Sunday, January 29, 2017

Seattle baby books

Rebecca (Blonde in the belly of the beast) is a conservative who lives in ultra-liberal Seattle. She was in a bookshop there and noticed some books for babies/toddlers. Look at the titles:

Here is the first page of the alphabet book:

Babies/toddlers are being challenged to be political activists.

These books are being advertised for children aged 0 to 3 years. I have no problem with parents wanting to educate their children with their own values, but isn't it charmless to be pushing adult political concepts onto such young children? Here for instance is the "L" page of the book:

Does a one-year-old child really need to be trying to grapple with this kind of thing? Or with this:

Or this:

I am sometimes struck by the thought that modern day liberalism is in certain respects more radical than older style communism. Would babies have been raised with this kind of reading material in, say, 1960s East Germany? I know that children in the old East Germany were put into a "socialist scouts" (Junge Pioniere) from the age of six, but were they really brought up to read about LGBTQ issues as toddlers or confronted with masked Zapatistas?

Anyway, seeing how these liberals are raising their children reminded me of a post by my fellow Australian traditionalist, Mark Moncrieff, titled "The end of any consensus". He expressed the view that "Over time it has become harder to see those who disagree as merely having a difference of opinion." There is more than a difference of opinion that separates me from these Seattle liberals. Their world view has reached a point that it is wholly alien to my own.


  1. "... but isn't it charmless to be pushing adult political concepts onto such young children?"

    No, for some it is a genuine moral imperative. This is why I'm going to vet any preschool before my child attends. You never know where these types are. I'm not sure exactly how I'll accomplish this but I must do it.

  2. I am sometimes struck by the thought that modern day liberalism is in certain respects more radical than older style communism

    I used to know a couple of Trotskyites years ago. You could have a few beers with them at the pub and chat quite sensibly and calmly with them on any subject other than politics. Even if the subject of politics came up you could have a rational debate with them. They were quite sane, and actually quite pleasant people. They understood that not everybody agreed with them. They didn't get angry about that.

    I cannot imagine being able to have a few beers and a pleasant relaxed conversation with a modern liberal. In fact I've tried it and I can assure you it's impossible.

    Communists were misguided and often flat-out wrong about things. But mostly they weren't actually crazy. They inhabited the same mental space that conservatives inhabit. They were often cheerful. I've never met a cheerful liberal.

    1. "They were often cheerful. I've never met a cheerful liberal."

      You can't be cheerful about OPPRESSION, bigot...

      etc etc

  3. At times, the Soviets often pushed austere sexual morality. Particularly after free love failed spectacularly in the 1920s leading to abandoned children, jealous murders and heartbroken suicide victims. It only took them 10 years to recognize the carnage and try to correct it.

    The modern liberal oversees the devastation left in their wake and demands more.

    I've noticed modern children's books cannot escape multicultural or feminist propaganda. I just look for classic takes or older books now.

    1. Yes, it would be worth writing a post about this. Early feminists like Alexandra Kollontai thought that by taking away sexual morality you would get a purified free love, but it didn't turn out that way, quite the opposite. It's interesting that the Bolsheviks, in changing direction, often resorted to talking about physical health as the moral grounds for not being promiscuous, as this is what my friend also resorted to as "acceptable" moral language for moderns. It comes across as "scientific" and "objective" - or maybe it's just that moderns don't recognise moral essences and so can't use more traditional moral concepts when discussing these issues.

    2. I think the embrace of atheism prevents blinded them.

      Soviet television was free of sex or inuendo. Children could always watch it sefely as opposed to modern American "family" shows. But the Soviet abortion rate was staggering. Such a strange culture of contradictions.

  4. Here is a link to an article about the Soviet effort to eradicate marriage :