Gender destruction
Read the whole article, but I think I got the gist of it here.
Gender research publications in Sweden are used by the massive welfare state to rule out all norms of human behavior and declare "obsolete" all traditional morals and ethics. They call their research "science" and then ridicule all opponents of feminism, "diversity" and "gender equality" as ignoramuses denying the findings of science. Social engineering backed by a substantial portion of the Swedish GDP is reworking the basic institutions of human life and reproduction.
He likens it to an earlier time in Swedish history. The birth of Fascism in Europe
This is not the first time politicized science has held sway in my country. In 1921, on the Friday 13th of May, the Swedish national parliament voted to create a "Statens institut för rasbiologi"; a National Institute of Racial Biology. It was given the task by the state to
"strive for a steady theoretical foundation for an exact racial hygiene and a rational demographic politics".
The attempt was to scientifically determine the characteristics of a small subgroup of humanity, the few million Swedes, and engineer a better race. The same ferment which later animated the Nazi racial programs received the imprimatur of the Swedish state.
That is not the scary part, this is.
Today we can see the same thing happening all over again, though in the opposite extreme direction. But this time it is really about denying all differences among people, to the extreme.
The feminist conclusion: people do not consist of two biologically different categories; they are categorized by existing norms into men and women. This was a PhD thesis at the University of Stockholm, which is like all other universities in Sweden: funded by the state to serve the latter.
The state wants this kind of research for one purpose only: to crank out "evidence" that proves that there are no differences between men and women biologically. They say that the very concept of sex is completely made up by old cultural and social evil conservative norms, which have sole purpose of suppressing all women in society.
I think he misses one of the most important things about this movement.This is one of the main tenants of Communism. You are not special, only the State is , you are a cog in the machine that allows society to function. Remove the belief that one person is unique and can make a difference and you remove the belief in the democratic process. If individuals aren’t special, then they cannot solve the problems facing us, and you need a large organization to do that for you. Turn over your free will to the State, they will take care of everything. You may have to give up some liberties, but you will be safe. Ask the former Soviet states how that worked out for them?
posted by davis14633 at 08:26
3 Comments:
Ironically, the main strength of diversity is that it leverages the perspectives of people with *different* backgrounds and abilities to stimulate creativity, so denying that there are differences is completely contrary to the idea itself. Anyone that studies diversity should understand this.
When managing diversity in an organization, it *is* important to point out that some common characteristics exist between all people, but that must be balanced with recognizing and encouraging the expression of everyone's uniqueness. Ignoring the second half of this equation completely negates the benefit.
I think that the concept of equality is also misrepresented here. IMO, equality of opportunity should be the goal of a society, and it is an achievable goal. Expecting everyone to have equal standing in a society is unrealistic and impossible. On top of that, it is one of the ideas that Communism is based on, and that is one reason why it does not work in practice.
Regardless of the concepts being invoked, this is clearly a political agenda. We *are* all "cogs in the machine of society", but we are *not* all the same. Different <> Bad.
Because I'm just finishing up The Fountainhead I'm led to quote Howard Roark from the courtroom scene near the end of the book because I think it compliments what was said here.
“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.
“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.
“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results."
Yeah, this is the same ol' rehash of communism that's been flitting around Europe for over a century. It's an unfortunate axiom that academics are the least discerning and most gullible of all professionals. Maybe it's something in the chalk...
Post a Comment
<< Home