally there is gathering data on violence in gay (incl lesbian) relationships to show that there is plenty of partner violence and some very serious. Gay DV is still largely unreported, because police are not trained to deal with it, it is said.

One is left to wonder how much of the claimed 'poofter bashing' was in fact domestic violence and police/authorities did not view or report it as such. Where only the claims of DV are reported, the sexual preference of the instigator (including the victim's role in that) is left unreported.

In this article, the author made a series of claims about the facts of the programme and its originators intentions. The author has directly quoted the programmes designers stating what the point of the exercise really is.

But no one here has tried to show the author is wrong about what is being said about the original, hidden purpose of the schools programme. They've just gone off and said that they don't like the author's views and that's that.

For the article.."This program gives its support to an array of sexual experimentation; it suggests young people can bypass school and other internet filtering systems to access sites that carry porn and sex aids; it presents as safe and acceptable hormone therapy and surgery to become transgender; it presents as acceptable dangerous female chest binding so girls can appear gender ambiguous; it encourages schools to allow for cross-gender students to use the change rooms and toilets of the sex with which they want to identify; and it provides links to adult gay organisations"

Just ignoring that and the assertion that this is aimed at furthering the Marxist remodelling of capitalist society misses the whole point. As with so much that goes on here, a side is picked and the facts be damned.

I suspect that many commenters here don't actually read the article being commented on but instead just read Graham Y's one line summary and then launch the vitriol. The summary says Marxist and that's enough to pick sides.

Maybe the summary needs to be better so that those who don't read the whole article will understand a little better what is being said. In that case its all Graham's fault :) . Problem solved.

PS "It says a lot to me that the National Civic Council has existed for more than 60 years and I've never heard of it."

Wow. And then he thinks he can pontificate on communism in Australia! Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Those who are bog ignorant of history are condemned to being ignored.

otb

you are right to point out that the greatest threat to homosexuals is homosexuals who bash and rape at a far higher rate that the general population.

Mhaze:

“But no one here has tried to show the author is wrong about what is being said about the original, hidden purpose of the schools programme.”

What other conclusion could you arrive at? If Roz Ward said she set up the program and she believes there needs to be a Marxist type revolution to change attitudes to sexual behaviour then would it be correct to assume that the point of the former is to bring about the latter. She might also think that such a revolution would reduce bullying and suicides.

The real issue is whether or not there is a problem in either schools or society or whether or not she just wants there to be a problem.

Runner "you are right to point out that the greatest threat to homosexuals is homosexuals who bash and rape at a far higher rate that the general population."

Really Runner?
Where are your stats on this statement, or is this just another of your drive-by lies?

' Really Runner?
Where are your stats on this statement, or is this just another of your drive-by lies?'

And you claim to be a nurse Susie. Unbelievable. To lazy to do the slightest research. Then again facts never could convince someone so caught up in their dogma.

Sorry mhaze, I thought ignorance was a prerequisite for pontificating on these pages. I was just following your example.

Suse,
The Centres For Disease Control in the U.S.A back up Runner's point, Lesbian relationships are actually the most affected by IPV compared to male same sex and opposite sex unions, as always you can go and look these things up for yourself.

Runner, still no stats then? I rest my case.

Jay of Melbourne, I think we can safely assume there are far more heterosexual people infecting each other with HPV than homosexual people, given that gay people represent only a small percentage of the population.

You can get all the same STD's as gay people can, so what are you on about?
Obviously, if you are heterosexual, you will find gay sex unappealing, just as gay people don't like heterosexual sex.
They were born that way, and it is only a matter of time before the gene is found and then all the homophobes can just shut up!

Excellent article. It's important that people become aware of what's in the curriculum and the ideas and people behind it.

A lot of the people behind this push are gay or 'gender fluid' themselves, and are therefore not coming from a neutral position. Two of the biggest proponents of this type of 'education' were Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, both were/are gay (Foucault died of an aids related illness).

The blame placed on capitalism is a strawman, or one argued from ignorance. Heterosexual relationships were the norm long before capitalism came onto the scene. The real motivation comes from attempting to normalise their own sexual 'lifestyle', mixed with the subversion fantasies so often found on the left.

It's not clear though how this garbage can be stopped from being taught. If the Liberal government agreed to fund it even though they are meant to be a conservative government, then such garbage will continue to be taught with Labor or Liberal in charge (is there anything conservative anymore about the Liberal party anyway?). Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope elsewhere though with Trump's popularity and the emergence of the right now in Europe. The left are on the nose in the U.S. and Europe. I cannot wait for the day for it to happen here.

Suse, IPV stands for intimate partner violence and the onus is on you to come up with a refutation of the CDC figures.
Here's a link from an LGBT site if you prefer your news biased in that direction
http://www.advocate.com/crime/2014/09/04/2-studies-prove-domestic-violence-lgbt-issue
We've explained this over and over again, "right wingers" don't do research, all the information about homosexuals comes from pro homosexual academics or politically neutral bureaus like the CDC.

Suseonline:

“They were born that way, and it is only a matter of time before the gene is found and then all the homophobes can just shut up!”

Why does anyone want the homophobes to shut up? Why not simply ignore them. So long as they are not breaking the law then what harm is being done? Why don’t homosexual people just get on with their lives instead of being so utterly obsessed with what everyone thinks about them? All it does is show how incredibly insecure they are about their homosexuality. Why do they need to find a gene? How will the discovery of such a gene change anything? We are told that homophobic people have an irrational fear of homosexuals so will they automatically become rational just because a gene is discovered? You cannot change people who are not able to be reasonable.

Encouraging the search for the gene is an insult to homosexual people. You are suggesting that homosexual people are lesser human beings because their sexual behaviour, attractions and identity needs to have scientific backing in order to be valid and to be accepted by homophobic people. Non-homophobic people do not require proof nor do they really care. The only thing such a search does is to give credence to homophobia. What a waste of time and energy - just to try and silence homophobic people who will never change their views anyway.

People like you who encourage homosexuals to justify their sexuality in the face of irrational criticism are their worst enemies because you think that they should respond to empty words just to try and please others. Every time you stand up for them when they do not need to be stood up for you put another nail in their coffin because you are just re-enforcing their own insecurities. You might like to see yourself as their champion but you are in fact doing them way more harm than good.

Has anyone checked if Roz Ward is sane ?
However it seems from this article that she may be the reason that
the schools are teaching such rubbish.
It does raise a question in my mind, are we selecting primary school
teachers that are so pliable that they will go along with this rubbish.
If a political line is being pushed at our children why do the schools allow it ?

Are there no teachers who will stand up and say I refuse to teach this !

Suse, from my understanding sexual orientation is not down to any gene? but rather two of four sex centres.

Two for blokes and the other two for ladies.

They are located in the primitive brain sometimes referred to a the basal ganglia, or when I studied medicine, the ganglia obligata.

I've read of scottish experimentation, that according to reports successfully altered the sexual orientation of a pedophile, who was according to an article appearing in a seventies science fact article, given just two choices by the presiding judge; when appearing before him on the third occasion for buggering boys.

Allow himself to be experimented on in a local science institute or be incarcerated for the term of his natural life, with no chance of parole ever?

To cut a long story short he found himself on a table with all sorts of instruments humming or flashing around him.

The results of the test revealed all four of his sexual response centres were firing, hence the attraction to boys, who are the only group able to represent both male and female characteristics simultaneously?

According to the article, two tiny electrodes were inserted into the Ganglia and the inappropriately firing female sex centres burnt out with a tiny electrical current. And allowed to leave always providing he was monitored?

within twelve month he had met and married a woman, and went on to have a couple of kids.

At last report, had never been happier or more content with his lot?

Now I'm not saying this is for everyone, but possibly far less traumatic than radical major surgery,plus hormone therapy, that tries to remake the genitalia to fit the transgender personality.

In other words remake the orientation to fit the image, rather than something far more radical.

From what I know of gay people, nobody in their right mind would chose to be gay, but are born that way, and then have to live in a hostile world where something like simple human comfort and children are forever denied.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty:

“From what I know of gay people, nobody in their right mind would chose to be gay, but are born that way, and then have to live in a hostile world where something like simple human comfort and children are forever denied.”

Would they choose to be gay if the world wasn’t hostile and they could have simple human comfort and children? Perhaps the real problem is not their sexual attraction but their attraction to being a victim.

Many people find the world hostile to them but they do not let it affect their own happiness. The world’s hostility is the world’s problem. Simple human comfort is not necessary for a full and rich life – millions live quite contented without it. If your happiness is dependent on the comfort of others then you will always sell yourself short and you cannot be happy doing that. Why do you need children to be happy? There are lots of miserable parents and lots of very happy people who have no kids.

Homosexual people who spend so much time yearning for things to be the way they would like them to be are not really living – just yearning

Hi Rhrosty, from all my reading, it seems scientists are closer to finding out why men are gay, especially from the study of identical twin males where one is gay and the other not. They think there may be some other marker that leads to someone becoming gay.

“For men, new research suggests that clues to sexual orientation may lie not just in the genes, but in the spaces between the DNA, where molecular marks instruct genes when to turn on and off and how strongly to express themselves.”

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

The reason I am so sure that people are born gay, is because my best friend’s son was born into a very anti-gay, churchgoing family who had never even met a gay person as far as they knew. This boy preferred his sister’s toys and mother’s clothes and makeup from an early age, much to his father’s disgust.

He was very expressive and theatrical in nature and loved dancing, including ballet and tap dancing. His father and he didn’t get on at all, and he only had female friends all during his school years. The boys at his schools bullied him and called him gay names.
I have to say, I knew he would be gay from about the age of 3 years.

He tried so hard not to be gay and even had a girlfriend for a year. He broke her heart when he finally ‘came out’ as gay at the age of 19 years. His family was so shocked and distressed, but it was no surprise to many others.
He is happy now, living life as he was meant to.

//The problem with 'commies' as you irrelevantly put it//

If commies are so 'irrelevant' as you put it, why do you keep trying to disinter the long dead corpse of the Cold War from its peaceful repose? Good gods, man, it's been thirty years since the Cold War ended. Maybe it's time you found a new hobby.

That is not dead which can eternal lie;
And with strange aeons even death may die.

But there will always be some mad old bugger banging on about communism. When we might hope for its death?

Because it's about time it did, and it's certainly time that tired old Cthulhu cultists renounced the Old Gods and joined the modern world. Yeah, I know it's scary and full of the dreaded young people - get over it, pussies.

Post Script:

Why the hell are we even talking about communism? What does it have to do with not abusing gay people?

I don't understand the connection.

Hi Toni,

Poor child ! To answer your bafflement, in short words, one can simply ask, what do people do once their idols are smashed ? Re-fashion new idols, basically the same idols with different clothes. After all, the big boogey-man that was the consuming focus of one's hate before, is still gthe4 big boogey-man after: so new ways have to be found to bring him down.

So a shift from Marxian principles to Gramscian ones: away from the proletariat as the saviour of the intellectuals, to the intellectuals themselves having to do much of the heavy lifting. Since the aim is to destroy capitalist society, one must find all manner of ways to destr5roy it bit by bit - not in one go as Marx assumed, but piecemeal as Gramsci advocates.

Have I lost you ? No ? Okay, next lesson.

So we have courses to unpack, deconstruct, analyse, and critically examine capitalist society and all its evils, sin e it is the source of all evil. This appeals to young folk, since it is a sort of surrogate whinge against their dictatorial parents.

So let's see, what really gets up their nose ? Since they're old, we can push euthanasia. Tick.

Since they have all the assets that they've worked for all their lives, we can push things like higher CGT, tax on super, even tax on savings. Tick.

We can demand that old people possess only one property, giving the others to deserving young people, who may have been living at home free. We can even demand that old people be forced to down-size to one-bedroom flats, up there on the fifth floor. Tick.

What else ? Older people tend to be pretty straight, so pushing homosexuality might really piss them off. So let's push it: homosexual marriage, adoptions, pension rights, super rights, etc. - yeah, that might do it. Tick.

[TBC]

[continued]

And don't worry about contradictions: we can push for the break-down of Western culture and the 'right' of Islamists to be free of criticism, even on issues like homosexuality. Hmm, no, better stay away from that one. So how else to bring about the destruction of western culture and its Enlightenment values ?

We can denigrate democracy as a Western tool. Okay, tick. We can get all prissy about being offended and attack the freedom of expression, except our own. And Muslims, of course. Okay, tick.

And who is he biggest boogey-man, the one that rules all others, that is all-powerful and all -evil ? The Yanks. Okay, whatever they do, even Obama, we slag. We get onto 'hire-a-mob' and Socialist Apologists for Fascism. . Tick, tick, tick.

Seems like you have your work cut out for you, young fella :)

Joe

Hi Loudmouth,

I must say that I'm getting quite impressed with your comments these days.

In your post immediately above, you are definitely getting the bombs on the target. I've often in the past tried in vain to get the message across about what's going on with the social justice warriors, their plethora of causes and their push to destroy capitalism. Simply Marxist socialism.

You are so correct about identifying their methodology.

I can't understand why the folks out there can't see the obvious as you and I can. It's been going on here in Australia since Whitlam in the early 70s. First Family Law and divorce courts - destroy patriarchy, destroy patriarchal inheritance. Next, female emancipation - get women out of the family and into the workforce and reliant on the state for child care and financial support.

To these ends, to destroy traditional family, they support feminism to create a schism between men and women. They support homosexuality as normal behaviour to destroy, "boy meets girl = wedding = kids = family", and replace that with promiscuity, sexual perversion and community upheaval. Anything to destroy traditional family. And don't forget their Family Violence weapon, whooped up to bust traditional social cohesion.

And now, brainwashing and sexual corruption of little kids. Shocking!

That'll do for now, but in the article being discussed here, the author specifically sets out the exact motives of the creator of the “Safe” program as declared by herself - “it was part of a wider Marxist strategy to radically change society”, and yet many of posters above still can't or won't get it. How blind are they? All of the social justice warrior stuff is right under their noses, out in the open, in bright daylight, but they can't seem to see through the fog of obfuscation intentionally fluffed up to camouflage the issues.

Anyway, good stuff Loudmoth, thanks mate.

Thank you voxUnius,

I'm not a supporter of patriarchy, or domestic violence, but I do think women should have as much right to fulfilling work-lives as men - the problem always for society is how to deal with the changes which inevitably follow on from earlier social change. If anything, I'm all for stronger, loving families, built on the basis of mutually fulfilling lives.

I don't know what Marx would have thought of this self-indulgent focus on sexuality issues. I suspect that he would have dismissed it with contempt as an attempt to subvert any genuine class-based action and to pander to the egocentric concerns of the various parasite classes - the bureaucrats, the alienated intellectuals and academics - in other words, those who see themselves as the elite of elites, frustrated by the crass ignoring of their intrinsic worth to humanity by an uncaring world, by both capital and labour.

Cheers,

Joe