GirlChat #734832

Start A New Topic!  Submit SRF  Thread Index  Date Index  

a few points

Posted by Baldur on Sunday, June 07 2020 at 01:32:30AM
In reply to I would agree, posted by Human on Tuesday, June 02 2020 at 09:37:17AM

First, you can understand economics or you can be a socialist. You can't do both.

Second, particularly in the United States there are no real conservatives and never have been since they were run out of the country at the end of the American Revolution. Few even came to America, as going to a new land is not a particularly conservative thing to do. What we have today in America is basically different branches of political thought that are derived from classical liberalism.

Therefore American "conservatives" today are essentially of two types: (1) those who want to conserve the liberal principles of America's founding (in the original sense of the word "liberal"), and (2) those who want to move forward a little more slowly and carefully.

Americans are socially inclined, of course, but tend to reject socialism because it is in the nature of Americans to let people make decisions for themselves, and to resist forcing people to do things they do not want to do. Unfortunately, the mass immigration since the mid-1800s has reduced the proportion of Americans in the United States by quite a bit, so Americans do not have the influence in the United States that they used to.

Third, you say:

"I have a theory on why female pedophiles seem to be less common, I don't think they are, I just think their inhibited sex-drive lessens their ability to see their love of children in a sexual light, and so may never recognise their love as pedophilic."

You are absolutely correct. They call themselves "asexuals", and about 80% of asexuals are female. I visited one of their boards years ago and it was immediately clear that their attitude towards children is almost exactly like ours, except - as you say - their minimal sex drive makes it impossible for them to understand the sexual aspect of their love for children. They react very badly to being told of these similarities. They despise us with a passion.

Fourth, you say:

"No, my socialism is about public co-operation, real people deciding their own future, working together for the greater good. It's about recognising the power we collectively share as 'social' beings, and then using that power to benefit ourselves and not the ultra-wealthy or powerful."

That's not socialism. That's called capitalism, in which people succeed insomuch as they meet the needs of others - but not crony capitalism, in which they use the power of the state to force taxpayers to foot the bill. It is best when applied within the feudal context which was the original American tradition before the Yankees did their best to destroy it with the help of socialist immigrants from Europe.

In the feudal concept society is organized within a web of mutual obligations. The best example of modernized feudalism that has survived to the current day is in Japan.

Fifth, you say:

"When I refer to left-wing policies, I am talking primarily about economic reform and freeing society from materialism and consumerism."

That's a right wing position, particularly the religious right and the southern agrarian tradition.

Sixth, you say:

"This is a phenomenon I simply don't understand; 'cultural Marxism' isn't a thing, it was invented by neo-liberals and reactionary conservatives and continues to be peddled by well-meaning charlatans like Jordan Peterson. But in relation to what you wrote, surely traditional family structures are (if anything) a roadblock to our goals?"

We can debate as to what to call it, and whether it is really Marxist, but cultural Marxism is certainly a real thing. Historically, if I recall correctly, it began with Marxists who, after seeing that their theories based on economic class consistently ended in genocide, decided to redirect their analytical tools to making everything about oppression based on race or sex instead of economics. When all you've got is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

Considering that no one had a problem with pedophiles before the 1880s, and that the persecution did not really begin in earnest until the mid-1970s, I'd say that returning to those traditions would be better than moving forward to destruction - which is not to say that we can't keep some of the nice things that we have picked up along the way.

As for "our goals" - my goal is to be able to love children in a way that maximizes their well-being. I think a traditional family structure - at least on the traditional Western European and American model - is a far better choice for this than divorce, working mothers, and daycare.


Follow ups:

Post a response :

Nickname Password
E-mail (optional)

Link URL (optional)
Link Title (optional)

Add your sigpic?