Tag Archives: Oppression

Culture, Family, Health Care, Politics 2022, Religion, Sex

IF I ONLY HAD A BRAIN

Leave a comment

Sun Tsu teaches that to defeat one’s enemy one must know who (or what) it is.  The enemy, in its own defense, will always try to deceive, creating artifices against which its victim can expend great effort and resources, weakening itself to the point where the attacker can triumph with few losses.  We call these artifices “Straw Men.”

So it is with good and evil.  Evil never has strong footing but is very clever at creating false targets or disguises of its true purposes.  Good can dissipate evil in a heartbeat but, being more trusting, gets diverted away from the target evil and even allies with it for a time, believing there is some greater good being served.  And so it is with abortion.

The evil that is expressed through abortion is very clever.  Abortion, we are told – and sold – is an expression of freedom and even civil rights.  Most of us respect “freedom” and are quick to defend it.  Most of us feel the same about individuals’ “civil rights,” and “Constitutional rights” even more.   Being thoughtful and caring, most of us hate to admit that we have been deceived into defending evil when our whole intention is to defend rights, freedom and the Constitution – all “straw men” in this battle.

It doesn’t matter whether our core beliefs are religious, although such are great resources to bring into the battle against “abortion: “abortion” being the industry of the practice, now infecting medicine and even churches.  Agnostics and atheists are free, certainly, to question our spiritual underpinnings as archaic or no longer relevant in a scientifically sophisticated world, believing that “science” has, or should, take the place of religious “superstition.”  It doesn’t matter: religious truths and rules of honor are still operating regardless of any individual’s belief or disbelief.  We still should strive to expose the Straw Men erected to protect abortion.

Among the other effects of the most famous opinion authored by Justice Harry Blackmun in 1973, Roe v. Wade cemented the repudiation of morality into federal law.  Following the failures of moral struggles in the 1960’s, and as the federalization of welfare in the “Great Society” gained momentum, Blackmun conceived an invisible right to “privacy” that forced government’s hands off of virtually any moral judgements toward individuals’ behaviors.  In effect, Roe justified evil, couching evil as a “right.”  Historically, under a basically Christian impetus toward responsibility for one’s actions (essentially answering to a greater moral code than an individual might create for him- or her-self), individuals were free to be stupid, or to simply fail, but not to be immoral.  Those who fought against immorality, or for a greater morality, were lauded and rewarded in society.  Those who worked for licentiousness had to hide their purposes, often appealing to sympathies for the confused or otherwise “unfortunate” members of society who turned to an immoral path as their “only” means to elevate themselves from still worse circumstances.  Straw Men on the march.

One need not follow any of the major religions to be uncomfortable at the destruction of unborn babies.  If one is “religious” in outlook, he or she recognizes a more-or-less direct connection to God for every gestating child.  This imparts a more-or-less direct responsibility – an obligation – to protect the holy innocents, there being no person of greater innocence than a pre-born baby.  We should recognize the straw men arrayed against morality as those who seek to protect the abortion industry.

First is the claim that what has been conceived and is growing in the womb, is NOT a baby.  It is merely a “fetus” which, in the view of abortionists, is a “mass of cells.”  By implication, the proto-baby is a “foreign invader” and obligating the host-mother to protect and nourish it is a form of slavery or oppression.  This argument is not biologically sound, nor is it morally solid.  Humans, generally, are sympathetic to “baby” anythings, be they chicks, lambs, puppies or kittens, even heifers, foals, piglets and hippopotamuses.  By great dint of effort, we have been divorced from the same emotions regarding our own babies.  Indeed, appeals for donations to feed orphaned animals are far more successful than for the prevention of child abuse.  How grotesquely odd; who benefits from this strange incongruity?

Women who have “bought” the entire narrative of oppression and “not a baby” still are likely to suffer some separation anxiety, even sadness, after an abortion.  The older the fetus the more likely the grief.  Who was that baby going to be?  Would he or she have loved me?  Blackmun found a right of privacy that flushed the destruction of the unborn clear of morality or meaning; the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, he couldn’t find.  Interestingly, 90% of women who consider abortion choose to become mothers after seeing an ultrasound test and hearing the baby’s heartbeat.

Abortion can be rationalized with sufficient hatred, yet the essential child-mother bonding that commences very early on after conception, is real.  More than simple hatred is needed to convince a mother that her irreplaceable role can be dissolved by mere hatred of a “growth” in her belly.  It is a special virulence that brings a woman into an abortion provider’s lair, and it has to be carefully taught.  For many abortion advocates, the essential hatred is hatred of male oppression.  Such a transference of emotion is another variation of the Straw Man syndrome.

The country appears to be divided over the question of easy access to abortion on demand.  This means that abortion advocates want abortion to be available within a bus ride, inexpensive or covered by insurance, and bound by few, if any, limitations.

The divide seems to follow party lines, with those on the left: liberals, progressives and socialists, the most in favor of unrestricted abortion; conservatives and Christians the least likely to approve of abortion on demand.  The Democrat party has devolved into the party of death; it seems IM-Prudent to identify as such.  Advocating for the most premature death possible is a form of evil.  For religious citizens, it is proof of the actions of the “Devil,” which is to say, “Deified Evil.”  Some call him Satan.  Whether one “believes” or doesn’t, abortion is never as “nice” as the RIGHT to choose one.  Even pro-abortion advocates should be able to recognize that pro-lifers who believe in the sanctity, or sacredness of innocent life, cannot compromise with the killing of that life.

It is worth wondering about the nature of the anger generated among pro-abortion advocates.  It seems, well, out of proportion.  Where pro-lifers might sing hymns or pray or simply try to speak with those heading into an abortion clinic – and this is understandably upsetting to those who have decided that death of their proto-baby is a solution to life problems – pregnancy support agencies are more likely to be vandalized and threatened.  Where laws have been passed to protect access to abortion clinics and to prevent “harassment” of potential abortion clients, there are none that restrict the same for pregnancy support centers.  Laws against vandalism and arson exist locally, of course, but seem to be less well enforced than the FEDERAL laws protecting the abortion industry, even when the industry, itself, breaks federal laws.

Demonstrations by pro-abortionists exhibit intense angers and even hatreds for pro-life defenders.  One wonders why feelings are so high and angers so hot, in favor of abortion.  Often there are threats of retaliation against those who oppose abortion.  “If abortion isn’t safe, then neither are you!”  Most pro-abortion / pro-death advocates have never suffered an abortion, yet they turn red in opposition to pro-lifers.  Why?  Clearly, if motivated to join a demonstration in favor of abortion, an individual believes he, or usually she, believes that a gestating baby is not a baby.  Perhaps he or she also believes so strongly in Constitutional rights that the risk of breaking laws is well worth the righteous defense of such rights.

Yet, the only Constitutional right most pro-abortion advocates have ever defended is the right to terminate pregnancies.  Is it just to defend the practice of licentious sex?  Is the responsibility for the consequences of fornication so foreign a concept that the right to abortion must be defended?  Is it that simple?  It seems not.

Obviously, pregnancy resulting from rape is a special case, as is incest, and to protect the health/life of the mother goes without question.  Requiring birth of a baby in these cases is cruel and unusual punishment, and society is not prepared to take that step.  Neither is Prudence.  Still, the baby is completely innocent in any case.  We have to arrive at an agreement of person-hood at some point in gestation, whereupon Constitutional rights apply.  We have not been able to do so.

It seems as though the right to kill innocent life is behind – or beneath – it all.  It is an act that is as anti-religious, anti-God as is possible.  If abortions were committed by sociopaths on the sidewalk, who then held the dead baby aloft like a battlefield triumph, we would arrest and incarcerate that evil person until his trial for first degree murder, a capital offense!  Rightly so.  But hiding the act away behind “clinic” doors and surgical gowns and rubber gloves enables us to defend it as a solemn right.  Solemn rite, more like.

Race

RACING TO THE FUTURE

Leave a comment

baltimoreSpeaking of different knowledges, one can recognize how close to savagery America is, at least in urban cores, which is a consequence of severely distorted knowledge and utterly alien beliefs among, mostly, American-born blacks – beliefs being the result of gaining knowledge or the certain stand-ins for it. Disaffected blacks have been taught to believe that America is a system of oppression, based on hatred for non-whites and fueled by corporate theft. Like all beliefs, these are based on kernels of truth, or knowledge.
Poverty and hopelessness can sure feel like, well, oppression, for example. Bolstered by socialism and industrialized sympathy, young blacks perceive being locked into a permanent lower caste and lash out at any opportunity to do so.

I would, too.

In some ways blacks have a clearer perception of the inequities built-into our corrupt, grotesque combine of banks, debt, stock markets and politics, than do most “middle-class” and wealthier others, color notwithstanding.

Sadly, the governing class – originally just lefty Democrats but, now, both lefty parties – have found their political power to be intertwined with either bribing inner-city denizens to keep them not too restive, or not un-bribing them, out of fear. What have we wrought? It doesn’t make us – or the next generation – or the nation, stronger.

There is NO evidence that weakening self-reliance by addicting people to welfare, does anything to make them better parents, workers or citizens. Nor does it make them – the recipients – grateful for the tax-paid gifts. Quite the opposite. Welfare breeds resentment, fatherless children, generational failure, wanton sexuality and, evidently, a criminal mindset. That is not to denigrate a race or a current generation. It does recognize that criminality is much higher in long-term welfare populations. Why is this so?

The answer, I think, is that people have a sense of right and wrong, despite the specifics of what is right and what is wrong within their groups. Generational welfare recipients learn to scam the porous, foolish transfer systems that guilt-ridden liberals have erected. There is no way to increase income on welfare without inventing (or procreating) new needs or finding ways to take additional shares to which one is not “entitled,” which is so ridiculously simple with “EBT” cash-cards that large numbers of people learn to cheat and to break rules, if not laws, without consequence.

Since others still have better lives and opportunities, the sense of entitlement among welfare-ites becomes a large part of where right and wrong diverge. It’s not the same distinction as for groups – fortunately still a majority (shrinking) – who never have been trained to cheat the system to get ahead.

“Responsible” citizens cannot grasp the ethics of the “non-responsible.” The “non-responsible” welfare-ites see the alternative outlook as a “white” one, and oppressive, the two descriptions inter-changeable. Blacks who attempt to leave the irresponsible culture for the responsible one, are put down for acting “white,” which is the same as acting like the oppressors. The gulf is virtually unbridgeable.

The two groups believe different “truths.” They are possessed of different “knowledge.”

The responsible bill-paying, tax-paying largely honest group sincerely believes that the answer is to change the beliefs of ALL the non-responsibles and, further, if granted full power in Washington, they will apply the tough-love necessary to redress these wrong beliefs and everyone will recognize the error of liberalism / progressivism… and learn to love conservatives.

Maybe.

It is truly a puzzlement as to which path to the future will dissolve the sharp hatreds that bedevil blacks and whites, today. But, there must be one, mustn’t there? We cannot plan to continue for another two American generations with cauldrons of hatred and economic dissolution festering in urban cores. We can’t seem to resolve that reality with more welfare programs or dollars; we have no political will to significantly restrict our current sloppy welfare disbursement mess; there is no amount of added public education dollars, free college tuition or forced relocations that are going to change very many people’s beliefs about “white capitalist oppression.”

Only one system has ever worked: the path of attainment. Sounds spiritual and it does address the human spirit; it also sounds religious, and its tenets underlie Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Confuscianism, Zoroastrianism and other belief systems. Ahhh…, okay, but can the government possibly create rules and enforcement that will force people onto this path?

No. Humans, outside of bondage – or Alzheimer’s – are on some path of attainment automatically. People, by virtue of living and thinking are always bettering themselves, as each perceives “better.” The majesty of our Constitutional “system” is that it is designed to protect and defend a social, religious and economic structure under which people can perfect themselves! Freedom is required for such a concept to work, as is personal responsibility. That means every person must have some sense of shame: a set of rights and wrongs driving his or her conscience. Every adult must be self-governing.

Benjamin Franklin recognized the fragility of a Republic. His famous quote was uttered as he left Independence Hall and was asked what sort of government had the delegates created? “A republic, if you can keep it,” he reportedly replied.

Republicanism DEPENDS on the quality of its citizens! America can only survive if its citizenry understands the meaning of a Constitutionally limited democratic republic. And personal responsibility.

For 100 years the idea of constitutional limitation has been under purposeful assault. From Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, through Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, weird Lyndon Johnson and poor Richard Nixon, overwhelmed Gerald Ford and dewy Jimmy Carter, slimy Bill Clinton and messianic George W. Bush, devolving into communist Barack Obama, political leadership has been aggregating power farther and farther away from those same citizens and their erstwhile representatives.

An unfortunate consequence of ever-stronger executive agencies and their growing armies of controlling types, is intrusion into virtually every aspect of life and comfort. The so-called “welfare state” has evolved into virtual sustenance for millions of less-competent, less-responsible citizens who, for complex reasons of undying, slavery-generated resentments, have been raised to believe that the oppressor government owes them reparations – reparations that will never be paid in full.

How will the equation between races be solved? Can either “group” be totally subdued? Would that even be a solution? What could that solution look like and who would enforce it?

“The government(s),” obviously. Who is most likely to become dominant in the “government” of that day? Will it be the people who control the military? Or, will it be the most lawless people – those willing to kill to reach dominance? Can the guilt-ridden, mostly white and legalistic population ever be brought to the point of fighting back?

Since the 1960’s, majority America has been redefining crime and going into debt to support “oppressed” welfare recipients. The reward has been rampaging anger. When would the majority forego lawsuits and crafty arguments that have been relinquishing equal application of the laws for decades… and turn to force?

What will “peace” consist of after that? Total segregation? Banishment of the “losers?” Apartheidt?

Clearly the living conditions for both the wealthier “oppressors” and for the welfare-economy “oppressed,” will deteriorate – possibly abruptly – as will the ability of “the government” to repair and rebuild after riotous confrontations. Smaller and smaller subsets of government-control will become islands of control: tiny police states, in effect. Constitutional bases for self governance will evaporate, not to regenerate for a long, long time, if ever.

Liberal America has been afraid to enforce truly equal application of the laws for a long time. Whatever burden personal responsibility might impose on minorities has been regretted and argued-against and, bit by bit, relaxed. The larger premise has been that “white” laws and customs may not be “imposed” upon minorities. It is unfair. In the process, “we” have managed to destroy morality and historic standards, in the hope that those things are not important to maintaining a unified nation.

Even as we pay “Ferguson” deposits on the coming bills for liberal mendacity, we pretend that there is some individual who can increase welfare dramatically enough to make our permanent underclass happy. We should not buy these lies any longer. Why is it permanent, anyway?

Governance

TRUTH – On the Road

Leave a comment

hiway2hell[Part A] TRUTH IN PAVING
Truths with hard, empirical evidence are best, since all concerned see, or know, the same information, the same fact(s). Laws may be enforced based on empirical evidence. Consider directions, or geometric dimensions. They are often expressed as related to right or left hands. Roads are an example: they have length and width, width described as the left side and right side of the road. As soon as more than one person desired to travel on a road, some sort of custom, and later, law, was needed to prevent collisions.
TWO SIDES TO EVERY TRUTH
Since it was – and is – absolutely true that the road had a left and right half – or sides – then a law that directed travelers or drivers to “keep to the right,” as they were facing, prevented collisions to every traveler’s benefit. Truth is a good basis for laws.
Nowhere are people who have lost their right hands excused from obeying the “right-hand” law. The loss of a hand doesn’t change the truth.
DIRECTIONAL OPPRESSION
Now, let’s imagine some travelers, or drivers, feeling oppressed by the right-hand restriction. These are they who feel compelled to drive in a different lane than the right-hand one. This leads them to drive on the left side, which poses serious risks to themselves and others. Mature, elected leaders, never at loss for a pander, rather than tell those differently-compelled drivers that they must drive on the right, instead tell cities, towns and states to hurry up and create a third lane down the middle so that the differently-compelled can drive in a lane that’s not the right-hand lane.
THREE DIRECTIONS… FOUR
No sooner is the third lane completed, striped and the road landscaped, but a problem crops up with other differently-compelled drivers going the other way, who also want to drive in the center lane. No problem to political types: everyone will simply cough up the taxes to build a fourth lane to accommodate both directions of differently-compelled drivers. Problem solved… maybe.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE TRUTH BEHIND THE CURTAIN
Unfortunately, many differently-compelled drivers can’t set aside the urge to drive on the left side, and actually feel discriminated against to be forced to use the middle lane(s). Politicians feel their pain right away. A new law is created that requires all right-hand-adhering drivers to make way whenever some differently-compelled driver feels compelled to use the left lane. Old-law-abiding drivers are given the option to drive in the middle lanes or, if they think it’s safer, to pull off the road and wait until a differently-compelled driver goes by. It interferes with all the non-differently-compelled drivers’ travel, but, none of the differently-compelled drivers feel oppressed any longer. That is legally important above all other concerns – even truth.
A TRUTH TO FIT EVERYONE
Eventually, though, non-differently-compelled drivers find that when traffic builds up, it saves a lot of time to take the center lanes or even the left lane. Police pull them over because they look like Non- Differently-Compelled drivers, and not like differently-compelled ones. Amazingly, every driver pulled over for driving on the wrong side of the street turns out to feel compelled to drive in other than the right lanes!
Oppression is either more widespread than originally known, or it’s contagious. Traffic cops would now be in a tough spot since the oppressed, non-oppressed and temporarily-oppressed all look alike. Perhaps the oppressed could wear different hats… or something.