ATTENTION: The Forum will be upgraded today to phpbb 3.2 and may be down for a few hours. We appreciate your patience. Thanks.



Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Christina Hoff Sommers is Wrong

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Christina Hoff Sommers is Wrong

Postby josephty1 » December 27th, 2016, 4:17 am

http://mileswmathis.com/boys.pdf

Start on page 10

In chapter 8 “The Moral Life of Boys”, we get more clever misdirection. It is so clever it would have fooled me in 1995. It would have fooled me because it speaks directly to my old-fashioned sense of moral order and rectitude, as it was meant to. Sommers says we need to quit leaving children to their own devices and teach them morals again. I quite agree, in principle. When I argued for independence above, I didn't mean I thought children should be brought up in a vacuum. I just meant their entire days shouldn't be planned for them by financiers, fake do-gooders, and anal-retentive parents.

Sommers says we should raise young men as gentlemen, but she once again sets up a false dichotomy. This time her fake debate is between Bertrand Russell (a spook), who claimed the idea of the gentleman was created by the aristocracy to keep the middle class in order, and James Q. Wilson, another spook, who countered that the concept of the gentleman enabled the middle class to supplant
the aristocracy. Both ideas are outrageously false, and apply to both history and current society not at all.

Looking at Wilson's claim first, we have to laugh. The aristocracy wasn't supplanted by the middle class. The aristocracy was supplanted by the financiers. It was the bankers and other billionaires who pulled down the Kings, not the middle class.

And the financiers then supplanted the middle class, driving them down into the lower class. The middle class has never been a major player in the class wars, except as a great lump to be manipulated or drained. Russell's claim is equally risible, since the aristocracy didn't believe the middle class could be gentlemen. Those in the middle class weren't gentlemen by definition.

A gentleman was someone who didn't have to work for a living. The middle class had to work for a living. That is why the aristocrats in Downton Abbey are always looking down their noses at those “in trade”.


Winston Wu is a gentleman, according to this definition.

US schools weren't eviscerated by leftists and progressive judges, they were eviscerated by CIA fake events, federal programs designed by fascists, conservative thinktanks, and—at bottom—by the financier class who wanted a subclass so ignorant it couldn't tie its shoes, much less revolt in any meaningful way.

By financier class I don't mean middle-class tradespeople, I mean the super-wealthy billionaires and trillionaires who got their wealth from trade. This includes the bankers as well as the owners of industry and other capitalists. These are the people that have been in control of all US institutions since before the Civil War. Since none of these people are or ever have been leftists, there is no chance US education has ever been determined by leftists.
Public school and the people in it are fake as shit. Money and workaholic culture replaces healthy social interaction.
josephty1
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 86
Joined: October 7th, 2015, 9:23 pm
Location: North America

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests