I wrote last month:

In our liberal democracy, issues that carry an abiding potential for violence are downplayed. This is seen in the phenomenon of ‘conscience’ votes, whereby politicians mitigate terse disagreements by simply abdicating the fight for deeply held moral beliefs.

This retreat from upholding morality in the public sphere is marked among self-described conservatives: the free-market, ‘small government’ type. Because they view freedom as meaning individual autonomy, they have mustered little to prevent the complete inversion of public morality. The phrases ‘my body, my choice’ (abortion) and ‘individuals can do as they please in the privacy of their own home’ (gay marriage) were arresting propositions–even for conservatives meant to resist such trends.

Vacating the field of public morality, conservatives turned inwards to their own private morality–to which they remain resigned, disinterested in legitimately taking the culture war to the left.

So why the retreat? Well, conservatives seem to have done so, out of the belief that they will have perpetual access to private isles with which to express themselves: religiously, culturally and morally. They need not worry over what is going on ‘out there’ while they have good families, churches and communities as distinguished from the degenerate mainstream.

Contrary to this view, increasingly debased public institutions are unacceptable: they cannot be palliated by people simply retiring to their private associations, homes and lives. This is seen in the reasons which follow.

1. The impossibility of separating the public and private sphere

In Progress and Its Critics, Christopher Lasch referred to the “impossibility of isolating private life from the commercial, bureaucratic, and technological structures that surround it.” This was written in 1991 but holds truer today given the emergence of social media giants in Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube; all of which agitate for left-wing and progressive causes.

As social creatures, we will necessarily be shaped by the people, media and culture which surround us. There is thus *not one* individual that has entirely averted the reach of these globalist platforms, having their thinking or behaviour corrupted in some harmful way. Necessarily, this encompasses one’s community, one’s family, and even oneself.

2. The practical necessity of confronting social media giants

In order to make political inroads, we have to appeal to people. This task is made immeasurably more difficult by the aforementioned social media companies and their left-wing motivations.

Given their unprecedented influence–YouTube reaches 2 billion people per month–conceding the legitimacy of social media giants as ‘private companies’ is acceding to the rules of a rigged contest. One in which the left by default wins each and every cultural battle that it picks.

3. The left conquers both public and private institutions

Leftists see no theoretical or practical distinction between public and private institutions.

In The Death of the West, Patrick Buchanan described it as “in the nature of nations and religions, that they rule or are ruled.”

This power struggle also applies to culture, seen as the left ceaselessly works to obtain heightened political advantage and influence. The trend tends to be that it takes public institutions first; before proceeding to private institutions as an outreach of their struggle.

Schools present a classic such example. In 2010, ‘Safe Schools’ was instituted into the Australian public education system. Delivered to young children under the guise of being ‘anti-bullying’, this program inverted the natural understanding of gender and sexuality; it was also co-founded by an open Marxist, Roz Ward. The program has since been replaced by “more overarching anti-bullying programs,” suggesting that Safe Schools material continues to be taught in public schools under all but a different name.

Public schools firmly under their grip, the left moved to its next logical target: private schools. As a plausible pretext for doing so, attention was brought to the purportedly reprehensible discrimination undertaken by some Christian schools, which refused the admission of homosexuals who opposed school values.

For the left, this approach taken by *private institutions*, simply would not do. According to the LGBTIQ network in the Uniting Church of Australia,

If religious schools are permitted to exclude LGBTIQ children from their schools, around one third of Australians will continue not to have any natural connection with LGBTIQ people, potentially ingraining homophobia, biphobia and transphobia in Australian society indefinitely.

If the left wins, evidently, it will move from imposing its will on public institutions before doing same to private institutions. Such are the logical consequences of this left-liberal lust for power, the use of brain-reading technology on real life thought criminals may be next. In that event, we will have no private refuge left.

Rather than risk subjection to such a fate, we ought to stop the left in its track within the public sphere.

4. The issue of children

There is also the disturbing phenomenon of ‘Drag Queen Story Hour’, whereby sexual degenerates and/or predators read subversive stories to child as young as five.

These children cannot possibly consent but are nevertheless being corrupted in a manner so perverse as to be unthinkable by progressives even 5 years ago.

Innocent children have no capacity to secure themselves against these satanic influences; anyone with an iota of decency must see to these revolutionary activities being properly cast from society.