November 20th, 2017

Note (20MAY): To meet or not to meet? Is that the question, or is the real question to overeat or to overeat even more?

North Korean Chairman Chubby makes a few symbolic, peaceful gestures. Immediately, the overweight President Lovemyself beats his chest, proclaiming loudly the success of bludgeoning his rival into submission and nominating himself for the Nobel Peace Prize to be among such notables as Yasser Arafat and Barak Hussein Obama II. Then, to add injury to insult, he announces that the long-scheduled “war-games” with South Korea will begin on time. Augmenting that brilliance in American foreign policy, relatively slim John Bolton, who never met a war that he didn’t like, trips over his own constantly wagging tongue with a remark about Libya; thereby, fueling Chubby’s worst fear of these United States turning him into Muammar Gaddafi the Second. Consequence? The Chairman threatens to cancel the supposedly upcoming summit. The Donald then weakens his stance on the “war-games”. Meanwhile, North Korea retains its nukes and its rockets. Despite the bleating of an increasingly obese Hannity on Fox, who’s really winning?

-End of Note-

In 1994, then-President Clinton lied to the American public about North Korea. He already had lied about Gennifer Flowers in 1992. Then, also in 1994, he lied about ClintonCare. In 1998, he was to lie about Monica Lewinsky.

Now, it’s 2018. The chickens hatched from his lie about Korea in 1994 have come home to roost. The following is an excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences, published in late 2009:

“The woman Folly is riotous;She is thoughtlessness, and knoweth nothing.”  —Proverbs 9:13


President Park Duck-soo sat rigidly in the large conference room unable to speak.  To the others present, the ministers from his cabinet and the heads of the military, the man seemed about to go into shock.  Sitting somberly, silently, they awaited his words. Finally, one of his generals spoke, addressing the President, “Sir, are we going to ask them?”  No response.

The General waited a few moments for the President to answer.  “Sir, I say again.  Are we going to ask them?”  His voice projected a tone of urgency.

Eventually, the President answered.  He spoke softly.  “They will say no.  We went too far … too far.  You may ask, anyway.” He then waved everyone else from the room.  Sitting alone writhing in mental agony, he awaited the consequences of his folly.


For a number of years, anti-American sentiment in the Republic of Korea had been escalating.  Demonstrations occurred regularly, demanding removal of American military forces.  President Park had been elected on a platform of rapprochement with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the north and of antagonism toward the presence of the American forces in the South.  He based his political strategy on the assumptions that American forces never would leave unless he ordered them out, which he had no intention of doing, and that American taxpayers would continue paying for the “privilege” of defending South Korea.  Besides, relations between the South and the North had been improving considerably.

American forces already had removed themselves from the daily lives of the South Koreans, whom they were defending against their cousins to the north.  The Americans occupied bases well to the south of the capital, Seoul.

It had been several months since President Kent’s last address to the American people, in which he had announced removal of forces by the end of the year from foreign countries refusing to provide compensation in full for the American presence.  During the interim, tens of thousands of South Koreans, mainly young people, held repeated celebrations in the streets.  President Park himself reluctantly marched in one celebratory parade.

“What choice do I have?” he had confided to an advisor.  “I must save face.  Think of my political opponents.”

During the period of those demonstrations, the American Ambassadress to South Korea, at the direction of President Kent, had tried repeatedly to persuade President Park to renounce publicly any desire for American forces to depart his country.  Her last attempt was an official written note to the effect that the United States would consider one more antagonistic statement on his part a material breach of the agreement between the two nations.  President Park’s response was an especially virulent speech daring America to leave immediately while his Ambassador in Philadelphia hastily scheduled a secret meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State.  The Ambassadress was shocked by President Park’s address to his nation.  She would have been more shocked had she been told of her South Korean counterpart’s message to the American government.

The day following President Park’s vituperative rant, President Kent had announced the withdrawal of American forces from the Korean peninsula.  One month later, the last American troops had departed.  Three days after their departure, hundreds of thousands of infantrymen from the North accompanied by armor, artillery, and air power crossed the 38th parallel, invading the South.  The second Korean conflict began.  The South Korean celebrations of American withdrawal ceased.

The attack from the North had begun at dawn.  That first day, the South Korean military mounted a respectable defense.  To his relief, the rockets that President Park had expected to descend upon Seoul had not appeared.

That afternoon President Park had met with his staff.  The question put to him by the General was whether to request the American forces to return immediately to the Korean Peninsula.  Until their recent departure, they had been there continuously since the first Korean conflict began in 1950, their presence keeping the North at bay.  “Pride be damned!” President Park thought while answering the General’s question.  The South Korean government instructed its Ambassador in Philadelphia to request an urgent meeting directly and personally with the American President.  The President felt too ashamed to telephone himself. That afternoon President Park had met with his staff.  The question put to him by the General was whether to request the American forces to return immediately to the Korean Peninsula.  Until their recent departure, they had been there continuously since the first Korean conflict began in 1950, their presence keeping the North at bay.  “Pride be damned!” President Park thought while answering the General’s question.  The South Korean government instructed its Ambassador in Philadelphia to request an urgent meeting directly and personally with the American President.  The President felt too ashamed to telephone himself.

President Kent met with the South Korean representative and listened to his plea.  He remained non-committal.


Clifford Kent absentmindedly placed the handset into its cradle, reflecting upon his just completed conversation. It confirmed his own thinking. Then, he left his office.

As he entered the conference room, everyone rose to greet him. He took his seat at the head of the table. Present were all members of the National Security Council and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The President opened the meeting. “Gentlemen, you know why we’re here. The North Korean military, now in total command of that country, has invaded the South. South Korea will lose. The North Korean generals recognize their inevitable victory and, therefore, are sparing the Southern cities and infrastructure. Having supported previously calls for American withdrawal, President Park now is requesting humbly that we return immediately to rescue him from his folly. I solicit your opinions.”

As the President had predicted, the discussion was lively. Most of the civilians were in favor of granting President Park’s request. Unanimously, the military were against it.

“Gentlemen, minus four plus four equals zero.” Those in his audience all responded with puzzled looks on their faces. “Allow me to explain. We sit here facing a troublesome situation. I propose using a scientific approach in dealing with it.” The puzzled looks became more pronounced. “Doing so requires four, initial steps … the negatives,” the President continued, “then four, additional steps … the positives. Putting the two series of four steps together, hopefully we resolve our problem. Minus four plus four equals zero.”

The President scanned the room. The puzzled looks remained.

“I’ll elaborate. Part One consists of four steps to describe the situation in question … the negatives. Then, Part Two consists of four steps to resolve that problem-situation … the positives. Adding Part Two to Part One equals zero … no problem … that is, if we’re successful.”

The President continued, “In a context of repeated abuses by the South Korean government and many of its people, an especially vituperative speech by President Park prompted us to withdraw our forces from the Korean Peninsula. As a consequence of our troops’ leaving, the North responded by invading the South. The invasion prompted President Park belatedly to change his tune and request our immediate return to assist in defending his country. President Park’s request now functions as the antecedent for this meeting. Our behavior will be a discussion of what best to do. The consequence of that discussion will be our reply to President Park.”

The President paused awaiting any questions or comments. There were none. Everyone looked uncomfortable. Some of the civilians were perspiring in spite of the cool ambient temperature in the room.

“Now, returning to the situation in question, I’ve described it in terms of context and the relevant antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. Turning to the resolution, I’d define the problem-behavior as an excess of military aggression by North Korea in the form of their outright invasion of the South. Any disagreements?”

No one disagreed. Everyone still looked uncomfortable.

“Amplifications or modifications?” the President asked. No one offered any.

“Then, let’s target a goal. To me, the options are clear.  A reunified and democratic Korean Peninsula appears out of the question.  Remember, the Communists have ‘nukes’ hidden, and our troops invading the North might provoke both a military and a financial response from China.  The only two options seem to be … continuing to have a partitioned Korean Peninsula with the South free from Northern domination … or having a reunified Korean Peninsula under domination by the Communist-government in Pyongyang.  Discussion?”A reunified and democratic Korean Peninsula appears out of the question.  Remember, the Communists have ‘nukes’ hidden, and our troops invading the North might provoke both a military and a financial response from China.  The only two options seem to be … continuing to have a partitioned Korean Peninsula with the South free from Northern domination … or having a reunified Korean Peninsula under domination by the Communist-government in Pyongyang.  Discussion?”

Those in favor of the former option, all civilians, argued that the United States should defend democracy against tyranny.  They argued that allowing victory by the North would encourage future military adventures, including those by China and other aggressive nations, to the detriment of American interests; an argument reminiscent of the ‘domino-theory’ from the Cold War.

In contrast, those in favor of the latter option, mainly the JCS, argued that, having withdrawn from the Peninsula, the United States had signaled to the North that it no longer would defend the South.  Returning American troops to the Korean Peninsula again would replay the kind of confusing communication for which American politicians had become notorious.  It would result in thousands of American casualties, destruction of cities in both the North and the South, and, as President Kent himself had mentioned, possible intervention by China.  Worst of all, once more, the United States might be fighting a war not to win.

The President listened closely to all statements by both sides.  Prior to his entering the meeting, he had made a provisional decision after a conversation by telephone with Admiral Fisch in Honolulu.  Still, the President remained amenable to possible change. After everybody else had voiced his say, the President spoke.  “Gentlemen, I have listened to all of you, and I have listened closely.  I must tell you that, prior to this meeting, I spoke with Admiral Fisch in Honolulu.  My answer to President Park’s request will be simple and direct.  He paused.  It will be firm and unqualified.  He paused again.  My answer will be ‘No!’  The invasion from the North tragically represents Park’s chickens coming home to roost.”‘No!’  The invasion from the North tragically represents Park’s chickens coming home to roost.”

An immediate buzz of conversation filled the room.  The President did not attempt to quell it.  Ironically, those in favor of intervention looked relieved while those against it looked sad.  The President could understand both sides.  He felt relieved not to involve America in another military adventure to rescue people who had told America repeatedly that they did not want her; conversely, he, too, felt sad, knowing the inevitable fate of democracy in the South.

After the buzz had subsided, the President spoke again.  “Reluctantly, the targeted goal is to have allowed a reunification of the Korean Peninsula under the control of Pyongyang with containment of further aggressive behavior on the part of those in control.  Now, planning … suggestions?”  His question was met with silence.

“Alright, here’s the plan.  I’m directing the Secretary of State to inform the military government in Pyongyang that we deplore the invasion of the South.  Furthermore, if its adventures take it outside the Korean Peninsula, the United States will regard any such action as an act of war against us and will respond accordingly.  We’ll relay that same message to Beijing.  I’m taking that position to reassure our friends in Asia, especially Japan, that we will continue to defend them.  Now, for the fourth and last part … measurement.  Discussion.”

The group sensed that the President already knew the answer to his own question.  Again, everyone remained silent.

“Measurement will concentrate primarily upon human intelligence.  We’ll still have friends in the South.  We’ll recruit agents to maintain surveillance then report to us via the CIA.  With reunification, it’s likely the North will open its borders to travel from the South.  Combined with satellite reports and other sources of information, if we discover an increase in military activity by Pyongyang, we’ll warn them once.  If they continue, we will attack.  If China decides to get into the fray, so be it!”

One of the civilians from the State Department asked, “Doesn’t that plan run counter to your message that we are disengaging from such activity?”

“No … until the end of this year, we still remain obligated by treaty to other nations.  We will fulfill those obligations as long as they remain in effect.  When our obligations end, the responsibility of those nations to defend themselves becomes theirs alone… unless they request our continued assistance according to the terms I’ve outlined.”

The same civilian pursued the issue.  “And what about our obligation to defend South Korea?”

“Our obligation essentially ended when their people elected a government antagonistic to our presence then displayed their ill will in the form of massive demonstrations.  In fact, gentlemen, just prior to their being attacked, their Ambassador not-so-discreetly approached our State Department, demanding our immediate withdrawal unless we paid them exorbitant sums to remain.  They terminated our obligation … not us!”

The questioner persisted.  “Since, Mr. President, you are turning us into mercenaries ….”

For some years, the State Department had held the reputation of being defiant and self-serving to the point of subverting both the Presidency and the American military.1  Its inbred culture seemed to value amicable relations with hosting countries above the interests of the American people.  Its culture quickly contaminated even those from the outside appointed to remedy the rot inside.

“Allow me to correct you,” the President interrupted sternly.  “I am not turning the American military into mercenaries.  A mercenary reaps a sordid advantage from protecting others.  All we ask is not to pay to protect others.”

The man remained silent momentarily with a peeved look on his face.  “Fine, Sir, we are not mercenaries.  My question, nevertheless, remains the same.  What if South Korea now offers to pay us to return?”

“Our answer is ‘no’ to them … and will be ‘no’ to others under similar circumstances.  Do you really believe that North Korea would have invaded the South had we not withdrawn?”

“No,” the questioner admitted sotto voce.

“So, at low cost in dollars and no loss of American lives, our continued presence would have prevented war.  Do you agree?”

“I guess so,” the man muttered.

“For us to return now would mean our incurring substantial American casualties and a possible widening of the conflict to include China.  What price would you demand as compensation for our return?”

The questioner remained silent.  He stared at the table in front of him.

“I ask again, Mister, what price would you demand as compensation?”  It was the President’s turn to persist.

“Well, I … I … I suppose that I can’t put a price on such an action,” the man stammered.

“Neither can I!” exclaimed the President.

His disclosure of the monetary demand by the South Korean Ambassador had surprised everyone in attendance.  Clearly, the South Koreans had overplayed their hand and lost.

“B = f(x),” the President continued.  “Ultimately, behavior is a function of its consequences.  After witnessing the consequences of President Park’s folly, I have a premonition that it will function as a model for other nations to imitate … to bring their policy-making behaviors under the control of consequences not antecedents ….”

“What do you mean by antecedents … Sir?” the same civilian interrupted.  While others looked at him disapprovingly, the President nodded permission and smiled.

“Thank you for asking.  I mean allowing antecedent events, such as strident demands by small but vocal minorities, to control a governmental policy rather than the consequences of that policy … especially long-term consequences … to control it.  As I was saying, I have a premonition that, in this matter, other nations will bring their behaviors under the control of consequences not of antecedents and be only too happy to have us remain, compensating us in full for doing so.  Admiral Fisch predicts the one exception will be Japan.”

Another buzz of conversation filled the room.  The President allowed it to subside on its own.

“Any other questions or comments?”  The President waited, but there was not one.  “In that case, gentlemen, that’s all.  Thank you.”


The second Korean conflict . . . .

© Gene Richard Moss (2009)
All rights reserved.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


October 2nd, 2017

Americans and Russians
For those Russians unaware, be advised that few Americans realize that Russia is the only major power with which the United States of America never has been at war. Cold war? Yes. Hot war? No.

For those Russians unaware, be advised that many Americans, probably most, believe that Russia is a mortal enemy of the United States. Some politicians loudly and forcefully promote that concept.


With regard to the present crisis on the Korean Peninsula, you, President Putin, together with President Xi of China might have the opportunity to prevent everyone sliding down the slippery slope into nuclear catastrophe. Recall the prelude to World War One and its aftermath; namely, World War Two with 30-million Russians killed.

Fundamentally, the matter represents a civil war among Koreans. When presented with that basic fact, are most Russians willing to be annihilated in order to become involved in a battle of Koreans against Koreans? Are most Chinese? Are most Americans?

You two can offer Chairman Kim Jong-un and President Trump the following:
1) The United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty of 1953 as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

If you succeed, you would show the American and Russian people and the rest of the world that you promoted peace in a way from which everyone outside Korea benefitted. If you fail, you would have proven that you tried.

Consider the alternatives. Nuclear war? No nuclear war but a nuclear-armed Iran, Sudan, Hezbollah, etc. — a nuclear-armed Japan — a nuclear-armed who knows else?

See “KOREA: WHY?”.

Perhaps, you already have considered the above. Perhaps, President Xi has. Perhaps, President Trump has. If so, we Americans have not heard about any of you having done so.

Biobehavioral Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.” For a full description of that law of nature as it applies to the four secular cornerstones of any society — government, law, education, and medicine — see the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences (2009). Inside, you will find that Chapter Twelve relates to the situation in Korea today. Even then, the situation did not require a fortune-teller to predict the consequences of American policies ill conceived and ill executed.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


August 21st, 2017

Note (04SEP2017): So, in the midst of the fruitless yak and the ineffective sanctions, North Korea may have tested successfully a fusion-based weapon suitable for fitting onto an ICBM. Hydrogen bomb, in commonplace parlance! Thank you, Mr. Clinton for your feckless lying in 1994.

Consequence of the testing? Talk and more talk; sanctions and more sanctions. Meanwhile, a possible alternative for us Americans, unpalatable as it may be, exists albeit ignored. Our so-called leaders have convinced us better to have dead Americans and Koreans than just dead Koreans. If and when, the “nukes” explode over these United States of America as a consequence of our involvement in a civil war among Koreans, in those moments between living and dying, perhaps those in favor of such involvement may have second thoughts.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Korea! Why is our American military still there — there, so many decades after the end of the Korean Conflict; so many years after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union? Why are our political leaders so enthusiastic about risking the nuclear annihilation of these United States of America and the rest of the world in order to become involved in a civil war among Koreans? A treaty, you say?


The Korean-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is a dangerous joke. Mutual defense? Did we Americans then or do we now need the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to defend us against foreign aggression? The treaty represents a one-way street for us to defend them militarily while they rape us economically.

Military treaties are made with such ease. Military treaties are defended with such difficulty. Making a treaty involves words easily written. Defending a treaty involves lives brutally spent and treasure often wasted.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Democracy? By way of correcting a widespread misapprehension, these United States were founded neither as a pure democracy nor a republican democracy but as a democratic republic. Yes, there is a difference.


On principle and by tradition, however, a strong case can be made that these United States judiciously should support everywhere the cause of individual freedom embracing the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Support with words but not by blood unless the latter directly and overwhelmingly be in our own national interest.

Against the advice of our Founding Fathers, “Neo-Conservatives” and their supporters favor imposing democracy by force upon backward countries resistant to even the concept. Witness the abhorrent consequences and the cost to this nation in blood but much more in treasure of such adventurism to date. Afghanistan, where we had won with a thousand troops then lost with a hundred thousand?


The North Korean Perspective
As we humans creep closer to nuclear self-annihilation, consider the consequences of our ignoring consequences. Specifically, the consequences of President Truman’s ignoring the consequences of not winning the Korean Conflict. The consequences of Clinton’s ignoring the consequences of North Korean lies then compounding the matter with lies of his own; thereby, allowing that Communistic tyranny, now turning Fascistic, to develop nuclear weapons. The consequences of the fecklessness of Bush the Second then of Barack Hussein Obama II.

In contrast, the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) attended to consequences — consequences befalling others; for example, the trampling of Slobodan Miloševic’s Yugoslavia by American-led NATO with its civilian bombing. Would NATO have acted so cavalierly, whatever the claimed righteousness of its cause, if Miloševic had had nuclear weapons? Would the Europeans in front and these United States behind so cavalierly have attacked Muammar al-Gaddafi’s Libya had he succeeded in gaining nuclear weapons?

The consequence of the heavy-handedness of Americans’ behavior was to demonstrate to small, weaker nations the consequence of a behavioral deficit in gaining such weapons. The North Koreans claim, with obvious military justification, that they are protecting themselves from American military action. They understand consequences. We do not.


“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)

In these United States, who directly benefits most from wars? The dead and wounded? No. The taxpayers? No. The “military-industrial complex”? Yes.

Former General of the Army (5-stars) and President of these United States warned us to beware of its power and potentially pernicious influence. It represents a dual-edged sword. One edge, defense; the other, deceit combined with inefficiency. Witness the fiasco called the F-35.

“The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists.” – Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

Yes, we must maintain a strong military force and the industry that supports it. No, we must not allow misguided capitalists and militarists who place short-term profit before long-term patriotism to influence us towards our own annihilation and that of the rest of the world.

Recall the words of Vladimir Lenin when he supposedly said, “’The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.” In this instance, he knew of that which he spoke. Let us not be led down the Path to Perdition by propaganda from those in Big Business seeking only personal profit and politicians seeking only personal advantage at the expense of American security.

See “Chinese Missile Allegations: Key Stories” .

With regard to Korea, when exposing ourselves to the self-inflated talking heads on radio and television, writers in the newspapers and magazines, and even commentators in social media, we continually should ask ourselves, “In the first place, why are we there?” Few ask that question.

Is there a solution to the current Korean mess dumped onto President Trump by his feckless, incompetent predecessors? Possibly.

No, we should not allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons with the means of delivery to the American mainland. The same admonition applies to the religious fanatics in Iran; its ilk poses a threat in which China, Russia, and these United States operate under a common variable.

Yes, we possibly can come to a non-violent accommodation with North Korea — non-violent for these United States, which should be the primary concern of our government. We can offer Kim Jong-un the following:
1) These United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

Would Kim accept such an offer? Possibly, mainly depending upon China. Consider the alternative of potential nuclear war involving the same China with the certain annihilation of Kim and much of his rump-state. Believe the following: There is no tactical nuclear war that does not lead to strategic nuclear war!

Should Kim accept the offer, would he attack South Korea afterwards? Possibly. His doing so, however, would amount to an active civil war among Koreans. It is not in our own overwhelming national interests to intervene? How? Diplomatically? Possibly. Militarily? No.

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Of note, in 2009 we published a semi-fictional novel entitled Inescapable Consequence. Chapter Twelve describes the events that are occurring today in Korea.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


June 19th, 2017

Note (10JUL2017): As though the world required more confirmation of the semi-psychotic state into which these United States of America have degenerated, the U.S. Army reportedly issued new instructions concerning so-called trans-gender personnel. Normal females in the context of a shower-room simply should ignore an abnormal, naked male characterizing himself as “trans-gender”. Those who are religious might view this blatant denial of reality as spitting into the eye of God. Those who are less religious might view it as poking a finger into the eye of Mother Nature. Whatever the case, reality is reality, and perversion is perversion.

Note (03JUL2017): Tomorrow is Independence Day. Independence from what? In 1776, from the British Crown. Today, from social sanity. The following posting offers a commentary on but one aspect of the semi-psychotic state into which this land of the increasingly enslaved and home of the increasingly timid has become.

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

“If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts.” -Camille Paglia (b. 1947)

Radical Feminism: A movement demanding a restructuring of society, so that male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.

One element amid the decline of these United States of America has been the rise of “Radical Feminism” devolving into that which might be called “Radical Maternalism”. What is “Radical Maternalism”?

Radical Maternalism: The infecting of normal maternalism with a combination of “Radical Feminism” and perverted “humanitarianism”.

“What fools these mortals be.” -Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC-65 AD)

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), the founder of psychoanalysis may have been off the mark with his non-scientific theories of mental activity, but he was close to the truth in many of his phenomenological descriptions thereof. One of those descriptions addressed human females’ envy of the male sexual organ.

Freud’s explanation revolved around anxiety, often unconscious, among little girls elicited by their father’s manliness, which seemed, even unseen, as dangerously gigantic — capable of ripping them apart. As little boys identify with their father’s organ and, thereby, with their father, given their anxiety little girls identify with their mothers, who as they do lack the frightening member.

Recent trends among many American women give credit to Freud’s observation. Examples?

“And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolk, nor of his friends.” -First Kings 16:11 (King James Bible)

Zippers. Traditionally, women’s slacks had their zippers on the side; thereby, maintaining a smooth and pleasing frontal line. Then, the zipper on women’s slacks migrated to the front to become a “fly” as on men’s slacks; thereby, disrupting that line. What’s the point? Biologically, women do not have the anatomical equipment to require or even make use of a “fly”.

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -George Orwell

Another example? Grammatically, the disappearance of the feminine among nouns; for example, aviatrix and executrix. Even more to the point, the use of the plural pronoun in the third person when its antecedent is singular.

These examples may seem trivial to some. They are not! Their inefficiency symbolizes a confused and conflicted society in decline and on fire.

The War Against Men
“To accuse is to smear.” -Saying

The Radical Maternalists have enjoyed success while the nation suffers failure. They have declared a War Against Men. One of their most potent weapons has been the accusation of sexual harassment. Its mere suggestion forces American men, now emasculated, to cringe — successful companies to disintegrate.

A lone woman, even a known prostitute, accuses; sometimes years after the alleged act. She offers no objective evidence. The accused male is guilty with no way to prove himself innocent. Be he an executive, he is fired or suspended, at best. Be he a student, he is expelled, prevented from even confronting his accuser. Be he key-man to a commercial enterprise, it suffers substantial financial reversal.

Has the accused with the been found guilty in a court of law? No. Has the accused been arrested? No. Has a criminal charge been brought against him? No. His career, nevertheless, is ruined, and his personal life destroyed. All because a lone woman accused him without objective evidence. His possession of a penetrating sexual organ is sufficient.

“Wait!” you say. “After she made her accusation public, other women made the same accusation.”

So? None produced objective evidence. The only confirmation was hearsay.

The following is a true story:
Some years ago, a woman working in an office-building began to complain of generalized itching upon arriving at work. Her complaint became a public accusation that the building was infested with some unknown, unseen vermin and that the callous owners, men of course, had been indifferent to her alleged plight. Immediately, thereafter, her complaint spread among other women. An expert’s investigation of the building revealed nothing. A dermatologist’s examination of the women revealed nothing. Asked for his opinion, a psychiatrist labelled the accusations a sign of “mass hysteria”. The accusing women were advised of his professional opinion. Their complaints faded into a past, for them, best forgotten.


Humanitarianism n.: Concern for human welfare. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

A definition reflecting a noble sentiment, indeed. The question arises, however, What form does that “concern” take operationally in terms of actual behavior?

Sadly, “humanitarianism” has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for substantially the greatest number, it has degenerated into sacrificing the whole in order to serve a part — often an undeserving part; even a minuscule, undeserving part.

In the name of “humanitarianism, for example, the disestablishmentarians concocted a euphemism for a particular form of sexual perversion; namely, “trans-gender”. Then, to protect the perverts who cloaked themselves in that euphemism, less 0.1% of the population, they destroyed a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind; infecting even the military. As for ostensibly protecting children characterizing themselves of the opposite sex, the majority of such children revert to normalcy by the time of their adolescence. Beware especially of those claiming to generate social change in order to “protect the children”!

Too often, abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies without scientific basis promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called humanitarianism and social justice become the basis for law. Currently, we are witnessing such madness sweep the country.

“Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.” -Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

Normal maternalism places mercy before justice. Normal paternalism places justice before mercy. Combined with moderation, prudence, and charity, together they generate healthy humanitarianism.

In these United States, no longer! The Radical Maternalists and their sycophantic supporters on The Left have accused men of waging a so-called War Against Women. They claim that, in the name of their version of humanitarianism, women must be elevated economically, politically, and socially based upon their sex not upon their abilities.

The strategy is to emasculate men, beginning with little boys in kindergarten. In schools across the nation, both public and private, feminine sympathy has replaced masculine honor. Gone is accepting individual responsibility for one’s own self in favor of shifting collective responsibility to others. Gone is heroic strength among men in their righteous pursuit of riches in favor of cowardly stealth masking perverse deception and treachery. Gone is grace among women in their righteous and proud pursuit of feminine honor in favor of disgrace in a lustful pursuit of dishonor and an impossible pursuit of manhood.

“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.” -Yogi Berra (1925-2015)

B = f(x) under c. Science tells us, “Behavior is a function of its consequences in a given context.”

Ideologues of The Left would have us believe that theory trumps practice. Witness the continued resurrection of Marxism after the collapse of the Soviet Union via messengers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (b. 1941), frighteningly admired by an indoctrinated and misguided American youth. Perhaps, spending a month in the socialist reality of Venezuela might make them realize the actual consequences of “free-this” and “free-that” really mean.

“For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies.” – Will Durant (1885-1981)

The rise of Radical Maternalism concurrent with the decline of the nation is no coïncidence. Can women lead a nation? Yes, consider Queen Elizabeth I and Prime Ministeress Thatcher of England and Czarina Catherine the Great of Russia. Should women be given equal opportunity under equal circumstances? Yes. Should women or minorities, for that matter, be given unequal advancement in order to achieve equal outcome? Consider the consequences.

Men and women are not equal and never will be; propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. From top to bottom — inside and outside, they differ biologically in anatomy and physiology. To pretend otherwise is to travel the Path to Perdition, as is Western civilization currently. Conversely, to give each his rightful due is to travel the Road to Righteousness, a route long departed.

Ultimately, however, reality wins. So it will be in these United States; ideologues of both Left and Right notwithstanding. Given current trends, it will be ugly. What then? The aftermath promises to be frightening.

There is a constructive alternative rarely mentioned, if ever. Biobehavioral Science. Shall we employ it? What’s your bet?

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.