The moral dictatorship and the #ParentalPin

January 19 2020 (19:52 WET)

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a wall built to prevent the escape of citizens seeking to escape hunger and misery, oppression and authoritarianism, socialism (and the left in general) was left ideologically orphaned. Its basic precepts based on Marxism had succumbed to the unstoppable rise of democratic liberalism and its values of tolerance, respect and democracy.

Like any other ideology, socialism had to seek new ideological principles to deepen its ideas and return to the political struggle. Thus, the left began to develop during the first decade of the new century what we know today as "gender ideology." This is nothing more than a reissue of Marxist principles: the oppressed is no longer the worker, it is women and the LGBT collective; the oppressor is no longer the capitalist, it is the heterosexual male; and the class struggle is now a sex struggle. The Marxist superstructure is no longer the State, but the heteropatriarchy that dominates everything and at all levels. The classless society is replaced by a genderless society, where there is no difference between men and women. But make no mistake, we are not talking about real equality, but about changing the model of heterosexual man who is accused of being violent by nature ("the rapist is you") and a merciless oppressor, for a model of man without virility who is considered guilty for the simple fact of being a man and who must take a step back to allow the empowerment of women even if that means being legally and socially discriminated against.

This vision of society extends to all social spheres, from education to the definition of social and moral values, and considering any other construct as an inheritance of that heteropatriarchy that must be subdued and destroyed. That is, it is about ending the current system in its entirety to implement another vision according to their ideas, even if it means subjecting each individual, each member of society through imposition.

To achieve the implementation of this vision of society and achieve what some have called "the single thought" (Pablo Iglesias, a fan of Gramsci, spoke of it when referring to "Cultural Hegemony"), the left began a struggle to dominate all areas of society and its culture, starting by dominating morality and ending by deciding the education of future generations. The moral struggle began in Spain during Zapatero's term, who approved, for example, the Law on Gender Violence. This Law establishes that any aggression within the couple entails the detention, in the vast majority of cases, of the man only for being a man, given that in the event of being attacked by the woman, the law does not determine the detention of the woman in the vast majority of cases. Opposing this idea is immoral as anyone who does not share this vision of male chauvinist violence may feel. Something similar happens with the debate on illegal immigration, where any discrepancy with the moralistic position of the left is labeled as racist, conservative or far-right. In both cases, if we observe well, the debate is annulled from the stigmatization of the dissenting. This is called the "moral dictatorship" and means that morality is used as a weapon against ideological opposition. The left has been determining for years what is morally correct and what is not, and any opposition to its precepts is considered an aberrant and unprincipled position. But morality, like any other aspect of a developed society, is not absolute and should not be subject to the consideration that an idea is immutable and virtuous per se and only because we like it. Morality belongs to no one. On the other hand, this dictatorship of morality has been camouflaged under the defense of the principles of democratic liberalism and its values of tolerance, respect and democracy. The left will always say that it is defending democratic values and human rights. The same left that built walls to prevent the escape of citizens.

During the last 10 years, these moralistic ideological precepts defended from the social vision that the left has and from the principles that underpin its ideological corpus have dominated the social narrative. The right has been expelled from all areas of culture and society. Any position of the right on gender violence that does not fit into its vision is labeled as immoral. The same happens with the conception of sexuality, sex, family relationships, immigration, etc. The right has been singled out, stigmatized and accused of subjecting society to an oppressive system (heteropatriarchy) comparable to a covert dictatorship. And this has happened to this day, with the last battlefield being education.

 

The famous "parental pin" has only one objective, to give parents the ability to decide whether or not they agree with that extracurricular education (complementary education in the form of workshops, talks or seminars) in matters of sexuality, democratic values, human rights, etc. Thus, any parent can prevent their child from being instilled with values they do not share. The left's response? Homophobic, racist and male chauvinist parents will raise homophobic, racist and male chauvinist children. Does this response sound familiar? To the direct stigmatization of the dissenting. It is taken for granted that anyone who opposes certain complementary activities will be male chauvinist, racist and homophobic, so it is asserted that the rights of children contemplated in international agreements and state regulations are being violated. The problem is that this argument is wrong.

To begin with, before the existence of these talks, individuals with values of tolerance and respect regarding democracy or the sexuality of other people have emerged in families with male chauvinist, homophobic or racist traits. Therefore, this causality Male chauvinist father-male chauvinist son does not have to occur. In addition, article 26.3 of the Declaration of Human Rights states: "Parents shall have a PRIOR right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." Why? Because history has shown that when the State dominates education, indoctrination is served. It happened in Nazi Germany, in the extinct USSR and in many other countries of a totalitarian nature (it also happens in Catalonia). Therefore, in countries like the USA, parents must give permission for certain activities of a "moral" nature. This is so because in the State-parents dichotomy, the State is an all-powerful entity that parents cannot face. It is much easier to say "No, Dad" than "No, State." If the State dominates education in its fullness without being able to intervene in the moralistic aspects by the parents, the State will determine the morality of the following generations. In the book "The Children of the Führer", F. J. Aspa breaks down the Nazi education during the Third Reich and how Hitler told his political enemies the following: "You do not think like me, but your children already belong to me." In the same book, Aspa states that, despite the existence of opposition to manipulation in schools, parents (and some organizations) did not confront the system because going against the system meant being singled out by the system. Coincidences? No. On the other hand, if we give parents the ability to intervene, the State still maintains sufficient legal and coercive power to penalize any behavior of that nature, and parents will have the ability to stop any type of indoctrination, whether it comes from the right or the left. And this is what is not of interest from the moral dictatorship that the left defends.

That is why I agree with the parental pin, because if I have to decide between the State and the families, I choose the latter. The State has shown on repeated occasions that an absolute domain of certain areas leads to a totalitarian or authoritarian dictatorship. And in this case, if we stick to the successive complaints of parents bothered by the type of talks, workshops and other complementary activities that can be traced on the internet, we can see that there is a problem that must be faced, not denied. And this problem happens both from a manipulation by conservative talks where children are urged to virginity until marriage as a way to protect themselves from STDs, as from the left that teaches moral values ​​related to their ideological precepts.

When a Minister of Equality says that the talks should serve to educate in feminism and a vice president (C. Calvo) says that feminism is only from the left, it is that my argument is not very wrong.

 

 

Most read