One of the strangest elements of modern liberalism is that it requires all of its followers to exist in a state of permanent cognitive dissonance. Its adherents must acknowledge the the working class is downtrodden and oppressed by bourgeois elites, and yet at the same time believe that only prescribed statist solutions from centralized bourgeois elites can rectify this oppression. They also are meant to believe that corporations and capitalists are rapacious overlords, and yet from time to time when the corporations and capitalists happen to agree with them they must be hailed as being progressive business leaders, who of course have a role to play in the governance of society.
The ongoing gay marriage debate and soon to be poll, has meant that companies and organisations are racing out of the woodwork to endorse the “Yes” side. Leftists seem to accept this support as a matter of course, but I wish I could pin one of these Leftists down and ask if they have ever wondered why these companies do so. The reality is that companies and civic associations like the Wallabies by their nature are mission focused. Companies want profit and sporting institutions want their code to flourish etc.. so why then have they come out and publicly endorsed the “Yes” vote? Why not just not adopt a position of “we have no organisational view, it is for the Australian people to decide”?
Because dear reader, they know that supporters of “Yes” will directly attack their mission if they abstain. They have done a cost-benefit analysis and realised that the “No” supporters will not punish them for supporting “Yes” or at least not as much as “Yes” supporters will punish them for saying nothing or supporting “No”.
All these companies realised this around the same time, and so have rushed to all endorse the cause of “marriage equality”.
This implicitly coerced consensus reminds me of how in Stalin’s Russia people were terrified of being the first to stop clapping, now though Australians are terrified to be the last one supporting the definition of marriage that has existed for all of human history.
This almost comprehensive corporate endorsement of the “Yes” position proves beyond doubt that not only did the Left march through the institutions via public schooling, income tax, public healthcare, tertiary education and land zoning, but they have now marched their sycophants into the corporate world. They have achieved almost full spectrum dominance of the cultural landscape.
But take heart! This is has a silver lining, finally we right-wingers can throw the intellectual baggage of neo-liberal corporatism on the junk heap and return to ideas that actually have the ability to restore the greatness of our civilisation and more importantly (and sadly) now we will get to witness the effects and final chapter of “Late Stage Modernity”.
What is LSM you may ask? It’s the convergence of all the curses that Leftism has bestowed upon our civilisation since the French revolution. The saying goes “curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost” and we are in for quite a roost.
- Feminism and the framing of marriage as a method by which women are oppressed has completely collapsed the demographics of European civilisation.
- In order to keep the economy functioning despite its underlying fundamentals (demographics) being mortally damaged, governments and companies let slip the dogs of unrestrained usury on the world. Public and private debt is at an all time high in human history and interest rates are pushed to zero by state power to make further debt more affordable.
- Financialisation of the economy and strict statist land zoning, have pushed the costs of shelter sky high, and because shelter is in an input in the costs of everything, living standards drop society wide.
- In order to mitigate the demographics and displace troublesome voters, traitorous governments have committed themselves to the task of importing in new consumers and voters.
- Unfortunately though these new citizens don’t solve the problem, best case scenario is that they are a temporary bandaid before they themselves also adopt a sub-replacement fertility rate and begin aging. Worst case scenario is that they end up being net tax takers and net detriments to the society by engaging in behavior that erodes the host society’s capital, like living in enclaves, voting as an interest group, and crime and terrorism.
Our civilisation exists now purely on momentumn gifted to us by the efforts of our ancestors.
For those who think I am exaggerating the existential and full spectrum nature of the threat, please keep in mind your taxes paid for the ABC to provide a platform for the views of Israeli feminist politician Ms Merav Michaeli, who stated that the “core family as we know it” is “the least safe place for children” and “The custody, this total custody that we have in this structure of marriage which still gives men domination, complete domination over their children and too often over their women … is a part of the ongoing hurt in children.”
Further from the ABC:
“Senator Seselja disagreed vehemently that the family is inherently unsafe, and insisted he was very aware of the issues around domestic violence.” “Apparently not,” Ms Michaeli said to applause from the audience.”
Could you get more disingenuous then that? Everyone who has suffered from domestic abuse has been a member of a family, therefore the concept of family must be destroyed? Should we all stop drinking water because everyone who does eventually dies?
I’m sure though that Ms Michaeli will have a solution for us, that certainly does not require domination via state power:
“Host Virginia Trioli challenged Ms Michaeli to provide an alternative. Ms Michaeli offered two alternative “default arrangements” which could be offered by the state, focusing on child-rearing and co-habitation. Children could have more than two parents, which would not necessarily by their biological parents but must be someone taking responsibility for the child. “[They need] to be obligated for certain criteria that the state should actually decide on, what does it mean that you’re responsible for the child?” The other arrangement would take the shared financial and social aspects of marriage and formalise them between any two people, whether they have a shared romance or are simply room-mates.”
Oh brilliant, biological parents don’t “necessarily” have to be parents, is she really that unaware that the paternal and maternal links of affection are the literal lifeblood of humanity?
Also from the ABC:
“Philosopher AC Grayling, …., said the legal institution of marriage is very sexist in its origins and should not exist in that form at all.
“But there’s another sense of the word marriage which is the commitment that two or perhaps more — I don’t know — people make to one another about pooling their resources, mutually supporting one another,” he said.”
I’m glad he accidentally admitted that the next Leftist agenda will be advocating for polygamy, despite the fact that it is well established that polygamous societies are the least feminist societies and generally the most economically unequal.
Also pooling resources aye? Mutually supporting one another? I’ve heard that language elsewhere it didn’t work that well in real life…
The Left will not stop, everything that built Western civilisation must be destroyed. They have marched through the institutions. They marched through the state. They have marched through the corporates. They are now marching through the family.