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