Dearest Foxy,

Well, there's conservatives and what Marxists called reactionaries. As I understand it, a genuine conservative is cautious about change but not immune to it, if it can be shown to be beneficial. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

One Scottish conservative writer, I forget who, said something like, "If there seems to be no compelling need to change, it's important NOT to change."

I suppose a reactionary, in the old Marxist sense, is someone who defends the 'old ways' no matter what, and comes down hard on anybody who wants change.

So it may be quite possible to be either a progressive or a reactionary conservative, and everything in between :)

Wow, now I've lost out on my application to join any of the left parties :(

Love,

Joe

Aiden- I like Political Compass- I've used it for many years- I believe it's founded by lefties though- but it's missing the Globalist / Localist dimension (very important in modern context), and perhaps others.

LM.

Even Marxists can see that the traditional storm-the-winter-palace style revolution will never happen in a western democracy. So yes, they need to drag the society's pillars down so as to get the chance to erect new institutions that better match their fantasies.

The attack on the churches has been overwhelmingly successful and its all about mopping up the few hold-outs. The churches need to hunker down because its gunna get worse for them before it gets better.

The most stabilising and formidable pillar of western society is the family and the assault on it is gearing up. The SSM debate was merely the opening salvo. Safe Schools is about instilling feminist Marxist gender theories in the mainstream.

" Our grand-kids and great-grand-kids, etc., will probably be spouting them at uni all over again, as if they are their own original discoveries. "

Yes communism is seductive to those of a certain persuasion. If the utter failures of the theory throughout the last 100 years isn't enough to kill it off then nothing will. It went out fashion for a period after 1989, but a new generation, unschooled (deliberately?) in the history of the theory return to it. It will continue ad infinitum.

Foxy,

Let's assume that we need a programme to help kids claiming to be LGBTIWTF. That issue needs a whole other thread or three but let's assume its true for the sake of argument.

The issue becomes,..why does that programme need to be designed by Marxist theorists and be based around Marxist-feminist gender theory? Is it not possible to teach kids to be understanding of kids with these dysfunctions without trying to indoctrinate them into believing the dysfunction is normal or even desirable? Of coarse, if you want to mount attacks on the very fundamentals of the society, then the Safe Schools programme makes perfect sense.

Contemporary schools and their teachers appear to have a pretty influential gay lobby within the institution. I suggest parents research home schooling.

Some times reality treads on our head to remind us we can not change minds that follow fantasy
We live in a word that see some think progressive and Liberal are swear words
And while naming conspiracy may them selves be victim to one
Claiming any move toward a fairer better world for all is a not existing evil, Marxism

LM,

"As I understand it, a genuine conservative is cautious about change but not immune to it, if it can be shown to be beneficial. Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. "

On many issues I see myself as a Chesterton conservative following his advice based on the fence analogy...

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

He goes on to explain that our predecessors weren't fools or idiots and that the fence was clearly built by people who thought it reasonable to do so. Its more fully explained here... http://ldsmag.com/the-parable-of-chestertons-fence/

Whenever I see a proposed change I run it past the fence test. It was one of the main reasons I opposed SSM.

We've seen many examples over the years of the results of failure to pass the fence test. It was once asserted that there was no valid reason for homosexuals and homosexuality to be frowned on and confined to consenting adults quietly going about their business. This was an unreasonable social more that ought to be torn down. Yet the homosexuals were barely out of the closet before they started entering the AIDS wards.

/cont