Prof Frank Furedi says that drawing boundaries is a lost art. Instead, globalism is the goal and boundaries have no place in this brave new world.
“Every border and every boundary that has been important in giving meaning to human experience is now seen as somehow discriminatory or immoral.”
We recognise that our physical borders are a life-saver in the fight against COVID-19, and the government’s failure to recognise their significance earlier was costly. Lockdown and the resulting financial carnage could have been avoided.
Furedi discusses the natural distinctions between men and women, adults and children, humans and animals, public and private lives — natural boundaries under assault by progressives.
The paradox is that removing borders actually creates a more prescriptive society where people are more closely scrutinised for compliance.
Borders are rooted in the past, but the past has no significance to people entrenched in socialism or Marxism, pursuing globalism.
Whether it’s biculturalism or multiculturalism, globalists threaten a nation’s cultural identity as well as the traditional family structure.
The current government signed us up to the UN Global Compact on Migration which, although not binding, endorses open migration. Migration that threatens a host country’s cultural identity is of little concern to the UN. Encourage biculturalism and multiculturalism they say, but what happens when cultural values collide? Shouldn’t we get to choose whether to relinquish our cultural values rather than being forced to accept new cultural norms? Even discussing migration attracts criticism.
Diversity sounds great in theory, but in practice it is divisive and discriminatory. For example, prioritising Maori and Pasifika over other ethnic groups on hospital waiting lists discriminates against the people most in need of hospital treatment.
When borders are removed, we also lose control of offensive behaviour. Is this really what we want? Some issues are simply annoying, others repulsive and more serious.
Take sexuality, for instance, and the border between adults and children. A now well-established movement is pushing to normalise paedophilia. Over a year ago an Opinia article highlighted the sickening normalisation of paedophilia by ‘enlightened progressives’.
“The normalization of paedophilia has become extremely mainstream in the West. It has become mainstream to suggest that paedophiles are ‘just like everyone else’ and worthy of our compassion.”
It is very hard to imagine any self-respecting parent condoning paedophilia, but of course people who do so are probably not parents, or even decent people for that matter.
“Paedophile Advocacy Groups have long been mainstream in the West.
“There was an actual paedophile political party in the Netherlands which was allowed to contest the country’s general election by the Judiciary in 2006. The primary agenda of the party, which called itself ‘Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity party (PNVD)’, was the legalization of child pornography and the lowering of the age of consent to 12 years old.“
A little nudge in the right direction and paedophilia is regarded as acceptable to enlightened progressives.
“A NEW STRATEGY THAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED TO NORMALIZE PAEDOPHILIA IS THE INVENTION OF THE TERM: ‘VIRTUOUS PAEDOPHILES’. ACCORDING TO THE NARRATIVE, ‘VIRTUOUS PAEDOPHILES’ ARE THOSE WHO ADMIT THEIR PAEDOPHILE TENDENCIES AND YET NEVER ACT UPON THEIR URGES. IT’S ALSO SAID THAT THESE PAEDOPHILES DON’T CALL FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AND THE ABOLITION OF THE AGE OF CONSENT LIKE MOST PAEDOPHILE ADVOCACY GROUPS DO.”
Thinking that it’s okay to have the urges so long as you don’t act on them was, at one time, the mantra of homosexuals. Enlightened liberals have made the leap to paedophilia being regarded as normal behaviour.
“Psychologists, meanwhile, have opined that Paedophilia is a sexual orientation, putting it at par with homosexuality.
“A criminal psychologist argued, ‘An individual can have paedophilic interests without ever acting on these behaviourally. However, as I am working with criminal offenders, my experience is entirely weighted to those who have engaged in this behaviourally.’
“Similar arguments have been made by others as well. Things have reached a point where paedophiles are now writing articles on mainstream media outlets accusing others of being monsters.”
Isn’t that typical of the lunacy so evident today? As long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, I should be allowed to do whatever I like. How dare you tell me I can’t hold that view!
“The entire argument is based on a theoretical premise which can be summed up thus: ‘There exist paedophiles who are attracted to children but do not act on their urges.’”
At best, these individuals’ ‘normal’ sex urges are contaminated by voyeurism. Compare the situation to an alcoholic who purchases a bottle of their favourite tipple and uncaps it to enjoy the sight and the smell, but does not actually drink it. Why would they?
These are not easy discussions to have but the alternative is to be led over the cliff of no return by those who have less scruples than we do.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.