Arimathea
Page views: 1370471
Total entries: 1445
Total comments: 542

Acknowledgments

Fonts

Wednesday, February 5, A.D. 2014
Evil’s Thirst Cannot Be Quenched

Today, I received the following article from Zenit about the latest social engineering fad in Europe: “The Fight against Gender Stereotypes and Parental Rights.” It features a recent address by Grégor Puppinck to an audience in Rome:

French parents who wish to pass on certain values to their children will clash in the coming months over the Republic’s education system, which the current Government wishes to reform, particularly in relation to the complementary nature of men and women, of human sexuality and of morality.

The Taubira marriage law reform proposal should be considered in conjunction with another fundamental project of the current Government: the “reform of the education system of the Republic,” presently being discussed by the National Assembly.  This law project on the “reform of the education system of the Republic” pledges, among other provisions, to introduce an obligatory new secular morality and civic education, in order to fight against gender stereotypes from the youngest age possible.  In the press and before the Assembly, the Minister of Education, Vincent Peillon, has specified that “the goal of the secular morality is to remove all family, ethnic, social and intellectual determinisms from the pupil”[1] to “allow each pupil to be liberated,” because “the goal of the Republican education system has always been to produce a free individual”[2].  In the same way, the Minister of Justice, Christiane Taubira has declared to the Assembly that “in our values, education aims to relieve pupils of social and religious determinisms and make them free citizens”[3].

One of these determinisms would be gender identity; the removal of gender stereotypes is seen as a way of liberating children.  The project of the “reform of the education system of the Republic” provides at present that “education on gender equality” will become the mission of primary schools, from the age of 6, “in order to substitute categories such as sex (…) for the concept of gender which (…) shows that the differences between men and women are not founded by nature, but are historically constructed and socially reproduced”[4].  This idea is also articulated in the recent report of the General Inspectorate of Social Affairs[5] which recommends that schools engage in the “fight against gender stereotypes” “from the youngest age,” that it dismantles “the ideology of the complementary nature” of men and women to “move towards an [equal] society.”  To this end, the report notably suggests that teachers replace the descriptors “boys” and “girls” with the neutral terms “friends” or “children,” to tell stories in which the children have two fathers or two mothers, etc.  This is, according to the report, to prevent “sexual differentiation” and the children internalising their sexual identity.  In addition to these aspects which relate to the theory of gender, the secular morality promoted by the project of the “reform of the education system of the Republic” is also a source of concern.  This law project envisages societal reform through education; it is complementary to the Taubira proposal which “reforms” family through marriage.  As Mr Peillon has indicated, “the Government is pressing young people to change their attitudes, notably by means of an education which respects the diversity of sexual orientation”[6].

So, if the Taubira law on “marriage” is adopted, public education should not only “dismantle gender stereotypes” in the minds of children, but furthermore teach them that it is normal to have two mothers (and an unknown father), or two fathers (and a carrier mother).  These “parental arrangements” will be taught as if they are objective facts (and not choices) and will therefore be insusceptible to any moral judgement.

Parents who wish to pass on natural morality to their children will be trapped: they should tell their children not to believe what they are taught at school, but to remain silent so they will avoid getting into trouble.  This will be an evident violation of the parents’ natural rights.  The projects and declarations of Ms Taubira and Mr Peillon also unambiguously show their intention not to respect the rights of parents, but to extract the children (from their parents’ views) to liberate them.  These parental rights have been reaffirmed in the great declarations of human rights after the Second World War, in response to Nazi, Fascist and Communist totalitarianism.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” (Article 16(3)) and that “parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children” (Article 26(3)).  In ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the contracting States have engaged “to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions” (Article 18(4)).  In an even more explicit fashion, the European Convention on Human Rights makes clear that “in the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions” (First Additional Protocol, Article 2).

Currently, the rights of the family are under attack once again in the name of a project for society; no longer founded on family, but on the notions of tolerance, non-discrimination and pluralism, and which considers any man as a purely abstract individual.  The power of the State has found itself newly extended, as the objective of putting a “project for society” into action firstly requires the power to define it and the right to impose it.

I knew that such witches’ brews had been stewing for some time in Scandinavian cauldrons, but I was surprised to see the latest news from France. Hollande and his minions aren’t wasting any time in trying to destroy Gaul. Maybe, the Socialists’ return to power and their inability to follow the patient Fabian path in realizing their radical agenda will shock the dying nation from its coma and incite a reaction. I do not agree with the Le Pens on everything, but it would delight me to see le Front national pull a Pinochet for the eldest daughter of the Church. For there is no political reasoning, no compromise with an enemy who wishes for your destruction, and the Left certainly wants to destroy any remnant of traditional Western civilization. They have declared war on the West, and the nations of the West should respond in kind rather than treating these agents of nihilism as fellow citizens with claims upon the polity. The only way to defeat them is to recognize them for what they are—and to fight back accordingly.

How unfortunate it is that only (mostly) secular reactionaries seem to understand this, which explains why they have had the most success in the last century in thwarting leftist degeneracy, even if for a period. I say unfortunate because secular reactionaries carry many of the same modern diseases as the Left. Bruce Charlton recently wrote about the fascist nature of secular reactionaries in “Is it correct to state that Neo-Reactionaries of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ are ‘Neo-fascists’?” I recommend it—typically charltonesque and insightful. Charlton ends with the following:

A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.

I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash… then that would be the time to worry about them.

Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.

If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.

To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).

But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites.

I look forward to the day when the Rome of effeminate, decadent nihilists burns. It will be ugly and catastrophic, but my thumotic tendency longs to see the heathen idols destroyed. What justice it would be for the revolution to begin in France—the epidemiological origin of the current plague. Then, perhaps, such would lead to a domino effect across Europe. The time for revolt is certainly overdue.

Ut sit magna, tamen certe lenta ira deorum est.

Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, February 5, Anno Domini 2014
Philosophy | AnthropologyPoliticsComments
Previous entry (all realms): Paul and Constantine
Next entry (all realms): War on Drugs

Previous entry (Philosophy): Woman as Yesterday’s Slave
Next entry (Philosophy): War on Drugs