School Shootings

[Cortopassi]

All school shootings have one thing in common: they take place in schools.

Thus, the solution to this problem is obvious: ban schools.

Note: school shootings, in fact all mass shootings, are extremely rare events. In the US, more people are killed by lightning each year, on average, than in all mass shootings in that year. So in fact this "school shooting epidemic" is nothing more or less than media-fueled hysteria.

Of course this doesn't mean that the Prussian factory-school system is anything but a tyrannical system of brainwashing, because it is exactly that. But not because of the nonexistent epidemic of school shootings.

plus 1
i just came across this article about literacy, that anyone who thinks public "education" isn’t built to dumb down the population may find informative..https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... ading.html

Seems to me the writer is pushing a doom and gloom scenario which brings people to his website.

Quote "That was when our Education Establishment (most probably, I would suggest, influenced by Comintern subversives) abolished phonics and made children memorize words by their shapes. This approach has been a disaster, yet the public has been persuaded to accept it until this day."

My kids went through phonics, and I have not recognized any communist influence...! we read daily at home with them when young, and my younger one especially has 5+ books going at any one time.

My experience is exceptional, but typical of the area I am in. I have stated prior that I know this is not the case everywhere; take many Chicago public schools as an example.

I am sick and tired of the gloom and doom stuff peddled everywhere, for every facet of anything you care to be gloomy about. Schools, government, politics, deep state, religion (or lack thereof), climate change, etc, etc, etc.

In what way, please, has my kids' education dumbed them down? I've got one kid graduating this week, and going to Notre Dame, with a 4.57/4 GPA and 35 on her ACT. My other is going into high school with straight A's, plays two instruments, and is over 2 years ahead of where I was in math at the same grade level.

Yes, they have great parents (!), but they also spend the majority of their days in these commie run hell-hole schools. C'mon! Things are not that bad!

The majority of kids I know are good kids, smart and accepting of differences, not like the crap 30 years ago when every little difference was bullied. Is that brainwashing and dumbing down?

if your kids learned to read by phonics they are lucky, I am old enough to have been taught to read that way as well, the complaint is against the "memorization of words by shape method" that leaves kids illiterate and creates a failure anxiety loop that all but kills the urge and ability to read. (basically teaching to build a learning disability) I was lucky (undoubtedly like your kids) and also had intelligent parents who encouraged thinking, the article may be a bit doom and gloom but the statistics, which seem to be from reliable sources tell the same story. a common take on the Prussian education system is

originated in the early 18th century as a way to instill absolute obedience and uniformity in the students under the guise of education. What the students wanted and thought was irrelevant—the Prussian education system was there to teach them minimal literacy and indoctrinate them into believing in the infallibility of the supreme authority (Prussian King Fredrick William I at the time). The end result was a useful generic worker, readily replaceable and dispensable.

http://www.returnofkings.com/64892/why- ... ion-system* this was done to create obedient and unquestioning solders,workers (and in the us voters) something a classical education that has logic, reason and critical thinking as its foundation can never do..

* this is very far from being the best article on the topic (a quicky search was all i have time for this am) there are many more in-depth and reliable ones out there, but it has the basics with a dose of sjw hating thrown in.

[Maddy]

As we speak, there stands a recent post in the comments section of a major online news page that ridicules the most recent shooter for being a "loser virgin." Is it really that hard to see what popped his cork? The progressive social engineers have created a generation of ferals.

Just one post? That accounts for a large proportion of the comments I've seen on that event.

Unfortunately, it's not just one. Just a brief glance at the comments accompanying that article revealed a number of crude remarks about everything from his weight to his acne. And unfortunately it's fairly representative of what many kids go through these days. I can only imagine.

Actually I don't have to imagine, because even in the late sixties and early seventies, when things were tame compared to today, I witnessed several school incidents that were profound enough in my mind to have stuck with me until today. There was a girl named Margot in the sixth grade who couldn't have been nicer, but she had a meek, studious look and wore glasses. One day, the popular girls thought it would be fun to make a gift to Margot of a hair barrette that they had found in a trash can. Margot took the gift graciously and thanked them sincerely--at which point they all burst out laughing. Today I wonder why I didn't step up and bash those girls' heads. I guess I was too worried about being the next target.

Another incident I have never forgotten occurred two years later, in eighth grade. By that time, the girls had become oh-so-very sophisticated, and the popular ones had become downright mean. Their target, that year, was a rather homely girl named Kathy, whose only crime was that she was immature, a little unkempt, and had bad skin. They tormented her endlessly. One day, I recall that Kathy went to her locker and found all of its contents strewn about the floor. A nearby group of girls laughed and jeered. Kathy must have been at her breaking point, because she sort of collapsed on the ground in tears and began banging her head on her locker. More laughter and jeering. I've never forgotten that incident but do wonder what became of Kathy and whether it was even possible for her to have a normal life after that.

Today, it's orders of magnitude worse. I really can't imagine how kids who are subjected to endless ridicule and humiliation make it into adulthood with any kind of intact self-concept. I suspect that many of them go through life angry, isolated, and perseverating over some kind of imaginary "Carrie" moment.

[Cortopassi]

As we speak, there stands a recent post in the comments section of a major online news page that ridicules the most recent shooter for being a "loser virgin." Is it really that hard to see what popped his cork? The progressive social engineers have created a generation of ferals.

Just one post? That accounts for a large proportion of the comments I've seen on that event.

Unfortunately, it's not just one. Just a brief glance at the comments accompanying that article revealed crude remarks about everything from his weight to his acne. And unfortunately it's fairly representative of what many kids go through these days. I can only imagine.

Actually I don't have to imagine, because even in the late sixties and early seventies, when things were tame compared to today, I witnessed several school incidents that were profound enough in my mind to have stuck with me until today. There was a girl named Margot in the sixth grade who couldn't have been nicer, but she had a meek, studious visage and wore glasses. One day, the popular girls thought it would be fun to make a gift to Margot of a hair barrette that they had found in a trash can. Margot took the gift graciously and thanked them sincerely--at which point they all burst out laughing. Today I wonder why I didn't step up and bash those girls' heads. I guess I was too worried about being the next target.

Another incident I have never forgotten occurred two years later, in eighth grade. By that time, the girls had become oh-so-very sophisticated, and the popular ones had become downright mean. Their target, that year, was a rather homely girl named Kathy. They tormented her endlessly. One day, I recall that Kathy went to her locker and found all of its contents strewn about the floor. A nearby group of girls laughed and jeered. Kathy must have been at her breaking point, because she sort of collapsed on the ground in tears and began banging her head on her locker. More laughter and jeering. I've never forgotten that incident but do wonder what became of Kathy and whether it was even possible for her to have a normal life after that.

Today, it's orders of magnitude worse.

The comment sections of virtually every article, everywhere seems to bring out the worst in some people. I have mentioned before that if I was in a hiring position and I saw comments like that from a candidate... goodbye.

You can literally go to an article about a 5 year old dying of cancer and there will be just plain stupid and mean comments from people.

The events you indicate above are terrible, and in line with some things I recall in high school in the 80s.

I am obviously well removed from high school, but on a day to day basis I see much more acceptance of differences than long ago. Sure, there are still the popular girl, athletic girl, nerdy girl groupings, but they still interact and are nice to each other. Again, it could just be me not experiencing it day after day in the situation.

Is it orders of magnitudes worse? I am not sure. I assume with social media it probably is when it happens, but to me the actual percentage/number of incidences seem to be much lower.

[Cortopassi]

Good points, Cortopassi, and congrats on your child's 35 ACT! Wow. Sorry to hear about going to Notre Dame though; I wondered why the beautiful Illini avatar was replaced with the ND one recently. Just kidding, as an Illini grad myself, I miss the Illini version.

I was sorry for a while as well, Champaign was in the cards for a while, but she thought it was too big. And better to be able to root for a school that actually wins!

[Libertarian666]

As we speak, there stands a recent post in the comments section of a major online news page that ridicules the most recent shooter for being a "loser virgin." Is it really that hard to see what popped his cork? The progressive social engineers have created a generation of ferals.

Just one post? That accounts for a large proportion of the comments I've seen on that event.

Unfortunately, it's not just one. Just a brief glance at the comments accompanying that article revealed a number of crude remarks about everything from his weight to his acne. And unfortunately it's fairly representative of what many kids go through these days. I can only imagine.

Actually I don't have to imagine, because even in the late sixties and early seventies, when things were tame compared to today, I witnessed several school incidents that were profound enough in my mind to have stuck with me until today. There was a girl named Margot in the sixth grade who couldn't have been nicer, but she had a meek, studious look and wore glasses. One day, the popular girls thought it would be fun to make a gift to Margot of a hair barrette that they had found in a trash can. Margot took the gift graciously and thanked them sincerely--at which point they all burst out laughing. Today I wonder why I didn't step up and bash those girls' heads. I guess I was too worried about being the next target.

Another incident I have never forgotten occurred two years later, in eighth grade. By that time, the girls had become oh-so-very sophisticated, and the popular ones had become downright mean. Their target, that year, was a rather homely girl named Kathy, whose only crime was that she was immature, a little unkempt, and had bad skin. They tormented her endlessly. One day, I recall that Kathy went to her locker and found all of its contents strewn about the floor. A nearby group of girls laughed and jeered. Kathy must have been at her breaking point, because she sort of collapsed on the ground in tears and began banging her head on her locker. More laughter and jeering. I've never forgotten that incident but do wonder what became of Kathy and whether it was even possible for her to have a normal life after that.

Today, it's orders of magnitude worse. I really can't imagine how kids who are subjected to endless ridicule and humiliation make it into adulthood with any kind of intact self-concept. I suspect that many of them go through life angry, isolated, and perseverating over some kind of imaginary "Carrie" moment.

I was also bullied, including physically, in both grade school and high school. Both of these situations ended when I struck back at the bullies, but I understand how that wouldn't work for girls or even some boys.

[Kriegsspiel]

I think the punch-equivalent for girls is "Your hair looks bad in that pixie cut, everyone is making fun of you" or similar.

[Libertarian666]

I think the punch-equivalent for girls is "Your hair looks bad in that pixie cut, everyone is making fun of you" or similar.

Right, but they can't handle that by striking back in the same way because they are of low status in the first place, so their insults carry no weight.

My fist, however, was just as good as anyone else's to strike back physically.

[Maddy]

This is an aside, but I'm curious how so many kids these days are boasting grade point averages that exceed 4.0. In my day, that was mathematically impossible.

[Cortopassi]

This is an aside, but I'm curious how so many kids these days are boasting grade point averages that exceed 4.0. In my day, that was mathematically impossible.

I'm sure AP classes will continue, but depending on the college you are going to, many have become very selective in what they'll take for AP credit, either not crediting you, or only crediting if you got a 5 on the AP test.

For example, Notre Dame will take 31 hours of my daughter's AP credit, and a lot of that does not simply get you out of specific requirements... instead it "allows" you to take higher level classes in that requirement area.

U of I, alternatively, would have taken 48 hours, and she theoretically could go in as a second semester sophomore, credit-wise. Not that there's a push to finish college in less than 4 years.

It does open up a lot of options to be more flexible in the electives and classes you take, and nowadays, you cannot get into a top level school without having a lot of AP classes.

The whole 3/4/5 point ranking depending on type of class, if you ask me is overblown. I think it just helps create different social classes in the schools.

[Maddy]

This is an aside, but I'm curious how so many kids these days are boasting grade point averages that exceed 4.0. In my day, that was mathematically impossible.

Are you saying this is the equivalent of a 'participation trophy' in its feel-good emotion? Because it is any thing but, IMO. It rewards kids in the Honors and AP classes with extra 'points' for taking harder classes and still earning A's.

I've just never heard of such a thing. Back when I was in school, the nature and level of the class stood on its own. An "A" earned in an upper level or hard science class was naturally more meaningful to a college or potential employer than an "A" earned in a "survey" or "feel good" class. The transcript and field of study were thought to speak for themselves.

[Xan]

This is an aside, but I'm curious how so many kids these days are boasting grade point averages that exceed 4.0. In my day, that was mathematically impossible.

Are you saying this is the equivalent of a 'participation trophy' in its feel-good emotion? Because it is any thing but, IMO. It rewards kids in the Honors and AP classes with extra 'points' for taking harder classes and still earning A's.

I've just never heard of such a thing. Back when I was in school, the nature and level of the class stood on its own. An "A" earned in an upper level or hard science class was naturally more meaningful to a college or potential employer than an "A" earned in a "survey" or "feel good" class. The transcript and field of study were thought to speak for themselves.

There's nothing stopping somebody from looking at the transcript and evaluating it just that way. But the point of the Grade Point *Average* is to quickly get an idea of the student's performance in a single number. Yes, that's always leaving information out.

Without the +1 "bump", there's a risk of trashing your GPA for taking Honors/AP classes, and no advantage to it. I think the +1 bump makes the GPA more useful rather than less.

[Mountaineer]

This is an aside, but I'm curious how so many kids these days are boasting grade point averages that exceed 4.0. In my day, that was mathematically impossible.

Are you saying this is the equivalent of a 'participation trophy' in its feel-good emotion? Because it is any thing but, IMO. It rewards kids in the Honors and AP classes with extra 'points' for taking harder classes and still earning A's.

I've just never heard of such a thing. Back when I was in school, the nature and level of the class stood on its own. An "A" earned in an upper level or hard science class was naturally more meaningful to a college or potential employer than an "A" earned in a "survey" or "feel good" class. The transcript and field of study were thought to speak for themselves.

Ditto. My High School graded on the percentage scale. Highest possible was 100% which required 100% on all tests and homework, and perfect attendance in the specified class. College was on the 4.0 maximum scale.

[Maddy]

Are you saying this is the equivalent of a 'participation trophy' in its feel-good emotion? Because it is any thing but, IMO. It rewards kids in the Honors and AP classes with extra 'points' for taking harder classes and still earning A's.

I've just never heard of such a thing. Back when I was in school, the nature and level of the class stood on its own. An "A" earned in an upper level or hard science class was naturally more meaningful to a college or potential employer than an "A" earned in a "survey" or "feel good" class. The transcript and field of study were thought to speak for themselves.

Ditto. My High School graded on the percentage scale. Highest possible was 100% which required 100% on all tests and homework, and perfect attendance in the specified class. College was on the 4.0 maximum scale.

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

[moda0306]

I've just never heard of such a thing. Back when I was in school, the nature and level of the class stood on its own. An "A" earned in an upper level or hard science class was naturally more meaningful to a college or potential employer than an "A" earned in a "survey" or "feel good" class. The transcript and field of study were thought to speak for themselves.

Ditto. My High School graded on the percentage scale. Highest possible was 100% which required 100% on all tests and homework, and perfect attendance in the specified class. College was on the 4.0 maximum scale.

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

[Maddy]

Ditto. My High School graded on the percentage scale. Highest possible was 100% which required 100% on all tests and homework, and perfect attendance in the specified class. College was on the 4.0 maximum scale.

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

Wow, that's a telling post! Seems to me it's YOU, Moda, who just took the shoe and wore it.

[moda0306]

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

Wow, that's a telling post! Seems to me it's YOU, Moda, who just took the shoe and wore it.

Are you saying I'm engaging in bullying with that post?

Or are you saying that I'm saying I'm doing what I'm accusing you of but labeling conservatives as the culprit?

[stuper1]

There are kind people and rotten people on all points of the political spectrum.

The thing that switched me from being a liberal to a conservative was basically realizing the wisdom in the old story about giving a man a fish to feed him for a day or teaching him to fish to feed him for a lifetime. To me, big government is more about giving out fishes each day, while smaller government is more about helping people realize that they need to learn how to fish.

[Maddy]

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

Wow, that's a telling post! Seems to me it's YOU, Moda, who just took the shoe and wore it.

Are you saying I'm engaging in bullying with that post?

Or are you saying that I'm saying I'm doing what I'm accusing you of but labeling conservatives as the culprit?

Well, first of all, I didn't say, or even imply, anything about "LIBRULS." That the public school system has been the focus of the sweeping social experiment I termed "The Great Leveling" is wholly beyond dispute. Although people may disagree about the wisdom of that effort, there isn't any doubt about the fact that the public system has gone out of its way to close the gap between high and low-achieving students, and that this effort has impaired the objectivity and usefulness of grading.

It is you who made the purely gratuitous association between that fact and liberalism. As it happens, I don't disagree with that attribution inasmuch as public education has unquestionably been the playfield of left-leaning (and in many instances FAR-left-leaning) academics with an indisputably political agenda. However, nothing in my post (or this thread) has anything to do with politics, so your kneejerk reaction said a lot more about your prejudices than mine. And then for you to make the startling, and nearly instantaneous, leap to Trumpism, and the connection between bullying and Trumpism. . . Well, I think this is what they mean by "hoist on your own petard."

P.S. You might have just as easily have interpreted my comment as expressing skepticism of the achievements of the four-point-plussers, as PugChief apparently did. One thing I still can't figure out, though: Would that have made me a liberal?

[hardlawjockey]

Ditto. My High School graded on the percentage scale. Highest possible was 100% which required 100% on all tests and homework, and perfect attendance in the specified class. College was on the 4.0 maximum scale.

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

I'm mostly a conservative leaning libertarian, maybe a paleo-conservative in the Pat Buchanan mold, but I completely get what you are saying about the ranting against "DAMNED LBRULS". "LIBRUL" views do strike a discordant note within me so I mostly watch Foxnews but the other night I went to bed after smoking some pot which I've just gotten in the habit of after a long abstention and Hannity was on television in the living room. When you are high the guy is absolutely hilarious. If you've never tried it, I highly recommend it. Don't think I've laughed so uncontrollably in a long time. Thought I would crack a rib. Talk about a one trick pony!

There is another guy who is running for congress, apparently somewhere close to where I live, and apparently he has bought up all of the Youtube advertising time money can afford. The ad shows him to be a conservative with STRONG FAMILY VALUES, a humble belief in God (the ad shows his whole family at a picnic table, all bowing their heads in prayer to the almighty), and ready to go to Washington to take on the "LIBRUL establishment". And under no circumstances will he EVER back down from what he truly believes in.

Eventually you realize that all these clowns are nothing more than a joke.

As for libruls being the kind ones - that's another joke, sorry to say. Most of the really kind people I know, you really can't tell much about their politics.

[moda0306]

Wow, that's a telling post! Seems to me it's YOU, Moda, who just took the shoe and wore it.

Are you saying I'm engaging in bullying with that post?

Or are you saying that I'm saying I'm doing what I'm accusing you of but labeling conservatives as the culprit?

Well, first of all, I didn't say, or even imply, anything about "LIBRULS." That the public school system has been the focus of the sweeping social experiment I termed "The Great Leveling" is wholly beyond dispute. Although people may disagree about the wisdom of that effort, there isn't any doubt about the fact that the public system has gone out of its way to close the gap between high and low-achieving students, and that this effort has impaired the objectivity and usefulness of grading.

It is you who made the purely gratuitous association between that fact and liberalism. As it happens, I don't disagree with that attribution inasmuch as public education has unquestionably been the playfield of left-leaning (and in many instances FAR-left-leaning) academics with an indisputably political agenda. However, nothing in my post (or this thread) has anything to do with politics, so your kneejerk reaction said a lot more about your prejudices than mine. And then for you to make the startling, and nearly instantaneous, leap to Trumpism, and the connection between bullying and Trumpism. . . Well, I think this is what they mean by "hoist on your own petard."

"The progressive social engineers have created a generation of ferals."

Not political? What are you talking about?

My reaction wasn't knee-jerk. It was based in my basic observation that a huge number of your posts blame $hit going wrong because "the left" these days is out of control. One other big post I mostly agreed with was on bullying and how awful it is and you gave some very chilling examples. I was retorting to your very clear and constant political narrative with a pretty simple observation... that most of the bullies I knew as a kid (and now that I think of it, most of the ones I know now) tend to lean right... not left. And that most of the kindest kids grew up to be liberals. Trump is our president and subject of much of our political debate so yeah... I made the "leap" from political leanings to Trump. I guess I'll make another leap and say that the liberal friends I have mostly supported Clinton.

I agree with stuper though... there's @ssholes all over the spectrum. But bullying can hardly be labelled a "progressive social engineer" problem if it's more-heavily made-up of folks who lean right or end up leaning right as adults. Of course, we can't analyze statistics on this, so I offered my observation in-lieu of it.

But please spare me the melodrama about a political observation after your very-clearly political commentary and almost constant incessant hand-wringing about how awful "the left" is. There's plenty of awful in both parties and all wings of political thought. It's a bit rich to blame bullying on "progressive social engineers," claim you weren't being political, and then say with a straight face that I'm making "knee-jerk leaps" by observing that most bullies appear to me to be conservative.

[moda0306]

I suppose that due to The Great Leveling, there's been a need for ever more creative ways to distinguish those students who truly have achieved something above and beyond.

Odd how for you every problem boils down to "DAMNED LIBRULS!"

To the bullying topic...

I remember the kids that bullied others in school. Most of them are Trumpers if FB is an indicator. I also remember the kindest folks. Most of them are libruls.

I'm mostly a conservative leaning libertarian, maybe a paleo-conservative in the Pat Buchanan mold, but I completely get what you are saying about the ranting against "DAMNED LBRULS". "LIBRUL" views do strike a discordant note within me so I mostly watch Foxnews but the other night I went to bed after smoking some pot which I've just gotten in the habit of after a long abstention and Hannity was on television in the living room at the time. When you are high the guy is absolutely hilarious. If you've never tried it, I highly recommend it. Don't think I've laughed so uncontrollably in a long time. Thought I would crack a rib. Talk about a one trick pony!

There is another guy who is running for congress, apparently somewhere close to where I live, and apparently he has bought up all of the Youtube advertising time money can afford. The ad shows him to be a conservative with strong family values, belief in God, and ready to go to Washington to take on the "LIBRUL establishment". And under no circumstances will he EVER back down from what he truly believes in.

Eventually you realize these clowns are nothing more than a joke.

As for libruls being the kind ones - that's another joke, sorry to say. Most of the really kind people I know, you really can't tell much about their politics.

That last part is pretty true. Most of the kindest people I know don't care for politics.

I wasn't trying to make nearly the pointed "gotcha" point that it may have seemed so much as countering Maddy's incessant Hannitesque complaining about "the left" being responsible for everything wrong with America.

[Maddy]

Moda, is it really necessary for you to characterize my views in such derogatory, simplistic terms? Is it possible that the consistency in my views concerning the modern social order and the evolution of political movements represents a principled stance as opposed to a mindless allegiance to a redneck pro-Trumpian agenda?

As a matter of fact, I do firmly believe that a large number of the social problems we're discussing on this forum are the result and handiwork of modern liberalism, and that it was designed that way. The "progressive" social movement that has dominated the culture of this country since the early sixties had its genesis in the American Communist Party, whose principal, unabashed objective was the complete transformation of society and the ushering in of a global totalitarian regime. Its detailed, step-by-step plan for transforming the culture and eroding the underpinnings of democracy was laid out explicitly in the literature generated by the Party, as was the insidious methodology by which its goals would be achieved. It involved, among other things, the eradication of traditional values and the promotion of a nihilistic ethic that would ultimately lead to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness, the undermining of the rule of law and the vilification of individual liberties under the guise of "social justice," the promotion of a radical egalitarian world view that would punish those who dared to better themselves, the progressive destruction of the nuclear family and the disruption of traditional social structures, the creation of a permanent underclass dependent on the central government, the fomenting of racial conflict and class warfare, the inducing of a broad narcissistic stupor through the promotion and dissemination of drugs, pornography, advertising, and ultimately technology, and the commandeering of the educational system. Modern liberalism has, by and large, embraced each and every one of these objectives and in fact has become the principal political vehicle through which the globalists continue to pursue the complete social transformation that was set in motion some 80 years ago.

So, yes, I do see modern liberalism as the source of a good number of today's social problems. It was designed to be.

[Maddy]

The sad part, in my view, is that they've hoodwinked an entire generation of young people who are out there doing their bidding. And that the progressives who are old enough to know what's going on have traded their principles for a seat at the table. I'm old and am living the near-perfect life on a mountaintop, so what do I care if they're willing to accept speech codes and warrantless raids on their attorneys' offices in exchange for the promise of free college and sex without consequences? Except that the sociology of it all has been one of the most fascinating things I've watched during my lifetime.

[stuper1]

Moda, is it really necessary for you to characterize my views in such derogatory, simplistic terms? Is it possible that the consistency in my views concerning the modern social order and the evolution of political movements represents a principled stance as opposed to a mindless allegiance to a redneck pro-Trumpian agenda?

As a matter of fact, I do firmly believe that a large number of the social problems we're discussing on this forum are the result and handiwork of modern liberalism, and that it was designed that way. The "progressive" social movement that has dominated the culture of this country since the early sixties had its genesis in the American Communist Party, whose principal, unabashed objective was the complete transformation of society and the ushering in of a global totalitarian regime. Its detailed, step-by-step plan for transforming the culture and eroding the underpinnings of democracy was laid out explicitly in the literature generated by the Party, as was the insidious methodology by which its goals would be achieved. It involved, among other things, the eradication of traditional values and the promotion of a nihilistic ethic that would ultimately lead to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness, the undermining of the rule of law and the vilification of individual liberties under the guise of "social justice," the promotion of a radical egalitarian world view that would punish those who dared to better themselves, the progressive destruction of the nuclear family and the disruption of traditional social structures, the creation of a permanent underclass dependent on the central government, the fomenting of racial conflict and class warfare, the inducing of a broad narcissistic stupor through the promotion and dissemination of drugs, pornography, advertising, and ultimately technology, and the commandeering of the educational system. Modern liberalism has, by and large, embraced each and every one of these objectives and in fact has become the principal political vehicle through which the globalists continue to pursue the complete social transformation that was set in motion some 80 years ago.

So, yes, I do see modern liberalism as the source of a good number of today's social problems. It was designed to be.

Maddy, I think that's the saddest post I've read on this forum. It must be a pretty miserable way to live, imagining this cabal of communist globalists out to get us all. And to imagine that they are smarter and more powerful than the rest of us ... that would really wear on one's psyche over time.

What's sad is that all of these societal ills that Maddy so aptly described are very real. If you don't think these ills are the result of the cabal, then what would you say caused them? I personally don't know about the cabal stuff, but I do believe that liberalism is definitely to blame.

[moda0306]

Moda, is it really necessary for you to characterize my views in such derogatory, simplistic terms? Is it possible that the consistency in my views concerning the modern social order and the evolution of political movements represents a principled stance as opposed to a mindless allegiance to a redneck pro-Trumpian agenda?

As a matter of fact, I do firmly believe that a large number of the social problems we're discussing on this forum are the result and handiwork of modern liberalism, and that it was designed that way. The "progressive" social movement that has dominated the culture of this country since the early sixties had its genesis in the American Communist Party, whose principal, unabashed objective was the complete transformation of society and the ushering in of a global totalitarian regime. Its detailed, step-by-step plan for transforming the culture and eroding the underpinnings of democracy was laid out explicitly in the literature generated by the Party, as was the insidious methodology by which its goals would be achieved. It involved, among other things, the eradication of traditional values and the promotion of a nihilistic ethic that would ultimately lead to a pervasive sense of hopelessness and helplessness, the undermining of the rule of law and the vilification of individual liberties under the guise of "social justice," the promotion of a radical egalitarian world view that would punish those who dared to better themselves, the progressive destruction of the nuclear family and the disruption of traditional social structures, the creation of a permanent underclass dependent on the central government, the fomenting of racial conflict and class warfare, the inducing of a broad narcissistic stupor through the promotion and dissemination of drugs, pornography, advertising, and ultimately technology, and the commandeering of the educational system. Modern liberalism has, by and large, embraced each and every one of these objectives and in fact has become the principal political vehicle through which the globalists continue to pursue the complete social transformation that was set in motion some 80 years ago.

So, yes, I do see modern liberalism as the source of a good number of today's social problems. It was designed to be.

It is no more necessary for me to describe your views in simplistic, derogatory terms as it is necessary for you to constantly describe almost every issue in those terms.

But in this case it's actually true.

Glad we got over this myth of me making knee-jerk leaps from your points to politics and directly to the point of what your partisan views actually are.

I find it interesting that you think that this conspiracy is one based in leftist communism when if anything is clear (even in some of your acknowledged views) it's international corporatism. I could pick apart the rest of your worldview but it's just not worth it. I've already debated Kshartle on proving morality and you're the "conservative" version of him. What's the saying?... I ain't got time fo that!?