Do you send your children to college to enter into the sex trade?
Am I the only one who thinks 19-year-olds don’t need more sex education? I think most of them could teach the rest of us a thing or two in the boudoir. And even if their sexual education was lacking, is their science education that far advanced that they’re truly in need of “Modern Sex Week” awareness? Does the world need more sex experts? I didn’t realize there was a shortage. And why are college students learning how to participate in the sex trade? I am pretty sure you don’t even need a high school degree for that type of work.
Instead of churning out Pulitzer Prize winners and Nobel nominees, universities are sending our kids home from their $100,000 educations stuffed full of communist propaganda and lots of tolerance for things that you find intolerable. And as you’ll see, these absurd uses of educational dollars are all part of the Marxist blueprint to “capture the culture,” starting with impressionable college students.
But first, what is “Modern Sex”? Let’s find out shall we?
“Modern Sex Week” started out with a bang with “Anger and Female Sexual Pleasure” hosted by Veronica Monet (whose site is so vile my computer wouldn’t let me go there because it is deemed “dangerous.”) Being the fearless type, I Googled her and tried finding a way in that didn’t upset my security settings. (Isn’t it funny you can also catch a digital virus from Internet promiscuity? I think I just came up with a million dollar marketing idea for Norton Antivirus.) Monet is a “sex worker” and advertises her services online.
Veronica Monet takes pride in offering compassion, guidance and nurturing in the tradition of the ancient sacred temple prostitutes. Ms. Monet offers the benefits of education and experience tempered with intuition.
Monet is a graduate of OSU, if that gives you any indication of the level of education they offer. After learning about women and sexual anger, attendees could wander down to the seminar on the founding of the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender) Center at OSU and all the “conflict” they’ve encountered. Nothing like tearing open old wounds to bring people together.
After the LGBT tour there was the keynote address that was supposed to feature Tristan Taormino, “feminist pornographer,” “sex educator,” and author of books such as The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex For Women. Taormino’s keynote speech was canceled, and the weird part is that it is assumed this had something to do with angry taxpayers objecting to a pornographer receiving $3,000 on their dime, but her replacement was another pornographer who sells sex toys for a living, Charlie Glickman.
I'll spare you rest of the gory details of this event, but if you want to read more go here to Fox's post. It is safe to say that the barbarians are not just outside the gates, they are running our universities. But what does it all mean? What agenda do these people have in organizing such events? Fox writes:
But perhaps the most important question is, why does the Left use sexual promiscuity to further their political cause? William Norman Grigg, Constitutionalist, has the answer.
Often, power cannot be seized through the sudden imposition of a total dictatorship; instead, it must be obtained through the process of patient gradualism — the persistent subversion of vital institutions and the incremental consolidation of power.
One only needs to look to the Marxist philosophers like Antonio Gramsci to find out how the Left has successfully used these tactics in the past and how they plan to use them in the future. “Modern Sex Week” on college campuses is part of the plan.
These efforts draw upon a blueprint composed by Italian Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, who understood that the creation of the total state requires the seizure of the “mediating institutions” that insulate the individual from the power of the government — the family, organized religion, and so forth — and a systematic redefinition of the culture in order to sustain the new political order. The battle cry of Gramsci’s disciples is: “Capture the culture!”
Uh oh. If it hasn’t been a total sack and plunder, they’re pretty close. When universities are charging $100,000 a year to educate your kids about hand jobs and dental dams and passing it off as legitimate “learning” it’s hard to say they haven’t won.
We need to get beyond the examination of conscious motives and ask the deeper question of why universities are going to such extreme lengths to destabilize traditional morality and corrupt young people into a lifestyle of debauchery and licentiousness. Is it just a lark? Is it just what humans do when moral restraints fade - sort of our "Lord of the Flies moment" as a culture?
The point is that whatever the individual and personal motives of the administrators and organizers of this kind of event may be, the effect is exactly what revolutionary Marxists want. So whether the organizers are committed Marxists, useful idiots or empty-headed, sexual nihilists is beside the point. The effect is the same.
In an age when socialism has failed as an economic system, the rage against capitalism continues and anarchists and Marxists still seek to destroy Western culture even though they have nothing to put in its place. This is nihilism rather than Communism; but it would be better to say that Communism has always had a deep strain of nihilism secreted within itself.
You can see it pretty clearly in "Modern Sex Week."
Posts
4 comments:
Just finished reading the final chapters and epilogue of Wendy Kline's _Building a Better Race: Gender, Sexuality, and Eugenics from the Turn of the Century to the Baby Boom_. You might find it interesting. One question that I've been thinking about while taking this eugenics course at U of T is, "Why were Protestants gung-ho about eugenics while Catholics were more wary?" Kline's book discusses how American eugenics from about the 1930s on became connected with the idea of needing to strengthen the nuclear family: promoting the return of women to the home, rejecting homosexuality, etc. (conservative positions!) and in so-doing ensuring the birth of the right children to the right parents who would raise them in the right environments. I find this intriguing, because I would tend to associate eugenics with abortion, euthanasia, radical environmentalism, and the other liberal as opposed to conservative standpoints. (Kline, for example, talks about how the eugenics campaign allowed sexual pleasure to all but procreation only to some; these same eugenicists also rejected homosexuality. In contrast, I think of Dr. Farrow's description of how homosexuality leads to the decoupling of sex and procreation ... seemingly an opposite statement.) I expect you'd enjoy these discussions.
Amy,
Have you read Richard Weikhart, "From Darwin to Hitler"? I'm just wondering what you thought of it.
Also, a question: From what you have read, have you found that Fundamentalists tended to be an exception to the Protestant embrace of eugenics? My reason for asking is that Weikhart argues that the more a group was influenced by Darwinism, the more open to eugenics it was (is).
I haven't read Weikhart, no (though sounds like a good read). And I'm only starting to probe this material myself. However, Christine Rosen in _Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement_ argues that the pro-eugenics Catholics, Protestants, and Jews “overwhelmingly represented the liberal wings of their respective faiths." Similarly, she states that "Protestant supporters of eugenics were postmillennialist Christians; their opponents were usually premillennialists" - the difference being that the former wanted to "create the Kingdom of God on earth." She suggests that the Christians who were pro-eugenics were generally those trying to keep up with modern science, while those who were anti-eugenics opposed new scientific teachings like evolution and held on to Biblical infallibility. So yes, based on Rosen's argument anyhow, I think we could say that fundamentalists were more in opposition to eugenics, as Weikhart also argues. My thesis - which may or may not be correct - is that the institution of the Catholic Church exercised a restraining power on American Catholics (as Rosen says, “adherence to Church doctrine…bred a certain caution”) so that they weren't as quick to jump on the bandwagon of new scientific "advances." In being committed to tradition and less influenced by modern science, they would then be less susceptible to the charms of eugenics. Does that sound about right?
Amy,
I think what Fundamentalism and the pre-Vatican II RC Church had in common was a willingness to believe in a religious authority (inerrant Bible, infallible Magisterium) over modern Darwinian theory. Liberals tended to accept the authority of scientists. Weikart's point is that the acceptance of Darwinism was what opened people to eugenics.
Post a Comment