Imposing a Gender Neutral Gender Fluid World Order?

Immediately after a baby is born, before it is even handed over to the mother, "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" is exclaimed in celebration of a precious new life. Why? Because it's so obvious at first glance and really it's the only thing we can determine at this point, all the immutable rest--height, shoe size, etc.-- about this new life will slowly unfold over time. But if external genitalia is not enough--as it's not in incredibly rare cases of hermaphroditic anatomy (0.02% of newborns)--to convince one of the biological reality of males and females, different chromosomes, genes (new study finds 6,500 genes expressed differently according to biological sex), hormones, and internal reproductive organs or lack thereof, and later on, secondary sex characteristics (body shape, voice pitch, breasts, facial hair, etc.) should. Yet, we're told otherwise because...

...gender is irrelevant, yet, at the same time, more relevant than ever before, in the 21st century!

And so it is that gender identity has blossomed into an inescapable frontline issue. You can't turn on your TV, radio, Internet, or open a magazine or newspaper without being confronted with massively-funded gender politics, or more accurately, gender propaganda that cloaks itself in virtue, tolerance, social-justice and anti-bullying campaigns. This so-called fight for gender justice calls for new legislation, educational reform, and a total attitude readjustment for the masses that obliterates fundamental biological differences and once again, tries to redefine nature and turn creation on its head.

'Theybies': Letting Children Decide Their Gender

Is your baby a boy or a girl? Maybe, it’s a “theyby,” or maybe it's a dog or a cat or a labrat. Yes, there is a movement that wants to impose unisêx existence on children keeping their sêx a secret from everyone and referring to individuals in the plural. If this isn't an example of how a post-truth culture of personal conviction evolving into an Alice in Wonderland world, I don't know what is. "Theybies" is the result of the soft-headed, tender-minded ideology and post-modern imaginary thinking world of the coming global civilization as observational and scientifically proven reality is replaced with globally-dictated fantasies that are projected into the immense void that was created when Truth was obliterated. In this case, children become labrats when the will of God is replaced with the will of those who think they are gods or wannabe gods.

Please don't misunderstand.  Like so many people, I was a prime target for bullies throughout my childhood. I was bullied for being too tall, for wearing glasses, for being too shy, for having curly hair, for squinting in the sun, etc., etc. It has left me with my own scars to bear, with a nebulous sense that something was/is wrong with me, with an internalized sense of otherness, and with a sense of disempowerment, because the damage continues even after the bullying has stopped. After a while, children constantly intimidated, harassed and bullied for who they are perceived to be can't help but start to believe their bullies. On the other hand, being bullied in childhood has given me great compassion, sympathy, and empathy for victims of bullies, for underdogs, and the marginalized. In other words, I am in no way condoning bullying behavior, and/or overlooking the plight of those who can't conform to gender stereotypes nor those who are attracted to their own gender. But feelings and beliefs do not determine reality. If that were so I guess I'm 5'8" instead of 6'6". I guess I'm 34-years old instead of 56-years old. I guess I'm black instead of white.  I guess I'm a giraffe instead of a human being....

Although this is changing, most people know  that children  who don't conform to gender roles/norms are at highest risk of abuse by not only their peers but by adults--teachers, parents, coaches, bus drivers,, etc.-- as well. These children are punished every day for failing to fit the ideals of the traditional gender binary. To simply say this is wrong--punishing children for failure to conform to biological sex-- is woefully understated. However, the answer is not to eliminate gender as if that is even possible. The answer is not to encourage children to change their gender at will or replace the gender binary with an array of choices that boggles even the most mature mind. The answer is not to educate children about various forms of sexuality before they even understand sexuality itself. The answer is not to punish those who identify as male or female, and/or punish those who "maintain that there are men and there are women and that the difference between them is fundamental." Well, you get the picture.

My point is that the bullying issue--an issue that's been around since the dawn of man--should not be fodder for cultural and political agendas, because, you see, national "anti-bullying" campaigns and educational reform and adding more laws to the books  have very little to do with stopping bad behavior or with protecting the traditional targets of bullies and everything to do with creating an Orwellian postmodern society that denies objective and immutable reality; it has everything to do with socially engineering dysfunction because in doing so, they create an indoctrinated, traumatized population  that will accept the illusion they call "reality," where hate is love, war is peace, white is black (see Rachel Dolezal’s claim to identify as a black woman when she is clearly not) and people are genderless, like robots.

Under the guise of "social justice" and "anti-bullying", the political elite use the machinery of state education, the mainstream media, and their power to craft legislation to compel children and adults alike into adopting "politically correct" attitudes that supplant objective reality with the supremacy of the subjective desire of elite globalists who push extreme egalitarianism to the point that anyone who states evidence of difference is considered a bigot and/or prejudiced. Today, even to question the notion of gender fluidity is considered a hate crime in a growing number of  circles, despite the fact that it leaves children confused or distressed as the political elite endeavor to "undo" normative concepts of fixed, binary gender identities within our culture.

Gender politics continues to escalate despite the fact that incidents of bullying and intimidation have dropped markedly in recent years, according to surveys by the Department of Justice, yet the transgender or gender neutralizing ideological propaganda continues.  People who don't feel comfortable identifying with their biology are real human beings and should be taken seriously, they should not be marginalized, however transforming the problems of an infinitesimally small fraction of the population into an ideology, a movement that in reality is cover for a much more sinister agenda is not the solution.

“And while the task force gives the impression that LGBT students are a primary focus of bullying, evidence suggests that the vast majority of bullying is directed at other students. The DOJ surveys indicate that the percentage of 12- to 18-year-old students who reported being targets of hate-related words based on their sexual orientation fell from 1.0 percent in 2007 to 0.6 percent in 2009.

You see, this is why modern day "scientists"  claim "philosophy is dead" because by eliminating philosophical and critical thinking,  it allows them to recreate reality on their own terms  and push it on a highly brainwashable population who has been taught what to think, not how to think.

“Philosophy is dead is the declaration of scientific materialists because it leaves the individual epistemologically stymied because you’re only left with what is quantifiable and empirically demonstrable. Because philosophy is dependent on terminological exactitude and definitional clarity, by eliminating philosophy it allows them to play fast and loose with the terms they invoke such as evolution. They invoke these terms with a great deal of interpretive elasticity. Without terminological exactitude, they invoke this esoteric vernacular that can mean whatever happens to be advantageous to them, the masters of the Anglosphere or Anglo-American empire whose operating system or doctrine is Darwinism, materialism."-- Phillip/Paul Collins

 Despite the fact that bullying is decreasing, the most powerful sectors of our society are bullying us into accepting a prescribed orthodoxy--by using the buzzwords of identity politics to trump both clear thinking and civic disagreement--in this case, muddling gender, claiming it is mutable, irrelevant, and strictly a social construct. We are being bullied into accepting state-approved views of sexuality with sweeping new statewide antibullying regimes that bully because using classic indoctrination techniques to pressure children into adopting the curriculum designers' attitudes and beliefs is bullying. Any differentiation in value between behavior or attitudes from this orthodoxy is considered bigoted and strictly prohibited. Moreover, by pushing extreme gender ideological agendas on the masses, they're not only failing to adequately address the real issue of LGBTQ rights in employment, housing, healthcare, government services, and the military, they're playing divide and conquer games.

The bottom line is that gender identity issues that promote philosophical postulates "Cogito, ergo sum" are best left to, well, philosophy, not science because there is more than enough scientific evidence that proves biological sex is a scientific reality.

“...the central issue is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex…but to account for the fact that it is spoken about, to discover who does the speaking, the positions and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it...

...one had to speak of it [sexuality] as of a thing to be not simply condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into systems of utility, regulated for the "greater good" of society. Sex was not something one simply judged; it was a thing one administered."

“We must not think that by saying yes to sex, one says no to power; on the contrary, one tracks along the course laid out by the general deployment of sexuality”-- Michel Focault   (emphasis mine)

I know I have not fully answered, why, as Michel Foucault asserts, campaigns are whipped up by the ruling class and its middle-class allies to impose family structures and values, [or lack thereof,] upon the masses," as that would require, at the very least, a book that fully explores all of the reasons, but to put it very simply: destruction of God + destruction of family + destruction of objective reality including a total rewrite of the biosphere (HG Well wrote of the complete control of all biological forms of life) = personal and state power-motive to arbitrarily define and or create "reality" without any regard for Truth.

Links/Sources:

It’s dangerous and wrong to tell all children they’re ‘gender fluid’

Legalised lying and gender engineering. This is conservative?

Cultural homogenization

The real agenda behind antibullying campaign

Why is the political class is obsessed by gender issues?

The Philosophical Contradictions of the Transgender Worldview

When Harry Became Sally

New Israeli Research Reveals that Men Are Men and Women Are Women

“The researchers also found that biological sex also plays a role in preventing specific illnesses. For example, some genes expressed only in the left ventricle of the heart in women work to protect their hearts from disease until the women reach menopause. Another gene, in the liver, processes drugs differently according to the gender.

6,500 genes biased toward one sex or the other

“6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue, adding to the already major biological differences between men and women.’

'Language Is So Important': Non-Binary/Trans Listener Weighs In On 'Theyby' Discussion

Read more...

Ender's Game, Army Crack and The Game That Became Real

The $67 billion video game industry now generates more than twice as much as the Hollywood's box office. In fact, video games are inspiring Hollywood movies rather than the other way around. Good news for the gaming industry, bad news for our future as human beings. Why? Well, simply put, the "Playstation mentality" in modern warfare. In an age where almost anyone can be taught to use a joystick and fly unmanned aircraft capable of taking out large groups of people using remote control, being raised on video games like "Call of Duty" or "Halo" are literally training and desensitizing these children to the blood and guts-- a trophy in "Call of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified," requiring the player to earn 3 stars in each Operation--of warfare.

Take the futuristic tale, Ender's Game, a "science fiction" novel by Orson Scott Card, where government agencies breed child geniuses and train them as soldiers in an artificial or virtual community of young boys, aged 5-12-years old. The ultimate agenda is to create military leaders, some might even say genocidal dictator superheroes, albeit, with "good" intentions, who will, one day,  save the Earth from an alien enemy.  The problem with this sci-fi novel is that the ultimate sacrifice is made: all the qualities that make us human, and separate us from not only animals, but machines. Unfortunately, this book is not unique. The negation or degradation of that which makes us human is a theme that permeates pop culture today.

Remember, it is said that the most dangerous "soldiers" are child soldiers, more specifically, 6-year old boys with guns. Why? Guns are toys to 6-year old boys, and "killing" people is fun because they have not yet grasped the finality of death. So immersing them into a virtual reality of "kill or be killed" will almost certainly prepare them for the military, making it much easier to condition these young men to kill, especially when situated 7,000 miles away, in what appears more like a theater of war, where the victims are reduced to the status of players in a video game, shielded from the dismembered body parts in the aftermath of strikes, rather than plunged into the blood and guts warfare of the front line.

In a nutshell, movies, books, television, and most disturbingly of all, violent video games, condition concepts of profit, status, technology/technological development, violence, and/or anything that defines our materialistic, scientific world trumps humanity every time.

Army crack

"You don't have to be a qualified fighter jet pilot anymore to be allowed to fly these things - or an officer. Thousands of young enlisted soldiers - many as young as 18 - are being trained to fly these aerial vehicles and the US military just can't get enough of them.

"Is it a bit like playing a video game?" I asked as I handled the joystick. It is they admitted - although everyone was at pains to stress that doesn't mean they don't take their job seriously.

Even the trainer admitted its easier to teach the "video game generation" and told me that all those hours they'd spent in their bedrooms - being nagged by their mothers to do something more productive - was now paying off.

"Is it a bit like playing a video game?"

The US military are now so addicted to the use of these drones they call them "army crack". One hit and you are hooked they say. Ground forces now don't want to leave their bases in Iraq and Afghanistan without those "eyes in the sky" above their heads.

So is "Ender's Game" really science-fiction? Maybe when it was written, but certainly not now. The book’s premise—that training children for war through  playing video games —has left the realm of science fiction and has,  in fact,  become a reality.

Links:

“Zero Dark Thirty” And The CIA's Hollywood Coup

Read more...

The First Casualty of Relativistic Society is Truth.

More specifically, the first casualty is truth to power. When the concept of good and evil is brushed aside as the product of weak and/or inferior minds, it provides fertile ground for the emerging of very power-hungry and corrupt leaders. Truth becomes subservient to power, and as George Orwell said, “History is something to be created rather than learned.” In other words, the powerful, in the absence of objective truth, create it, and the scariest part is that our leaders are so confident in their powerful positions, they all too readily, confess.

" [He] said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. [...] That’s not the way the world really works anymore. continued. We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” -- Karl Rove to Ron Suskind in New York Times Magazine on October 17, 2004

We've already seen some of the most brutal regimes spring forth throughout the twentieth century--the darkest century in history. In less than 30-years’ time, these totalitarian regimes brought about two devastatingly bloody world wars. Yet, as we begin the twenty-first century, moral relativism ( the notion that there is no objective moral truth, no right or wrong) reigns supreme, rendering evil's very existence as subjective.

In a culture or society that claims there is no absolute truth, our leaders can use his Noble Peace Prize win as a platform for making the case for war as President Obama did when he told his speechwriters,  "he intended to use the acceptance speech to make the case for war."  But those who would claim this is morally wrong are dismissed as rigid, fundamentalist, judgmental, and/or intolerant. In fact, tolerance is the only "moral" claim that one can make without being slapped with the aforementioned labels. Of course, President Obama is not the first, nor the last leader to twist the truth into whatever he wants it to be.

So war is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. This is what our leaders are telling us, and we accept it as "truth".  Therefore, war, technological advances, profit, or really anything created  at the expense of nature and mankind is just fine.

Granted, those who are easily seduced by the prospect of wealth and power, and who lack conscience naturally gravitate toward leadership positions, and that's why it's our job to hold those people accountable. But to what? If there are no absolutes.

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. [George Orwell, 1984, Part 1, Chapter 3.]

The secret of their success? How U.S. leaders from JFK to Roosevelt and George W Bush share character traits with psychopaths

A character trait in psychopaths has been identified by scientists as a common thread in successful US presidents.

Fearless dominance, which is linked to less social and physical apprehensiveness, boosts leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management and congressional relations, according to new research.

Read more...

The Abortion Industry: Baby Flesh Pills, Roasted Human Fetuses and the Harvesting of Fetal Baby Parts

Sound like a horror movie? It's not. Although, it seems as if real life is becoming a horror movie, especially considering our grisly human fetal industry.

A British man of Taiwanese origin,has been arrested by the Thai police for having six roasted human fetuses in his luggage. Reports say he intended to sell the fetuses in Taiwan where some believe they would bring luck and wealth.  He could have made about $40,000

The fetuses were wrapped in gold leaf which led the police to believe that they were meant to be used in a black magic ritual called Guman Thong, which translate to 'golden child'. A traditional Guman Thong is made from the dead baby of a woman who died in childbirth.In the past, monks would cut the baby's body out of the mother', which they had exhumed from the grave, performed a ritual over it and then baked it. The recent arrest, along with the 2,000 fetuses found hidden in a Buddhist temple morgue that appear to have come from illegal abortion clinics.over 2,000 fetuses found in a Buddhist temple in Thailand less than two years ago,  has revealed that the ancient, illegal practices are still ongoing, catering to an international black market of the occult.

However, this is just the tip of a very dark iceberg.  The "abortion industry" is a huge profit making business. On March 8, 2000, ABC's news weekly 20/20 produced evidence of "a thriving industry in which aborted fetuses women donate to help medical research are being marketed for hundreds, even thousands of dollars." Chris Wallace interviewed several people involved in the harvesting of fetal body parts and produced a price list from one firm, Opening Lines, offering fetal spinal cords for $325, fetal reproductive organs for $550, fetal brains for $999 (if less than eight weeks), and the like.  A 1999 brochure from Opening Lines, a Division of Consultative and Diagnostic Pathology, Inc. stated purpose is to “maximize the utilization of fresh fetal tissue [they] process.”

Here is a current price list.

Partial-birth abortion, much more risky to mothers, are favored over other late-term methods of abortion because it affords the greatest opportunity to profit from the harvesting of fetal parts.  A hearing before congress revealed that most of the babies are 'harvested' alive, without anesthesia, to secure freshest organs. 

A new product warning label is needed: Fetal Free.

"Unborn babies at 20 weeks development actually feel pain more intensely than adults,” reports Dr. Ranalli, a neurologist at the University of Toronto. He adds, “[This is a] uniquely vulnerable time, since the pain system is fully established, yet the higher level pain-modifying system has barely begun to develop”

Despite this known fact, abortions are still routinely performed without the use of pain-mitigating interventions for the fetus".

While many companies tout humane and cruelty-free practices in industries involving animals (poultry) and in product-testing methodologies, abortion techniques are decidedly painful for the fetus and include one of the following procedures,

• Partial-birth abortion(D X): The unborn baby is delivered feet first, except for the head, which is punctured at the base of the skull with a sharp object. Thebrain is then suctioned out, killing the child.
• Dilation and Evacuation (D E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp,twist, and tear the baby’s body into pieces, which are then removed from the womb.
• Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother’s abdomen. The unborn baby swallows this fluid, is poisoned and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours. The toxic saline solution causes severe burns over the unborn child’s entire body

In 1999, fifty U.S. company's purchased the stem cells, one company under the name American Society for Anti-Aging, and a company called Senomyx uses embryonic stem cells to test popular foods that we all eat. Pepsi just recently stopped using them , but Nestle, and Lipton are patrons of Senomyx. The latest company to hit the headlines is StemCells Inc, which has just gained federal approval in the US to harvest the brains from abortions, and use them in experiments.

I guess if you believe a fetus is not really a human, just a clump of cells, then you should have no objection to to this grisly industry.  At the same time, I bet you can't help but feel a twinge of disgust.   .

Links:

Thousands of pills filled with powdered human baby flesh discovered by customs officials in South Korea

Read more...

Babies are"Morally Irrevelant" So Killing Babies No Different than Abortion

As the abortion debate continues to rage on, the most important question at the center of this hot-button issue remains the same, "When does human life begin?." The answer very much depends on one's view of what a human being is. For instance, do you believe human beings deserve special dignity? Are human beings worthy of special respect? Or, is it okay to kill and eat human beings the same way we kill and eat chickens, pigs, and cows? Is it okay to enslave and use human beings the way we do horses and/or oxen? One thing is certain: the answers to these questions cannot be determined by empirical science.

Up until now, most of us believe human beings are intrinsically valuable - equal in fundamental worth and dignity - because of who we are. Not because of the transient qualities we may, or may not possess? Not because of what we can contribute to society. After all, we're human-beings, not human-doings. So, if we are intrinsically valuable because of who we are, and not because of our capacity to do things  when does that unique cluster of cells that we all start out as, become a human being? Remember, the physical/materialistic is the only aspect of the human being that empirical science can confirm. Science cannot substantiate the immaterial aspect of the human being - the consciousness/ soul.

Today, in America, one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. Most of us, including myself, do not give this subject much thought because it's become so universally accepted, whether we are "pro-life" or "pro-choice". This could also signal what might be called a hardening of sensibilities, especially considering what some academics are seriously discussing and publishing. That is, the right to kill your newborn, or as they so eloquently put it, "after-birth abortion".

That's right. The Journal of Medical Ethics recently published the paper, After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?  Parents should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are not "actual persons".  The authors argue that there is no moral difference between a fetus and a newborn because their capacities to do things are the same; hence, if abortion is lawful, infanticide should be lawful.

You might say to yourself, "So what...it's not been made law." While that's true, it's important to understand that since these arguments are acceptable to publish, the implication is there is potential for societal acceptance. To be sure, The Journal of Medical Ethics rejects many more papers than it accepts.

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

As absurd as this sounds, it's not, when you really think about it. Many of those who cringe at the thought of killing a newborn, defend, tooth and nail, the right to kill that same child a few days/months sooner. They're that certain there is a difference. If a fertilized egg is not a human, then it never will be, because nothing is added to it after that time.

The bottom line is that this is just part of an overall message that becomes clearer everyday: if for any reason you are an inconvenient and/or non-productive member of society, you need to be eliminated for the "greater good".

Read more...

Bioethicists Conclude Human Life is About as Sacred as Weeds.

Is nothing sacred anymore? Does anything matter? Is there any intrinsic value to life? Apparently not, according to two nihilistic American bioethicists in an online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. That's right. Humanity has no innate value, no purpose, no meaning. And unfortunately, these two prominent bioethicists are not alone in their thinking. So, what makes killing wrong? Well, according to these "experts", human life is only valuable if is productive. Hmmm...if I remember correctly, this kind of utilitarian thinking was the same kind of rationale used by Nazi Germany.

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

Take Bill "reduce the population with vaccines" Gates , for instance, with his 500,000 shares , of   Monsanto stock. Developer/producer of GMO seeds/foods, and all types of poisons like DDT/agent orange, and who spreads their toxic GMO seeds in order to sue non-corporate farmers with patent infringement.  Read Monsanto: Harvest of fear.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” -- Bill Gates

As it is, a significant portion of the developed world's population believe in nothing greater than themselves, which tends to make the dehumanization of others fairly simple. What exactly is dehumanization? Basically, valuing human life about as much as you value the weeds in your garden. It's viewing people as statistics, commodities, or as interchangeable. This, I would argue is a direct result of our ever increasing acquisitive society.

Consumption has replaced production, and everything and everyone is a consumer item. The brutal underlying values of a casino/"free" market consumerist society are inherently nihilistic, in that nothing we do, nothing we create, nothing we love has meaning. Thus, 'we the weeds people' are essentially disposable, like dirty Pampers.

Related Links:

Executive order 13139: President Clinton signed this order authorizing the Department of Defense to administer "new investigational drugs" to troops ---- with or without their consent ---- to protect them from biological, chemical or radiological agents during military actions.

Executive Order 13544,  whose goal is to severely limit private and organic farming

Public Law 105-85 Use of human subjects for testing of biological or chemical agents

S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act precludes the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. In other words, consolidated corporate control of your food.

Bill Gates, China jointly developing nuclear reactor

Codex Alimentarius is a collection of internationally recognized standards, codes of practice, guidelines and other recommendations relating to foods, food production, and food safety.

Read more...

Man's Inhumanity to Man and Human Accountability

As we enter the 21st Century, perhaps, our most daunting challenge is apathy. So, what's the big deal? Well, in his book, Shaiton's Fire, Jake Thoene wrote, "Apathy and evil. The two work hand in hand. They are the same, really.... Evil wills it. Apathy allows it. Evil hates the innocent and the defenseless most of all. Apathy doesn't care as long as it's not personally inconvenienced," or in other words, as someone else once said, “Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand,”. In other words, apathy is to evil as cow shit is to mushrooms.

So, assuming evil is a very real phenomenon - and it is, despite those who claim it's a matter of opinion - we must realize that evil, not only remains a potentiality dwelling in the abysmal depths of each and every one of us; each and every one of us is a witting or unwitting participant, creator and/or perpetuater.

You see, in America, where freedom to pursue the pleasures of life, unencumbered by weighty issues is thought to be a god-given right, contributing to the evil that destroys so many people's lives is unavoidable. Barbara Bush sums it up best: "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

What is evil? Well, we can't rely solely on external laws, rules, and regulations. In the wrong hands, laws can can become a tool of hatred and barbarity. Think Nazi Germany. Rather, we must evaluate from form the perspective of outside the political and legal framework...outside the status quo and custom.

"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity"- George Bernard Shaw

In their 1971 anthology, Sanctions for Evil, social psychologists Nevitt Sanford and Craig Comstock defined evil as the following: "In using the word evil, we mean not that an act or pattern of life is necessarily a sin or a crime according to some law, but rather that it leads to damage or pain suffered by people, to social destructiveness of a degree so serious as to call for use of an ancient, heavily freighted term."

On a more subtle level, it's that tendency in oneself or others that hinders personal growth; intentionally destroys or curtails innate potential; limits freedoms; fragments or disintegrates the personality, and/or promotes extreme interpersonal aggression, cruelty, hostility, psychopathology and human misery.

Here's the thing. Outward goals often hide an insidious reality and underlying intention that can only be described as evil.  By feigning ignorance of the sometimes heinous transgressions of our government and the corporations we seemingly can't live without... or shrugging our shoulders and going on with life as if it's not happening, we provide the fertile ground needed for evil to spread.

Read more...

Anti-Abortionists and Advocates for Gay Marriage Naturally Form a Symbiotic Relationship.

Believe me, it's not easy to oppose abortion and advocate for gay marriage at the same time, as those who believe this way tend to ruffle the feathers of both conservatives and liberals. So, I will frame this argument from a "morally relativistic" point of view (even though I'm a moral realist), as it eliminates any type of overall morality from interfering with my attempt at "logic".

Christians often choose abortion as the issue that determines which lever they pull when choosing who they want to represent them in Washington. Unfortunately, those same Christians often oppose gay marriage. This is clearly a non-sequitur, as gay marriage is a natural "antidote" to abortion. On the other hand, advocates of same-sex marriage often support the right to choose when abortion should be a non-issue for the exclusively homosexual, as homosexuality naturally limits abortion. Remember, this argument is from a morally relativistic point of view as a moral relativist has no right to impose his sense of morality on anyone else.

Therefore, I propose the following argument to support my position.

1. Premise: Life begins at conception.
2. Premise: Homosexuals who practice homosexuality exclusively cannot conceive.
3. Premise: Abortion ends the process that conception began.
4. Inference: This implies that homosexuals cannot begin the process of life.
5. Inference: Therefore homosexuals cannot have abortions.
6. Conclusion: Homosexuals naturally limit the number of abortions.

Right off the bat, people will dispute premise #1 because most "pro-choicers" do not believe life begins at conception, however I argue it does. With the exception of Jesus Christ, without conception, 99.9% of us would not exist. Evidence to debate premise #2 and #3 is non-existent.

Okay, where does "symbiosis" enter the equation? Well, homosexuality, by its very nature cuts down on the rate of abortion without any effort from anti-abortionists. Abortion, by its very nature, is a non-issue for homosexuals, if they are allowed to love the way God intended and since marriage, supposedly, is the ideal institution for the love between two people to flourish, then gay marriage is inevitable, as it promotes love, contains promiscuity, and greatly cuts down on the rate of abortion in more ways than one.

In addition to the natural deterrent gay marriage plays in lowering the abortion rate, it also has the potential to reduce the rate of abortion even further. Gay married couples, because they cannot conceive on their own, often adopt children, something "pro-lifers" often argue as an alternative to terminating a pregnancy.

So, in my humble opinion, anti-abortionists arguing against gay marriage is like...like, I don't know, anti-evolutionists arguing against the bible.

Read more...

Who is the Hero to the Moral Relativist?.

I know I rant and rave about the lack of critical thinking skills and the over abundance of moral judgment in our culture, thus, it may seem
my condemnation of moral relativism might seem contradictory. However, it's equally destructive to assume there are no absolutes, because the act of critical thinking requires the existence of an objective reality, otherwise there isn't any foundation to base our thinking, and without the existence of universal moral truth, there is no foundation to base the value of our life.

Assuming you believe we are here, that life is... some type of objective reality must exist, right? Taking that one-step further, assuming life has inherent value, some type of object morality must also exist, right?

Well, ask people the first question and most will agree, that based on observable phenomena, an objective reality does indeed exist. Ask people the second question, and a good percentage of those who admit to an objective reality, will deny the existence of an objective morality. Why is that?

It could be because we can't see morality as clearly. We walk out our front door and we can see trees, grass, sky, animals, other human beings, etc., so, unless we're waxing philosophical, we don't question objective reality and in order to survive we must establish certain absolutes. For example, from an early age, we learn that fire is hot, that certain animals will devour us if given the chance, that ocean water will not quench our thirst, etc.

What happens if we don't believe that those truths exist? What happens if we decide fire is not hot and walk into a burning building? If we decide all animals are friendly and jump in the lion cage? If we insist on drinking only ocean water? The answers are obvious, however, truth does not always present itself so clearly, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, in the absence of concrete observable phenomenon, many presume there is no moral reality.

Let's take a look at what we can observe about developing a system of right and wrong independent of relativity. One of the things we can observe is the function of law in society and what is law based on? Morality.

Some people say you can’t legislate morality, however if we're not legislating morality, what are we legislating? Law must be based on some concept of the common good or else it is based on an individual's personal preference, and exists only to enforce the will and desire of that person, in other words despotism. In a free society, morality is the only thing we can legislate.

"Law stands upon the necessary foundation of morality" – Aristotle

What about if the law is based on morality but that morality turns out to be tolerance of everything? Eventually, chaos will ensue and it's almost certain that those whose "morality" is limited to survival of the fittest, will grab the power and enforce the law based on what's good for them only thus morality becomes irrelevant and power, the only thing that matters.

Heroes of moral realism can function as another way to observe moral principles in action. Jesus Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King etc., are all perfect examples of people who came the closest to living out their lives adhering to moral truth. Just as most of us will fail to consistently meet the requirements necessary (nutrients, exercise etc) to get the most we can from physical reality, even more of us will fail to meet the requirements necessary to get the most from moral reality. Nevertheless, just because we don't live up to those standards, doesn't mean those truths do not exist. Just as we know we must eat, drink and move our bodies even though we may not come close to getting it exactly right, we do it anyway or die. In the same way, just because we understand there is a moral reality does not mean we all will have the integrity or the intelligence to interpret that reality, but we try anyway or face the consequences.

We define a moral relativist as one who claims there are no absolute truths regarding morality, and that a system of right and wrong can only be based on individual preference, and the tolerance of those preferences and most importantly that everyone’s moral beliefs are equally legitimate. "Morality should never be imposed" is their sacred utterance. However, unless they state their belief by prefacing it with "my personal preference is not to impose...", they clearly believe in an objective morality. Tolerance is a form of morality, not imposing your own morality on others is a form of reality, in the same way a tree is a form of life. Declaring the absence of absolute truths, is an absolute truth in itself.

Most moral relativists defend moral relativism with the same intensity that moral realists defend their belief in an objective morality. The very act of defending your belief system implies moral truth, otherwise you would only state your preference, right?

Well, I didn't like what Hitler did but he had every right to do it...I would never participate or look at child pornography but who am I to tell others what to do. How many of us can utter those words without wincing?

A moral relativist can't say murder is wrong because the word wrong is a moral term. They can declare their dislike of murder or that they themselves would not murder anyone, but they cannot impose that preference on others, otherwise they are admitting to an absolute moral truth, that murder for the sake of murder is wrong. While it's true, not all moral truths are so transparent, it shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend, that whatever it takes to keep you alive, it takes to keep others alive as well. Just as easily as we learn fire is hot, most of us seem to learn killing for the sake of killing is wrong.

So, what can we observe about moral relativism? Who is the hero to the moral relativist? The lack of outward directives and guidelines and the fact that it is based only on the "truth" of the individual makes it very hard to observe much of anything. Moral relativity by its definition is immoral as it rejects morality. Morality is not doing what's right for the individual, it's taking the time to figure out what's right, whether it's best for you, or not, and you cannot do that without some type of moral truth to base your decision. A good night's sleep might be what's best for mother, but when her newborn is starving or crying out for help, the moral decision for mother is to get up and help her child.

Oddly enough, many of those who claim to reject moral relativism are in truth, moral relativists since moral relativism distinguishes between what's right and wrong based on personal preference, instead of let's say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The only true moral relativist or hero of the moral relativist is the sociopath. A sociopath has no concern for another's idea of right and wrong, only follows his own view of right and wrong and consistently lives his life according to his own desires. Pretty simple if you ask me. Jesus Christ or Ted Bundy? Oxygen or carbon monoxide?

Read more...

I Did Have Sexual Relations With That Woman By FRANK RICH

I Did Have Sexual Relations With That Woman By FRANK RICH

IT’S not just the resurgence of Al Qaeda that is taking us back full circle to the fateful first summer of the Bush presidency. It’s the hot sweat emanating from Washington. Once again the capital is titillated by a scandal featuring a member of Congress, a woman who is not his wife and a rumor of crime. Gary Condit, the former Democratic congressman from California, has passed the torch of below-the-Beltway sleaziness to David Vitter, an incumbent (as of Friday) Republican senator from Louisiana.

Mr. Vitter briefly faced the press to explain his “very serious sin,” accompanied by a wife who might double for the former Mrs. Jim McGreevey. He had no choice once snoops hired by the avenging pornographer Larry Flynt unearthed his number in the voluminous phone records of the so-called D.C. Madam, now the subject of a still-young criminal investigation. Newspapers back home also linked the senator to a defunct New Orleans brothel, a charge Mr. Vitter denies. That brothel’s former madam, while insisting he had been a client, was one of his few defenders last week. “Just because people visit a whorehouse doesn’t make them a bad person,” she helpfully told the Baton Rouge paper, The Advocate.

Mr. Vitter is not known for being so forgiving a soul when it comes to others’ transgressions. Even more than Mr. Condit, who once co-sponsored a bill calling for the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, Mr. Vitter is a holier-than-thou family-values panderer. He recruited his preteen children for speaking roles in his campaign ads and, terrorism notwithstanding, declared that there is no “more important” issue facing America than altering the Constitution to defend marriage.

But hypocrisy is a hardy bipartisan perennial on Capitol Hill, and hardly news. This scandal may leave a more enduring imprint. It comes with a momentous pedigree. Mr. Vitter first went to Washington as a young congressman in 1999, to replace Robert Livingston, the Republican leader who had been anointed to succeed Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House. Mr. Livingston’s seat had abruptly become vacant after none other than Mr. Flynt outed him for committing adultery. Since we now know that Mr. Gingrich was also practicing infidelity back then — while leading the Clinton impeachment crusade, no less — the Vitter scandal can be seen as the culmination of an inexorable sea change in his party.

And it is President Bush who will be left holding the bag in history. As the new National Intelligence Estimate confirms the failure of the war against Al Qaeda and each day of quagmire signals the failure of the war in Iraq, so the case of the fallen senator from the Big Easy can stand as an epitaph for a third lost war in our 43rd president’s legacy: the war against sex.

During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush and his running mate made a point of promising to “set an example for our children” and to “uphold the honor and the dignity of the office.” They didn’t just mean that there would be no more extramarital sex in the White House. As a matter of public policy, abstinence was in; abortion rights, family planning and homosexuality were out. Mr. Bush’s Federal Communications Commission stood ready to punish the networks for four-letter words and wardrobe malfunctions. The surgeon general was forbidden to mention condoms or the morning-after pill.

To say that this ambitious program has fared no better than the creation of an Iraqi unity government is an understatement. The sole lasting benchmark to be met in the Bush White House’s antisex agenda was the elevation of anti-Roe judges to the federal bench. Otherwise, Sodom and Gomorrah are thrashing the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition day and night.

The one federal official caught on the D.C. Madam’s phone logs ahead of Mr. Vitter, Randall Tobias, was a Bush State Department official whose tasks had included enforcing a prostitution ban on countries receiving AIDS aid. Last month Rupert Murdoch’s Fox network succeeded in getting a federal court to throw out the F.C.C.’s “indecency” fines. Polls show unchanging majority support for abortion rights and growing support for legal recognition of same-sex unions exemplified by Mary Cheney’s.

Most amazing is the cultural makeover of Mr. Bush’s own party. The G.O.P. that began the century in the thrall of Rick Santorum, Bill Frist and George Allen has become the brand of Mark Foley and Mr. Vitter. Not a single Republican heavyweight showed up at Jerry Falwell’s funeral. Younger evangelical Christians, who may care more about protecting the environment than policing gay people, are up for political grabs.

Nowhere is this cultural revolution more visible — or more fun to watch — than in the G.O.P. campaign for the White House. Forty years late, the party establishment is finally having its own middle-aged version of the summer of love, and it’s a trip. The co-chairman of John McCain’s campaign in Florida has been charged with trying to solicit gay sex from a plainclothes police officer. Over at YouTube, viewers are flocking to a popular new mock-music video in which “Obama Girl” taunts her rival: “Giuliani Girl, you stop your fussin’/ At least Obama didn’t marry his cousin.”

As Margery Eagan, a columnist at The Boston Herald, has observed, even the front-runners’ wives are getting into the act, trying to one-up one another with displays of what she described as their “ample and aging” cleavage. The décolletage primary was kicked off early this year by the irrepressible Judith Giuliani, who posed for Harper’s Bazaar giving her husband a passionate kiss. “I’ve always liked strong, macho men,” she said. This was before we learned she had married two such men, not one, before catching the eye of America’s Mayor at Club Macanudo, an Upper East Side cigar bar, while he was still married to someone else.

Whatever the ultimate fate of Rudy Giuliani’s campaign, it is the straw that stirs the bubbling brew that is the post-Bush Republican Party. The idea that a thrice-married, pro-abortion rights, pro-gay rights candidate is holding on as front-runner is understandably driving the G.O.P.’s increasingly marginalized cultural warriors insane. Not without reason do they fear that he is in the vanguard of a new Republican age of Addams-family values and moral relativism. Once a truculent law-and-order absolutist, Mr. Giuliani has even shrugged off the cocaine charges leveled against his departed South Carolina campaign chairman, the state treasurer Thomas Ravenel, as a “highly personal” matter.

The religious right’s own favorite sons, Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, are no more likely to get the nomination than Ron Paul or, for that matter, RuPaul. The party’s faith-based oligarchs are getting frantic. Disregarding a warning from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who said in March that he didn’t consider Fred Thompson a Christian, they desperately started fixating on the former Tennessee senator as their savior. When it was reported this month that Mr. Thompson had worked as a lobbyist for an abortion rights organization in the 1990s, they credulously bought his denials and his spokesman’s reassurance that “there’s no documents to prove it, no billing records.” Last week The New York Times found the billing records.

No one is stepping more boldly into this values vacuum than Mitt Romney. In contrast to Mr. Giuliani, the former Massachusetts governor has not only disowned his past as a social liberal but is also running as a paragon of moral rectitude. He is even embracing one of the more costly failed Bush sex initiatives, abstinence education, just as states are abandoning it for being ineffective. He never stops reminding voters that he is the only top-tier candidate still married to his first wife.

In a Web video strikingly reminiscent of the Vitter campaign ads, the entire multigenerational Romney brood gathers round to enact their wholesome Christmas festivities. Last week Mr. Romney unveiled a new commercial decrying American culture as “a cesspool of violence, and sex, and drugs, and indolence, and perversions.” Unlike Mr. Giuliani, you see, he gets along with his children, and unlike Mr. Thompson, he has never been in bed with the perverted Hollywood responsible for the likes of “Law & Order.”

There are those who argue Mr. Romney’s campaign is doomed because he is a Mormon, a religion some voters regard almost as suspiciously as Scientology, but two other problems may prove more threatening to his candidacy. The first is that in American public life piety always goeth before a fall. There had better not be any skeletons in his closet. Already Senator Brownback has accused Mr. Romney of pushing hard-core pornography because of his close association with (and large campaign contributions from) the Marriott family, whose hotel chain has prospered mightily from its X-rated video menu.

The other problem is more profound: Mr. Romney is swimming against a swift tide of history in both culture and politics. Just as the neocons had their moment in power in the Bush era and squandered it in Iraq, so the values crowd was handed its moment of ascendancy and imploded in debacles ranging from Terri Schiavo to Ted Haggard to David Vitter. By this point it’s safe to say that even some Republican primary voters are sick enough of their party’s preacher politicians that they’d consider hitting a cigar bar or two with Judith Giuliani.

Read more...

Is Moral Judgement Innate?

Are our moral intuitions universally shared?

Marc Hauser, head of the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory, believes we do share moral intuitions, and bases his theory that humans have an innate capacity for moral judgment on MIT linguist Noam Chomksy's theory of Universal Grammar, which states that all languages have a common structural basis, consisting of a set of rules that are hardwired in the brain.

Mr. Hauser is convinced we develop our morality through the interaction of our intuitive moral sense and reflective judgment, after our initial response, we determine if our intuition is justifiable.

Mr. Hauser explains variation in the moral sphere by looking at the history of biology,

"When biology looks deeply at variation, what it typically uncovers is a set of underlying mechanisms that have extraordinary generative power to account for a huge amount of variation; that variation is handed to the environment and the environment prunes it back to give a set of locally adaptive options. That’s true of animal form. Simple set of genetic mechanisms that generate that variety again pruned back by the environment"

One way Mr. Hauser explains variation through time in our moral sphere is through the Principles and Parameter view ... the framework formulated by Noam Chomsky when developing his universal grammar theory -- principles don’t change but the parameters can change, like switches.

Read more...