View Single Post
Old May 9th, 2015 #13
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[why is this structural, one might ask? Because anti-whites like this are given time and treated seriously on controlled mass media where as prowhites like me are not. this below is about as crazy as anything i've seen in 15 years, but it's perfectly consistent with the trajectory]

Morning Roar: Bedtime Reading to Kids “Unfairly Disadvantages” Others

May 8, 2015

by Brian McWilliams

The headline to this article could very well read “statists gone mad!” and be perfectly accurate.

The National Review includes an interview from ABC Radio with Professor Adam Swift of the University of Warwick (UK), and his statements don’t exactly inspire my confidence in that establishment of learning. The Review refers in it’s headline, “Professor: If You Read To Your Kids, You’re ‘Unfairly Disadvantaging’ Others” to one glaring admission from the professor, but there is so very much more to be shocked by.

First, the bedtime reading though.

In an interview with ABC Radio last week, philosopher and professor Adam Swift said that since “bedtime stories activities . . . do indeed foster and produce . . . [desired] familial relationship goods,” he wouldn’t want to ban them, but that parents who “engage in bedtime-stories activities” should definitely at least feel kinda bad about it sometimes: “I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.

That’s pure insanity – one can’t preclude the betterment of one’s own children on the presumed neglect of other children! What is the alternative? Every baby is ignored – left in a crate without stimulus, or government-sanctioned stimulus?

But the professor doesn’t stop there.

At one point, Swift even flirted with the idea of “simply abolishing the family” as a way of “solving the social justice problem” because “there would be a more level playing field” if we did, but ultimately concluded that “it is in the child’s interest to be parented” and that “parenting a child makes for what we call a distinctive and special contribution to the flourishing and well-being of adults.”

Of course it’s in the child’s best interest to be parented! Only in severe circumstances of abuse and neglect is a child better off out of the home. The picture is horribly bleak when a child becomes the ward of the state. Over 70% of the prison population in California, which has the largest foster population in the States, comes from foster youth. And this man is toying with the notion of abolishing the family system and turning all children into “state” children?

Swift is literally an advocate for the “nanny state” in every sense of the word. This is the inherent danger in trusting government to “equalize” the footing – when and where does it stop? Would a government ever go this far? It’s not out of the realm of possibility in any way. Government is coercive. Government is ever-expanding.

The liberties taken weren’t ripped from us overnight in one fell swoop, but instead siphoned off slowly either by bad voting practices or legislation made under the auspices of the “greater good.”

Swift’s vision is terrifyingly akin to that of Aldous Huxley’s in “Brave New World,” a book which seeks to warn of the nature of totalitarian nanny-state government in which babies are manufactured, nurtured and programmed by the state. That’s not a future any of us wants to live in. …Except psychopath’s like the good professor.