If you believe sex roles are a result a patriarchy designed to disempower women, rather than on what they’re actually based on—the biological differences between the sexes—your relationship is doomed. A successful marriage relationship demands a deep understanding of male and female nature.
A strong marriage is in fact predicated on sexual inequality, or on how much couples let their differences shine.
Just say ‘no’ to feminists. They are a waste of time.
With their government design, the Founding Fathers sought to protect individual rights, not only from government, but also from our fellow citizens. As Alexander Hamilton explained: “We are now forming a republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate government.” With democratic governance, individual freedoms can be subverted by majority rule. The Constitution seeks to advance liberty, not democracy.
Says so right there in the Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency letter published in the Bioscience journal boasted the signatures of 11,000 scientists lending the full weight of their useless degrees to order that “the world population must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.” Reducing populations for social integrity was the specialty of such innovative environmental activists as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mohammed…
And so a letter in Lancet Planetary Health by assorted scientists, grad students, people who claim to be scientists, and people who once watched an episode of Cosmos, demanded that meat consumption drop by 2030…
“We need another kind of escape route—away from our ideologies of ownership and property, and toward more collective, healthy, and just cities,’ the socialist rag argues.
What do you mean ‘we’? You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.
I find myself repeating that saying when I consider the catastrophic results of liberal, left-wing, progressive government in so many US cities and states, particularly in the so-called Rust Belt and on the East and West Coasts. It’s particularly visible in urban areas. So many of them exhibit precisely the same signs of decay and incipient social collapse that I’m beginning to think it can’t be coincidental, or even accidental. I’m more and more convinced that the loony left is actually planning this, as a way to make the citizens of those cities more and more dependent on their (ineffectual) governments just to survive the dystopia in which they live.
I know it’s deliberate. In the mid-90s, at a neighborhood association meeting in Dayton, Ohio, a city commissioner came to speak to us about the city budget plan (the topic of discussion). The city commission was made up of five members – 4 Democrats and a token Republican (the result of having ‘at large’ elections for the positions. It’s now 100% Democrat.) The Democrat commissioner told us that they were actually PLANNING on the whole city population being welfare recipients.
The people who promoted the open society in the last century, and continue to promote it today, do so as outsiders. They look at the organic communities and societies of the West and simply see collections of people. The alien cannot see or understand the reciprocal obligations and duties that hold the community together. These are only obvious to the people inside, because it is what holds them together. The outsider only sees the benefits of membership, not what defines it.
Read that last line again: The outsider only sees the benefits of membership, not what defines it.
Emphasis added. Leftists think that the ‘benefits’ will still exist AFTER they have destroyed the society by, say, open borders and illegal immigration. See California.
Oxford social anthropologist J.D. Unwin discovered that when a highly developed culture undergoes an increase in sexual freedom, a collapse of that culture follows within three generations. The historical data reveals this pattern with “monotonous” regularity.
Here are a few of his most significant findings:
Effect of sexual constraints: Increased sexual constraints, either pre or post-nuptial, always led to increased flourishing of a culture. Conversely, increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.
Single most influential factor: Surprisingly, the data revealed that the single most important correlation with the flourishing of a culture was whether pre-nuptial chastity was required or not. It had a very significant effect either way.
Highest flourishing of culture: The most powerful combination was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with “absolute monogamy”. Rationalist cultures that retained this combination for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area, including literature, art, science, furniture, architecture, engineering, and agriculture. Only three out of the eighty-six cultures studied ever attained this level.
Effect of abandoning prenuptial chastity: When strict prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking also disappeared within three generations.
Total sexual freedom: If total sexual freedom was embraced by a culture, that culture collapsed within three generations to the lowest state of flourishing — which Unwin describes as “inert” and at a “dead level of conception” and is characterized by people who have little interest in much else other than their own wants and needs. At this level, the culture is usually conquered or taken over by another culture with greater social energy.
Time lag: If there is a change in sexual constraints, either increased or decreased restraints, the full effect of that change is not realized until the third generation.
Read the whole article. (I’m going to read the book too. There’s a link to several downloadable versions in the article.)
In a dialogue with Catholic high school students in Rome this weekend, Pope Francis responded to a question about how to deal with atheists and people of other faiths by saying that Christians should never proselytize — and any who do are not truly Christians.
“If someone says they are a disciple of Jesus and comes to you with proselytism, they are not a disciple of Jesus.”
“The Church does not grow by proselytism.”
Pretty sure it is supposed to grow that way. Has the Pope ever read the New Testament? One of the risen Christ’s last orders was…
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.