A certain interview has been making the Internet rounds, and it is interesting indicator of the culture’s generally downward trajectory. In a culture marred by decay and perversion, institutions reinforcing the sublime and the normal will inevitably be looked upon with suspicion. So when we listen to an interview asking whether “having a loving family [is] an unfair advantage,” it’s apparent on face what the conclusion will be. The assumption is embedded in the question. The Leftist Western elite will not rest until society is so fractured and riddled with decay that it will collapse under its own weight.
The interview is a segment on an Australian radio program with the sophisticated title of “The Philosopher’s Zone.” In the present installment presenter Joe Gelonesi has a sit down with self-styled philosopher Adam Swift in which the two discuss the interplay between “social justice” and the family. The crux of the argument is clear: the nuclear family is diametrically opposed to the causes of social justice and radical equality and while it must not be completely abolished, it must at the very least be radically transformed.
While this is nothing more than a repackaging of the classically Marxist view of the family as an oppressive bourgeoisie construct preventing the establishment of a global communist Shangri-La, this is the first time that I have heard the view espoused so openly on such a mainstream platform. This is too open and too flagrant to leave any doubt that the left is bitterly antagonistic towards the family and seeks its utter destruction. It casts aspersions on the family by encouraging feelings of guilt and the propagation of lies. It denies the existence of the core, immutable principles of natural law that give rise to the family.
Swift is a totalitarian and a radical egalitarian masquerading as an academic and a philosopher. To him, rights should only exist to the extent that they promote the collective. Individual rights must be extinguished; individualism must be exterminated. He longs to sharply limit the field of “permissible” activities that parents may engage in with their children. If just one child does not have parents invested enough to read him a bedtime story, then we must question the value of that activity and criticize it as antithetical to social justice. Good parents must feel guilty for being good parents. If one child is unable to attend private school, then “private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these ‘familial relationship goods,’” his concocted theory of “social justice.” So what is the implicit conclusion? Private schooling must be abolished. To the totalitarian, every individual action has to redound to the benefit of the collective before it can be “allowed” or “justified.” Swift longs to deny the superiority of the two-parent heterosexual family and to vaunt degenerate socially engineered alternative models as being just as good as the model that has existed naturally for millennia and has produced the most outstanding human outcomes bar none. Consider the alternatives.
The superior must be held in thrall to the inferior.
The genius must flagellate himself before the idiot.
Swift, as a true Leftist has no interest in human edification. Rather, his vision is one of debasement. For all his lies however, the interview makes it clear that he realizes that equality does not exist and can never occur naturally. Rejiggering is necessary. To be brought to life, his vision mandates that the exceptional must be actively handicapped not so that the mediocre will have a better shot at greatness, but so that no one will rise to be greater than anyone else. The state apparatus must impose a lowest common denominator of equality upon all.
Thus we see the Leftist utopia: squalor, slavery, broken families, and idiocracy. But at least we’ll all be equal.