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.
Source: Open and Closed
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.)
Source: Why Sexual Morality May be Far More Important than You Ever Thought — Quest
There is a reason, after all, why age restrictions exist in society.
Best line I’ve read this morning.
Source: ‘OK, boomer’? Pay the bills, support a family, then we’ll talk | The College Fix
People do not embrace an intellectual abstraction like “equality” because it is self-evidently true, but rather because, as he says, they fear that they are somehow disadvantaged in the competition of life. Thus, whatever advantages are enjoyed by the winners in the competition are condemned as unfair — a violation of equality — and from this emerges a politics of envy called “social justice.” We see this, for example, in demands for “free” health care and “free” college tuition. Because more affluent people can afford to pay cash to send their kids to Harvard, according to this egalitarian “social justice” mentality, it is unfair that less fortunate people are effectively excluded from elite schools or, if they can gain admission to Harvard, must borrow money to attend.
It says “all men are created equal…”. It does not mean they will stay that way. Equality of outcome is NOT a feature of a free society.
Source: ‘The Heresy of Equality’
El posted the comments to his personal Facebook account, which included referring to homosexuality as an “abomination to the Human Race,” and also a mental illness.
He says that he will not resign, and that he will continue to serve for the sake of supporting human rights.
El also posted an article about a transgender person sexually abusing a child, and added a comment many found offensive to the LGBTQ community.
“This is why we need to stop giving men in dresses passes,” he wrote.
“I have daughters and I won’t accept them sharing a restroom with a grown man suffering from this mental illness,” he added. “Men trying to be women and women trying to be men is really confusing our children and I’m tired of seeing this nonsense promoted to our children.”
He’s not wrong. Islam is right about homosexuals. The only point of agreement I have with Islam. Homosexuality is evil and needs to be stamped out not coddled and promoted.
Source: Muslim Commissioner of Virginia Human Rights Commission: Gays Are ‘Abomination to the Human Race’ – Geller Report News
Just think about this: The same people who harangued us for decades about the sin of reinforcing “gender norms” by giving girls Barbie dolls and boys toy guns are now insisting that it’s imperative that we give Barbie dolls to a three-year-old boy who wants to dress up like his older sister (as my emphatically masculine son did) or that we give toy guns to a little girl who chases after her girl brother and his friends when they play “war.” If we treat children as individuals, rather than stereotypes, they’ll almost invariably revert to their biological norms once they hit puberty. They may end up gay or lesbian, but they’ll know what’s in their underpants.
Source: In the face of transgender attacks on societal norms, note the missing science – Bookworm Room
So the Founders decided to take a gamble. They called it a great experiment.
They would leave “the People” broad liberty, limit the coercive power of the government, and place their trust in self-discipline and the virtue of the American people.
In the words of Madison, “We have staked our future on the ability of each of us to govern ourselves…”
This is really what was meant by “self-government.” It did not mean primarily the mechanics by which we select a representative legislative body. It referred to the capacity of each individual to restrain and govern themselves.
But what was the source of this internal controlling power? In a free republic, those restraints could not be handed down from above by philosopher kings.
Instead, social order must flow up from the people themselves – freely obeying the dictates of inwardly-possessed and commonly-shared moral values. And to control willful human beings, with an infinite capacity to rationalize, those moral values must rest on authority independent of men’s will – they must flow from a transcendent Supreme Being.
In short, in the Framers’ view, free government was only suitable and sustainable for a religious people – a people who recognized that there was a transcendent moral order antecedent to both the state and man-made law and who had the discipline to control themselves according to those enduring principles.
Source: Attorney General William P. Barr Delivers Remarks to the Law School