Tag Archives: equality

LEX SINE VERITAS

Pick a meaning, any meaning.

For all the efforts at controlling language and the meaning of words, new words and new lies, the actual purposes behind the “Great Reset” or “Build Back Better,” or behind “equity” and “anti-racism,” “social justice” or “vaccine” can be clearly seen and understood.  Indeed, it is amazing how quickly actual Americans can grasp the truth should it be placed before them.  We do have to overcome the problem of various media outlets – digital, broadcast, print – being so wedded to agendas, even “narratives,” that truths and facts that belie them must be suppressed.  Some will literally purvey the opposite of those truths in order to defend their adopted positions.

The impact of a dishonest “press” is immense.  The value of a “free press” in a republic cannot be overstated; a large part of that value is informed skepticism of those in power.  Implicit in that value is honesty… truthfulness.  The historic tendency of government types to arrogate ungranted (by ‘we, the people’) powers, is legendary.  In the presence of tyrannical government an obsequious press makes good business sense; an investigative, “muck-raking” press is in danger.  Our present circumstance provides a lens through which to view the nature of “news” and information-media, today.  But a bit of historical perspective, first.

No functional constitutional republic has ever been successfully subverted by socialist tyranny, or fascism.  There have been many constitutional republics by description, but they were, or are, responses to earlier military or revolutionary governance periods.  Their populations never have shared beliefs in economic or moral philosophies; their factions have not been able to compromise for the national good.  Some do exist today, having rejected mainly socialist/fascist tyranny –those for the decades since the Second World War.

The United States is the oldest and most successful of them, all.  This nation grew from primarily Christian sources.  Despite a history of conflicts in Europe, competing royal “houses” and kingdoms, the moral philosophy of Europe was part of every country, as was, essentially, economic philosophy.  The greatest “inventions” to come out of Judeo-Christian Europe were democracy, banking, double-entry accounting, and civil structure like courts and republicanism.  In other words, the means for civil order and dispute resolution among disparate peoples were imported to the New World.  The concepts of the Magna Carta, parliamentarianism and private property, trade and profit, and of social welfare, were planted in America’s soil.  Combined with a sense of freedom and individuality abetted by physical separation and insulation from Europe, all the components of a new way to govern and organize were here.  Enter the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

However, like any contract or covenant, the Constitution is only as good as the integrity of its “parties.”

The “Founding Fathers” could never have conceived of the divisions that have been created since 1789.  Divisions, or “factions” in the 18th century were more, well, practical than those that have erupted since the mid-nineteenth century.  Madison and others were developing a people-up granting of power to a limited government.  The alternatives were monarchy and militarism.  The “world-view” was formed within a basically Christian belief structure.  It was obvious – essentially unquestioned – that people would strive for freedom.  It was equally obvious that individuals would exercise responsibility for themselves and their families.  There were no alternatives and no concepts of alternatives.  That a large minority of Americans might agitate and even riot FOR the imposition of tyranny, was an idea virtually no one held upon the ratification of the constitution.

No one should hold it today, either, but here we are.

Since the Garden of Eden, mankind’s ability to dilute the Thesis with Antithesis has proven artful, intricate and continuous… until Marxism.  For thousands of years humans have managed to compare their individual sins to those of others that seemed worse, placing the former, psychologically, more on God’s side than the latter, yielding levels of tolerable civilization and sanction that enabled generally better conditions and real “progress.”  Looking back, the wise observer can see that great evils were unleashed as monarchical and theocratic institutions grew in sophistication and military prowess.  Each advance in technology enabled advances in control of populations and economies while fitfully improving living conditions.  As communications became individualized and less architectural, via printing, so did the growth and refinement of grandiose theories of control.  Theories of government, economics and philosophies spread from many minds, not just religious or powerful ones.  Western civilization entered a period of revolution that has not ended.

The concepts of Communism represent the final step of antithesis, or opposition to the Word of God.  Most avowed Marxists are too ignorant to know that Marx, himself, proclaimed the existence of God and his, Marx’, declared opposition to God.  Marx was destined for Hell, in his own words.  His mission was going to be realized through revolution based on economics and he defined “oppression” based on owners of production, as a class, and workers, as those oppressed, as a class.  It was too neat and could not destroy freedom, either economically or spiritually.  It did provide the basis for the death of 100 Million to 200 Million people – murderous enough to disprove Marxist theory, one might conclude.

The ability to subvert freedom, which is to say, to subvert the Constitutional Republic known as the United States of America, required a long-term plan on 5 fronts: education, religion, elections, law and communications.  The means to accomplish Marxist subversion did not exist until the digital age, or, essentially, since 1980. 

The “Press” had been transmuting itself since Watergate, moving closer and closer towards advocacy for leftist points of view.  As leftists are wont to do, owners of leftist media became more concerned with the social/political change that would encourage more widespread leftism among the population, than about the business aspects of their publications.  As a group they were ready for the ability to shift America to the left.  Computerization and, since 1983, the internet, completed the needed toolkit.  News and web-based information has both proliferated and become less-trusted since then.  Indeed, Americans are divided, in one way, simply by the name of the news source we watch or read.  News has become a matter of belief and, sadly, hatred.

Education has enjoyed over 100 years of subversive transformation, first as so-called “public” education and, as leftists and anti-Christians took over teaching and the certification of teachers, states’ licensing and teacher education at the college level, private education became infected, too.

We are reaping that whirlwind, now manifesting in the epidemic of transgenderism and public policies of removing parents from the education and even development of their children.

Our system of laws is the fundament of our successful survival as a Constitutional Republic.  Further, EQUAL justice under the law, which is to say, equal application of the laws, is our basis for equality of individual citizens and for the basic honesty of our business and other contracts.  Interleaved amongst all of our legal relationships is equal responsibility of every adult, parent, employee or business owner, public employee or elected official, to follow the laws and bear the consequences of their actions, good or bad.  With the grossly tilted elections of District Attorneys who so disagree with law enforcement as to ignore crimes rather than prosecute them, and with elected officials, even Presidents, who blithely ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold, the rule of law has become tattered and misshapen and, now, only barely the basis for the protection of citizens or their civil rights.  Watching riots and un-restricted looting in many cities, promulgated by a political hatred for a president and by communist efforts to dissolve society, and specifically NOT resisted by municipal and state elected authorities, leads any observer to wonder what directives or orders from elected authorities or their police forces even are worth. Mob violence and threats of violence, as in the weird case of George Floyd, penetrates into courtrooms and juries.  When they cannot uphold the laws, then any citizen might wonder whether the laws he or she doesn’t agree with may also be ignored?

As for law, itself, we are staring down a steep slope toward social disintegration.  Without equal application of the laws, there is only tyranny.  When illegal aliens are not held even to the laws that govern citizens, but to looser ones, or where individuals arrogate the power to undo legislated legal codes and refuse to enforce laws of their own choosing, as many District or State’s attorneys are now doing, there is only tyranny or anarchy – sadly, the goal of militants amongst us.

Subverting elections became a science in 2020.  The leftist media uniformly deny that the election could possibly have been stolen; “there is only the occasional error or attempted voting by a few ineligibles, but nothing of any significance.”  Subverting elections is almost the perfect crime.  Not only are there but a few weeks in which to investigate and examine “evidence” that has passed through many hands, and the same short period within which to files lawsuits against people who are only tangentially responsible for pieces of the evidence and who have no interest whatsoever in helping a complainant find evidence against their employer(s), but there is equally as much intransigence among courts and jurists who may have to run for their positions and who can’t / won’t avoid political realities.

Added to the built-in difficulties and limits to the ability to bring a case, are the media who have already proclaimed a winner, particularly when the winner is on “their” side.  Immediately upon “calling” a race the media are aligned against a challenger who claims the election to be fraudulent.  After all, everyone “knows” that claiming fraud is merely a right wing conspiracy theory.  Who wants to be seen as helping those crackpots – or, in the case of Donald Trump, that crackpot above all?  Careers are on the line, small and large.  In a presidential election, cases must be brought in multiple states all within a 5- to 6-week window.  Once an election result is “certified” by the state involved, the likelihood of proving statewide fraud or even fraud in a few cities, is essentially gone.  If a state IS found to have certified a fraudulent total, there exists no mechanism of enforcement – or agency of enforcement – to require deeper investigation or recalculation or re-certification of its votes.  A perfect crime, and all the criminals are hapless bureaucrats.

All of the “new disintegration” of America is both abetted and celebrated by modern media.  Even social media – ostensibly non-press – must be included in this wave of anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity.  Because media companies have their butts on the scales, the information that screen-addicts absorb is tilted severely leftward and anti-morality.  Social media, combined with the mostly leftward tilt of cable and broadcast “news,” leave large swaths of Americans receiving partial, yet “comfortable” information that need not threaten even the oddest beliefs.

So, on the 5 key institutional frontiers, while things look far from rosy, there are scattered bright spots.  Disappointingly, churches are largely becoming more liberal, more “politically correct,” when what is needed is a more unified adherence to gospel.  The jury is out on the mid-term success and survival of organized Christian churches.  Because of this, the same question applies to Western civilization.  The role of the United States of America and its citizens, is exceptional.  As we rush to dis-avow that role, we seem oblivious to the consequences to the whole world and to ourselves.  God bless us and save us, everyone.

BLACK AND WHITE AND RED ALL OVER

Prudence won’t be watching any Red Sox games in 2020, not because it’s a truncated parody of sport and exemplary of governmental malfeasance and economic ignorance, and not even because the whole team organization besmirched itself by “winning” the World Series by cheating in 2018.  Besides, who the Hell is even playing this year?

No American should watch because of that stomach-turning, obscene “BLACK LIVES MATTER” banner draped above the “Green Monster.”  Please don’t misunderstand: it is perfectly Prudent to appreciate that black lives certainly matter, just as much, in fact as white, tan, beige, medium brown and swarthy skin-toned people’s lives matter – we are equal in the eyes of God.  If that is too scary, consider that we are equal under the law in this country and that anyone who takes away that equality has committed a crime and the law says he or she will be sanctioned appropriately.  To our shame this doesn’t always work equally.

Instead of a banner supporting the “BLACK LIVES MATTER” movement and political efforts, the Red Sox might as well have a banner that says, “TEAR DOWN THE UNITED STATES.”  Not many people would put up with that crap, yet that is exactly what Black Lives Matter stands for and is fighting for.  They are Communists.  They hate the United States and everything about it; they hate White people and everything white people have ever done back into history immemorial.  Well that should attract a big audience, John Henry, you idiot.

Black Lives Matter also hates Christianity.  Quite a lot of Red Sox fans and customers actually ARE Christians, so that’s another brightly illuminated marketing ploy, John.  If you put a flashing l.e.d.-lit sign rivaling the “Citgo” sign above the sky-boxes that says, “SATAN CELEBRATED HERE,” you can surely get a lot of Christians to pay outrageous prices to watch your millionaires play ball with the other guy’s millionaires.  What a country.

Maybe the Red Sox organization agrees with the purposes of Black Lives Matter.  For wealthy people these owners don’t seem to be as bright as their prominence would lead one to think.  Most business owners would carefully evaluate any signage, ad messaging, inadvertent imaging – everything.  Just look at how quickly social media slugs will turn on a business and attempt to damage it for any racial slight or perceived hetero-normal bias.  No intelligent business would spend $3,000 or more for a banner that supports the destruction of the nation that made them rich, would it?  Surely not.  They would make sure of what that banner’s message is.  That would be Prudent, at least.

Lots of private homes display the same signage: “BLACK LIVES MATTER.”  They’re very proud of that sign because it shows the less-sensitive population: racists, every one, for sure, that the resident of that house is more loving, sensitive, non-racist and deserving of honor than everyone else who is not awakened to the tragedy of racism in America.  Wow!  That’s a lot to convey in just 3 words.

Actually, these “woke” self-praising superiors are conveying an entirely different message.  They either have no idea what in Hell they are aligning themselves with, at best, or they do know and agree with “BLM” crap, at worst.  For shame either way.

If every ostensible Black Lives Matter “supporter” gave enough of a damn to know what he or she is supporting, then minds might change, one hopes.  The BLM “Manifesto” is as dishonest as the original Communist Manifesto and contains a host of non-truths and deceptions.  Communism, like socialism in lesser forms, cannot be honest about its intentions because it plans to replace human nature and all spiritual values, leaving BLM’s promises doomed to fail without total top-down control by a small group.  It has never been otherwise in every attempt at socialism or Communism.

Still, the BLM Manifesto is nothing if not comprehensive.  It reads like the step by step annihilation of the Constitution that it is and, therefore, of freedom and our entire heritage and founding.  Indeed, the Manifesto’s first section, item D., specifically calls for creation of a 3-year assembly for the express purpose of replacing the U. S. Constitution.  What is worse, if you think about it, is item E., where they demand creation of a committee of “experts” who will control and administer the entire U. S. economy.  More than one of our neighbors proclaims “Black Lives Matter” along with a bunch of other “woke” platitudes.  They seem like nice people and it seems Prudent to assume they haven’t the faintest idea of what they are promoting.  Odd, as they seem intelligent, too.

There are lots of ways to align oneself with the concept of the sanctity of life no matter the color or creed.  Despite our racialist governments and welfare programs, our society, operated ideally, pays no attention to color – everyone is equal under the law.

BLM intends a government very similar to the soviet, Leninist model, with a few exceptions, one of which is power sharing with anyone who wanders across the ostensible borders.  The danger of open borders is that people can escape as easily as others might enter, and that will weaken the power of the central committee of the wokest, so those who swallow that part of the manifesto should be prepared for temporary border closures until the “revolution” is completed and every vestige of white supremacy and racism has been removed from the United States.  Prudence’ readers are well aware that racism cannot be expunged by government and “white supremacy” is simply hatred of white civilization, a condition of shifting definition.

BLM is about creating a black-peoples’ dominated international Communist structure.  To effect it they have recognized and leveraged the failures of American education and the tendency of a people too comfortable, to feel guilty about their comfort in the presence of poverty.  They’ve watched as political America transferred many $trillions through federalized welfare to support restive, non-working blacks in inner-city ghettos.  The failure of these decades-long efforts created a willing army of resentment–filled “protesters” ready to explode upon ignition of the right fuse.

Why are Whites bending the knee before Black Lives Matter?  What are we collectively guilty of?  What have any of us done to deserve the collective hatred of, well… anyone?  Did Andrew Jackson own slaves?  Why, yes he did.  Is there anyone alive today who is actually affected by that fact?  Perhaps if one is determined to hate and to spread hate, he or she is “affected,” but that is a choice made to cause reaction today, which cannot change anything Jackson did, believed or smelled like.  But, that hatred can create division today.  The real question is why are whites falling for it?  Have we “decided” that we have no rights?  No culture of value?  No progress or civilizing improvements, inventions or developments to be proud of?  Progress achieved with the phenomenal contributions of blacks and every other race?  Nothing to take credit for?

What’s the matter with us? Four assholes in Minneapolis murder a black suspect and western civilization is called into question?  Can no one tell the truth anymore?  Can no one call out Antifa or BLM terrorists when they operate inside the United States?  If those terrorists steal the artifice of white-on-black oppression does that turn crime into protest, murder into justice, destruction into positive change?  Does it magically make hatred a basis for something good?

Does anyone besides rabid, committed communists see the destruction of our unique Constitutional system as the path to a “better” future for mankind?

Wake up, America! … all of you!

WHY A RAINBOW?

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.

Mothers and Fathers, oh, my!

American society (and civilization) is dissembling, which we like to blame on religious flaws, drugs, video games and e-mail, but it’s due as well to modern feminism – the kind that hates motherhood, fatherhood, marriage and the unique civilizing roles of the females of our species.

This in no way is an attempt to justify keeping women “down,” or to relegate them to male-defined positions in society. Quite the opposite.

Humans are animals – mammals – which means there are sperm-bearers and egg-bearers, and the egg-bearers conceive internally, gestate internally, give birth to live offspring, and suckle them with mammary glands until able to eat gathered or prepared foods. The sperm-bearers have it all too easy in this process, since their commitment to the physical acts of procreation is over in a matter of minutes, depending on what is required to gain the egg-bearer’s acceptance, following which they are not physically tied to the rest of the biological imperatives to which egg-bearers most definitely are. As animals, then, the sperm-bearers are “free” to impregnate other egg-bearers, and many do or try to. This process works for musk-oxen and cattle.

For male humans there are other, overarching obligations than just providing sperm, although popular culture has succeeded in convincing many to ignore them. Crappy politics has a role here, too.

Like it or not, human beings are more than animals. We are sentient – at least most are – which requires very large brains and crania, which means that our gestations are lengthy, rendering females weak and vulnerable for a period of time, during which caring males are obligated to protect them and their newborns, who, themselves, are weak and vulnerable for years after birth, requiring fathers to protect and care for both mother and child until maturity and independence are attained by the child.

There are stresses within these relationships that threaten continuity (success) for the father’s sperm, as it were, and, equally, for the mother’s egg. As societies became civilization, formal rules developed to maintain fathers’ commitments to mothers and to children.

Today we’re too smart for these concepts. Feminism first taught us that women don’t need men except for fun, when permitted. “Progressives” immediately latched on to this new voting bloc and determined that a well-funded governmental, unemotional, non-judgmental, morally neutral, quasi-paternal socialist structure of “free” support for single mothers, could be sold as somehow creating equality for women, and therefore part of the “American Dream.” This perverse outlook invaded and took over education, essentially, as the most effective way to marginalize boys, boyhood and manliness in the name of “equality.” That the breaking of the most critical bonds of civilization was also a result of this weird, new “feminism,” matters not at all to those who have won a great political victory.

There are wise, somewhat reviled mothers, who recognize the importance, indeed, essence of mother- and father-hood. These are they who can see the plain truth of family disintegration virtually at the hands of our own government. They can see that single-motherhood creates the greatest likelihood for poverty and for the development of failed men and, literally, subjugated women! Why does this happen?

It is a result of both boys and girls growing up without fathers, which, most unfortunately, often means almost without mothers, too. Boyhood without proper fathering means a population of feral males who have no concept of how a man should treat a woman, no concept of commitment, compromise or responsibility, no understanding of sacrifice for one’s family, including actively working to provide the best possible environment for one’s children. Consequently, any girls who will succumb to their feral blandishments, will soon be “known” by one (or more) of them, and often impregnated thereby, only to produce children who are likely to fail (or be jailed) in modern society, or an abortion – a statement of complete social failure.

For the fatherless girls’ part, they grow up never experiencing how a man is supposed to treat a woman, or experiencing marital commitment of a man (and woman), or understanding chastity and retention of a woman’s sexual favors / powers as part of the bonding with a husband and father for protection of her progeny.
These girls, tragically, accept feral sexuality as real emotional attachment. Soon their lives are on a downward path that government agencies can never, ever, ever, fix. Their barely wanted children will experience the hatred of other, feral boyfriends and, with predictable likelihood, painful abuse and death. We claim, as all-caring citizens of the world, that child abuse is wrong and should be more illegal than it now is, but we expend more love on abused animals than on abused children.

Our response? More government quasi-responsibility for our erstwhile “happiness,” and less personal responsibility for our actions. What folly.