And while I don't see the "touchy feely" community-minded groups as any sort of threat, nor have I much felt pressured to buy into one (except in maybe recent cases in North Minneapolis where we are meant to be mourning for simulated people of questionable existence, just as we were asked to hate non-white colored people in the 9/11 and 7/7 hit pieces), I definitely acknowledge there are agendas appearing to move us in almost every conceivable direction, including toward established power bases.
Some of those power bases are involved with extreme family organization — religious groups. Some of the power bases are more about escaping those groups.
Most likely, there is a kind of "strongest" movement that, by analyzing all of them including the so-called undermining of the natural family, we could discover is leading more paradigms than others. And this thing has probably been summed up by many people already, if we could just organize our thoughts on it. I don't think it is a single thing called the "New World Order", but more likely many power groups interested in controlling that "brand".
I have seen posts railing against society moving things, but I wouldn't necessarily call this "fakery". It's a larger science involving anthropology, sociology and Public Relations, which sometimes manifests as fakery, often manifests as or in our entertainment, and because of human behaviors that are being cultured in certain ways. In some ways, one might argue, cultured for so much freedom that it does break working traditions. Other times, because that freedom is actually meant to drive us to beg for the State (or a leading cult) to reorganize us, instead of taking our natural ability to reorganize ourselves. Other times still, perhaps because the State really does believe (in its lower employees, we might say) to improve the lots of dysfunctional families.
This is an enormous subject.
In some ways, I'd say the poisoning of the "community power" well has to do with the exact reaction it elicits in some people — disgust with community rather than inspiring involvement, as good communities can. To say that fakery is trying to make us all super-social is laughable, in my opinion. You can see real community and real society breaking down as a result of television merely being introduced to places that formerly relied on local conversation, gossip, communication and so forth. If anything, they are exploiting the negative character trait of extreme leftists who think artificial empathy ought to be enforced — that is, giving social groups plenty of rope to hang themselves with.
There is so much "give and take" in these things, I don't see how we can say there is one strict movement against everything we hold dear. For example, the propaganda against Muslims exploits pre-existing racism in our cultures, just as racism exists in probably every culture that's ever existed. The fakery doesn't only manifest racism by itself, although its worst evil is when it does do just that, which is far too often. It's more like a great big gift and invitation to anti-Muslim movements.
Similarly, the idea that gay people are strictly gay or part of a united movement for disingenuous reasons is flawed at best. Just look at the various disagreements in each group — gay people rejecting trans people, queer movements decrying male gay power, etc., etc. people both love and hate each other in every conceivable way. You may say that fakery usually promotes pre-existing human conditions. For agendas, yes, but often with a mob of happy endorsements from people who benefit.
One thing we can all agree on here is the notion that telling massive numbers of people what to get addicted to is as wrong as introducing hard drugs to a community. But we can be very sure that is what we've always been dealing with. Addictions. And their profiteers.
Flabbergasted wrote:for example by teaching people to exchange life in its entirety for sex (as did Foucault, architect of the gay movement)
I don't mean to side track, but I think this is a very relevant point, if true. If you wouldn't mind please giving us a debriefing on this, I think I (and people like me) could learn a lot. How could Foucault be called an architect of a gay movement rather than a proponent or just simply being gay? (And as per CluesForum standards, just some sound reasoning instead of uncritically dropping a link would be nice. No need for an academic paper.)