As a destroyer once put it: The people behind this are the destroyers. They are destroying the fabric of society: the family, the minds and bodies of the next generation, education, enlightenment, and critical thinking. Hell on earth will follow as intended.
By weaponizing woke ideology, a powerful group is destroying the modern world by poisoning the wells we all share of comradery, fellowship, and family – they are doing everything they can to decimate the ties that bind us together and to destroy every trace of common ground and brotherhood between us.
Values we all once shared that were intended to do the most good for the most people are being maliciously torched in the name of discord and disunity by utilizing a reality denying, mentally ill, family destroying, child warping, depraved ideology.
and still I read how the daughter of gates said (when asked if she was not worried that taking the jab would let her dad know where she was, what she was doing etc) that her dad already knew all that. so she must be 'raised' family-like - or is he spying on her when she is in bed with her husband, too?
I just learned about the Cloward-Piven strategy today, and it certainly aligns perfectly with the encouragement of chaos and discord being fomented across Western countries. While some people believe it’s “evil” in the religious sense, the Cloward-Piven strategy gives us a more political and logical explanation, especially considering other factors like the WEF, Soros, etc.
That's interesting. I read about the C-P plan years ago and forgot about it, but it makes sense esp. with the rumours of a UBI.
Come to think of it, the idea was rolled out during Covid again among some Americans in a private group- that the lockdowns were part of a plan to implement a UBI.
As for owning ones kids, apparently parents sign them over to the state at birth; the meaning of the birth certificate.
"In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy – everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card."
Bingo. No reason to pretend they may have a genuine concern for these young people. They don't. Thus deep diving into their conflicted thought processes is like exploring a McDonalds menu for the healthy choice. An exercise in futility.
Auron "Don't make me tap the sign" McIntyre called this early: after trans adults, trans kids would be the next client class gingered up (gendered up?) by the Left in the Civil Rights revolution. Every sexually confused teenager is a ward of the state, entitled to Pritzker-funded mutilation. This is the Party line.
Cut the power, as in literally. Return to doing EVERYTHING by hand and you will return to the best way to live. You will be your own bridge to living or dying. People with nothing of substance to do have far too much time to invert reality. Idle hands are indeed the devil’s playground.
I hate to agree with this but this has been the pedophile /NAMBLA/Green Party agenda for a long time. We don’t have to prepare, they will be dealt with accordingly.
You are so right. Satan is in charge. The whole world has never been this F’d up. 😢That’s what he does lies, steal, and destroy and he’s doing a good job. Can’t wait to see God kick his butt!! 🤣🤣🤣
Everyone is born with inalienable rights and that includes bodily autonomy, hence parents who are the guardians of their children should have the right to
reject the more than 50 vaccines required before kids enter adulthood, especially as many have proven to be neither safe nor effective, but quite dangerous.
NVIC.org (National Vaccine Information Center) shares exceptionally useful and legal info for protecting your children from “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines (US Supreme Court used this wording to justify the liability-free protection granted to vaccine makers, doctors, nurses, CDC, FDA, and all vaccine-pushers). This seems to be the crux of the matter. If we demanded of our Congressmen to abolish this protection (which Congress granted), the vaccine industry would collapse. Financial ruin due to lawsuits for vaccine induced injury and death is the exact reason the vaccine lobbyists used to persuade Congress to given them a liability shield.
It's my understanding that the reason for these catastrophic legal developments in the mid '80's was that when the vaxx makers announced they were planning to close up shop rather than be driven out of business by liability costs, Congress/Reagan et al. made the choice they did in order to enable the bioweapons programs to carry on as they have been dutifully doing ever since. It would certainly be more honest to reassign a lot of these matters, and get the DoD to be more transparent ... and good luck to us if that becomes a stated goal.
The propagandists and politicos have been pushing this talking point particularly hard over the past decade, from Joe Biden quoting 2023 Teacher of the Year Rebecka Peterson (“‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s child. Our nation’s children are all our children!’”) to MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry saying people need to “break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents” and accept that “kids belong to whole communities.”
And, of course, there’s this now-removed BLM website verbiage:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
We might be inclined to think this strategy originates with Marx, and he is certainly a proponent of it, but it actually dates back to Plato’s “Republic,” in which he writes, “in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common.”
In Plato’s dystopian utopia, children are not to know their parents, with the state “taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognises her own child.… Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long.”
And this is partly what the noble lie is intended to obscure:
“Our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects.… Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.”
Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, who was to become WHO’s first director-general in 1948, delivered a lecture in 1946 titled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress,” in which he stated:
“The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children. It is not a job for economic or emotional misfits, for frightened, inferiority-ridden men and women.… Fortunately there are recent signs of intellectual stirrings amongst teachers.”
He believes parents teach their children backwards concepts like morality and thus children should be educated [indoctrinated] by the state to free them from such baggage.
I covered this topic extensively in my my Croatian Weekly (Hrvatski Tjednik) interview, and here is the ridiculously long url for that specific Q&A if you would like to read more chilling quotes and get links to the original sources:
To my mind, it entered the popular consciousness when Hillary Clinton quoted the “It takes a village” line. It was clear to me, and many others, what she meant, and it didn’t have anything to do with voluntary actions within traditional cultural structures. It meant Marx.
I’ve seen a number of commentators (commenters, commentators? I never know what sounds right) point out that the subverters use a tactic of combining vague, unassailable truths with unspoken subtexts that you have to “know” to know, which is intellectual Kryptonite for people who are arguing in good faith from conventional frameworks. I’m not sure if that is Motte and Bailey, but whatever it is, it’s obvious once you see it. James Lindsay says, you cannot debate these people; you cannot accept any of their terms or arguments. It’s all strategic manipulation and the only response is ridicule.
The useful idiots, whom I call the “Webelieves” because of those inane yard signs, fall in line. When experiencing the cognitive dissonance of disorientation from the purported intent being at odds with the logical evaluation of the actions and arguments, they double down on herding up.
Personal note: I disagree with Lindsay on not being able to debate this: learn how they think, learn their arguments and then use them against them. It's terrifyingly easy to do.
I guess that's what Lindsay does, really. He doesn't only meme and smirk. I wonder, though - since they aren't actually *interested* in arguing, just in issuing polemics, if engaging with any level of intellectually sincerity gives them more validity than they deserve (and by "they" I mean anyone who puts forward these arguments, whether it's operators or useful idiots. I observe that there are some people who will engage with sincerity.)
When it comes to correcting the beliefs of the speaker, this is where only personal relationships can work, I think. Someone who can apply gentle but consistent pressure over a long time, and who can ask difficult questions without raising a defensive reaction that just overwhelms them.
When it comes to winning the culture war, though, the debate isn't about the speaker - it's about the ones listening to the debate. In the midst of nonsense word salad that feels good, certainly, to nod along to and be a part of the 'in' crowd, true reason, logic, and grounded evidence jumps out and makes itself unavoidable. You win the fight over the minds spectating. Doesn't matter if you can get the one you're arguing with to even listen to you. If they go broadly unchallenged, though. the world starts to look like their perspective is the only valid one, and that gets dangerous.
The point of debating (or verbal fisticuffs, school-yard style, which is what it really is) them is winning the audience over to your side if at all possble.
Ideally, the audence will go "Oh, what a nice and intelligent man/woman. He/she speaks my thoughts and feelings what I haven't been able/dared to voice. How wonderful to know I'm not alone in thinking/feeling this way, and sham on that so-and-so opponent of his/hers for behaving the way it does!"
That way, the audience will be full of potential for further opposition to the left (not a term I tend to use since it's rather meaningless and in error, but it's the local vernacular on this Stack).
Of course, should you actually meet someone who is genuinely interested in an issue (say, transsexualism) and approaches it with a "What is this?"-mindset rather than ideological dogmatism, a real debate where both sides start with pooling their perspectives and knowledge is possible, but such opportunities are increasingly rare in my experience; there's simply too much selection pressure on people for them to opt for real debate instead of replaying the opening scenes of the two troops of apes in a 'A Space Odyssey'.
They won't do more than offer vague platitudes. They will ask you to support what you say, but ask them to do the same and its ad hominem attacks and condescension. The intention is to prompt an emotional response.
Lindsay talks about the response being the point. So I have to decide, do I meme them 'til they cry, which is what these ideas merit, or do I engage if I perceive that the person is sincere? It's a judgment call.
My thinking is that as soon as the first ad hominem attack is leveled, the argument is over and they conceded. My response is to simply point out what they are doing and ask them to define why such an insult is pertinent to the issue at hand.
Yes. The administrative state (or "nanny state" if you prefer) is not "a village." Community is good, but the state is not a "community." I don't understand why those concepts are impossible for statists to grasp.
The Hillaries of the world obfuscate, but I don't think the average statist (the average left-leaning Westerner) is doing so, or clever enough to discern why such obfuscation would be beneficial to anything.
To the professed saviors of mankind, from shrinks to theorists to bureaucrats to every aspiring social engineer the West has coughed up the past 100 yrs, the problem is never their grandiose schemes or their need to strap us all to the Procrustean bed of their fantasy utopias or their simple inability to just allow people to flourish in their own way instead of posing as priests no one asked for—the problem is always the stupid people's stubborn refusal to follow their instructions to the letter, the stupid people's insistence that they can run their own lives without the guidance of our modern clerisy of "intellectuals" and other con artists.
Our elite controller class may change with the years, may adopt new gurus and switch from Freud to Marx to Foucault or mix them all together in one pungent potion, but underneath their fancy jargon the message is always the same: "OBEY HARDER!"
There is a perverse irony in the obsession so many erstwhile Communist ideologues have with property and ownership, when Communism itself rejects the idea of private property.
There is an even more perverse irony when those who claim to stand for freedom can think and see nothing but slavery.
It has been my thesis for a number of years now that attempts to establish Communism last for at most 5-10 years, after which the government reverts back to its previous form of authoritarianism.
Stalin ruled more like a Tsar than a Communist (even Trotsky accused him of abandoning the revolution).
Mao's hero was Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of a united China who based his reign on the principles of Legalism.
Communism ultimately does not exist in reality. Nor can it.
"But real communism hasn't been tried!" They've spent the last 80-100 years or so trying different versions of communism to see which one will finally lead to their undefinable "utopia". https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-utopia/
Plymouth Plantation nearly ended in disaster owing to the inefficiencies of communal ownership, which was finally ended by the second governor of the colony, William Bradford.
The Israeli Kibbutzim are often cited as models of successful communitarian and socialist living, but the strict communist adherence to no private property has not survived the twin challenges of economic crisis and economic success.
The problem with Communism is that it insists on treating people as groups rather than as people. Communism as a philosophy entails the denial of the atomic unit of identity, the individual person, in favor of the group. This, of course, is simply antithetical to how humans actually exist in the world.
The rebuke to Communism was written 3,000 years ago, in the closing passage of Judges (v 21:25): "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
When one realizes that first and foremost we are made (and called) to be accountable to God above all else, no philosophical space remains for Communism to exist.
Them kibbutzim discovered what happened with children raised to have a powerful group loyalty and no specific pair of parents to attach to. It took them a couple of generations, though, to notice the pattern.
Even if a Kibbutz or a commune was successful for generations that would not prove it could be done Nationally. On a commune you can kick people out. You can ‘outcast’ them.
Adults raised from infancy in the kibbutz system had very strong group identity but tended to struggle with interpersonal relationships. Intimacy was a challenge.
I agree, but see, in all those attempts that failed; Marcuse and their ilk would have said it wasn't done correctly. That's what shifted them from Marx's economy based theory to Mao's cultural based one. It's kind of baked into the philosophy, er, religion of communism that if one attempt doesn't succeed, it has to be modified in order to make it truly work. There's always one more revolution.
But similar to what you quoted from Judges-- Romans 1:18-25.
That's their argument, but no matter how many times you polish a turd it is still a turd.
Marx was right about the problem, but he was completely wrong about the solution. He was wrong in his economic arguments and he was wrong in his logic. Lumping people into classes is how the elites have built their power bases since the dawn of civilization. Any proposal that continues to lump people into classes can never be a solution to the problems such classism brings. Doubling down on classism as Marx did can never lead to the eradication of classes as Marx proposed.
There will always be another revolution, but so long as those revolutions center on the group and not the individual, each and every one of them is predestined to fail.
Their refusal to see that makes your citation of Romans quite apropos.
Marx actually got what we notionally consider "capitalism" conflated with "mercantilism".
The basis for the Communist Manifesto was not wrong. Factory owners and nascent industrialists in the early days of the Industrial Revolution both in Europe and in the United States WERE exploitative of their laborers. One only need consider tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in 1911 to see that.
Where Marx failed was in realizing that what the industrialists were in the 19th century the heads of national joint stock companies (e.g., Hudson's Bay Company, British East India Company) were in the 18th century: mercantilists hell bent on permanent transfers of wealth rather than capitalistic creation of wealth. Ironically, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith are critiquing the same fundamental economic system--mercantilism--just in different eras.
Because he failed to acknowledge the mercantilist origins of Europe's industrialist class, Marx arrived at an unsustainable solution: simply reverse the wealth transfers. Marx' Communist ideal--which HAS been tried by Stalin, by Mao, by Pol Pot, and by others--was to transfer the wealth of the wealthy to the impoverished masses. It fails because when you have transferred all the wealth away from the wealthy, you still have impoverished masses. It was the realization of this that left the Soviet Union no viable option but dissolution at the end of 1991.
Capitalism--specifically, the system of free markets within a free society championed by Adam Smith--understands that wealth is created by the productive labor of individual men and women, and that the best utilizations of that wealth occur when those same individual men and women are free to direct their labors as they see fit.
Marx' one true accomplishment was to conflate the economic concepts of capitalism and mercantilism. Marx was never an opponent of free market capitalism because he was too sloppy a student of both economics and history to recognize free market capitalism in the world around him. Rather, he was opposed to a genuine economic malignancy--mercantilism--that he decided to call capitalism. Sadly, the world has been persuaded to go along with his epistemiological error.
I have thought the same thing, well put. The Wealtg of Nationa, I believe by Adam Smith, is a great read that everyone should be required in high school. It really addresses the history of mercantilism and aristocracy that was explorative and how capitalism in the American sense was a radical departure from that
Perhaps the greatest distinction to be drawn between Wealth of Nations on the one hand and the Communist Manifesto/Das Kapital on the other is that Wealth of Nations is descriptive, while the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are prescriptive.
Adam Smith wrote about economics as it actually happens. Karl Marx wrote about economics as he thought it ought to be.
I think we should start referring to it as "applied communism," rather like "applied mathematics" ~ the results of human application being what they are ...
What is weird, as I pointed out to a so called Marxist I used to talk to, is you are free to be a communist in this country. Nothing stops people from communal living. There are people who do live this way, ecologically from the land, sharing fruits of their labor. The Amish are an example and there are also small eco villages that are not religious but they want to be sustainable but it’s not an easy life. I think most of them do need to engage in some kind of trade or selling in order to live more comfortably. But nobody is forcing them to buy Amazon accounts, use cars, and eat out at restaurant chains. If you believe in it, go live it. When I hear leftists I remember one girl I heard at a coffee shop, “I’m a leftist, I hate everything.” This sums it up. It truly is a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder seeking a socially acceptable justification for theft, and violence. I have wanted to write a book comparing the ideology to the psych criteria for personality disorders for a long time.
There is not a single communist or socialist regime that has not ended up with a massive underclass with nothing and a small overclass with everything.
Always, including China where the elite can buy body parts.
As reported at the World Economic Forum, "You will own nothing and be happy." So, it's no surprise that these unelected "officials" claim that we don't own our kids.
I've never met a progressive who could think a logical thought. They just memorize the talking points. Progressives don't even own their own thoughts.
You make a chilling observation that I and probably most others have never considered. There is no reason to presume that the WEF wanted to exclude children from the elimination of ownership clause. We live in difficult times.
It's more than just progressives, many do not have their own thoughts. I wonder about myself now. It's just become more and more eerie in this Covid era.
Oh you sweet sweet summer child! Ever since Thurgood Marshall pioneered the tactic, the Left has always set about trying to create a series of legal precedents that leads to the result they want. So you whittle away at segregation bit by bit until the Court finally outlaws it.
The real goal of all these "modest" changes is that kids will be able to have sex (all laws against child sex will become case-by-case where you need to prove the child didn't consent & couldn't consent). Once you can't just throw people in jail for having sex w/ minors, they can have sex w/ minors w/ impunity because proving that particular minor either did not or could not consent is virtually impossible. Heck most victims won't even try.
You need to think like a lawyer & think about issues of proof - how would you establish that a child victim is a victim? How would you establish that the perp knew or should have known?
Right now we have a blanket rule - prove the kid's a kid & the D goes to jail, but once they abolish that hard & fast line, they can do what they want.
This isn't about kids choosing abortion (when minors get abortions it's not lovers, it's rapists who are the fathers), or gender identity; it's about making kids available for sex.
That's the goal & all of these precedents are pushing us towards it. You can't say a kid can pick abortion & castration etc, but not a little sex & courts won't say it - they'll rationalize the law using these precedents to legalize child sex.
A society in which the only restraint on sex is consent will soon be a society with no constraints at all for those sufficiently powerful to coerce consent. The Left is a coalition of the powerful & those who think they can benefit from supporting the powerful (the King & his court so to speak); therefore, the Left wants child sex because they want more power for the powerful - that's their only unifying position. (Why would the Left oppose medical freedom? Because they Left always supports more power for the powerful - that predicts EVERYTHING they do, even the apparent contradictions, like abortion which ensures the powerful can have sex w/o fear of pregnancy.).
If you won't protect your kids from these "choices," you won't be able to protect them from anything much longer.
Think I'm wrong? If Hunter Biden raped your 12 year old, what do you think are the chances you could attain a conviction? What would you & your child have to suffer in the media to press those charges? Just as Hunter Biden is free to do what he likes, powerful people like him will be free to do what they like to your kids once "consent" replaces age. And that's what this is all about.
Oh my gosh you horrify me but maybe you are right. Your last paragraph recalls to mind (and I fear explains) the incomprehensible treatment of the Loudoun Co., VA dad whose daughter was sexually assaulted at school.
I am in agreement with your assessment but believe you have let one neglected prejudice cloud your thoughts.
There is no left or right in politics any longer, never is when lobbying is possible. The powerful control ALL the parties and all the media that shepherds the bulk of the electorate. Very few are immune to the fear thy neighbour propaganda and even fewer political candidates are able and prepared to resist the greed, bribery and blackmail of the well run system of coercion to remain honest.
We need to vote for those that are the most likely to dilute the political control that is nearly complete.
I agree w/ your solution, but I respectfully disagree on the courts/Left strategy: the Right really isn't trying to increase the power of the elites via the courts, they aren't looking for a string of precedents that lead to some new horror. The Right is trying to increase govt power but they use different tactics. And, yes, we need much smaller government & that should be the primary issue. I was really just addressing a particular tactic of the Left & their motives for that tactic.
I know it looks like the parties differ but the media and party loyalty is owned by the same people at the top. They simply use two corrals to hold the sheep, one side uses a cattle prod and electric fencing the other has hedges and a sheepdog. Both sets do the masters bidding, one for mutton, the other for wool.
There was a list of laws that have been put in place to enable many of the loopholes in responsibility and ease of money concentration done over the years. I do not know which side is more represented but the laws have been put in place by parties and presidents from both sides of the isle. If one party cannot pass a certain law then the other party does so when the see-saw tips over.
I agree smaller government is an imperative for sustainable living, is should be made so small that people fight to get more. Every new law should repeal two old laws. Every new law should not be even considered unless DEMANDED by the people in referendum. After a while there would only be the essential laws left and people can get on with living and the predators would no longer have tools to subjugate and monopolise. I admit I am a dreamer.
I see the political landscape, not divided into Ds and Rs, not Conservative and Progressives, but instead divided into Statists (as you note, the Rs also seek power) vs. Those Who Yearn to Be Free. We the Little People.
The people promoting this, at least the manipulators, recognize that children and adolescents are readily propagandized and mind-formed by anyone they perceive as a “just” authority, and so the people who want to break society in their own interests do NOT want to face any obstacles to employing these strategies on children. They *most certainly* mean, “we own your children, or, at least, we get to control them.”
I would argue that this has been the purpose of “public” school from the start, and that the populace allowed this to become compulsory was the original sin of societal destruction. It had to be compulsory, because, as John Gatto (hm, any relation, Cat?) points out, the Dewey folks wanted to beat out the cultural insularity of the German immigrants, who were the ones who *weren’t* going to send their kids to school if it wasn’t punishable by law. And, as usual, the forcers appeal to people’s weaknesses, social acceptance AND a wish to abdicate their responsibilities onto someone else for convenience, and call it virtue.
Raise your children. Make it your job. You get ONE priority at a time. This is it. And don’t think outsourcing it counts. *Someone* is raising them. If it isn’t you, it’s these people.
I don’t believe this was the purpose of public schools “from the start.” It is, today, which is reversible with school choice. The argument that Christian schools violates separation of church and state in fact violates freedom of religion.
In the 17th century, the government required towns to set up schools, with the intention of provided “proper” educations. Why would that become imperative to the Protestant leaders of the time? Because they wanted their version of things promoted. That’s what institutions do. Families were teaching their children at home, and could hire tutors individually or together if desired. When the government imposes something, that means it’s NOT what people would do for themselves.
The 17th century would be the 1600s. So what government are you referring to?
Even in the nineteenth century, families were not “teaching their children at home.” Illiterates cannot teach literacy. Let’s try to think in terms of the real.
Very much so. This is among the darkest rabbit holes you will find, but we must face these problems in order to defeat them: https://tritorch.com/predator
Very logical piece, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that in today’s society logic has been thrown out the window. People in general no longer think logically. We are in the midst of a great spiritual battle. A true evil has overtaken our society, and I’m afraid nothing but a true act of God will be able to save us from what is heading our way.
My pre-pubescent niece kept her hair short, favored jeans, tee shirts, sneakers and sports - with boys, if possible - and eventually blossomed into a beautiful young woman who is now a happily married mother of two.
How about this? You only own your kids as long as they are in the womb. They are yours to do with as you please. But once they emerge, they belong to the state.
That is such a strawman. I'm not even really pro-life, but that's a straight up lie about what pro-lifers believe. It's the fetus they care about. If it was about controlling feminists' bodies, they'd be outlawing purple hair and nose rings.
“adolescence is notoriously confusing for everyone and uncertainty and disorientation about identity is far from unusual.”
Never have truer words been written. The very last thing adolescents need is this sort of controversy with them at its center. They need stability just to have hope. Without hope there is NOTHING.
It isn’t just adolescence, either. When we have children, how could we just forget it? I have solid memories of peer after peer, male and female, confiding: “I’m just so fucked-up!” Generally the person saying it was early twenties, beyond adolescence.
Honestly I think all humans thrive on some form of stability, which can look different to different people, granted, and I feel like we are all suffering from its lack. Very sad.
What we’re seeing in these comments is a certain unity. That is in a sense, stability. The assault on our society, culture and freedoms includes manipulation of elections, and we’re seeing that right now, with flipped results in battleground special elections. The Marxists think the end justifies the means and that we won’t do anything about it. In our complacence it has worked like a surprise attack. Well, that advantage is now past. It is time to fight back.
Tattoos can be reversed (Not perfectly, but reverse tattooing is out there). Sex changes cannot be reversed. XY or YY chromosomes are not interchangeable, and to deny their reality and significance begets problems.
IKR? I have had quite a few surgeries in my life. Some unnecessary, some perhaps necessary, some avoidable.
The thing I learned about surgery is the permanence of it. Once a thing is removed, it's gone. What they don't tell you, when they take a thing out - is how it interacts with ***everything*** else in your system, and oh, btw, you might crash without it.
The thing I learned about drug treatments, is that they, too, can cause permanent changes in your metabolic and endocrine cascades. I'm still healing from psych drugs, last taken 10 years ago. And that ain't even hormones! Egads. (I have a FtM trans friend, now going bald...and um, what is this doing to "his" ovaries?)
Sssssooooooooo I'm thankful I have no children and don't have to wrestle with blockers & surgeries. Permanent is permanent. I cringe at the affirming "top surgery," "bottom surgery" terms. Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? Sounds so much better than mutilation.
It seems as if the advocates of the radical transgender agendas have strong desires for children (and adults) to be the property of the State, the Leviathan, the mortal God. And these radicals have strong desires to manage the affairs of the State. They’re sociopaths.
It's nothing complicated. We are confronting genuinely evil people who want to destroy the family and have sex with children.
Prepare yourselves accordingly.
As a destroyer once put it: The people behind this are the destroyers. They are destroying the fabric of society: the family, the minds and bodies of the next generation, education, enlightenment, and critical thinking. Hell on earth will follow as intended.
By weaponizing woke ideology, a powerful group is destroying the modern world by poisoning the wells we all share of comradery, fellowship, and family – they are doing everything they can to decimate the ties that bind us together and to destroy every trace of common ground and brotherhood between us.
Values we all once shared that were intended to do the most good for the most people are being maliciously torched in the name of discord and disunity by utilizing a reality denying, mentally ill, family destroying, child warping, depraved ideology.
and still I read how the daughter of gates said (when asked if she was not worried that taking the jab would let her dad know where she was, what she was doing etc) that her dad already knew all that. so she must be 'raised' family-like - or is he spying on her when she is in bed with her husband, too?
ew
I just learned about the Cloward-Piven strategy today, and it certainly aligns perfectly with the encouragement of chaos and discord being fomented across Western countries. While some people believe it’s “evil” in the religious sense, the Cloward-Piven strategy gives us a more political and logical explanation, especially considering other factors like the WEF, Soros, etc.
That's interesting. I read about the C-P plan years ago and forgot about it, but it makes sense esp. with the rumours of a UBI.
Come to think of it, the idea was rolled out during Covid again among some Americans in a private group- that the lockdowns were part of a plan to implement a UBI.
As for owning ones kids, apparently parents sign them over to the state at birth; the meaning of the birth certificate.
Can I suggest this change, maybe:
From: "...a powerful group is destroying the modern world..." to:
"...a powerful group is destroying the modern western world..."
Or changing the scenery, music and props. To be honest it has been crying out for a change these last 500 years.
Agreed. No family, no society, no culture, no nothing.
Just producing-consuming units.
I will never forget in the 1990s, when the Teacher's Union here /opposed/ background-checks from the sex-offender registry on teachers before hiring.
I can barely stay coherent even thinking about it.
The relevant part of Orwell's '1984':
"In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy – everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card."
Bingo. No reason to pretend they may have a genuine concern for these young people. They don't. Thus deep diving into their conflicted thought processes is like exploring a McDonalds menu for the healthy choice. An exercise in futility.
Auron "Don't make me tap the sign" McIntyre called this early: after trans adults, trans kids would be the next client class gingered up (gendered up?) by the Left in the Civil Rights revolution. Every sexually confused teenager is a ward of the state, entitled to Pritzker-funded mutilation. This is the Party line.
As Mr. Holliday said, plan accordingly.
I promise you, I WILL destroy, maim and quite possible kill anyone that tries to come for my kids. That’s a promise
Cut the power, as in literally. Return to doing EVERYTHING by hand and you will return to the best way to live. You will be your own bridge to living or dying. People with nothing of substance to do have far too much time to invert reality. Idle hands are indeed the devil’s playground.
I hate to agree with this but this has been the pedophile /NAMBLA/Green Party agenda for a long time. We don’t have to prepare, they will be dealt with accordingly.
Once we started messing about with the universality of boy-meets-girl, the rest was (tragically) kind of bound to follow: https://www.takimag.com/article/straight-talk/ https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
Right. One wit on Steve Sailer's blog commented, after gay marriage passed, that it was the starting line, not the finish line. Very true.
Guns? Guns.
You are so right. Satan is in charge. The whole world has never been this F’d up. 😢That’s what he does lies, steal, and destroy and he’s doing a good job. Can’t wait to see God kick his butt!! 🤣🤣🤣
John Henry etc.
It sounds like you're projecting again
Everyone is born with inalienable rights and that includes bodily autonomy, hence parents who are the guardians of their children should have the right to
reject the more than 50 vaccines required before kids enter adulthood, especially as many have proven to be neither safe nor effective, but quite dangerous.
NVIC.org (National Vaccine Information Center) shares exceptionally useful and legal info for protecting your children from “unavoidably unsafe” vaccines (US Supreme Court used this wording to justify the liability-free protection granted to vaccine makers, doctors, nurses, CDC, FDA, and all vaccine-pushers). This seems to be the crux of the matter. If we demanded of our Congressmen to abolish this protection (which Congress granted), the vaccine industry would collapse. Financial ruin due to lawsuits for vaccine induced injury and death is the exact reason the vaccine lobbyists used to persuade Congress to given them a liability shield.
It's my understanding that the reason for these catastrophic legal developments in the mid '80's was that when the vaxx makers announced they were planning to close up shop rather than be driven out of business by liability costs, Congress/Reagan et al. made the choice they did in order to enable the bioweapons programs to carry on as they have been dutifully doing ever since. It would certainly be more honest to reassign a lot of these matters, and get the DoD to be more transparent ... and good luck to us if that becomes a stated goal.
Yes!
The market would have ended up supporting Pharma that made drugs that don't kill us.
The anti-human masters do not agree with any rights for their subjects.
The ghouls are yearning for neofeudalism.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum
Fun Boy Three
Yes, and that means "public" education cannot require them.
But they do.
And here we are, two nations in one.
absolutely. unless the case is of a legally emancipated minor.
The propagandists and politicos have been pushing this talking point particularly hard over the past decade, from Joe Biden quoting 2023 Teacher of the Year Rebecka Peterson (“‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s child. Our nation’s children are all our children!’”) to MSNBC Host Melissa Harris-Perry saying people need to “break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents” and accept that “kids belong to whole communities.”
And, of course, there’s this now-removed BLM website verbiage:
“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”
We might be inclined to think this strategy originates with Marx, and he is certainly a proponent of it, but it actually dates back to Plato’s “Republic,” in which he writes, “in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common.”
In Plato’s dystopian utopia, children are not to know their parents, with the state “taking the greatest possible care that no mother recognises her own child.… Care will also be taken that the process of suckling shall not be protracted too long.”
And this is partly what the noble lie is intended to obscure:
“Our rulers will find a considerable dose of falsehood and deceit necessary for the good of their subjects.… Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion.”
Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, who was to become WHO’s first director-general in 1948, delivered a lecture in 1946 titled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress,” in which he stated:
“The most important thing in the world today is the bringing up of children. It is not a job for economic or emotional misfits, for frightened, inferiority-ridden men and women.… Fortunately there are recent signs of intellectual stirrings amongst teachers.”
He believes parents teach their children backwards concepts like morality and thus children should be educated [indoctrinated] by the state to free them from such baggage.
I covered this topic extensively in my my Croatian Weekly (Hrvatski Tjednik) interview, and here is the ridiculously long url for that specific Q&A if you would like to read more chilling quotes and get links to the original sources:
• https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/i/119927561/vv-among-the-progressives-we-recognize-different-activist-groups-based-on-neo-marxist-collectivism-and-radical-feminism-and-they-focused-their-political-activity-on-the-sensitive-female-population-as-early-as-the-s-realizing-the-importance-of-women-for-the-stability-of-a-society-whose-foundation-is-the-family-in-this-context-what-changed-in-male-female-relations-and-how-did-this-affect-the-destabilization-of-close-family-ties
To my mind, it entered the popular consciousness when Hillary Clinton quoted the “It takes a village” line. It was clear to me, and many others, what she meant, and it didn’t have anything to do with voluntary actions within traditional cultural structures. It meant Marx.
That line has stuck in my head ever since she said it for the exact reasons you cite, Sarah!
I’ve seen a number of commentators (commenters, commentators? I never know what sounds right) point out that the subverters use a tactic of combining vague, unassailable truths with unspoken subtexts that you have to “know” to know, which is intellectual Kryptonite for people who are arguing in good faith from conventional frameworks. I’m not sure if that is Motte and Bailey, but whatever it is, it’s obvious once you see it. James Lindsay says, you cannot debate these people; you cannot accept any of their terms or arguments. It’s all strategic manipulation and the only response is ridicule.
The useful idiots, whom I call the “Webelieves” because of those inane yard signs, fall in line. When experiencing the cognitive dissonance of disorientation from the purported intent being at odds with the logical evaluation of the actions and arguments, they double down on herding up.
Echoing Margaret Anna Alice, very well put.
Personal note: I disagree with Lindsay on not being able to debate this: learn how they think, learn their arguments and then use them against them. It's terrifyingly easy to do.
I guess that's what Lindsay does, really. He doesn't only meme and smirk. I wonder, though - since they aren't actually *interested* in arguing, just in issuing polemics, if engaging with any level of intellectually sincerity gives them more validity than they deserve (and by "they" I mean anyone who puts forward these arguments, whether it's operators or useful idiots. I observe that there are some people who will engage with sincerity.)
When it comes to correcting the beliefs of the speaker, this is where only personal relationships can work, I think. Someone who can apply gentle but consistent pressure over a long time, and who can ask difficult questions without raising a defensive reaction that just overwhelms them.
When it comes to winning the culture war, though, the debate isn't about the speaker - it's about the ones listening to the debate. In the midst of nonsense word salad that feels good, certainly, to nod along to and be a part of the 'in' crowd, true reason, logic, and grounded evidence jumps out and makes itself unavoidable. You win the fight over the minds spectating. Doesn't matter if you can get the one you're arguing with to even listen to you. If they go broadly unchallenged, though. the world starts to look like their perspective is the only valid one, and that gets dangerous.
I should have read this before responding to Sarah Thompson.
I have semi redpilled a few young people. Semi is good. Because the cognitive dissonance once acknowledged will build until they take the final steps.
The point of debating (or verbal fisticuffs, school-yard style, which is what it really is) them is winning the audience over to your side if at all possble.
Ideally, the audence will go "Oh, what a nice and intelligent man/woman. He/she speaks my thoughts and feelings what I haven't been able/dared to voice. How wonderful to know I'm not alone in thinking/feeling this way, and sham on that so-and-so opponent of his/hers for behaving the way it does!"
That way, the audience will be full of potential for further opposition to the left (not a term I tend to use since it's rather meaningless and in error, but it's the local vernacular on this Stack).
Of course, should you actually meet someone who is genuinely interested in an issue (say, transsexualism) and approaches it with a "What is this?"-mindset rather than ideological dogmatism, a real debate where both sides start with pooling their perspectives and knowledge is possible, but such opportunities are increasingly rare in my experience; there's simply too much selection pressure on people for them to opt for real debate instead of replaying the opening scenes of the two troops of apes in a 'A Space Odyssey'.
Well-put, Sarah, and I especially love "double down on herding up" 👏
It takes a village to raise a village idiot!
They won't do more than offer vague platitudes. They will ask you to support what you say, but ask them to do the same and its ad hominem attacks and condescension. The intention is to prompt an emotional response.
Lindsay talks about the response being the point. So I have to decide, do I meme them 'til they cry, which is what these ideas merit, or do I engage if I perceive that the person is sincere? It's a judgment call.
My thinking is that as soon as the first ad hominem attack is leveled, the argument is over and they conceded. My response is to simply point out what they are doing and ask them to define why such an insult is pertinent to the issue at hand.
That's a good strategy.
Yes. The administrative state (or "nanny state" if you prefer) is not "a village." Community is good, but the state is not a "community." I don't understand why those concepts are impossible for statists to grasp.
Difficult to grasp, or intentionally obfuscated?
The Hillaries of the world obfuscate, but I don't think the average statist (the average left-leaning Westerner) is doing so, or clever enough to discern why such obfuscation would be beneficial to anything.
Me too. And people I know thought it was profound and wise.
if it takes a village then surely they have to ask the village for permission to procreate?
To the professed saviors of mankind, from shrinks to theorists to bureaucrats to every aspiring social engineer the West has coughed up the past 100 yrs, the problem is never their grandiose schemes or their need to strap us all to the Procrustean bed of their fantasy utopias or their simple inability to just allow people to flourish in their own way instead of posing as priests no one asked for—the problem is always the stupid people's stubborn refusal to follow their instructions to the letter, the stupid people's insistence that they can run their own lives without the guidance of our modern clerisy of "intellectuals" and other con artists.
Our elite controller class may change with the years, may adopt new gurus and switch from Freud to Marx to Foucault or mix them all together in one pungent potion, but underneath their fancy jargon the message is always the same: "OBEY HARDER!"
BRAVO!! 👏
thx! Will no one rid us of these meddlesome priests! lol
The best possible outcome of obeying harder, is to get the least penal "reward" for your good behavior.
That doesn't sound equitable to me.
Be like Bastiat and mock these mofo's.
BRAVO!! 👏
There is a perverse irony in the obsession so many erstwhile Communist ideologues have with property and ownership, when Communism itself rejects the idea of private property.
There is an even more perverse irony when those who claim to stand for freedom can think and see nothing but slavery.
"communism" is in reality bureaucratic feudalism.
It has been my thesis for a number of years now that attempts to establish Communism last for at most 5-10 years, after which the government reverts back to its previous form of authoritarianism.
Stalin ruled more like a Tsar than a Communist (even Trotsky accused him of abandoning the revolution).
Mao's hero was Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of a united China who based his reign on the principles of Legalism.
Communism ultimately does not exist in reality. Nor can it.
"But real communism hasn't been tried!" They've spent the last 80-100 years or so trying different versions of communism to see which one will finally lead to their undefinable "utopia". https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-utopia/
Actually real Communism HAS been tried.
Plymouth Plantation nearly ended in disaster owing to the inefficiencies of communal ownership, which was finally ended by the second governor of the colony, William Bradford.
https://www.hoover.org/research/how-private-property-saved-pilgrims
The Israeli Kibbutzim are often cited as models of successful communitarian and socialist living, but the strict communist adherence to no private property has not survived the twin challenges of economic crisis and economic success.
https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-29-number-3/israeli-kibbutz-victory-socialism
The problem with Communism is that it insists on treating people as groups rather than as people. Communism as a philosophy entails the denial of the atomic unit of identity, the individual person, in favor of the group. This, of course, is simply antithetical to how humans actually exist in the world.
The rebuke to Communism was written 3,000 years ago, in the closing passage of Judges (v 21:25): "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."
When one realizes that first and foremost we are made (and called) to be accountable to God above all else, no philosophical space remains for Communism to exist.
Love this.
Them kibbutzim discovered what happened with children raised to have a powerful group loyalty and no specific pair of parents to attach to. It took them a couple of generations, though, to notice the pattern.
Even if a Kibbutz or a commune was successful for generations that would not prove it could be done Nationally. On a commune you can kick people out. You can ‘outcast’ them.
Nothing actually works "nationally" for very long.
True. But the best system allows for rapid change while maintaining core values. A nation can do this. But a kibbutz?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was not praising the kibbutz system.
No, I know. I was just adding a thought.
What happened?
Adults raised from infancy in the kibbutz system had very strong group identity but tended to struggle with interpersonal relationships. Intimacy was a challenge.
I agree, but see, in all those attempts that failed; Marcuse and their ilk would have said it wasn't done correctly. That's what shifted them from Marx's economy based theory to Mao's cultural based one. It's kind of baked into the philosophy, er, religion of communism that if one attempt doesn't succeed, it has to be modified in order to make it truly work. There's always one more revolution.
But similar to what you quoted from Judges-- Romans 1:18-25.
That's their argument, but no matter how many times you polish a turd it is still a turd.
Marx was right about the problem, but he was completely wrong about the solution. He was wrong in his economic arguments and he was wrong in his logic. Lumping people into classes is how the elites have built their power bases since the dawn of civilization. Any proposal that continues to lump people into classes can never be a solution to the problems such classism brings. Doubling down on classism as Marx did can never lead to the eradication of classes as Marx proposed.
There will always be another revolution, but so long as those revolutions center on the group and not the individual, each and every one of them is predestined to fail.
Their refusal to see that makes your citation of Romans quite apropos.
Marx got Communism and Capitalism mixed up.
Marx actually got what we notionally consider "capitalism" conflated with "mercantilism".
The basis for the Communist Manifesto was not wrong. Factory owners and nascent industrialists in the early days of the Industrial Revolution both in Europe and in the United States WERE exploitative of their laborers. One only need consider tragedies such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire in 1911 to see that.
Where Marx failed was in realizing that what the industrialists were in the 19th century the heads of national joint stock companies (e.g., Hudson's Bay Company, British East India Company) were in the 18th century: mercantilists hell bent on permanent transfers of wealth rather than capitalistic creation of wealth. Ironically, both Karl Marx and Adam Smith are critiquing the same fundamental economic system--mercantilism--just in different eras.
Because he failed to acknowledge the mercantilist origins of Europe's industrialist class, Marx arrived at an unsustainable solution: simply reverse the wealth transfers. Marx' Communist ideal--which HAS been tried by Stalin, by Mao, by Pol Pot, and by others--was to transfer the wealth of the wealthy to the impoverished masses. It fails because when you have transferred all the wealth away from the wealthy, you still have impoverished masses. It was the realization of this that left the Soviet Union no viable option but dissolution at the end of 1991.
Capitalism--specifically, the system of free markets within a free society championed by Adam Smith--understands that wealth is created by the productive labor of individual men and women, and that the best utilizations of that wealth occur when those same individual men and women are free to direct their labors as they see fit.
Marx' one true accomplishment was to conflate the economic concepts of capitalism and mercantilism. Marx was never an opponent of free market capitalism because he was too sloppy a student of both economics and history to recognize free market capitalism in the world around him. Rather, he was opposed to a genuine economic malignancy--mercantilism--that he decided to call capitalism. Sadly, the world has been persuaded to go along with his epistemiological error.
"It fails because when you have transferred all the wealth away from the wealthy, you still have impoverished masses."
This was succinctly described by Margaret Thatcher:
‘The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.’
💥
I have thought the same thing, well put. The Wealtg of Nationa, I believe by Adam Smith, is a great read that everyone should be required in high school. It really addresses the history of mercantilism and aristocracy that was explorative and how capitalism in the American sense was a radical departure from that
Perhaps the greatest distinction to be drawn between Wealth of Nations on the one hand and the Communist Manifesto/Das Kapital on the other is that Wealth of Nations is descriptive, while the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are prescriptive.
Adam Smith wrote about economics as it actually happens. Karl Marx wrote about economics as he thought it ought to be.
Yes and the people who have the strongest opinions on how things “ought to be” and want to tell others what to do are usually the most deranged
"...as *he* thought..." (emphasis mine)
Yeah, *he*, Karl Marx, *individual.*
How ironic?
Adam Smith was prescriptive about what to tax (title) and what NOT to tax (labour) .
A Brief History of Socialism - 3 mins - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZz2HF5KtrY&pp=ygURY2FydHRvbnMgc29jaWxpc20%3D
Thank you, M. Kust.
You are me.
If I am you, who is me?
Ha! I was trying to be pithy. I meant, I could not have said what you said better than you did.
Thanks!
maybe in an ant's colony
Communism: A bunch of wolves harvesting the impoverished sheep in between Swedish massages.
As a swede I have to ask: what is a "swedish massage"?
You probably just call it a massage
Fwiw, my friend, I believe M. TriTorch's use of "Swedish" was inadvertently gratuitous and non-substantive.
https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-a-swedish-massage
Thank you, I honestly thought it was something dirty - you know, "nudge nudge wink wink"-thing kind of.
Hmm...then...what is democracy?
(Feel free to consider this question rhetorical.)
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner?
Sorry, M. Tri. My attempts at humor are lame...
Is that a rhetorical question. ;-)
Do you expect an answer? =)
Never. (So I'm never disappointed.)
I think we should start referring to it as "applied communism," rather like "applied mathematics" ~ the results of human application being what they are ...
works the other way, too.
the federal-gov't/politburo acts (only) like a feudal bureaucracy.
What is weird, as I pointed out to a so called Marxist I used to talk to, is you are free to be a communist in this country. Nothing stops people from communal living. There are people who do live this way, ecologically from the land, sharing fruits of their labor. The Amish are an example and there are also small eco villages that are not religious but they want to be sustainable but it’s not an easy life. I think most of them do need to engage in some kind of trade or selling in order to live more comfortably. But nobody is forcing them to buy Amazon accounts, use cars, and eat out at restaurant chains. If you believe in it, go live it. When I hear leftists I remember one girl I heard at a coffee shop, “I’m a leftist, I hate everything.” This sums it up. It truly is a manifestation of antisocial personality disorder seeking a socially acceptable justification for theft, and violence. I have wanted to write a book comparing the ideology to the psych criteria for personality disorders for a long time.
There is not a single communist or socialist regime that has not ended up with a massive underclass with nothing and a small overclass with everything.
Always, including China where the elite can buy body parts.
You can bet the pedophiles are waiting with bated breath to see how this argument turns out.
The pedophiles are no longer waiting, they are running the show as we speak. See California.
As reported at the World Economic Forum, "You will own nothing and be happy." So, it's no surprise that these unelected "officials" claim that we don't own our kids.
I've never met a progressive who could think a logical thought. They just memorize the talking points. Progressives don't even own their own thoughts.
You make a chilling observation that I and probably most others have never considered. There is no reason to presume that the WEF wanted to exclude children from the elimination of ownership clause. We live in difficult times.
It's more than just progressives, many do not have their own thoughts. I wonder about myself now. It's just become more and more eerie in this Covid era.
Oh you sweet sweet summer child! Ever since Thurgood Marshall pioneered the tactic, the Left has always set about trying to create a series of legal precedents that leads to the result they want. So you whittle away at segregation bit by bit until the Court finally outlaws it.
The real goal of all these "modest" changes is that kids will be able to have sex (all laws against child sex will become case-by-case where you need to prove the child didn't consent & couldn't consent). Once you can't just throw people in jail for having sex w/ minors, they can have sex w/ minors w/ impunity because proving that particular minor either did not or could not consent is virtually impossible. Heck most victims won't even try.
You need to think like a lawyer & think about issues of proof - how would you establish that a child victim is a victim? How would you establish that the perp knew or should have known?
Right now we have a blanket rule - prove the kid's a kid & the D goes to jail, but once they abolish that hard & fast line, they can do what they want.
This isn't about kids choosing abortion (when minors get abortions it's not lovers, it's rapists who are the fathers), or gender identity; it's about making kids available for sex.
That's the goal & all of these precedents are pushing us towards it. You can't say a kid can pick abortion & castration etc, but not a little sex & courts won't say it - they'll rationalize the law using these precedents to legalize child sex.
A society in which the only restraint on sex is consent will soon be a society with no constraints at all for those sufficiently powerful to coerce consent. The Left is a coalition of the powerful & those who think they can benefit from supporting the powerful (the King & his court so to speak); therefore, the Left wants child sex because they want more power for the powerful - that's their only unifying position. (Why would the Left oppose medical freedom? Because they Left always supports more power for the powerful - that predicts EVERYTHING they do, even the apparent contradictions, like abortion which ensures the powerful can have sex w/o fear of pregnancy.).
If you won't protect your kids from these "choices," you won't be able to protect them from anything much longer.
Think I'm wrong? If Hunter Biden raped your 12 year old, what do you think are the chances you could attain a conviction? What would you & your child have to suffer in the media to press those charges? Just as Hunter Biden is free to do what he likes, powerful people like him will be free to do what they like to your kids once "consent" replaces age. And that's what this is all about.
Oh my gosh you horrify me but maybe you are right. Your last paragraph recalls to mind (and I fear explains) the incomprehensible treatment of the Loudoun Co., VA dad whose daughter was sexually assaulted at school.
I am in agreement with your assessment but believe you have let one neglected prejudice cloud your thoughts.
There is no left or right in politics any longer, never is when lobbying is possible. The powerful control ALL the parties and all the media that shepherds the bulk of the electorate. Very few are immune to the fear thy neighbour propaganda and even fewer political candidates are able and prepared to resist the greed, bribery and blackmail of the well run system of coercion to remain honest.
We need to vote for those that are the most likely to dilute the political control that is nearly complete.
"There is no left or right in politics any longer"
Uniparty delenda est!
I agree w/ your solution, but I respectfully disagree on the courts/Left strategy: the Right really isn't trying to increase the power of the elites via the courts, they aren't looking for a string of precedents that lead to some new horror. The Right is trying to increase govt power but they use different tactics. And, yes, we need much smaller government & that should be the primary issue. I was really just addressing a particular tactic of the Left & their motives for that tactic.
I know it looks like the parties differ but the media and party loyalty is owned by the same people at the top. They simply use two corrals to hold the sheep, one side uses a cattle prod and electric fencing the other has hedges and a sheepdog. Both sets do the masters bidding, one for mutton, the other for wool.
There was a list of laws that have been put in place to enable many of the loopholes in responsibility and ease of money concentration done over the years. I do not know which side is more represented but the laws have been put in place by parties and presidents from both sides of the isle. If one party cannot pass a certain law then the other party does so when the see-saw tips over.
I agree smaller government is an imperative for sustainable living, is should be made so small that people fight to get more. Every new law should repeal two old laws. Every new law should not be even considered unless DEMANDED by the people in referendum. After a while there would only be the essential laws left and people can get on with living and the predators would no longer have tools to subjugate and monopolise. I admit I am a dreamer.
I agree with Kalle.
I see the political landscape, not divided into Ds and Rs, not Conservative and Progressives, but instead divided into Statists (as you note, the Rs also seek power) vs. Those Who Yearn to Be Free. We the Little People.
Couldn't agree more CP. 💯
They don't care about consistency or logic.
As per the meme, they just want to diddle kids.
The people promoting this, at least the manipulators, recognize that children and adolescents are readily propagandized and mind-formed by anyone they perceive as a “just” authority, and so the people who want to break society in their own interests do NOT want to face any obstacles to employing these strategies on children. They *most certainly* mean, “we own your children, or, at least, we get to control them.”
I would argue that this has been the purpose of “public” school from the start, and that the populace allowed this to become compulsory was the original sin of societal destruction. It had to be compulsory, because, as John Gatto (hm, any relation, Cat?) points out, the Dewey folks wanted to beat out the cultural insularity of the German immigrants, who were the ones who *weren’t* going to send their kids to school if it wasn’t punishable by law. And, as usual, the forcers appeal to people’s weaknesses, social acceptance AND a wish to abdicate their responsibilities onto someone else for convenience, and call it virtue.
Raise your children. Make it your job. You get ONE priority at a time. This is it. And don’t think outsourcing it counts. *Someone* is raising them. If it isn’t you, it’s these people.
I don’t believe this was the purpose of public schools “from the start.” It is, today, which is reversible with school choice. The argument that Christian schools violates separation of church and state in fact violates freedom of religion.
In the 17th century, the government required towns to set up schools, with the intention of provided “proper” educations. Why would that become imperative to the Protestant leaders of the time? Because they wanted their version of things promoted. That’s what institutions do. Families were teaching their children at home, and could hire tutors individually or together if desired. When the government imposes something, that means it’s NOT what people would do for themselves.
The 17th century would be the 1600s. So what government are you referring to?
Even in the nineteenth century, families were not “teaching their children at home.” Illiterates cannot teach literacy. Let’s try to think in terms of the real.
Yes, it is indeed absurd for a child be allowed to choose their gender yet not be allowed to choose to have sexual relations with someone.
I am willing to bet that exact same thought has entered the heads of a certain cohort with certain tastes.
Very much so. This is among the darkest rabbit holes you will find, but we must face these problems in order to defeat them: https://tritorch.com/predator
Bingo
Very logical piece, and I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that in today’s society logic has been thrown out the window. People in general no longer think logically. We are in the midst of a great spiritual battle. A true evil has overtaken our society, and I’m afraid nothing but a true act of God will be able to save us from what is heading our way.
https://womenpriests.org/articles-books/christ-has-no-hands-but-ours-christ-has-no-hands-but-ours-teresa-of-avila-1515-1582/
Christ Has No Hands But Ours
Teresa of Avila (1515-1582)
Christ Has No Body
Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.
Christ has no body now but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
compassion on this world.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours.
This means we are responsible for this outcome.
The eye of Sauron is upon us. 👀
My pre-pubescent niece kept her hair short, favored jeans, tee shirts, sneakers and sports - with boys, if possible - and eventually blossomed into a beautiful young woman who is now a happily married mother of two.
Take away the short hair through childhood and you basically described my wife.
The same for my daughter. Long hair, wore jeans, T’s, enjoyed basketball with the boys around the corner. Today, a beautiful happy wife/mom.
How about this? You only own your kids as long as they are in the womb. They are yours to do with as you please. But once they emerge, they belong to the state.
In the womb? Don’t these same folks believe that’s just a clump of cells while in utero?
It’s all so hard to parse...almost as of it’s all bullshit and just another attempt at demoralization and destruction.
The State owns your womb
That is such a strawman. I'm not even really pro-life, but that's a straight up lie about what pro-lifers believe. It's the fetus they care about. If it was about controlling feminists' bodies, they'd be outlawing purple hair and nose rings.
“adolescence is notoriously confusing for everyone and uncertainty and disorientation about identity is far from unusual.”
Never have truer words been written. The very last thing adolescents need is this sort of controversy with them at its center. They need stability just to have hope. Without hope there is NOTHING.
This is such an important and seemingly under-understood concept.
It isn’t just adolescence, either. When we have children, how could we just forget it? I have solid memories of peer after peer, male and female, confiding: “I’m just so fucked-up!” Generally the person saying it was early twenties, beyond adolescence.
Honestly I think all humans thrive on some form of stability, which can look different to different people, granted, and I feel like we are all suffering from its lack. Very sad.
What we’re seeing in these comments is a certain unity. That is in a sense, stability. The assault on our society, culture and freedoms includes manipulation of elections, and we’re seeing that right now, with flipped results in battleground special elections. The Marxists think the end justifies the means and that we won’t do anything about it. In our complacence it has worked like a surprise attack. Well, that advantage is now past. It is time to fight back.
My favourite thought is tattoos.
If I had gotten a tattoo at 13, it might have been a dick.
At 16, it would have been a unicorn
At 18 it would have been a big arsed, ugly dragon.
At 22 it would have been some sort of occult symbol
(and don't forget all those boyfriend names!)
By 30, I would have been disgusted with all of these,
and now that I'm 60 and watching my skin sag, I'm thrilled I have no ink.
That's just me. But - decisions in youth are often regretful.
Tattoos can be reversed (Not perfectly, but reverse tattooing is out there). Sex changes cannot be reversed. XY or YY chromosomes are not interchangeable, and to deny their reality and significance begets problems.
IKR? I have had quite a few surgeries in my life. Some unnecessary, some perhaps necessary, some avoidable.
The thing I learned about surgery is the permanence of it. Once a thing is removed, it's gone. What they don't tell you, when they take a thing out - is how it interacts with ***everything*** else in your system, and oh, btw, you might crash without it.
The thing I learned about drug treatments, is that they, too, can cause permanent changes in your metabolic and endocrine cascades. I'm still healing from psych drugs, last taken 10 years ago. And that ain't even hormones! Egads. (I have a FtM trans friend, now going bald...and um, what is this doing to "his" ovaries?)
Sssssooooooooo I'm thankful I have no children and don't have to wrestle with blockers & surgeries. Permanent is permanent. I cringe at the affirming "top surgery," "bottom surgery" terms. Sounds so sweet, doesn't it? Sounds so much better than mutilation.
It seems as if the advocates of the radical transgender agendas have strong desires for children (and adults) to be the property of the State, the Leviathan, the mortal God. And these radicals have strong desires to manage the affairs of the State. They’re sociopaths.
I liked this article describing the State. https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/07/25/the-mortal-gods-drops-its-mask/