Category Archives: Sex

Culture, Education, Family, Politics 2022, Race, Religion, Sex

MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM

Leave a comment
And there is love…

…

A man shall leave his mother and a woman leave her home

And they shall travel on to where the two will be as one.

As it was in the beginning is now and till the end

Woman draws her life from man and gives it back again.

And there is Love.  There is Love.

                                                                        From Peter, Paul & Mary: Wedding Song

To hear it screamed about, the apparent likelihood that the Supreme Court will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that upended common law regarding abortion, marks the end of life as we know it. (Pun intended.)  Or, maybe, the end of civilization, itself.  How grievous that women may again be celebrated for motherhood.

Well, maybe that’s not fair: women are so much more than mere “birthing persons.”  They are able to work, after all, which the artificially high costs of living and taxation require these days, and even earn more than many, Ugh!, men can earn, for Heaven’s sakes.  Careful of the “Heaven” reference, there, Prudence.  No sense bringing spirituality into this “life” argument; it’s taken nearly 50 years to denigrate it as well as we have.

Besides, religion is for the handful of weirdos who are not as enlightened as abortionists and who, still, think abortion is somehow “wrong:” science-deniers, all.  KEEP YOUR RELIGION OFF OF MY BODY, or can’t you read the signs of deep wisdom all around you as you leave church this Mothers’ Day?  We will not be held in subjugation by men for a million more years as we have been: mere mothers and homemakers and nannys to the children of, Ugh!, men.

Well, that’s one way to look at it.

One sign that popped into being since the big, illegal reveal says, “(euphemism for fornicate) to come, not for pregnancy!”  Females, then, (since ‘women’ can’t be defined) have been elevated to the higher status of pleasure-seeking pleasure objects… which is another way of looking at it.  That men have benefitted the most from freely available abortion – at least in terms of unfettered pleasure-seeking – and WHITE MEN most of all, seems to have escaped the notice of enlightened females.  Black men tend to be discarded in abortion clinics at much higher rates than whites, but, then, who’s listening to them?

Somehow, though, the relative power of the feminist mystique has resulted in wholesale destruction of women’s true status which was supposed to be elevated by loosening the shackles of pregnancy.  Exactly why current ideological, pedagogical theory requires pediatric exploration of sexual pleasure rather than language and arithmetic skills, critical thinking and problem-solving, has not been explained, but it certainly is a component of socialist beliefs.  Children, both sexes, we are told… they are told, need to be separated from traditional “roles” that science-denying religionists assign to them at birth, especially traditional roles of boys and girls growing into men and women, from whose love shall come forth new generations.  Those same kids must be separated, psychologically from their parents, who can’t be trusted as much as their true friends, the “education” establishment.

Go ahead and give birth, if you want to, but that’s where your rights end.

Men are pigs, so to speak.  Despite their strengths and values, men tend to set aside almost any higher calling when they perceive the possibility of having sex.  To borrow a phrase, it takes a village to keep men in their own pasture, and the head of that village is a man’s wife.  Women are the civilizing force in society.  Decades ago the strengthening feminist juggernaut decried President Reagan’s statement that “women are the civilizing force on men.” (Or, words to that effect.)  The feminist “leader” who put Reagan in his place for that comment, was signally offended by his statement, apparently because it linked men and women in the processes of socialization and civilization.  God forbid.  No way did a modern, liberated woman have any obligation to do anything – even a good thing – for a man: everything required negotiated parity between equals.  Love had nothing to do with it, nor, apparently, did child-rearing or family dynamics or nurturing stability or dependence on some, Ugh!, man to provide for the family.  It is remarkable, indeed, that any families are still being formed, today.

A measure of the destructiveness of feminized socialism is the breakdown of traditional father-mother families, and it is at its worst for black families.  Today nearly three-fourths of black children grow up in single-parent households, mostly fatherless; nearly 30% of white and Hispanic children do, also.  This shift began in earnest with the “Great Society” and the federalization of welfare, perhaps the worst public policy experiment ever conceived.  People blame Lyndon Johnson for the foul execution of military policy in the Viet-Nam War, as they should, but 100 times as much damage has been done through federal welfare programs that facilitate single-mother households.

Since the eugenics of Margaret Sanger, but really since the inception of the Great Society, the “liberation” of women, constantly touted by the Democrat Party to their key voting block, as they help them throw off the shackles of oppression by men, women have striven towards economic equality with men, but it has cost them the rewards of their majestic roles as mothers in loving 2-parent households.  In part as a result, American citizens no longer have enough children to replace ourselves.  Is this a measure of feminist success?

It is almost better referred-to as a success in the battle against motherhood, now that the battle against fatherhood is so well underway.  The rabid attempts to sexualize and gender-neutralize elementary school children could play a vital role in this battle.  Indeed, the greatest impact of convincing children that they are not who they originally thought they were, but are some sort of gender-fluid non-boy or non-girl, is STERILITY!  In the minds of feminized socialists, separating children from their parents and from reality, is the most effective way to destroy Christianity, as it destroys procreation.

Are there any demonstrations over Roe v. Wade outside of Mosques?

Indeed, the entire, sick fad of trans-genderism, non-binary identities and gender fluidity is an assault on both masculinity and femininity.  To what end, a normal person is inspired to ask?  To express hatred towards life?  Towards God?  Towards love?  It expresses nothing better than hatred for all of these things.

Perhaps the destruction of traditional sexual mores is the natural outgrowth of feminism.  Can a half-century of celebrating anti-masculinity result in a new appreciation for the value of men?  Our culture teaches boys that they are flawed almost to irredeemability, able to restore approval only by renouncing maleness in grade school.  The same culture teaches girls that the least-attractive aspect of their lives is as a mother, then it teaches that some giant boy pretending to be a girl is worth more than girls, themselves.

Then we select and celebrate a female judge who is incapable of defining what a woman is, and entrust her with discerning the essence of our Constitution when she cannot discern her own.  No wonder women are angry these days, and, as on most days, when angred there must be a man at the root cause of it.

Prudence is not certain that having more women in government really is an answer we’ve been waiting for: more real men might help, though.  Maybe the liberal wing of the Supreme Court can find a right to love one another in the penumbra of the Constitution, and override all State laws to the contrary.

Biden, Culture, Health Care, Politics 2022, Religion, Responsibility, Sex

THE DEATH THAT CAN’T BE SPOKEN

Leave a comment

We’ve all heard of the “Supreme Court.”  Historically, it has had 9 justices, one of whom designated upon presidential nomination, as “Chief Justice.”  When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Court was defined with 6 justices, with John Jay as Chief.  The fifth Chief Justice was John Marshall, who also held that position for the longest tenure: 34 years.  Until 1869, the court’s size varied from 5 to 10 justices; at that point Congress set it at 9 justices and it has remained that until today. 

The politicization of the court became an obvious problem under Franklin D. Roosevelt, a so-called “transformative” president, which mainly meant that he pushed policies that the Constitution had not anticipated, extra-Constitutional policies, we might call them.  As the Supreme Court ruled against his socialist efforts, Roosevelt attempted to “pack” the Supreme Court, intending at one point to expand it to 15 justices… of whom enough would agree with Roosevelt’s political ideas.

“Packing” the court got shot down by a wise Senate in 1935, but it has always been technically “legal” constitutionally.  How much safer we’d be today if there were an amendment that set the number of Justices at 9, safely limiting how destructive any one president could be.  Harry Blackmun showed how destructive a Justice could be by inventing a “penumbra” of shadowy rights emanating from the Fourteenth Amendment and perceived “right to privacy.”  It’s not known whether even Blackmun grasped how cleverly the definition of “life” could be distorted so as to convince 62 Million mothers that their unborn child is anything but.

Would he cheer or frown to find that not even womanhood can be defined in our enlightened age?

Coming home from work the other day – the day the “leaked” opinion draft indicating that Roe v. Wade could be overturned was all the RAGE – there were, in just one intersection of our not so very large town, about 250 pro-abortion hot-heads shouting at traffic, waving signs like, “My Body – My choice,” “Keep Abortion Legal,” “Bans Off My Body” and easily 50 other messages.  Prudence observed that every single one of those protesting had never been aborted!

Abortion is definitely not one of those actions that can be done over, nor can the experience be related to others who have had one.  What?  You say that a woman can certainly discuss an abortion with another womens’ rights exerciser?  Well, that’s true enough, but the abortion didn’t happen to her, did it?  The person who actually experienced the abortion has been, pretty much, silenced forever.  No one on this side of the veil can listen to how the abortee describes an abortion.  The person in whom the abortion took place has only a circumstantial description of what happened: her brain wasn’t suctioned out of her skull so she can still speak and breath and stuff.

Of course, it is statements like that that bring down the hatred of the pro-abortion zealots who denounce the hatred being expressed, the lack of compassion for the abortion facilitator / mother, the outright… ummm, well, racism, or worse, religious beliefs Prudence is trying to impose on others!  Ohh, the horror.  Anyone making such a statement is trying to make an unfortunate “birthing person” feel badly about aborting the whatever it is she is carrying inside her.  Aha! You called her “she.”  You’re transphobic, too!  You, you… you MAGA person!

Back in my town’s intersection there was a lot of anger and upset including many young men as well as women (Prudence can tell them apart).  Have they any concept of what they are protesting?  Is it safe to suspect that none has READ Justice Alito’s draft opinion?  Or are they fired up because of the possibility that some authority-figure might have said “No!” to something they want?

What is more unfortunate is that “protests” in the Washington, D. C. area have devolved to the level of targeting the residences of Supreme Court Justices.  “Protests” is in quotes because they are sliding toward riots, and Prudence can tell them apart.  The now almost-expected wrong reaction from the “White House” is a failure to condemn this step towards personal, possibly physical intimidation of JUSTICES for performing the Constitutional tasks that reach the Court through legal, appellate processes.  We are witnessing a creeping sickness that Prudence never expected to see.

The so-called “Biden Administration,” in thrall to a global communist utopia, utilizes the Constitution as a road-map of what to do the opposite of.  The treachery and treason of the entire cabal is so monstrous as to defy belief, even as we watch it unfold.  It has sunk to its lowest level yet when the “President” refuses to condemn the worst behavior of his fellow travelers… he does condemn patriotism, however.  What a s-(euphemism for “turd”).

Economics, Family, Foreign Policy, Governance, Politics 2020, Sex

WORDS WITH CONVICTION

1 Comment
Chinese money is another collar…

WORDS WITH CONVICTION

There are many words that once were in more common parlance – back when schoolchildren had to learn English and how to read and write in that very language – and readers of Prudence’ thoughts are all too aware that those “old fashioned” words are a great strength when expressing thoughts deeper than MSNBC commenters like to share.  Ooops, hold on a moment, there was a Prudent word right there: commenter.  A commenter is a person who comments.  Somehow we’ve all adopted the habit of saying, “commentator” instead of commenter because it sounds as if the speaker might be perceived as just a little smarter for using an extra syllable.  In the opinion of your correspondent, not many commenters achieve the erudite status of commentator, unless they come from Idaho. 

Anyway, in the “old” days one might encounter a word like “scurrilous,” a gem of an adjective.  It really means to describe someone foul-mouthed and coarse in language.  But it came to be used to describe someone of the lowest morals, particularly in terms of failing to live up to one’s promises.  Scurrilous.  Often there are overtones of hypocrisy relative to the person who is described as scurrilous, since he or she probably held a position of some prominence, pretending to be among our betters.

Mendacious is another good one, and its cousin, mendacity.  In a simple way it means untruthful, or the quality of telling lies, yet it is so much more robust than simple lying.  Everyone tells lies at some level: “How’s everything at home?” a close friend might ask, to which you answer, “Oh fine, fine.  Thanks for asking.”  Or, the querulous, “Does this pant-suit make me look fat?”  “Absolutely not,” is the answer, in case you weren’t sure.  Still, a ‘mendacious’ person is not just telling lies, he or she is adjudged to be virtually unable to tell the truth.

The British used to make common use of the epithet, “knave:” a deceitful, untrustworthy person.  We rarely use it in American English as it doesn’t sound bad enough to convey the hatred or derogation required to belittle the object of one’s contempt.  Americans of late are wont to include the ever-popular eff-word, variously applied as adverb, adjective, verb, or noun.  There is no need to further define “the eff-word.”  Even women, erstwhile civilizers of us, all, are fully aware and conversant with it.  ‘Knave,’ however, does convey a patine of intended depravity to the person so targeted.

Let’s summarize: scurrilous, mendacious knave.  Such a person really must be the worst in any group.  But, wait!  There’s more!

A fairly common, but somewhat underappreciated personification is that of “degenerate.”  It implies a person who is not only useless to others or to society, but who interferes with the advancement of others.  In other words, a person no right-thinking person would want to engage with at any level.  Indeed, such a person, a ‘degenerate,’ often appears to have regressed in his or her own humanity.  Not even “reprobate” conveys those depths.

We could go on and on but it wouldn’t be Prudent.  Most readers will process no more than four or five descriptives at the very most, some balking at just three.  So our last pejorative is a bit less obscure, the sharp and finely pointed: “odious.”  To be considered odious is to be considered offensive and even disgusting.  Thankfully, few are such, but when deserved, the term is also obvious in its application.

When so many calumnies are applicable to one person, it is rare that Prudence would waste our collective minutes in order to apply them.  Today however, there is a special case.  Imagine, if you can, referring to an individual as follows: “____ ______ is no more than a scurrilous, mendacious knave, degenerate in his personal character and odious to those who know his practices.”  Gracious!  What must someone do to earn such an uniquely low status?

In Prudence view, he would have to hold a public trust and totally besmirch it by enriching himself and his family thereby and, subsequently, with unbridled mendacity toward that public, engage in treasonous behavior in the form of altering his nation’s foreign policy for still greater personal emoluments obtained from potential enemies in exchange for that action.  In the processes of those thefts of trust and monies, he would also have to suborn depravity within his family in furtherance of financial greed.  That person would earn all of the above outlined contempts and that person has been found.  Indeed he is spoken of commonly in both high and low regard although lately, the latter has gained the greater frequency.  Simply place the name, “Joe Biden” in the blanks and the fulfillment of every accusation will be achieved.

Culture, Education, Politics 2020, Sex

Orwell was right

Leave a comment

We live in an age of what is called, REASON.  Supposedly we have become so very smart that there is no longer a need for faith in any God or gods, no need for superstition or even wishful thinking.  We have the handmaid of reason: SCIENCE.  No one can confuse us with un-testable “mumbo-jumbo.”  We can rely on science, and science is based on evidence, experimentation and repeatable observations.  No mysteries for us; all of our beliefs and decisions are science-based, evidence-based, expert-based.  Since we aren’t all scientists or mathematicians, EXPERTS hold an important place in our reason-fed society.

Yes, we still honor some religious leaders and we still respect the ancient founders of religions… well, some of them: the ones that science can prove actually existed.  And we still revere the great teachings of these ancient religion-founders… at least the ones that science can prove were actually taught by the scientifically-accepted founders.  Reason teaches all of us that questioning the fables that surround Mohammed could result in damages or death.  Muslims not only believe but take offense, too.

In any case, we don’t have to accept the mythologies of other religions, especially Christianity, until science confirms them.

Science, one can easily see, is connected intimately with TRUTH.  This makes so much sense that reasonable people think that science and truth are obviously the same thing.  Basing our decisions, our votes, our very governance on truth will certainly avoid a host of problems that derive from lies and myths and false ideas.  We’ve seen a whole lot of that in our political history.  The political movement that is based on truth, evidence and science is unquestionably the one to follow and support.

Truth, however, has proven elusive, science notwithstanding.  How can this be so?  People who believe in science and truth would never lie, would they?  The fly in that ointment is that science, during its best efforts, can only approach truth.  Truthful scientists never claim to understand absolute truth; science is the quest for truth.  Granted, there are a lot of things scientists are pretty sure of, sometimes so much so that very little additional research is done on those matters.  But, every day, and particularly when a new disease is encountered, there are more questions than answers, and scientists are generally very careful to not proclaim answers that may soon be rendered untrue.  Lies can creep in.  Well, there are advantages to lying, as humans have learned, and this truth has found its way into political planning and campaigns… and even into science.  Who knew?

The basic difference between individual freedom and responsibility as a governing philosophy, and all the other governing models, is that the alternatives to freedom can only gain ascendancy by convincing people of lies.  The greatest of these is the fundament of what we know as socialism: that controlled people will be MORE free if they can shuck off the burdens of responsibility, merit, attainment and, interestingly, religion.

The above is a bold claim.  There had better be some proven truth that backs up such a claim.  All that defenders of freedom have is the history of socialism since it appeared.  It always fails and, in every case, manifests the deaths of millions of people it controls in order to install ever-“purer” forms of the revolution that installed socialists into power.  Only then will the planned future the people were promised, be possible.  Unfortunately, socialist regimes never run out of enemies of the “people” who are preventing the completion of the revolution.  This is due, in no small part, to the inability of planned economies to produce sufficient productive surplus to finance the growth and improved standards of living necessary to serve everyone and defend the nation.  There is always too little surplus to destroy debt – also known as “investment in the future” – as well.

Eventually, socialism consumes all of its people’s money and a lot of other people’s money.  This, unfortunately, is where the United States is, now.  We have swallowed a lot of socialist bull-bleep and find ourselves $27 Trillion in debt.  As we argue over Covid-19, our time is spent expanding the socialist aspects of government, and expanding that debt.  Fortunately, there is still enough freedom in the American system to encourage and allow substantial productive surplus.  In theory our economy can destroy that debt.  Unfortunately, we are politically unable to stop outspending our productive surplus… socialistically.

Truth exists, known or not, and science, if honestly applied, will keep approaching it.  The rest of us will, according to those so enamored, keep running our lives, our personal economics and our government accordingly.  That scenario is superior to how we do those things, now.  It’s because of competing belief structures.  Truth… reality… is dashed on the rocks of belief every day.  Worse, we seem to be able to consider COMPETING TRUTHS!

A perfect example is the current fascination and promulgation of trans-genderism.  Our august politicians have created legal structures around the theory that believing in transgenderism makes it true, or real in some way.  It is not, of course, although the feelings – emotions – that cause someone to deny the responsibilities of his or her biology are certainly real.  Yet those who oppose encouraging transgenderism are held to be “deny-ers” and literally on the wrong side of the law.  The same happens with socialism and anti-Americanism.  Both modes of belief are replete with untruths and distortions so skewed as to be utter lies.  Yet their adherents believe their “facts” (beliefs) are true.

There is no compromise.  We have cleverly talked ourselves into legislating official defense of competing “truths.”

Politicians, elected mayors, governors, district attorneys, certain presidential and vice-presidential candidates and more, defend anarchists’ “right” to riot in proclamation of their “truths.”  It’s a stretch, and illegal.  The destruction of civil rights now defends civil rights of certain others.  These same bemoan the “fact” that the Trump administration failed to follow “the science” at the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis.

And so, the left has managed to weaponize truth.  Once abortion was converted from ending the life of a baby to promoting the lives of women, we were solidly on this path.  Our tax dollars pay for much of it and the wealthiest people and corporations in the world “donate” huge sums to subsidize the only movements who ACT on hatreds, and who promote the destruction of America and of the idea of America.

What is wrong with this picture?  What is wrong with us?

Economics, Family, Governance, Representation, Responsibility, Sex, Taxation

Hi, Jack!

Leave a comment
Federal Reserve Board of Governors - 1914. Every one fully aware of how to boil a frog.

The attack on western civilization by China, performed through the agency of the Wuhan coronavirus, has, finally, presented us with reasons to try to understand foreign policy, international trade, and, key to all, international banking.  To the United States, international banking means The Federal Reserve, which is neither federal nor a reserve.  It is time to remove international banking’s hands from the throats of sovereign individuals.

The existence of religion  since time immemorial is also a factor in our understandings of money, wealth and individual value – things that bankers have devised the financial system to control.  That’s an unpleasant concept: being controlled  by strangers for their own profit; being forced through economics to cede one’s future and that of his or her family to the service of financial manipulators and to perpetual indebtedness they have placed on our shoulders.  But, why religion?  Aren’t we talking about money here?  What has religion to do with my finances?

Religion, and most particularly Christianity, forms the basis of “western” beliefs and of our basic self-governance, as well as our economic beliefs and practices.  We share most of our basic beliefs, and it is Prudent to list them, however much you tend to quibble:

  • Honesty.  We value honesty in our dealings with one another and, if we are wise, in our “dealings” with ourselves.  Our contracts are enforceable; our word is our bond.
  • Independence.  We value our personal, “civil” rights, at least as we think we understand them.  That is, we have inherent value and we agree that everyone else does, too.  We believe we have the right to personal liberty that does not hurt others, and that we are “sovereign” and yield to government only as much of our rights and freedoms as we deem necessary for the safety, protection and happiness of all.
  • Responsibility.  Despite the constant corrosion of socialism we recognize that we are responsible for our actions and their consequences.  The concepts of personal responsibility have been stretched and twisted, but we still expect to pay our bills, clean up after ourselves, interact with basic civility, and keep our promises both verbal and written.
  • Sacrifice.  All sort of activities, choices and financial decisions are rooted in the belief in doing without some comfort or desire now, for a greater reward later.  For the faithful this extends to an afterlife that rewards “good” behavior and choices while on Earth; and for all of us it defines civility, and civilization and even education.  The very idea of earning  status, wealth or recognition is founded in recognition of sacrifice for later reward.  There would be no actual charity without a level of sacrifice.  Even investment for future growth and reward fits this model.
  • Health.  Virtually every religious belief structure includes a significant portion of its accumulated writings devoted to diet and food preparation or combining.  There is often an “apothecary” of useful plants and methods of animal sacrifice and religious feasting.  Their attendant cultures incorporate many of these rules and so do individuals and families.  We grow up believing in a certain amount of responsibility for the health of our bodies – some to the point of worshipping the body instead of the spiritual “powers” that gave the instruction way back when.
  • Self-defense.  Most religions view the corporal body as a mere vessel for the “soul” to use on Earth for the balancing of karma, for some, or for the fulfillment of one’s “divine plan” or other forms of good works, sacrifice and charity.  In most traditions, suicide is sinful and cowardly, showing an unwillingness to face the tests the supreme spiritual being, God, places before us.  Therefore it is inherent that the possessor of that body defend it and keep it safe.  Wasting its life is the wasting of spiritual energy that has been given – literally “gifted” – to it at conception, or at “quickening” or at birth, and renewed each morning.
  • Procreation and sex.  How to live and how to create life properly are the most vital instructions in most religions: essential fertility.  How to assure the proper upbringing and acculturation of every child, how to maintain parental responsibility until children’s age of maturity – a set date – are crucial components of how to extend belief in the God or gods issuing the instructions.  All of these are spiritual events more than they are social or simply cultural.  Strong societies and nurturing family or village environments are the result.  Breaking or flouting these rules for life yields some of the strongest sanctions in every belief structure.
  • Justice.  Every religious tradition that recognizes spiritual beings, God, gods or saints / ascended beings of some sort, is replete with how INjustice shall be dealt with or adjudicated, or, in so many, many words, how justice is to meted out to offenders of the laws laid down by God, gods, prophets and other spokespeople who have some form of direct communication with the supreme being.  In most cases these instructions (commandments) become codified law to be applied by those granted their position to specifically do so, be they “judges” or spiritual leaders.  In each of our hearts is the blueprint of what is just punishment or retribution for all sorts of infractions.

In view of our cultural / legal understandings and beliefs, it should be incumbent upon us to rise up and replace any system or group or institution that BY CHARTER steals from us daily, while it forces us to indentured servitude, which is to say, economic slavery.  Our inherent power of sovereignty should also undo the fiefdoms of any who continue or promote such servitude – most of whom we think we freely elected to begin with.

Well, fellow sovereign Americans, have you not noticed how little changes no matter who is elected or which party holds the most power?  Is it not a little disconcerting how people from “Wall Street” are always holding key budget power in every administration, as well as becoming Treasury Secretaries?  Aren’t you troubled a small, unsettling amount, by the fact that our “national debt” (which doesn’t begin to measure our national obligations) only grows, and now is in the realm of $26 Trillion – more than all the economic activity of the whole country in a year?

Please don’t throw up your hands and say there’s nothing you can do about it.  Don’t give a nickel to a politician unless he or she is willing to repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.  “The what?” you say.  “What does the Federal Reserve have to do with all this moral stuff you listed earlier?”  Aside from unknown dietary habits, the Federal Reserve has  no morals, and has been stealing steadily, through good times and bad, from Americans and from the United States, since it began to operate its conspiracy in 1914.  How it abuses the procreation part is outpictured in its economic handiwork. 

“Conspiracy” could be a good word for their peculiar crimes: “Con” means together; “piracy” means piracy.  “Piracy Together” among the 12 private reserve banks.  You may think it is too complicated for your practical, day to day brain, and that is exactly why the Federal Reserve System is designed the way it is.  But it is designed to commit legal THEFT, and it affects every purchase, mortgage, car loan and candy bar or quart of milk you buy.  It threatens the integrity of the United States – its very independence – and each of our personal freedom and sovereignty.  If recent collusions between the federal government and the “Fed” over the coronavirus bailouts haven’t exposed the rot to you, you’re not paying attention.

Please, Prudence begs you to devote a bit of time to this video:

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/century-enslavement-history-federal-reserve/

The Federal Reserve is a diabolical, century-long fraud upon the American people… including you, your parents, your children and their grandchildren, if we do nothing.  Vondir!

Culture, Education, Family, Health Care, Politics 2020, Sex

THE PRINCESS AND THE P

21 Comments
Lyon Hospital, Department of urology. Sex reassignment surgery, transgender Female to Male, hystero-ovariectomy under laparoscopy. Operation which precedes the phalloplasty, hysterectomy, ovariectomy, vaginectomy, (Photo By BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

“Male and female created He them.”  For hundreds, thousands, millions of years, this truth was not a burden on humanity.  Many would rather ignore the whole statement because they don’t – or don’t want to – accept the “He” portion.  Somehow, and religious teachers must bear some blame, “we” have, over just a couple of decades, tried to undo the essential facts of biology: male and female.  Being called a female or male, amazingly, collides with thousands of people’s beliefs.  Why has this phenomenon crept out of counselors’ offices and parents’ concern?  Who are they who work so tirelessly to force the sexual variant of Jonestown on the rest of society?

Because lives are definitely lost amongst this new belief structure.

Transgender-ism  is a belief structure.  It is not supported by biological fact in any but the rarest of anomalies.  It is a belief, usually quite temporary, that one’s body is the “wrong” one.  This is a strange thing to believe… strange only if other humans were interested in discovering the source of the belief, itself.  But, strange becomes “normal” and deserving of societal respect if – and only if – the individual’s feelings  have been elevated to the level of truth: truth in the absence of evidence, a new faith.

Non-evidenced “truths” are now receiving legal  status as craven legislators bend over as far as possible to pander to the new faith.  Sadly, there are craven doctors, too.

And craven educators.

Public schools are not merely tolerating and preventing overt discrimination or bullying against children pretending to be their opposite gender, but they are encouraging  transgenderism among those children who are, for the moment, envious  of the opposite sex.  Parents, and professionals, ought to be helping children to be comfortable with their bodies, not to be revolting against them.  At the same time, adults should all be trying to find the source of childrens’ “gender dysphoria.”

The resolution of this heretofor rare condition, is something adults should pursue, even if it means a full social transition.  Few people will need to know that an individual was not born as he or she appears.  Whether full surgical mutilation is called for, is quite another question.

In the past decade the number of dysphoric youth has grown 1,500% to 5,000% and even more in some countries, with the ratio of girls to boys flipping dramatically.  Why?  Transgenderism “advocates” would say that only now are trans youth enjoying the freedom to express their “true” identities, thus accounting for the explosive growth.  Critics of the trend might see a frightening desire, like a virus from the bowels of China, that infects female and male alike, however disproportionately, with the desire to escape the responsibilities of their sex. 

There are unnumbered ways to achieve sexual release, alone, in pairs or even groups, and none require total denial of self, or bodily mutilation, so there is something else at work, beyond the sexual.  Perhaps it is more Prudent to consider a virus that infects not those who reflect its torment but their parents, schools, and social institutions, like unbalanced feminism, which, with other failures of freedom, convince late-term, newborn, toddlers and pre-schoolers (which age socialists and fascists would have include all of the earlier mentioned) to distrust, if not hate, the prospects of womanhood and manhood.  Despite our access to Instagram and Twitter, Panera, Chick Fil-A, Starbucks and weed, our twisted norms create a society in which children don’t want to be, well… who they are.

The result is not true gender dysphoria for most of its claimants, but a hatred for life, itself.  Prior to actual suicide (the end-game for many who attempt to change their sex) these, now, tens of thousands try to kill their personal realities.

For those who are dysphoric, one’s heart must fill with sympathy, and great care should be shown them, and tolerance and kindness.  For most of the new residents of Jonestown, however, new beliefs, alone, can save them however that counseling can be accomplished.  Doctors and clinics that press them with chemical and surgical confirmation of unreality, are but licensed charlatans.  Their parents, worse.

Shame on religious institutions.  From old, old texts, replete with truths eternal, they have made difficult lessons and philosophies not more clear, but softer and “more inclusive,” practically rejecting realities in order to fill pews.  The elegance and majesty of womanhood should be the easiest clay to work into gracefulness and motherhood, but they’ve largely failed to enhance those values.  The responsibilities and required wisdom that men are obligated to accept and to achieve, are trivialized and even derogated, as boys are drugged into submission and global communications portray men not as leaders but as fools.

The institutions of our culture and nationhood, almost as though coordinated by some evil puppeteer, are all reinforcing the concepts of unreality and hyper-sexualization.  Websites produce and provide pornography 24/7 for free, perhaps the most insidious attack on men, marriage and mental health.  Congress after congress ignore this corrosion without even discussing ways to restrict and limit global pornographics.  Why?  Money?  Is this addiction different from opioids, gambling or tobacco?  Or does it simply expose the flaws within males that all “woke” geniuses knew were there all along?

In a thousand ways we have made life, itself, unattractive.  Why would thousands of young people, even youngsters, refuse to the point of embarrassment and mutilation, to be who each actually is?  Is it because so many are born with the “wrong” body?  All of a sudden?  Doubtful.   Birth is not the issue, Prudence believes, but influences, even before birth.  We are teaching boys that being male is a sort of disease; and teaching girls that life is a system of oppressions, including motherhood.

The destruction of social roles and values is reaping its foul rewards with great efficiency.  The end-game is social dissolution, loss of nation-hood, economic stratification and, worse, institutionalized unreality.  What shall we teach our children when lies have gained legal status?

Education, Family, Sex

WHY A RAINBOW?

Leave a comment
Carlisle, Massachusetts

In many cities, towns, villages and hamlets, churches and synagogues display some form of rainbow flags.  If the congregation and pastor is really “woke,” the top color stripe is black; otherwise ‘red and orange, green and blue, shining yellow, purple, too…’ is enough to advertise how welcoming that church and congregation is to, well, any one.  It is a friendly intention, throwing wide the arms of, umm… it’s not clear, Christianity(?)… to the world. 

Among Christianity’s strengths is its history of reformation.  The best known is the protestant reformation of Martin Luther.  His 95 Theses exposed the sloppiness and politicization of the Catholic Church, it’s corruption and ties to wealthy bankers and corrupt royal families.  There followed a reformation of Christianity, but not of the Catholic Church, particularly.  The world forced “the Church” to adapt, but it always appeared to follow, not lead.  Despite its self-proclaimed heritage direct from Simon Peter, Holy Mother Church retained its worldly flaws and intrigues, descending into sexuality most foul, ruining thousands of lives and families.  It appears incapable of reforming itself.

Rampant homosexuality and pedophilia has caused a reformation never intended, where droves of the faithful washed their hands and feet of the Church, losing trust in the priesthood.  The written and spoken liturgy and the artful back-story Catholics have recited and agreed with for centuries is still the same, but the trust is different.  Despite its self-immolation of recent decades, the Catholic Church is still a pillar of Western civilization – worth our defending.  One hopes the Church will come clean and preach the truth; its power to do and to guide good, is still immense.  It is incapable of defending Christianity, itself, just now, especially in the face of Islam and other anti-Christian forces arrayed against it.  Catholic parishes don’t need to fly the rainbow banner.

“Protestantism” reforms itself by subdividing.  Each new sect, even each new congregation within some sects, keys in on certain tenets of the Bible as the best lessons to learn for how to live a “Christian” life, raise your children and increase charity in the world.  To the degree that each is honestly led, each has a divine function to fulfill.  Everyone is not at the same point in their evolution – evolution of the soul, that is – and each will find the teacher whose teaching he or she is ready to receive.  Each should also be ready to move upwards when it is time for a more profound teacher along the path toward truth.

Lately, however, Protestants are racing to not be the exception in the Rainbow Revolution.  Every church has one: Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, United Churches of Christ, liberal Baptists, even a handful of reform Synagogues.  Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists appear immune to the blandishments of Rainbows, as are Quakers.  The latter three are not caught up with filling the pews for no reason or for any reason.

If the Rainbow symbol were created to bring more people into adherence to Divine Law, it would be a wonderful, actual, reformation.  Church “Reform” ought to improve human distillation of the Word insofar as we have tried to learn and understand it.  If a widespread movement serves, instead, to DEform churches and their ability to spread the Word, then Christians ought to question it, starting with ministers, preachers, priests, rabbis, bishops and deacons. That’s not happening… not that a Prudent observer can detect.

What do interested people believe that banner says?

The first and primary message, beyond all claims of “inclusivity” or unity with those discriminated against racially, is that same-sex activities are equally valid to those of heterosexuals.  Every other meaning of the other 5, 6 or 7 colors, occasionally adding white, is simply claiming identity with every use and delight in the ‘rainbow,’ particularly for children.  If unicorns are made happy by rainbows then so are we, so to speak.  The rainbow flag, originally a symbol of racial inclusiveness, from the late fifties and sixties, is a clever appropriation of thoughtless human sympathies for the unhappy.

Consequently, the banner has become ubiquitous during “Pride” month, which is not ever a celebration of the Word of God, nor does it reflect prayerful meditation on the innate beauty of God’s creation of humankind.  It is a collective demand… against heterosexuality, since true gays and lesbians will never enjoy it or the incredible joy of motherhood and fatherhood and of the nurturing of offspring; and against God and anyone who claims to speak for Him.  The demand translates, both for other humans and for ecclesiastics, that non-heterosexuals deserve both attention and respect based on their different sexuality, unusual emotions and desires, and discordant habits.  Imagine: a group of humans who are not happy with their emotional make-up, so much so that they will flaunt their intention and practice of breaking… no, denigrating, religious dogma and, to the faithful, the Holy Word of God. 

In the chance of there being a God, sneering at His Law and rules for righteousness is a very arrogant move, a Prudent observer might think.  Unfortunately, economics being what they are, churches have been tempering their messages for decades, hoping to fill the pews with charitable attendees.  That is a path along which it is virtually impossible to reverse direction.  Accepting the rainbow flag as a church’s statement of acceptance is to ignore the shift that has occurred in the legal status of the self-proclaimed “LGBTQ” “community.”

One might Prudently inquire of a member of a rainbow-endowed church… or even of a clergy-person, just what he or she means to say with the flag.  Without a doubt the answer would include something about “anti-discrimination” or “inclusiveness” and “all are God’s children,’ and the like.  None would suggest that they displayed the flag with the message that 1) Christians must forsake scripture so that non-heterosexuals won’t feel challenged in their pleasures or beliefs; and 2) By extension, all laws and customs that follow the inherent message of Judeo-Christian scripture regarding same-sex relations and sex activities, must be set aside by law, no matter the damage to our society or civilization.  No, no, no.  “We love everyone,” they might say.

Yet, somehow, their love does not seem to extend to everyone’s beliefs in equal measure.  That is, they have no banners celebrating the strictures and scriptures of the Word of God that underlies the very existence of their church, physically and spiritually.  Adding the rainbow banner to the physical existence of their church would indicate that what the followers of that banner believe is not only equal to the beliefs that built and maintain the church, physically and congregationally, but, to some degree, greater than those of the founders of that church.  “Oh, no,” comes the distressed reply, “we are simply saying they are welcome no matter what they believe right now.  The magic of Christianity will infuse their hearts and cause them to renounce their forbidden practices and join more fully with our beliefs!”  Okaaaay.

That last is a Prudent speculation but doesn’t actually work out in fact.  In fact, the presence of the rainbow flag acknowledges that non-heterosexuals are consistently demanding full “equality” with religious heterosexuals, including full marriage equality, as one example.  Resignedly, most “rainbowed” churches advertise their willingness to perform, and therefore endorse, same-sex “marriages.”  This is a public replacement of parts of scripture that undergirded the creation of their churchly existences.  At this point, parishioners and clerics alike are advertising their desire to accept emotions felt by non-heterosexuals as equal  or even superior  to their previously revered scriptures, teachings and beliefs.  Extraordinary.  By erecting the rainbow banner, all of these have foresworn their existence as churches, in favor of a new existence as social or fraternal clubs, of whose continued existence the countdown to disappearance has begun.  For shame.

Much the same is happening in secular circles, and in government.  Secular society is being forced, jump by jump, to accept a new basis of family, of children and of life’s purposes.  Government, much like churches seeking contributions in their collection plates, is racing to get in front of this heritage-replacing movement so that it might consider itself still the leader of society (in the persons of craven politicians).  Consequently we have commenced to codify the self-declared feelings of non-heterosexuals such that public education and personal privacy have been transformed in the space of two decades, to the point where individuals may be punished by severe professional and economic loss for failing to treat self-declared feelings, even self-declared sexual identities  as the equal of reality.  This is a dangerous weapon aimed at rationality, heretofore the glue of our cooperative society.

Creating laws that grant or reveal new civil rights that can change on an individual basis at individual whim, is extremely sketchy.  Punishing people for failing to respond according to some shifting, individually prescribed way, to the individual declarations of unproveable personal feelings, marks the descent into anarchy, and the end of reason, as well as the end of social cohesiveness: the tyranny of a tiny minority over the vast majority, backed by police powers.  May God save us from folly.

Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Politics 2018, Sex

The Potters of Socialism

Leave a comment

During a recent conversation, Prudence opined on the new trends of “body art” and unusual piercings, increasingly involving the bodies of young women. It has something to do with both feminism and socialism, Prudence suggests, and this view has caused demands for substantial clarification. Indeed. This line of reasoning could lead to a unified theory of wrong directions and unnecessary complexity.

Life is a test… a series of tests: momentary, hourly, daily, situationally – from birth to death. Humans, LIKE ALL LIVING THINGS, become stronger, more honest, more independent, by facing tests and “passing” them. What is the greatest dis-honesty, therefore?

It is denial of the test. It is humans’ penchant for convincing themselves that they might avoid the testing (which is the spiritual aspect of life) coupled with the denial of spirituality, itself. These fundamentals lead to lifetimes of failure, unfulfillment and even to widening circles of tragedy for other humans, particularly people the unfulfilled try to “love.” On the other hand, those tragedies are also tests that may be passed, leading to strength and growth.

Stated more simply, the worst lie is that which one tells to him or herself. We are in an odd time where such lies are celebrated, promulgated, codified and made, legally, into community-wide lies that form the new bases for anti-discrimination criminality. The hot one is trans-genderism. We call it an “ism” because it derives from belief and not from reality. Under it males tell themselves that they are females, in the preponderance of instances, and females tell themselves that they are males. It is the penultimate denial of human testing there could be.

It isn’t the absolute worst, any longer, because here and there are humans who tell themselves that they are not human, and who seek “rights” as this or that animal… often a dog: humans like dogs.

But, declaring oneself to not be what one is requires holding two conflicting ideas at once, ultimately leading, for most, to mental breakdown. This is not to say that some are not “happy” to be living outwardly as the opposite gender, but they are the minority. Still, they deserve their own happiness and other humans should not disrupt it. But the truth is that gender cannot be changed, only masked. Individuals who are emotionally secure may be happier adopting the mask. It is their mask, and by its artifice the individual attempts to avoid or deny the testing that his or her gender would otherwise face.

So, some would ask, what’s wrong with that? Lots of people avoid tests. We have an entire welfare system that purports to “help” them do so. And this shows the intersection of socialism as a construct of lies and the increasing lies of sexuality that some fight for as forms of “progress.” Both are means of test-avoidance, test denial, and both tend to leave the denier weaker spiritually.

What has this to do with tattoos and piercings? Both are forms of masks, are they not? Even homosexuality is a mask. It doesn’t mean individuals are not “happy” living as not being tested as a man or as not being tested as a woman, but it does mean they have made a choice to not face tests of emotion and feelings of one sort, and the growth their passing would provide. Because of anti-discrimination rules, declaring oneself homosexual means avoiding tests as either one’s gender or as one’s new identity.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s a big form of masking was hair. Girls would shave their heads or apply odd colors to their hair, for example, daring others to react to the change. In that way, at least temporarily, they could step out of the role of “woman” and be tested on the most ephemeral aspects of being rather than facing the tests of female growth and honesty. Boys at the same time would grow their hair to great lengths or shagginess, altering their “aura” as it were, too. Any troubles that came their way over rebellious hairstyling were deemed preferable to those that were associated with maturing in the role of “man.” Test denial. It’s what socialism promises to whole populations, inherently including a denial of spirituality.

In the midst of the “sexual revolution” last century, society, institutions and families fairly consistently encouraged the reality of acceptance of one’s role as man or woman. Most youngsters “grew out of” their odd experiments. Not all, though. By the mid-seventies several large trends were underway:

1. Welfare was federalized and entrenched under the “Great Society.”
2. Feminism was aggressively undoing traditional roles and family structures.
3. Leftist media were celebrating their successful castration of the Vietnam War
and all efforts against Communism that it represented.
4. Leftist media were celebrating the destruction of Richard Nixon, a flawed
conservative at best, over relatively minor crimes.
5. Attacks against organized religion were becoming normalized even as churches
themselves were corroding innocence within their ranks.
6. The Federal Reserve was prosecuting economic policies without regard to
elections or even office holders like presidents in the exercise of new powers
elected representatives could not grasp or counter.
7. Homosexuality was exploding in Western societies.
8. Black families were disintegrating with the help of federalized welfare.
9. Faith in the American idea was fading as quickly as American History curricula.

America is reaping the corrupt crops, now, from mutated seeds sown for fifty years. Youth are in favor of socialism, politicians are proud of it while other politicians flail about in their quest for proper rebuttals to socialist mendacity. Just like homosexuality and its ragged cousin, transgenderism, socialism requires believers to hold, and defend, two diametrically conflicting ideas at once.

Socialism intends two conflicting outcomes: 1) People will become better humans by virtue of changes in their physical surroundings and LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY; 2) If people fail to become higher-quality people thanks to socialism, socialists-in-charge will happily control them until they do.

Prudence’s correspondent had recently visited the waiting room of a plastic surgery and facial reconstruction practice and was struck by the number of quite young people, mostly females, who were there for recuperative follow-ups for various procedures. This, too, is a trend: Young people are having one or multiple procedures done to, they, hope, cause fulfillment of a physical image that is more pleasing, more acceptable, more attractive to society. That is to say, they are living out a dream of comparison to others rather than living on purpose.

Just like body arts or fanatical workouts, plastic surgery provides a mask that the wearer believes is more ”beautiful” than the innate self; this work, often painful, is endured in lieu of making ones inner, true self more attractive or charitable or loving. It is a personal dose of socialism whereby the physical or worldly appearance forms its own replacement spirituality and belief structure. There is no surprise that such shallow, literal children are unable to discern the corrosiveness of socialism. It is no wonder that socialists, and most progressives, are not nearly as happy as conservatives whose belief structures are based in spirituality that leads them to accept and pass tests in reality.

Changing ones physique or physiognomy to fulfill the expectations of society is a means of sidestepping true tests in life. Like the long hairs of the ‘60’s, others will deal with the mask rather than the real person and, it is hoped, the tests associated with the original person will never need passing. Growth is avoided.

Perhaps the most anti-spiritual, test-denial of all is abortion. Despite playing a role in conception of new human life, women have been convinced that the tests of motherhood may be avoided and that they will be more happy and fulfilled as a result. Indeed, not only have they the right to avoid those tests, but all of society, through government theft of others’ earnings, ought to support that avoidance. Perhaps there is less stress temporarily, but little happiness obtains.

Instead of accepting the tests of womanhood and motherhood and the concurrent civilizing of more animalistic males, females are encouraged to exist untested and to a degree, unfulfilled and incomplete. Obviously many of these women will see a logic to socialism and to government “nannyism” throughout their lives. Who needs men in that future? Socialism destroys humanity and abject feminism is socialism’s handmaid. How bleak.

The constant undermining and outright attacking of Christianity feeds socialism’s ascension to acceptability. Not the old testament, but the new, defines man’s relationship to God as personal and an individual responsibility – not as one of God’s chosen people, but as God’s chosen person, responsible to him or her self and to God to take the energy of life provided, and to multiply it by learning and following the rules laid out in dozens of religious traditions.

There is no room for the spiritual in socialism. Socialism is based on groups and denies individual greatness. The infection of education by socialism is obvious in the moves to eliminate valedictorians and salutatorians, or to have multiples of each. Another is to avoid “F’s” or other negative marking, to give everyone a trophy, to (claim to) not keep score in youth sports. One can also observe the same rot supplanting historical knowledge resulting in America’s being no more exceptional than literally every other nation. Rampant egalitarianism provides another patine of legitimacy: no one can earn more, be more worthy, honorable or valuable than the rest. Apparently, only government officials are permitted to be smarter than others, or more morally pure.

Ultimately, Socialism is the avoidance of human tests and, essentially, the avoidance of personal growth. Humans become stronger by overcoming adversity – everything from discomfort, to hunger, to tyranny and lack of freedom. We call the triumph over adversity, “freedom,” not the avoidance of it.

Avoiding adversity is a form of self-subjugation, leaving the subject/practitioner in a jail of his or her own making: less and less likely to ever overcome adverse circumstances. Dependence is the only result. Dependents are the most malleable of clays for the potters of socialism who are more than willing to offer ever more complete avoidance of tests, gaining perpetual power for themselves. Perhaps this little essay is testing the reader, right now.

Culture, Sex

Patterns of Gender

Leave a comment

Johns Hopkins University has done what thousands of other institutions have heretofore been too cowed to do: apply some science to the extraordinary explosion of homosexuality and lesbianism and all of the mental discords that derive from those beliefs. Make no mistake, to thwart instinctive sexuality calls for very strong beliefs that “fit” mentally with the practices of homosexuality. Belief, not truth, is the power center of human activity. Truth is a philosophical concept. Some people are inspired and raised to believe portions of truth that seem to be “normal” for the preservation and survival of human groups. Others appear to have acquired beliefs that are opposed to those truths, but the strength of those beliefs are just as motivating.

Where do non-normal beliefs originate? If, as the Johns Hopkins study affirms, there are no physiological causes for homosexuality, then how is it that some people grow up believing that they are not attracted to the opposite sex? Because their brains are built differently? No… there is no evidence of that in terms of sexuality. People who are “gay” are never going to consider that they are brain-damaged or developmentally deficient, nor should they. We have all too many people whose brains are imperfectly developed, populating our many programs and special schools and “homes” where they are protected.

Yet many Down Syndrome people have normal sexual attractions. Gays are not claiming that their brains or their genes are malformed. But, they do believe that homosexuality is a normal state of humanity, itself, and therefore just as worthy of encouragement as heterosexuality. This view has gained political and legal status yet offers no empirical evidence of its validity. This is a new area of coded law: based entirely on individual claims of one’s feelings and one’s patterns of actions. That is, we have laws sanctioning discrimination against people because of what they believe regardless of evidence, except their personal declarations. Extraordinary.

There also occur the decisions of “gays” to live “straight” from time to time during which they have fewer rights than when declaring themselves “gay.” This is hard to square with constitutional protections and freedoms. Still the question: where did their extra-normal beliefs come from?

Only an opinion, but it seems possible that the patterning of babies’ consciousness begins before birth. That is, conflicts, stresses, roles of “father” and “mother,” “male” and “female,” create feeling-ideas or “comfort-patterns” that provide a matrix for future experiences, feelings, fears and pleasures. A girl born into a “home” where the interactions between the father and the mother made female roles and responsibilities very negative and uncomfortable, could – COULD – in the presence of other stresses of growing up and learning to conflict or cooperate with others, find an innate “comfort” in acting not like a woman, but like a man. Inevitably this expresses in sexuality.

Are her genes different? Obviously not, but her beliefs are as “real” as anyone’s. She feels “right” as other than a female person. There is an incongruity inherent in her personality and she is more comfortable at the core of her belief-being acting more like a male and avoiding the stresses – pains – of feminine roles.
The mirror of femininity avoidance will be just as “true” in masculinity avoidance, not because such men are genetically or cranially malformed but because their belief structures are fitting the patterns implanted as early as before birth. Our new codified protection of and promotion of homosexuality has served to not only normalize aberrant sexuality, but to attract mildly patterned people to the growing new “club” of alternate sexual pleasures. Combined, female and male “anti-“ patterning produces anti-motherhood and anti-fatherhood belief-models. One cannot imagine a more profound division of the social fabric of a nation.

Aggressive, anti-male feminism serves to accelerate and exacerbate these patterns as more and more anti-masculine mothers gestate and bear children, and dominate educational institutions. Being masculine is no longer attractive to many boys; partnering with a male, especially a non-masculine male, is no longer attractive to many women.

Translating contrary sexual activity into political power produces an environment like that we are experiencing now, one where every traditional institution of our culture is under question, if not assault. Legalists and psychiatrists find ways to rationalize all of it as if what is unnatural is suddenly natural, and as if what has been taboo for centuries is suddenly legal. Even holding on to the beliefs of centuries is now illegal and condemned.

One need only contemplate the destruction of the livelihoods of simple bakers in Seattle to get a glimpse of the dangers of the erroneous path we are on.

Sex

Free Sex and Freedom

Leave a comment

Titian-Bacchanal-1523-1524
Homosexuality and other sexual expressions have changed. No news flash there, but what does it mean? In many ways it is a frontal attack on religious belief and expression, but it is also an attack on free enterprise, Constitutional protections and the public covenant. AIDS was its greatest ally.
AIDS was spread almost exclusively from particular sex acts by men. It can infect both genders but it began with men doing unnatural – as in non-evolutionary – sex acts. And it was and is terrible.
Once it was identified and named, teams of researchers began seeking a cure and seeking voluminous funding from governments to expand the fight against AIDS. Within a couple of years AIDS had legal standing, virtually unique among diseases. Special non-discrimination provisions were added to our laws so that sufferers would not be ostracized and suddenly, everyone was feeling sorry for – and accommodating – homosexuals! Gays, queers, trannies, lesbians, dykes and butches were organized in ways and with successes, never achieved before.

It was great news when the first non-gay was infected because now AIDS was “everybody’s” threat and problem. Now, straights and gays were the SAME! No more could gay friends and co-workers coexist through tolerance or ignorance of their differences, now the path was celebration, equality, pin-point anti-discrimination, and marriage! Glory be to politics! Being recognized not for gender but for sexual practice was a new pathway to power, codified, publicized, made equal in education and made equal to religion. Soon it was not equality but dominance that was sought – and here it is.
Homosexuality is not an evolutionary trait. It occurs in nature but by definition cannot procreate and pass on more and more “successful” homosexual genes. Homosexuality, at least until the twentieth century, was never more than a tiny percentage of humanity because it is constantly dying out.
What has happened? Homosexuality has gained a social value, and, therefore, political value and power.

Non-heterosexuality (NHS) is not normal in that it is unable to reproduce, which is to say, it cannot strengthen the gene pool. This is not to say it does not occur. Even some animals display same-sex courtship activity, but whatever motivates such action, it will not “enter” the genetic stream.
This was the case for all of human history until quite recently. We can look back from our new ethical platform and say that it was terrible to treat NHS people so poorly. Today, except for Islam, most social systems have decided to accept NHS at varying degrees of ignore-ance, tolerance or “equality.” Muslims kill homosexuals. They kill lots of other groups they don’t agree with, also, but they are just about the last belief structure that applies torture and death to NHS’s. In most cases, then, homosexuality is now tolerated. In our cloudy enlightenments America and Europe not only tolerate it, we give it “equal” status with heterosexuality. That is, NHS’s can now “marry” some one not of the opposite gender. However, they are not really “equal,” because they have also gained legal protections that restrict only heterosexuals.

Indeed, the diaphanous basis for enacting laws that benefit only NHS people is constitutionally questionable, to say the least.

Lately the battle lines are between the tiny, tiny number of self-identified “trans-gender” NHS people. These are they who claim – and perhaps believe – that their “identity” and their bodies don’t match. For those not suffering the same way this is not only hard to empathize with, it is hard to tolerate in its outward expression. We are adapting, little by little, largely through force of the new political power connected to all things sexually deviant – deviant in the sense that they are not evolutionarily functional, only socially.

“Transsexuals” want to utilize facilities where clothing comes off, based on what they believe about their bodies. Removing one’s clothing is a basic sexual act in western society. It is also a necessity in order to relieve one’s self, bodily, or to bathe or to replace soiled clothing with fresh. For transsexuals, these things cannot be separated. Their perceived “gender” is the determinant of their rights and necessities, evidently with no compartmentalization.

Social norms require that our sexual beings be limited, which is to say, mostly private. We celebrate the events in the creation of families, from marriage to pregnancy to birth and on and on. Families are the keystone to our civilization. They are strengthened by shared restrictions on sexual activity, and destroyed by sexual abandon, debauchery, adultery and so forth. That destruction hurts our children and their upbringing and maturation, things that society – all of us – want to see happen. These norms – and our children – are under assault.
Ultra-feminism has a role in all this, as does liberalism generally, which gains through group identities and group victim-hood. First, feminism has distorted the roles of men and boys. It wants softness, less manliness, sensitivity. It demands that rambunctious boys be corralled and defined by female control.

Feminism has changed ratios of success and achievement in education, business, politics and medicine. At the same time it has equalized sexual abandon and destructive habituation. Most of all it has confused the roles of men and women in the key functions of love, romance, marriage, family and child-rearing. Politics, feminist-driven, has enabled and profits from this demand for both victim-hood and dominance. Manhood is retreating.

Non-heterosexuality is growing socially, not genetically. It has become simultaneously acceptable – celebrated! – and less-threatening to bond with another man or woman than to undergo the rigors and risks of heterosexual courtship and responsibility. Almost like gang initiation and in-group recognition or status, “coming out” removes one from fulfilling roles that accept the burdens and risks of society and family and love of, and sacrifice for, a true spouse. And, we have the full force of government – right down to first grade and earlier – punishing heterosexual expression when it isn’t even sexual.

We bring up children amidst all of this and (feminist-driven and politically protected) unfettered abortion of unwanted babies, and then marvel at their growing reactions as they choose to couple purely for fun, hetero or homo – responsibility be damned.

The arenas in which men fulfill male responsibilities and accept risks are shrinking, even in the military. Every form of sexual aberrance now has “rights” that all institutions in society (religions included, except Islam, apparently) must accommodate, if not promote. The destruction of culture and social strength that is racing to an end we pretend won’t come, is all of our faults. Shame on us and shame on the professions and politicians that enable it, rationalize it, give it classy names and ride the waves of new unfairnesses for their personal gains.

***

One would think that personal feelings could not be a premise for codification. There is no empirical evidence of feelings and as a result, any “law” based upon them cannot be enforced equally for all. A good example might be separation of bathroom and shower facilities based on gender. In keeping with the protection of females from feral males, and with the protection of children from pederasts, restricting access to “boys’ rooms” and “girls’ rooms” has been one of the most fundamental and successful social norms since civilization got organized… and crowded.

Indeed, as mass communications became increasingly sexualized in both words and images, and with heightened mingling of young men and women in schools, jobs and elsewhere, the removal of clothing became more and more of a point of risk for unwanted sexual contact with people unrelated to one’s family, and unknown in proclivities. The segregation of bathroom facilities – and other places of disrobing, even partially – is increasingly important, not less.

The fears of individuals – particularly females – about being assaulted in places of compromise or of temptation, are valid. The rights of those offended or just unnerved by the presence of someone other than one’s own gender, are equally valid, and codified in law! But, somehow, such laws are being over-ridden in the interest of… what? Celebration of mental incongruities.

The syndromes, or popularly-honored sexualities that have been named by psychiatrists as if to impart patinas of reality, are little more than mental distortions. This is not to say they aren’t deeply felt and troubling for those who feel them. They don’t derive from the wrong number of genes; these people are not genetic oddities. They are odd in habit and have, they claim, deep feelings. For whatever emotional, mental reasons these are feelings that express through sexuality and deserve, I think, sympathy.

It is impossible for heterosexuals to empathize with someone who feels like his or her gender is a mistake. But, we should be kind; we should be completely civil; we should not denigrate or mock or chastise that person. He or she is human and deserves to exercise inherent human rights.

A proper question is whether we are being kind when we facilitate self-mutilation in a most fallible attempt to re-order the flesh to please the mind. Suicide rates would argue the negative.

What is the legal status of a gay or lesbian person who elects – chooses – to live a straight life. It happens all the time. People who have lived “straight” for even decades, decide to “go gay” at some point. That happens, too. In BOTH instances, the change is not genetic, it’s self-declared. Yet when he or she has decided to be gay or lesbian, he or she is protected by unusually strict anti-discrimination laws… laws so severe that “straight” people accused of such discrimination can be ruined socially and financially with the aid of government police powers. That is, when straight they are at great risk for persecution under laws that apply only to heterosexuals. Is there no definition under the 14th amendment?

As we move farther and farther away from the fundamental rights protected (ostensibly) by the Constitution, we get mired in the soft police-statism of creating rights that may only be enjoyed by taking rights away from others! To paraphrase a great mind’s observation: “The road to fascism is paved with good intentions.”