I’d heard about this thing, saw the disturbing videos of young children offering 'tips' on political philosophy, but I hadn’t bothered to look at the 'contract' myself, I mean, really, what with Jones being a 'former' communist, a current radical progressive leftist and a major greeniac - I had a fair guess as to what it would entail. But when a relative posted a favorable share link to the “Contract for the American Dream” recently, I had to have a look, My first reaction was to ask them 'Have you actually read this?', but I've yet to receive a reply on that.
In the meantime, I've read and re-read this thing, and it is appalling in its shallow, crude, even childish aspirations… do you remember when we once had beauty queens mouthing things like “I hope to use my title to help bring about world peace”? This contract makes that sound like a political science term paper.
It is idiotic. But it's the evil that lurks behind the triteness that concerns me most.
My relatives are not incurious people, they are highly educated, professional people, left leaning (nearly toppling perhaps), to be sure, but not... surely there are limits. Aren't there? In reading this... 'contract'... the question that swamps your mind is when did it become possible for otherwise mature men and women, to think through this sort of drivel, and not feel ashamed about being associated with it? The answer, of course, is that thoughtful consideration has not been given to this document, what happens instead, is that when politically correct sentiments which are deemed socially ‘acceptable, are presented, they are toasted and promoted without its supporters feeling the need for giving them any sort of thoughtful consideration.
Which is considered to be 'only reasonable' - and gainsaying them is declared to be unreasonable. Crazy even.
This is possible because, as the New York Times admiringly said, reason is not seen as a tool for truth by the majority of those with a post modern college education, but as a tool, a 'weapon' was the term the Times used in its article "Reason Seen More as Weapon Than Path to Truth", for winning arguments and in this sense fallacies are not taken as being a sign of faulty reasoning and errors, but as effective tools and tactics,
"According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. "With that being the case, they take and declare their positions, and even defend them, not because they are sensible and reasonable, but because they are easily laudable and help to achieve their socially acceptable and agreed upon objectives.
I'd much rather not think this of so many of my fellow human beings... but the options and possibilities for thinking it otherwise, are nearly nil.
What this practice is leading us towards, is... well, dangerous doesn’t even begin to describe the situation we are barreling towards. We are coming to a point where two fundamentally opposed, contradictory worldviews and their principles (or what passes for them) will have no more opportunity to sidestep each other, and if and when that point is reached, there will be no alternative available but for them to have to collide.
This is simply Philosophical Physics (aka: History).
And when that point comes, the collision will be unable to be handled reasonably, because Reason, as a tool for discovering what is true and best, will have been excluded from the contest – and that will leave no other option open but that of force, for resolving the conflict.
Please consult history for examples of how well that has worked out in the past. Please. I ask, only because, well... you know what those who don't learn from the past are condemned to do (and which the rest of us are stuck tagging along for). Pretty please?
I'll give you a couple more chances over the next few days to reconsider, as we go paragraph by paragraph through the 'contract'... I hope you're decide to look into, and speak out about this idiocy. I really do.