What does an Interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson Really Tell Us about the left.
Some don't appreciate "Intellectual take out" but this Is a current event and I think they have presented it reasonable well. However, I really don't think, nor have I observed, that these behaviors/idiotologies are as pervasive as they have been portrayed. They do effect the younger generations...and that's scary. Lets hope that the vast majority of Jordan's viewers are, the young.
The crux of the article below:
"But with the decline of marriage, and with it the influence on public policy of the shared interests of husbands and wives, we see the fruits of this tainted philosophy in growing numbers of single men and women imbued with hostility, mutual suspicion and grievance." "The small family system looks set to be replaced by the no-family system; but such an anti-social “society” will be ripe for a Marxist take-over, in which no one will have a family but everyone will have a Big Brother. All will be equal, but some will be more equal than others – the ones who are most zealous for “equality”." "Whether they will be men or women is a moot point; but they will certainly not be human."
The crux of the article below:
"But with the decline of marriage, and with it the influence on public policy of the shared interests of husbands and wives, we see the fruits of this tainted philosophy in growing numbers of single men and women imbued with hostility, mutual suspicion and grievance." "The small family system looks set to be replaced by the no-family system; but such an anti-social “society” will be ripe for a Marxist take-over, in which no one will have a family but everyone will have a Big Brother. All will be equal, but some will be more equal than others – the ones who are most zealous for “equality”." "Whether they will be men or women is a moot point; but they will certainly not be human."
She, however, was not.
I see this a lot. I just talked to someone who BLAMED Bush Jr. that NOBODY went to jail after the Bankster Market Crash. She would NOT ACCEPT that it happened in 2008, and Obama took over in 2009, and had 7 years to prosecute people. Funny how Eric Holder only stuck around until the Statute of Limitations expired, and then went back to work PROTECTING CitiBank for millions per year!
Simple math... Beyond them. Then of course, they JUMP to "Well Bush CAUSED it", and did nothing about it. Again, last half of last year in last term in office. Why didn't Obama go after them? Because BOTH parties drink from that well!
Feminism: the notion that women are oppressed by men and should be granted special privileges all the while denigrating men.
Homosexuality: denies the notion that both biological parents are necessary for proper development of children. Also encourages deviant lifestyles and sexual exploration before sexual maturity to desensitize children to the privacy of sexual intimacy.
Nanny state: advocates for public schooling for children even as young as three. Entire purpose is to get children away from parents and indoctrinate them with leftist ideology, but also denies the critical bonding time necessary for small children to develop positive bonds with parents which enable them to take on family roles later in life.
Individuals make decisions. Families make societies.
THIS is exactly what the nuns were teaching me as young as first grade. Not that "liberals" or "leftists" - words I didn't hear until many years later - were doing this, but that the Communists - our uber-enemy of the cold war back then, would eventually make this happen. In our country.
I realize that the good ole School Sisters of Notre Dame weren't exactly leading in independent thought back in the 50s, but it's all I had to work with at the ripe old age of 8 :-)
And you know what? I think they were right. I have observed this in the 60 years since, and they actually arrived at this goal back about 20 years ago, if not sooner. Thank goodness my youngest child is mid-forties. We managed to raise both of ours without day care and all the other trappings of a liberal society.
Not sure what you mean by this. Can you explain?
"However, this does not mean that the state should take over the family."
Agreed. As Friedman points out: the family is the basic unit of government in society. Attempts to replace the family with big government is part of the Progressive agenda.
"The individual literally exists. Not the state, not the
race, and not the family."? I should think it would be
pretty self-explanatory; If you look at what is before
your eyes, you can see individual human bodies;
these are the entities that literally exist, and these are the entities with rights. As I told my father before, I did not have any duty to get married and carry on the line, as some duty to the race, or the family; I had a right to live my own life. (Speaking in the past tense, as the issue is now moot anyhow; I am now too old to conceive any children anyway). Parents, having
brought their children into the world, have the primary responsibility to take care of them; however, they have no right to violate their rights by murdering them, neglecting them, refusing them medical treatment which they can afford and which is necessary to save their lives because they get irrational notions that blood transfusion is a sin, etc.
"If you look at what is before your eyes, you can see individual human bodies; these are the entities that literally exist, and these are the entities with rights."
I agree that families do not have "rights" as they are groups of people and rights only apply to individuals. Families are the first social arrangement, however, and therefore the first situation in which rights have any meaning. (Rights only exist within a societal context; if there is no one else, there is no one to violate your rights.)
Statistics continue to show that children raised in a home by both their biological parents perform better in school, are less likely to end up in jail, and are more likely to end up as contributors to society than those who don't. It is not saying that those who aren't raised by their biological parents can't do well, only that statistically they are at a significant disadvantage. Thus we should be striving for the best as the ideals and compensating should be the exception - not the rule.
It is also worthy to note that the single biggest indicator of future incarceration is the lack of a father in the home.
References:
https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordp...
http://unitedfamilies.org/child-devel...
To me, that makes a lot more sense. However, whether the individual or the family unit...the left has managed to dismiss both in one felt swoop.
She (stupid interviewer) just doesn't seem to be able to accept the crux of his premise, which, boiled down, is: "Men and women are different."
And (IMO) thank goodness they are! It's a very simple message! But that just tears her (and many like her) up.
My Mother-in-law does that.
And the women get free lawyers and just keep going after them for more. The news tries to hide all of this. But it is destroying the family and the country.
Many a notes are found by their bodies that read the same thing: "It's one thing to be separated from your family and support them... But now that I cannot even see my children because of you, why go on supporting you?"
The pendulum has swung WAY Too far for the women. Consider this, the courts hold BOTH of these things as true (Typical Liberal Move)
1) Women are EQUAL Partners (ie, get 1/2)
2) Women NEED Alimony and the man needs to work to pay it.
I'm sorry... Rule 1 implies that she is JUST as capable of supporting me, and she EARNED 1/2 of everything (somehow).
But (typically) only the guy is enslaved to paying Alimony. Rarely is palimony ever paid, unless it's a female star...
Imagine having to pay Alimony for life to your wife, who just got 1/2 of the retirement you earned.
Finally, they estimate that about 20% of children in marriages might not be the spouses child. and current law is written so that even if you can prove it, and get a divorce, you owe child support!
it's crazy. The decline of marriage has a LOT to do with the TONS of laws that are held against the man once he signs on the dotted lines.
I have a friend who got his wife a lawyer to review the prenup she agreed to. The lawyer said "You may not want these things now, but if you change your mind, this prevents that. Because of that I cannot recommend you sign this!"