Tag Archives: birth

Culture, Economics, Family

THE ANT AND THE OLD MAN

Leave a comment

Aesop’s Fables include a most telling description of the values of sacrifice and, in truth, of love.  In the little morality play the grasshopper is portrayed with a fiddle, which he has played all summer, eating such vegetation as he fancied whenever he was hungry.  The Ant, however, has been stocking his larder (his / her, it’s hard to tell) all during the summer – busy, busy,  busy, foregoing simple pleasures in order that the more vital pleasure of eating during the winter might be made certain. Very Prudent. Old Aesop, there, knew far more than he let on.

One could, if one had a tendency to draw parallels, observe that Socialism and Communism – grasshoppers or locusts, take your pick – and the emerging, barely United States of America, are less and less ant-like and more and more grasshopperish.  This is nowhere more starkly true than in the matters of marriage and children.

So, what came first?  The grasshopper or his / her, it’s hard to tell, thousands of eggs?  Did we “reason” our way away from religion first, or did we destroy family economics first?  And, by destroying economics, who are we serving?  Qui bono?   The result – or coincidence in the “minds” of ruling grasshoppers – is that fewer two-parent families are being formed, fewer children are being born and those who are allowed birth (pay no attention to the 62 Million Americans aborted in the past 50 years; nothing to see there… any longer) are less and less likely to be raised by two parents, and less by two parents married to each other.  Those who are born are also more likely to be only children or have no more than one sibling.

Those who marry are marrying later: late 20’s, early 30’s, with fewer high-fertility years ahead, having waited for more favorable economic circumstances before relinquishing one of their careers for child-rearing.

There are surely a whole lot of intercourse and other sex acts going on, but not for procreation purposes.  Children are, well, “too expensive.”

First and foremost, having little kids cuts into the fun two young, possibly sexy, career-advancing big kids want to have.  Little by little we have “advanced” adolescence into a third decade.  “Kids” are just getting out of 4, 5 or 6 years of college (not always confused with higher education) with loans to pay off and vacations to take.  What with medical science these days, there’s “plenty of time” to start a family when “we have time.”  We’ve been in school for 20 years and we want to “live” a little before we have kids of our own.  A grasshopper could not have said it better.

Wait, wait, wait, wait!  Didn’t Prudence just shift allegories there?  What have babies to do with storing food for the winter?

Well, winter can be a long time coming and once an old person… or couple, realizes that winter has found him, her or them, it’s too late to sacrifice for the future.  There is only one sacrifice, one expression of love that can prepare people for their eventual winter: children who love them.  It’s not food in the larder or cars in the driveway.  It’s not a paid-up mortgage or a substantial nest egg (bad choice of words, there: the nest is empty) or a time-share in a beautiful location.  And those are all nice things, marginally better than reaching one’s childless winter with minimal resources… but only marginally.

The fundamental truth that becomes starkly obvious at age 60 or 70 or older, with no children or grandchildren or great-grandchildren to care about you, is that no hired caretaker, no temp agency, no government program, can take the place of your progeny whom you have loved and who have loved you for 30, 40, 50 or 60 years.  Go ahead, try finding one.  Ask anyone near your age who lives alone and lonely, if the VNA nurse or home-health aide is “just like having a loving child caring how your doing?”

The grasshopper / locust (like a grasshopper, but meaner) “played” when he / she (hard to tell) was young, and failed to prepare for the future that was surely coming, when food no longer grew underfoot.  Like every grasshopper, our subject dies in the end, friendless, no doubt, but probably not childless, grasshopper-wise.  His children cannot and could not help him in the winter of his old age – same as having no children at all.  A childless winter can be bleak.

The phenomenon of too few children to even replace normal death rates in a population, means that said population will fairly quickly: 2 to 3 generations, 50 to 75 years – become too small to plot its own economic or cultural path to the future it desires.  Several populations or nationalities are fading, now.  Along with white North Americans, Japanese, Russian, Scandinavian and Northern European and U. K. populations are failing to replace themselves.  At the same time a variety of wars and crappy policies have yielded broad emigrations of non-white and non-Judeo-Christian refugees into historically “white” and Christian nations and cultures.  It is an historic “double-whammy.”

Despite the flood of anti-white, anti-Judeo-Christian calumny over the last 4 to 5 decades, most virulently over the past dozen years, increasing to abject destruction and politically supported hatred of whites and Asians, Jews and, now Christians, the overarching history of “white,” largely Jewish and Christian development and growth, is one of steady and imperfect progress: intellectual, scientific, experimental, exploratory, democratic and republican and, eventually, the basis for individual, not group freedoms.  Throughout there has always been a force – or set of forces – desirous of reigning in freedom, dominating it with monarchy and other tyrannies, and with wars.

There is no reason to expect that the dispersion of “white” progress along with the irrelevance of shrinking white populations, is going to lead to a new age of increased freedom, economic or otherwise, certainly not of religion, and certainly not in an individual sense.  The alternative to the ideas and ideals of America – to date the epitome of freedom and personal responsibility in that long flow of Judeo-Christian history – appears to be rigid, top-down group-identity governance on a global, not national, basis. 

There are only a few threads and patches left in that grand tapestry.  It frays daily.  Judeo-Christian history is also the epitome of self-destruction, commencing with the inculcation of new beliefs in the wrongness of everything “white,” Judeo-Christian and Euro-centric – everything Constitutional, in effect.  This new belief structure, hastened by destructive, socialist economics, convinces young, white “Westerners” to not bring more children into this world.

Those of us who have the good fortune of not having been aborted, face only a long, cold winter of increasing loneliness, for we have failed to lay up treasure for our futures, in the persons of children who love us and to whom our heritage might have been entrusted.

Obama

Red Rover, Red Rover…

Leave a comment

The wisdom of Barack Obama is finally coming into focus.  Conservatives had a field day pointing out ignorant and inaccurate things Mr. Obama has a habit of saying: “57 states,” Austrians speaking “Austrian,” Hawaii being “in Asia.”  Barry Soetero, ne’ Obama, has demonstrated rather loose connections to hard facts, but those are not where his ‘wisdom’ lives.

Perhaps his first wise move was marrying Michelle Robinson, by far the smarter of that couple.  It is Prudent to assume that Michelle’s advisements to her husband overrode and were superior to many of his own ideas, including with whom to surround himself.  We suspect that this included having Joe Biden serve as his Vice-President.  Biden would never upstage her husband and would serve to make him seem normal to suspicious Whites.  Barry’s wife was/is far more popular than he was… or is.

Barack’s life is mainly a closed book, the details of which are purposely obscured; Michelle’s is far better understood in comparison.  Mr. Obama is unable to even prove his birthplace after spending literal millions to stop constitutional demands for that proof.  Prudence suspects that there will eventually emerge proof of non-U. S. birth for this enigmatic man, the legal implications of which are fascinating.  Back to the wisdom part.

Obama’s wisdom is political, and little else.  He’s not an historian or an economist, certainly no military expert and he can’t throw a baseball, but he understands propaganda and manipulation, both short and long term.  Prudently, he has destroyed the Clintons as part of his oft-stated intention to “fundamentally transform” the United States. First, he defeated Hillary head-to-head, but made her Secretary of State where she could bear the brunt of the wild and wishful foreign policies he was planning.

In that role, Obama allowed stories to exfiltrate that it was Mrs. Clinton who pushed for the destruction of Libya, for example, which hardened feelings against her in some quarters, essentially ruining any residual veracity she may have had.  He allowed her – possibly helped her – to profit from “pay-to-play” schemes involving the Clinton Foundation, essentially buying her loyalty.  Additionally, he permitted by acquiescence, her use of an illegal eMail system, forcing her into a legal corner almost guaranteed to ruin her candidacy for president.  Trump, in reaction to the dangers she finally appeared to represent to ‘normal’ Americans, was the electoral result.  But liberal-socialists need not have worried, the groundwork had been well-laid in the waning months of Obama’s administration to hog-tie the new president, and take over the opposition, once the Democratic Party.

To make certain that the Clintons would be destroyed, Obama’s friends, Jim Comey, Peter Strzok, Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch… and others, added as thick a patine of sleazy dealings and advantageous treatment for Mrs. Clinton as could be applied, assuring her electoral failure.  That was job one.

Job two is destroying compromise between the two parties while guiding Democrats so far leftward that there is no suitable descriptive name for them any longer.  In a political blink of an eye, Democrats have swarmed to challenge Trump with what appear to be outrageous propositions (in the eyes of conservatives and other ‘normal’ citizens) not least of which is the invasion across the southern border.

Trump, never more than imperfect, somewhat glaringly so in certain arenas, was elected as much a ‘not-Clinton’ as a recognized expert in foreign affairs, economics, military power or diplomacy.  He has surprised many by persevering through a mugging of a thousand cuts, and shows some decent instincts, but has yet to comfort the skeptical.  Despite good approval polling, Trump is made more vulnerable by the nature of the multiple representatives of socialist idiocy arrayed against him.

The Democrat candidate he will face is not yet in the race, is our Prudent opinion.

One recalls the burst of excitement during the few days that it seemed possible that Oprah Winfrey might get into the presidential race.  Finally, supporters thought, a “non politician” we can get behind.  They already loved her and Prudence suspects that there were virtually no criticisms of her that would have stuck.  She isn’t going to run for president.

Back to Barack Hussein Obama’s political long march to transform America.  He and his backers have prepared the ground and ‘fertilized’ it well.  All he needs, now, is to plant the right flower.  And he will.  It is impossible for him and for his fellow travelers to recede into the background.  Their struggle to overturn freedom is a daily one.  The master they serve never sleeps and never relents.  Trump is going to face Michelle Obama, who will announce with Oprah at her side and a fawning press at her feet.

Hillary Clinton was a minor quiz; this Constitutional Republic is about to be sorely tested.

Culture, Education, Family

Do You Believe in Magic?

Leave a comment

It’s all a matter of belief. We strive for truth, or, at least, we tell ourselves that truth is our highest aspiration. But truth among people is the subject of much argument, if not battle. Our beliefs tell our internal selves what is “true” and what is “false.” Likewise, we have internal judgments about who is trustworthy and who is not. Over thousands of years we have created deep belief structures that “work,” in a sense, to organize societies and to increase, however fitfully, general prosperity and defensive strength. Religion is often a significant basis for progress, but has just as often been a limiter, even to this day.

Prudence suggests that the Judeo-Christian ethical platform has been, ultimately, the most successful of historic belief structures, yet it is assaulted daily as “unscientific” since it accepts “truths” that cannot be proven or tested in a laboratory. When are unshakable beliefs imparted? How is it that some kids prefer gang membership while others become Eagle Scouts? Do we think it happens from a conversation with a 5-year old? From Sesame Street? Pre-school?

Speak to a pre-school teacher and she can describe the wide range of attitudes among 3-year olds, some quite destructive. Where did they form those personalities? Well, at home, obviously, but when? At age two and a half? Age two… or earlier? Somehow very young kids are “empatterned” such that anti-social actions, even pathological actions, are the automatic reactions to stimuli. When are those patterns implanted?

Our suspicion is that the process commences in the womb. Ask an expectant mother about the reactions of her pre-born baby and she can describe how her moods and feelings coincide with movements. When she is stressed and when she is calm and happy there are noticeable differences in the baby’s kicks and turns. Do we think the baby is completely inured to its environment until the moment of birth?

Imagine a baby in the last couple of months of gestation in a home where revenge is the common reaction of the parents – and others – to every slight or act of disrespect. Every source of irritation between husband and wife yields a reaction that the offended party must “get even” with, or get the better of, the offending party. The baby, innocently, will mature with a comfortable reaction toward opposition or disrespect that virtually requires that he or she obtain revenge against the offender. It is what he or she “believes.”

What a different path of human interaction that child will be on; what a different interpretation of what love and hate may be. Think about the “differently socialized” children you’ve known. By the time they enter kindergarten such children are already “marked” for special handling. By the time they are teenagers, some of these revenge-comfortable kids are gang members, either organized or in a company of local “bullies.”

Now, place these boys in a position to enthrall girls who grew up without rational father figures, never knowing how a man should treat a woman, respect her and care for her, along with their children. Such an, in effect, fatherless girl would perceive the feral sexual attentions of just as possibly fatherless boys, as true compassion. Now there are two ill-socialized children having their own children, who gestate and begin post-natal life amidst discord, resentment, poverty and, almost inevitably, vengefulness.

Is urban destruction like Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland at all surprising amidst populations that our own social policies have generated in far less than ideal pre-natal and post-natal family conditions? By foregoing social mores related to marriage and family and child-rearing, have we commenced a process of social disintegration? Most likely. Given this, where do we expect our dishonest politics to lead us?

Because individual power and status is the most vital of purposes for elected “representatives,” the misfortunes and dysfunctions of populations have become sources of political, personal, power. We could not have tolerated, and funded beyond reason, via hundreds of overlapping social-service agencies, social dysfunction for literal decades, unless those expenses served the purposes of Congress and others made powerful thereby. It is not possible to consider our history since the 1960’s and conclude that the trillions of dollars expended on basically failed welfare theories, resulted in failure and explosive government expansion, accidentally!

We are destroying the most successful form of social organization the world has seen, insofar as its basis is individual opportunity, freedom and growth without tyranny. Worse, we have brought ourselves to a political point where we are arguing and fighting about how FAST the Judeo-Christian heritage may be dissolved.

We are maintaining the propagation of new citizens who will not have the opportunity to grow in personal character and integrity. They will not enjoy two-parent, loving nuclear families, nor the reinforcing institutions of church and morality-based education.

We are racing not to the Brave New World, but the Craven.