Leftist Child Grooming

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
(i don't know about the US-specific churches and their institutions, but i'm looking particularly hard at the absolutely largest of institutional elephants in the room based in Vatican),
The core intellectual groups of the Vatican were subverted by a combination of purposeful communist infiltration (that's what Liberation Theology was) as well as by a cadre of homosexuals who used the priesthood to hide in plain sight and protect each other. Why do you think the Catholics had so many sex scandals involving pedophilia between male priests and young boys, and why the reaction was to constantly shuffle those priests around rather than hand them over to authorities... they were protecting their own.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
The core intellectual groups of the Vatican were subverted by a combination of purposeful communist infiltration (that's what Liberation Theology was) as well as by a cadre of homosexuals who used the priesthood to hide in plain sight and protect each other. Why do you think the Catholics had so many sex scandals involving pedophilia between male priests and young boys, and why the reaction was to constantly shuffle those priests around rather than hand them over to authorities... they were protecting their own.

Hence the Lavender Mafia. The rumour mill has it that Benedicts attempts to break the power of the gay mafia in the church is what resulted in his 'retirement'.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Which is why such people have deliberately taken control of every bit of media apparatus and government apparatus that they can.

Your question seems to basically be "Why didn't you win the culture wars?"

Well, when the enemy is offering free hand-outs, and to approve of your selfish habits, and telling you the people reminding you that gross self-indulgence is bad, self-discipline is good, are actually the bad guys, that's a very seductive argument.
Not exactly, my question is "why didn't you shift to fighting the culture wars with focus on the weakest spots on the enemy flanks when it became obvious that trying to push the whole front just isn't going to end up in your favor".
Especially because the catastrophic civilizational consequences take quite a while to manifest, and those same indulgent 'friends' of yours will happily lie about what's causing those consequences too.
In hindsight, do they really take that long?
Kentler, Money, the Weimar stuff. The "current" left's PR efforts somehow managed to sweep that stuff under the rug, but that stuff was already happening many decades before the huge pushes of last decade. Even in 1996 you had DOMA, signed by a DNC president even, something that would be unthinkable today. If anything, that indicates that the real problem is... more advanced media control based maneuvers, rather than long term nature of the issue. It's far from the first time this is attempted, and far from the first time that it had consequences that should sour the project to the vast majority of the public, but the really inconvenient parts of the story simply get buried in obscurity, not sure if the unprecedented scale of current cases will allow it to be buried again when convenient but i'm sure they will try.
The core intellectual groups of the Vatican were subverted by a combination of purposeful communist infiltration (that's what Liberation Theology was) as well as by a cadre of homosexuals who used the priesthood to hide in plain sight and protect each other. Why do you think the Catholics had so many sex scandals involving pedophilia between male priests and young boys, and why the reaction was to constantly shuffle those priests around rather than hand them over to authorities... they were protecting their own.
Until very recently the Vatican hierarchy was regularly condemning liberation theology.
Though that suggests a very hard to answer question - how much has outright infiltration contributed to preventing religious institutions from making more effective moves in the culture wars?
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
You know, it's almost like the pro-deviancy crowd don't engage in debates in good faith, especially against Christians, because they aren't interested in the outcome that debating in good faith would lead them to?
What point is debate when both sides are not interested in having their minds changed? Personally I find both the Leftist Alphabet crowd and the religious anti-porn/anti-sex work crusaders to be extremists I want nothing to do with.
 

Ixian

Well-known member
Human's have always engaged in prostitution, the sheer number of men who will never find long term significance others throughout history practically demands it unless a society is willing to engage in regular raids against their neighbors.

The best we can do about it is limiting it and minimizing the potential large scale societal harm it could do.

But the world's oldest profession isn't going anywhere.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Not exactly, my question is "why didn't you shift to fighting the culture wars with focus on the weakest spots on the enemy flanks when it became obvious that trying to push the whole front just isn't going to end up in your favor".
Because those weren't the weakest points? Again, you need to understand that no amount of proof could be brought against the LGBT movement in the 90s to show their ideological origins with pro-pedophilia thinkers because the media elites, the academy, and they were all willing to LIE and say those links were made up "homophobic" lies or seriously downplayed those links that could not be disproven.

These "links" weren't a weakpoint, they were a trap. Let's assume someone with no strong feelings on the matter, they hear their preacher talking about how modern leftism and especially the LGBT movement is all founded on pro-pedophilia philosophy, etc. Then they turn on the news and hear from the experts in the media having guests with PHDs in social sciences, etc. on who all say anti-LGBT people claiming that there's links to pedophilia are liars driven by homophobia. Their preacher might, emphasis on MIGHT, have long ago graduated from a seminary, but there's a good chance they haven't as well, so who, in this society where "expertise" is held up as "authority" is the person going to believe?

The 1980s to middle 00s Social Conservatives were generally not able to define the field of battle, the media constantly did. Thus it was impossible to show the actual roots and ideals of much of the true toxicity of the sexual revolution and it's adherents, because as soon as you brought up those roots, you were labeled as sexist/homophobe. Even when you brought recipes like having copies of actual published ideas, those would be excused as "ramblings of lunatics who were not highly influential in the movement" (and one couldn't easily check to see if this was true because the systems that showed how much a paper was cited by others was in it's infancy and not commonly available).

So the Social Conservatives were fighting on ground they never chose, in a media environment that precluded them from using the strongest arguments against because those arguments had been declared lies by the powers that be. That they managed to hold as long as they did on many of these issues is honestly kinda amazing, and the fact they actually managed to reverse some of the ground on Abortion in the same period is extraordinary.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Because those weren't the weakest points? Again, you need to understand that no amount of proof could be brought against the LGBT movement in the 90s to show their ideological origins with pro-pedophilia thinkers because the media elites, the academy, and they were all willing to LIE and say those links were made up "homophobic" lies or seriously downplayed those links that could not be disproven.

These "links" weren't a weakpoint, they were a trap. Let's assume someone with no strong feelings on the matter, they hear their preacher talking about how modern leftism and especially the LGBT movement is all founded on pro-pedophilia philosophy, etc. Then they turn on the news and hear from the experts in the media having guests with PHDs in social sciences, etc. on who all say anti-LGBT people claiming that there's links to pedophilia are liars driven by homophobia. Their preacher might, emphasis on MIGHT, have long ago graduated from a seminary, but there's a good chance they haven't as well, so who, in this society where "expertise" is held up as "authority" is the person going to believe?
Of course they would do that. But did the alternatives prevent said preachers from being called homophobic bigots anyway?

The major churches have also always had ways to circumvent the mainstream media cycle and relying on journos being nice enough to not cut out the inconvenient parts of what was said. Up to and including putting all the titles, names, quotes and page numbers in a booklet and handing it out to millions of people in case anyone wants to attempt to verify the experts. 99.9% of the people may be unwilling or unable to, but if anyone of the rest would, such info can spread in a community.


The 1980s to middle 00s Social Conservatives were generally not able to define the field of battle, the media constantly did. Thus it was impossible to show the actual roots and ideals of much of the true toxicity of the sexual revolution and it's adherents, because as soon as you brought up those roots, you were labeled as sexist/homophobe. Even when you brought recipes like having copies of actual published ideas, those would be excused as "ramblings of lunatics who were not highly influential in the movement" (and one couldn't easily check to see if this was true because the systems that showed how much a paper was cited by others was in it's infancy and not commonly available).

So the Social Conservatives were fighting on ground they never chose, in a media environment that precluded them from using the strongest arguments against because those arguments had been declared lies by the powers that be. That they managed to hold as long as they did on many of these issues is honestly kinda amazing, and the fact they actually managed to reverse some of the ground on Abortion in the same period is extraordinary.
Well, now any kind of opposition to their whole camp is labelled as sexism/homophobia/transphobia. If anything, the difference is that such labels are losing their shock power due to how liberally they are being thrown around.

And then there are other western countries, with a variety of media landscapes different than US one, comparing the conclusions from there can give interesting insights.
One pattern that can be seen is that the conservative position on abortion surviving better than the marriage position is not unique to USA, it's also fairly common in Europe, could be some kind of general western cultural pattern quirk.
rts1t8it.webp


20170708_woc965_0.png
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
The major churches have also always had ways to circumvent the mainstream media cycle and relying on journos being nice enough to not cut out the inconvenient parts of what was said. Up to and including putting all the titles, names, quotes and page numbers in a booklet and handing it out to millions of people in case anyone wants to attempt to verify the experts. 99.9% of the people may be unwilling or unable to, but if anyone of the rest would, such info can spread in a community.
What major churches?

OK, I know you're not an American, but I'll explain. There was no major denomination of Christianity in the US that could have done this except the Southern Baptists, who did, but who's influence in the country was HIGHLY regional (mainly the US South and Appalachia). You'll ALSO note that in the South and Appalachia LGBT issues have consistently lagged behind the rest of the country. In part due to their influence.

Why this wasn't done elsewhere is due to that issue I brought up earlier, the Modernist/Fundamentalist split. The Modernists took over all the major organized Protestant denominations in the United States EXCEPT for the Southern Baptists (who fractured off the larger Baptist convention over, well... segregation and jim crow, no they were not on the right side of that issue). The remaining Fundamentalists effectively were scattered and ended up in continually splintering various conservative Christian protestant denominations that rarely grew to large scale. The biggest of these denominations you've probably not even heard of, as while that ARE actual denominations of Protestantism, they're all much smaller and with less influence than the old heydey of the "Mainline Protestant" Churches. What this means is that there wasn't any real central massive organized churches who could push publishing these things, and meanwhile the media would turn to "Christians" from Mainline Protestant sources who would claim, as they were part of the academic elite, these things were just made up and lies, and condemn the conservative Christians for lying about these things.

One pattern that can be seen is that the conservative position on abortion surviving better than the marriage position is not unique to USA, it's also fairly common in Europe, could be some kind of general western cultural pattern quirk.
I think it has to do with the underlying position on abortion being stronger and more readily accepted than the underlying posision on marriage.

The fight over the definition of marriage was lost as far back as the 19th century with the Romantic movement. Once marriage was seen as the culmination of romance and an expression thereof, rather than being about forming a family for the future focused on children, the underlying social logic for "marriage" was easily subverted to support same-sex relationships. After all, if two people love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, why does it matter the sexes involved?

Abortion, on the other hand, is a lot harder to justify even under strong atheistic individualism because, well, you can't get away from the FACT that an unborn child is still a living human being, and killing other humans makes humans uncomfortable, especially for selfish reasons. Further this is one of those areas where the emphasis on material science in many respects BACKFIRED on the hedonistic libertines, as science improved the developing fetus became more and more humanized (to the point where pro-abortion people tried to suppress images of early human development because the fetus looked too human and they feared this would cause empathy for the fetus (which it does) and weaken the pro-abortion position (which it did)), thus people's recognition of those baby's inherent human right to life. It's not as extensive as it would be if the media was impartial or even actively anti-abortion (if the media was actively anti-abortion it would be banned everywhere and everyone would see it as a monstrous thing)... that society is as anti-abortion as it is is very telling how weak the actual arguments for abortion really are and I hope one day we'll remember abortion as an atrocity on par with slavery.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Human's have always engaged in prostitution, the sheer number of men who will never find long term significance others throughout history practically demands it unless a society is willing to engage in regular raids against their neighbors.

The best we can do about it is limiting it and minimizing the potential large scale societal harm it could do.

But the world's oldest profession isn't going anywhere.
That's why Church saints have had a more nuanced view on it, and said that it should not be illegal. But we have stupid puritians because of the protestants.

"Prostitution is like the filth in the sea, or a sewer in the palace. Take away the sewer, and you will fill the palace with pollution; and likewise with the filth (in the sea). Take away prostitutes from the world, and you will fill it with sodomy". Saint Thomas Aquinas in Opuscula XVI (IV in 1875 Paris ed.)
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
you can't get away from the FACT that an unborn child is still a living human being
When? That's the nasty bit that renders the abortion debate unresolvable logically, at what point is the fetus an unborn child with personhood, and how do you prove that? For quite the large stretch of history, this was held to be after birth, but once technology took off enough for abortion to be a commonplace thing all of a sudden the recorded standards meant nothing because they didn't feel right in the face of something that actually made the line important.

Edit: And no, "life starts at conception" is not a sensible answer, the rate of zygotes to born children is far too low. It is tantamount to saying that the extremely vast majority of "people" die utterly unnoticed, not even by their mothers, because the vast majority of fertilized ovum go nowhere, and no small number of "pregnancies" end up nothing but a late period.
 

mrttao

Well-known member
When? That's the nasty bit that renders the abortion debate unresolvable logically, at what point is the fetus an unborn child with personhood, and how do you prove that?
Scientifically, as an atheist, it is a new human life at the moment of conception.

But it does not have personhood until the brain is developed enough. Which actually comes after birth.
Edit: And no, "life starts at conception" is not a sensible answer, the rate of zygotes to born children is far too low. It is tantamount to saying that the extremely vast majority of "people" die utterly unnoticed
1. you are exaggerating that rate.

2. so what? nature is brutal. just because people do not want to hear that a horrific number of humans die in the womb does not make it not true.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
When? That's the nasty bit that renders the abortion debate unresolvable logically, at what point is the fetus an unborn child with personhood, and how do you prove that? For quite the large stretch of history, this was held to be after birth, but once technology took off enough for abortion to be a commonplace thing all of a sudden the recorded standards meant nothing because they didn't feel right in the face of something that actually made the line important.

Edit: And no, "life starts at conception" is not a sensible answer, the rate of zygotes to born children is far too low. It is tantamount to saying that the extremely vast majority of "people" die utterly unnoticed, not even by their mothers, because the vast majority of fertilized ovum go nowhere, and no small number of "pregnancies" end up nothing but a late period.
Did I say "person"? No, I didn't, you're injecting "personhood" into this to muddy the waters.

The fact is as soon as an egg is fertilized by a sperm that is now a new and unique human life. Where or not it ends in utero without fully developing doesn't change that, and humans have issues with killing other humans, regardless of their "personhood". That's what makes abortion such a difficult issue for the majority of people, as people know that the "fetus" is, firstly, a living organism (by very scientific definition) and secondly a human organism (again by very scientific definition). These are the two core, purely materialistic facts that underly why abortion is so controversial.

Personhood and rights are of secondary concern to why abortion makes people inherently uncomfortable, those are the grounds on which LEGAL arguments are fought and discussed, but the moral and emotional aspects of abortion have little to do with them, and go down to people understanding the unborn as a person.

Finally, you're quite wrong on the historical acceptance of abortion and the status of the fetus, even the Wikipedia article on the topic clearly gives numerous important examples of condemning abortion among various societies, including among Christians going back as far as 100 AD. To pretend that there was a broad acceptance of it before it became easily available is ahistorical, rather than the truth which is that it has long been a controversial topic among people and you had considerable intellectual divides between different societies and cultures.
 

Captain X

Well-known member
Osaul
The fight over the definition of marriage was lost as far back as the 19th century with the Romantic movement. Once marriage was seen as the culmination of romance and an expression thereof, rather than being about forming a family for the future focused on children, the underlying social logic for "marriage" was easily subverted to support same-sex relationships. After all, if two people love each other and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, why does it matter the sexes involved?
I know, the gall of these people who want to get married out of love and as a culmination of romance. Pfft! :rolleyes:
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
I know, the gall of these people who want to get married out of love and as a culmination of romance. Pfft! :rolleyes:
This could work, so long as people had a proper education to what "love" actually was. The reason that marriage rates took so long to collapse after the idea of marriage was changed in the 19th century is that people still understood "love" in a sense of responsibility and knew that marriage took work and that the initial high excitement phase would end and you had to work to maintain the relationship.

This attitude was still prevalent throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Even with the arrival of No-fault divorce did this understanding really change, as no fault divorce was mainly meant to allow a woman to get out of an abusive relationship and more readily end relationships that were genuinely dysfunctional (though I would argue it went to far in the other direction, it used to be to difficult to end marriages but now swung to to easy).

No, the Sexual Revolution and the utter self pleasure focus that brought into society is what ended up causing the real damage to marriage, as well as divorcing sex from marriage. This one two punch has since caused plummeting marriage rates, skyrocketing divorce rates, and the rise of way to many single parent families. All these things have serious knock on negative effects for society which then causes harm to everyone.
 

AnimalNoodles

Well-known member
This could work, so long as people had a proper education to what "love" actually was. The reason that marriage rates took so long to collapse after the idea of marriage was changed in the 19th century is that people still understood "love" in a sense of responsibility and knew that marriage took work and that the initial high excitement phase would end and you had to work to maintain the relationship.

This attitude was still prevalent throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Even with the arrival of No-fault divorce did this understanding really change, as no fault divorce was mainly meant to allow a woman to get out of an abusive relationship and more readily end relationships that were genuinely dysfunctional (though I would argue it went to far in the other direction, it used to be to difficult to end marriages but now swung to to easy).

No, the Sexual Revolution and the utter self pleasure focus that brought into society is what ended up causing the real damage to marriage, as well as divorcing sex from marriage. This one two punch has since caused plummeting marriage rates, skyrocketing divorce rates, and the rise of way to many single parent families. All these things have serious knock on negative effects for society which then causes harm to everyone.
Make coverture great again
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top