Tag Archives: subjugation

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.

Culture, Politics 2021, Race

RACISM FOR LUNCH

2 Comments

There’s no such thing as a free lunch: sounds Prudent – someone, somewhere, is paying for it.  There’s no free racism, either, since someone is or soon will be, paying for it.  Nation-wise, it’s damned expensive.

The ‘racism!’ accusation is pretty expensive, too, yet it’s tossed around like racism grows on trees.  Wait, wait, wait… that advice comes from the old “… it’s not like money grows on trees, you know.”  Usually it’s thrown up to someone who needs a lesson in economics.  And, it’s good advice, too.  Money has to be related to a value exchange; all it can be is a way to measure value, denoted in the fungible currency of the day.

Prudence advises us that racism doesn’t grow on trees, either, but it’s tossed around as if it does.  Nothing backs it in terms of value except in the rarest of instances.  Sadly, ‘Racism!” has become the currency of the day.  It’s a little like the relative who opens every gift with the question, “How much did this cost?  Do you have the receipt?”  She (don’t ask, it’s always a she) also gives gifts with the price tag still attached or packed inside.  The only way that person can judge or appreciate value is in terms of currency.

More and more, people – more and more people – cannot judge any other person without determining what level of racism, or anti-racism, adheres to that person.  The value of the epithet is now so low that one might think that racism grows on trees.  The trouble with racism, though, is that it’s a form of hatred: the more you give the more you get.

People who consider themselves “liberal” have suddenly become fully invested in racism currency, not because there is a tangible “R.O.I.,” but because the return is a thick coating of purity… of innocence.  Those same declared “anti-racists” are, evidently, easily educated as to the widespread nature of racism among people who are not as anti-racist as themselves.  In a mild form of “snitching” on racists around them, the anti-racists have begun to advertise their declared “anti-racism.”  One can see the “Black Lives Matter” placards and the “Hate Has No Home Here” signs that imply that the homes without those advertised attitudes must be housing latent or actual racists.

The declared / advertised anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-transphobic, anti-Islamophobic attitudes are, in fact, an attempt at the fabled “free lunch.”  Primarily posted by white liberals, they contain an unspoken hope that when riots reach their street, their house will be safe… or their business, or their cars.  Little do they realize that the racism they claim to be opposed to with all their hearts, is already being directed straight at them: their skin is the wrong color.

“But, but… I’ve got a ‘BLM’ placard in my window!  We’re of the same heart and mind as you.  We hate whites, too!”  What?  Don’t they know there’s no such thing as a free lunch?  Next thing you know, white liberals are voting for any politician with brown skin, donating money to “BLM” and other black/brown-centered charities, and holding signs protesting “systemic” racism that they knew was lurking out there, even on their own streets: look at all the houses that don’t proclaim anti-racism.  Racism became a mirror.

Politically, and that is ALL that is truly on the table, here, “racism” means power.  That is the currency that eventually exacts a very high price for the proverbial “free lunch.”  There is no such thing as a non-racist society anywhere in the world.  Actual racists, who have manipulated soft Americans into believing racism is rampant here, are holding out a gaseous premise that racism can be “fixed” or “eliminated” by a universal hatred of whites.  In their view – we’re talking “Black Lives Matter,” here – any rules or standards that whites attempt to live by, are so racist that black and brown people don’t have to abide by them.

Maybe that last paragraph got by you without a lot of reflection or thought.  “BLM,” a communist-inspired, anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish and anti-family terrorist organization, is saying that any part of current social-cultural structure that is comfortable for white people, is so racist and foul, that it cannot be reformed and must be torn down – burned down if convenient – and replaced with the global communist dream, dominated by black and brown people.  Prudence isn’t making this up – they’ve said virtually these words.  There’s no free lunch, or anti-racism, in any currency.

All the placards and rainbow flags a house or yard has room for will not insulate any avowed “anti-racist” from that change.  Moreover, since they are white, the spoils of “BLM’s” victory, should we stupidly permit it to come to that, will not be shared equally with anyone who is the wrong color. 

Racism is normal.  It’s not equitable, per se; “equity” is unrelated to racism.  The only value a Constitutional republic can offer is equality: equality of opportunity.  No one, as in not any person or official of any sort – no teacher, no coach, no drill instructor… not even any parent or pair of parents, can cause even two people to produce or earn or perform EQUALLY.  No one.  Equity implies that the results of equal opportunity are unequal because of racism, and not just crappy racism embodied in hatred of someone of one race by someone of another – bad enough – but, no, the results are unequal because of systemic racism, a blight that not only cannot be defined, but cannot be reformed. 

Some truly innovative fantasies – lies, we call them – must be sold to a lot of people in order to even begin to approach the nirvana of a world without racism.  Fantastic because such a world is impossible, has never existed and at the cost of millions of lives, has only been set aside temporarily except… except where people are free to worship as they wish and to perfect themselves as their individual happiness leads them.  Only one place on earth has ever formed a government intended to create and maintain such a place of freedom and of equality… of opportunity.

The problem is, we haven’t fulfilled our own founding, at least, not completely.  We were well on our way in the fities and sixties, but the rotten hand of leftism-socialism, often a problem for freedom in our middle century, but a threat to it only since LBJ, has almost completely shredded the fabric of freedom and responsibility, attainment and merit and even of morality.  Certainly it has shredded Judeo-Christianity.  Now it has weakened our ability to resist so carefully that the United States can barely afford to defend itself should it come to that.  For shame, Nancy, Chuck, Barack and the rest of you, demons.

Has anything they espouse resolved racism?  Not in the slightest, for they are employing hated-filled racism to fight unthinking racism.  Not that racism can be eliminated.  Martin Luther King, Jr. once said in a speech to the Massachusetts Great and General Court, that “…no law can make a man love me, but it can keep him from killing me.”  He summed it up nicely.  Government can enforce only civility, and it may adjudicate only injustice – it cannot “create” justice or enforce “fairness.”  Nor are those its duties.  However, an assault on one’s person, interference with his or her civil rights (including rights enumerated in the Constitution), theft or destruction of his or her property, various frauds, libels and so forth, provide a more than adequate basis for enforcing and protecting civil order.  No American citizen, for any reason, should be made to bow down or kneel before anyone else, or be forced by threats of violence or loss, to swear to any idea he or she does not believe.  How can people elected to lead in the United States, twist their beliefs to the extent that they can approve of or encourage the blatant subjugation of one race by another?

With hate now a political tool, principles and beliefs can be discarded, apparently.  Ask our 46th “president.”  Every principle he has espoused throughout his “campaign” and since winning the certifications by enough states to claim the presidency, is new.  Over the nearly 4 decades he became wealthy in the House and Senate, Joe Biden stated, repeatedly, completely opposite principles to those he now governs by.  It seems Prudent to wonder what sort of a man can completely change his beliefs after age, 60, say, or even after 50 years of age?  An unusual one, to say the least, if not a scurrilous bastard.

Joe Biden embodies the high cost of anti-racism as government policy.  Since it is impossible to achieve an anti-racist society, increasing levels of government are needed to pursue it and impose it.  That is to say, fascist socialism, which has nowhere to go but to communism.  Scratch an anti-racist agitator and the next layer reveals a fascist.

There is no free lunch.

Governance, Immigration, Responsibility, Trump

(Word)holes, Redux

3 Comments

Many people worthy of trust and respect are seriously upset about the president’s crudeness.  He reportedly asked why “we” should allow people from various so-called “shithole” countries to immigrate to the United States?  For all of its crudeness, offensiveness and vulgarity, it is a very good question – one we should not be afraid to ask.

Well, the circumstance of the comment and the comment itself are both fairly straightforward, even simple.  But the inherent permutations and nuances are profound, sad, and instructive. This requires some parsing and mapping of the “splatter” that has emanated from the splat of a single word into the miasma of politics, hate, government, and the “American Dream… not to mention social media and hate.  Didn’t I already mention “hate?”  We shouldn’t overlook hate as a driver in modern… umm, modern ahhh, well… modern everything: media, news, broadcasting, ‘friend’ships, dialogue, religion, holidays, commerce, advertising, movies, philosophy and casual rumination.  Facebook, too.  Sad.

So, first observation is that every person who has talked about, proclaimed about or even thought about the description of many countries as “shitholes,” could in a few minutes, list a dozen or two dozen countries that fit the description!  Let’s change the term to “backward countries” and each could list three dozen.  What does it mean to make the identification?

It means, generally, that those countries have truly crappy politics.  Our politics are pretty crappy, too, granted, but, as Churchill observed, democracy is the worst form of government ever tried… except for all the others.  Corollary to that gem is this: The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Even those who could construct a list of “backward” countries probably cannot describe what is “wrong” with their politics – the system of leaders, laws and lies that govern their populations.  Typically, under the blanket of crappy politics, the economics of these countries are also pretty crappy… sorry, “backward.”  The result is extreme stratification, poor education, low skill levels, limited industrialization and little imagination.  Simultaneously, the BELIEFS of their citizens are likely to be very different from those of the majority of ours.

Changing beliefs is the primal tool for the weakening and subjugation of peoples.

One might reply that “America is the melting pot” and go on to predict that “we” will “make” those unfortunate immigrants “better” and therefore more like ourselves.  Seems like hubris.  This attitude sounds magnanimous and sympathetic but it was never true.  If there is an American myth, that’s it.  We have functioned fairly well as a “salad bowl,” but never as a melting pot.  Americans of every origin and kind learned to live and thrive together, yet they were never forced to change who they were, beyond learning and following our constitution and laws.  But there were very distinct differences about when America “worked” and how things are, now, when so many consider our country and institutions to be “broken.”  The key is a grand misunderstanding of what is “The American Dream.”

The real and enduring “American Dream” can be stated only thus: That all kinds of people can come together in FREEDOM, respective of one another, respective of law and reason, free to follow God as each sees fit, and responsible to themselves and others for the consequences of their actions.  This sentence summarizes the U. S. Constitution’s connection to individuals.  Not connection to groups, cliques, whether religious, emotional or political, but to individuals, much the way that Jesus described individual responsibility to the laws of God.  “America” represents the boundless opportunity offered to every individual to perfect him or her self: the pursuit of happiness.  And no less, or more.

This is not how many view the “American Dream” or “America,” itself, today.  Socialist thought perceives control of individuals as the high point of governance, the exact opposite of the teachings of Christ or of the values and purpose behind the founding of the United States.  To accomplish complete control – and different kinds of socialists have tried many ways to do so – it is essential to place people into groups, or “identities” for whom certain laws will apply, whether to control that group or apply to another group or to all others(!) in order to control THEM.  There is no clearer example than brown-skinned people as an over-group, and African-Americans, as the driving sub-group, and descendants of slaves, the most exalted of the “drivers.”  Barring descent from slaves, having marched in Selma or having stood near Martin Luther King, Jr., suffices.

As with the growth of federal welfare programs, the epithet of “racist” has become almost standard within the belief structure of many black or brown-skinned residents of the U. S.  The charge of “racist” works to control the “other group” of essentially all “Whites,” including modifying their language and actions.  This has yielded political power to the modern kind of socialists: American liberals.  This, in part, explains the immediate descent to charges of racism emanating from one participant of the immigration meeting during which the president spoke so crudely.  But, it doesn’t make it true.

Welfare, itself, is a gigantic difference, since the 1960’s, from when earlier waves of immigrants reached our shores.  Those from Ireland, for example, came to take care of themselves and their families, as did Italians, Poles, Portugese, Norwegians, Swedes, Finns and Germans, Russians, Albanians, Greeks, Turks, Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians and many others.  Did they come perfectly?  No.  We didn’t send ships or planes to bring them here more quickly, either.  They were strong and self-selected to endure the sacrifice of leaving everything behind to start anew.  This is no longer so.

Immigrants in recent decades have been encouraged and assisted for purposes of “diversity,” the opposite of e pluribus unum.  Immigrants , today, receive fundamental – and generously comforting – public support, benefits, even cash, yet are not required to meet ANY tests applied to earlier generations.  They need not learn English, they need not become citizens (refugees, asylees) they need not assimilate.  Indeed, they need not even follow laws, often being released for offenses that citizens pay dearly for committing.  One might observe that their beliefs are not those of the “American Dream,” but of taking advantage of our official guilts and sympathies… or of selling drugs, or worse.

We are stretching our capacities to accommodate immigrants, including illegal entrants, even to the point of breaking our own laws, local and federal, to make them comfortable.  Yes, we are an “immigrant” nation, by past definition – most assuredly not by the current one.  I am glad someone with authority and sensibility is asking, “Why should we welcome immigrants from the (backward) countries of the world?”  What we have been doing of late is certainly not in the national interest, which is the primary business of a president, one hopes, although it may fulfill the interests of political partisans and of those who wish America to not exist as we know it.  Ask that question again, Mr. President, louder.

A second observation instructs that the president cannot, ever, trust in the confidence or even honesty of anyone from Congress or the “press” and damned few from the executive branch.  Trump failed to take note of the many lessons of the past year and more, when he posed the question everyone in the room, except Mr. Durbin possibly, a mendacious Democrat of proven, documented unreliability, was thinking and should be thinking: Why should we welcome immigrants who are unlikely to contribute to our economy or standards of living, and whose beliefs are antithetical to the fundaments of the U. S. Constitution or of the “American Dream.”

The ridiculous process of “hating” the president (and others) for so many things of which most of us are also guilty, and so readily accusing him of racism, transphobia, Islamophobia or a dozen other awful constructs, is corrosive and intensely destructive of our “unum” for which millions have bled and died, sacrificed and struggled.  If we are seeking perfection in or from our elected leaders we are fools.  They need, like John Kennedy, only to be pure enough to set a course that is pro-American.  The conversations never disclosed, that the Kennedys had then, or that brother Ted ever had, or by ANY other president, would curl our earlobes.  The profanity and privately voiced prejudices of EVERY president, have been, until recently, kept out of the news because their disclosure would have been so destructively irresponsible.  What we didn’t know didn’t hurt us; had we known all of it we’d have been damaged and history made far different.

News outlets of every kind hope to make history by ripping away confidentiality, no matter the damage.  Their hatreds justify the damage… for shame.  Do we think – do I think – that Trump will become perfect in order to avoid that damage?  Hardly.  When I pray about him it is to cause some intercession that will abridge the worst of his impulsive communication.  It is not that he will disappear, leaving leadership to others.  I have no love for him, but no hatred.  I grasp his attitudes, and even share some, not, I hope, the worst of them.  But then, I try to live on purpose and not in comparison, as does he, I suspect.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.  For all of his flaws I believe Trump is on stage exactly when needed by this country.  I want him to succeed where his direction and intention is right and best – or at least better – than where we were heading prior, God willing.