Archive for the ‘ABC’s & Cultural Context’ Category

WHAT WOULD FREUD SAY?

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Note (26JUN2017): Part One edited. Part Two added.

“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)

Envy
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.

PART TWO

Humanitarianism
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.

Consequences
“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.

 

A SEMI-PSYCHOTIC SOCIETY

Monday, February 27th, 2017

Note (13MAR2017): As the nation descends into a semi-psychotic depravity promoted by disestablishmentarians, have you wondered what is the primary controlling factor governing the support of such societal insanity by more than one hundred, major corporations? What reïnforces their corporate behavior? A clue resides in the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Psychosis n.: A term formerly applied to any mental disorder now generally restricted to those disturbances of such magnitude that there is personality disintegration and loss of contact with reality. -Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary

Can it not be said that the personality of a society, if you will, originates in its biology and presents itself as its culture? Compare, for example, the African Negroid pygmy with the Scandinavian Euro-Caucasian.

Be such the case, is not the personality of these United States of America, as we have known them, disintegrating? Is not the nation, as a whole, losing contact with reality?

Consider demographics. Has not the exponential increase in racial and ethnic diversity of the nation since 1965 ignited a fire of divisiveness that is disintegrating the prior biological and cultural persona of the nation?

See “Diversity”.

Consider sexual identity. Is not redefining sexual identity no longer as a biologically determined, physical characteristic but as a mentally driven, verbal statement a sign of having lost contact with reality?

Is it any wonder that the Chinese now characterize these United States as a nation in terminal decline? What possible justification can support the American madness? Humanitarianism?

[Note: The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 proved to be one of the most important pieces of legislation of the 20th-century, directly leading to the “multi-culturalism” of the early 21st. The original legislation sponsored by two Democrats called for admission based upon skills. It fell victim to Rep. Michael Feighan (D-OH), who called for admission based upon “family-reunification”. Ironically, anti-immigrant Feighan wrongly believed that the consequence of the change would be to admit fewer immigrants who were not Euro-Caucasians. Instead, the consequence was admission of more — neither Euro-Caucasoid nor skilled.

Both LBJ and Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009), younger brother of the late President, supported the change. Kennedy promised that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. He lied.

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. He also claimed wrongly that few would be from Asia. -End of Note]

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

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” -Samuel Adams (1722-1803); essay in The Public Advertiser, c.1749

Humanitarianism has become a self-righteous obscenity camouflaging a multitude of sins. Instead of promoting the greatest good for 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”, while invoking so-called rights that never have existed nor should exist, the disestablishmentarians have 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 than one-tenth of 1% of the population, the disestablishmentarians are destroying a millenia-old history of basic morality, commonplace decency, and personal privacy of the most intimate kind.

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 of those subverting society in the name of “protecting the children”.

The false claim of “trans-gender”as a sexual identity is based upon subjective, cognitively-modulated mental activity. True sexual identity is based upon objective, genetically-determined physical attributes.

PART TWO

The issue is biological not psychological. To deny this fact is to deny reality; which, in turn, furthers this nation on fire in its descent into semi-psychosis — exactly that which the disestablishmentarians desire . Abstract, idiosyncratic, misguided ideologies promoting outrages of semi-psychotic proportions in the name of so-called social justice subvert any sound, rational basis for law, policy, and social intercourse.

Whence comes the recent clamor for legitimizing the illegitimate? From those who ascribe to traditional American ideals and values? From those who ascribe to written Judeo-Christian doctrine? From those who ascribe to the Constitution of the United States of America as written?

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

No. The clamor comes from those atheistic and agnostic secular-relativists who, striving for power, distort history and destroy not only traditional American ideals and values but all of Western civilization. Paradoxically, many are themselves self-loathing Euro-Caucasians whose own biological and cultural heritage they desire to destroy.

Common sense bears witness that any society expecting to survive over generations must provide some format by which to bear and rear children. For millennia, the format worldwide had been families consisting of legal unions sanctioned by government between men and women. Persons violating that format typically received severe condemnation; often ostracism from the rest of society; sometimes death.

Consider the plight of the American Negro as a tragic paradigm. The politicians and bureaucrats, especially the Democrats, intentionally have turned Negroes into serfs dependent upon Big Government. They’ve destroyed the Negroid sub-culture by destroying the Negroid family. Eighty-percent of Negroid births is out-of-wedlock. What future have these children historically considered bastards?

Among American Euro-Caucasians, 38% of births is illegitimate. In 1950, 2% was.

What more effective way to wreck traditional Americana than to destroy the traditional American family? What more effective way to destroy the American family than to abandon common decency in favor of a depravity rarely witnessed before in human history, if ever?

The goal? To have replaced current, concrete reality with an abstract, ill-conceived, quasi-Marxist utopia impossible to achieve.

This declining nation now on fire faces an uncertain and unsettling future. As we descend into the pit of moral anarchy, let us remember that which becomes our ultimate destination — the Hell of tyranny.

Biobehavioral Science tells us that behavior has its consequences. The response of that which remains of a sane society to counter the current attack will determine the ultimate consequences of our behavior as individuals and as a society.

So, what best to do and how to do it? Are there answers to those two questions? Fortunately, yes.

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

HISTORY BY HOLLYWOOD

Monday, December 19th, 2016

Note (26DEC2016): A poem —
‘Twas Christmas Day and throughout the land,
Racial propaganda was cinematically at hand.

In “selected theaters”, Hidden Figures had opened as planned
To spread misinformation labelled as grand.

“He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

In these United States of America, who in the present controls telling the history of the past? Who shapes Americans’ view of history? Who? The producers of entertainment — otherwise known collectively as “Hollywood”.

Consider that Americans’ most trusted person in the world is . . . .? You guessed it. An actor! Tom Hanks, whom Americans know not by his own persona but by those of the characters whom he has played via shadows projected onto an otherwise blank screen.

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

The real Tom Hanks? In reality, he may be a great guy. Who knows? What’s worse, who cares? Apparently, not the American public as a whole.

The Real History
“No government ought to be without censors & where the press is free, no one ever will.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

Since the cinematic studios moved from New York City to Los Angeles early in the 20th-century, “Hollywood” politically and sociologically has tilted towards The Left — economically, too, except as economics applies to “Hollywood”. Early on, some of its productions tested the bounds of common decency, leading to the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures (established originally in 1909) finally to begin real censorship in the early 1930s. Need one comment on the current adherence in “Hollywood” today to common decency?

Then, beginning in the late 1930s “Hollywood” — a number of the most illustrious members of which were card-carrying Communists — evidenced a burst of good old, American traditionalism after Kristallnacht in Nazified Germany. Until that time, “Hollywood” had allowed Nazis’ censors dispatched to these shores by Adolf Hitler in Berlin to alter American cinematic productions. Hey, Germany represented a lucrative market — Nazis or no Nazis.

The Nazis’ censorship notwithstanding, also in the 1930s “Hollywood” began to promote the image of the American Negro. How? Initially, simply by inserting as so-called cameo-roles gratuitous glimpses of well-dressed, upstanding-looking Negroes, for example, standing in public buildings.

“Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.” -Deuteronomy 22:10

After World War Two, “Hollywood” accelerated its push to turn these United States of America from a predominantly Christian, Euro-Caucasoid nation into a so-called multi-cultural one; including the promotion of racial miscegenation, which had been illegal in many States and today remains contrary to Scripture.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

So went the words of the late-Senator Edward “Teddy” Kennedy about legislation promoting so-called familial reünification — legislation that was to open the floodgates to Africans, Asians, and Latins. Consequence? The dispossessing of the American majority. Meanwhile, Senator Kennedy — himself a philandering, cowardly drunk who later caused Mary Jo Kopechne’s drowning in 1969 — was promising Mr. and Mrs. America that the legislation would not change the complexion of the country. It was a flat-out lie.

He also flat-out lied with the following promise: “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.”

Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than 1,000,000. Kennedy also lied when he promised that few immigrants would be from Asia.

“Not representative of the typical politician!” you say? Perhaps.

Once passed into law by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President, the bill did change the complexion of the nation. It drove a stake through the demographic heart of these United States as it had been previously.

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” – Jeremiah 17:10

“All for the better!” you say? Perhaps. Best to judge behavior by its consequences.

In doing so, forget your preconceived biases. Ask yourself the following: Objectively, are these United States better off today than in 1965? Economically? Educationally? Legally? Militarily? Politically? Sociologically?

Acceptance by the then soon-to-be dwindling Euro-Caucasoid majority reflected the incessant barrage of propaganda from the self-styled elitists of The Left in “Hollywood” — later the elitists in academia and the electronic Media. By 2008, the minds of Americans had become numbed to the point that voters elected a Marxist-oriented, Mohammedan-reared Mulatto of uncertain origin — someone who never had served in the military, never had owned a business, and never had held an honest job — whose primary goal seemed to be to have destroyed that which remained of “White America”. Consider his wife and he listening for twenty years to their pastor, Jeremiah Wright (b. 1941), screaming, “God damn America!”

How could such a transformation occur? Hollywood, for one!

It was said, for example, that without the actor Denzel Washington’s (b. 1954) idealized portrayals of Negroes in moving pictures Barack Hussein Obama II never could have moved into the White House.

The Latest
The most recent cinematic revision of history by “Hollywood” comes in the form of Hidden Figures. To begin, ask yourself the following: Whence came the name “computer”?

According to reports about Hidden Figures, its derivation lies in those electronic machines being named after a group of Negresses led by one Dorothy Vaughn at NASA. These women supposedly computed the trajectory for the rocket that carried the Astronaut, John Glenn (1921-2016), into orbit around Earth. Among them was the light-skinned Negress, Kathryn Johnson, who worked on the project as an electrical engineer. “Hollywood” and its sycophants now are characterizing these women as “the brains” behind NASA.

So, were these women actually the first human computers? No.

The truth is that U.S. Army contracted for the development of the first, functional electronic computer years previously during World War Two. The two, male, Euro-Caucasoid developers — John W. Mauchly and John “Pres” Eckert, Jr. at the University of Pennsylvania — named the machine after a group of Euro-Caucasoid women each laboring to compute the trajectories of individual pieces of artillery. These women were the first human “computers”. As a prelude to the future, the first electronic computer, Eniac with its 18,000 vacuum-tubes, was intended to replace them.

[Note: John von Neumann (1903-1957; aka/Johann von Neumann). Hungarian-Jewish mathematician, having made truly important contributions to both mathematics and physics as well as game-theory, sometimes incorrectly is credited with the development of the first electronic computer. See McCartney, S: Eniac. New York: Walker & Co. (1999).]

So, were the Negresses actually “the brains” behind NASA? Did they even provide the computations used by NASA? No.

Electronic computers actually provided the trajectories. Subsequently, these women checked the computations for possible errors.

Does Hidden Figures represent just another in a long line of historically-oriented productions that exceed by a wide margin poetic license and that fall into the category of misleading propaganda? Historical hogwash by “Hollywood”. Apparently.

Do Negroes require such phony propaganda in order to present a creative, productive image? Apparently, “Hollywood” believes that they do.

In this age of a declining American nation on fire, to present phony images of Negroes who, nevertheless, did make notable contributions is to demean those contributions and those who made them. Doing so only fuels the fire of divisiveness and resentment.

See “Truth & Consequences” herein.

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

HOMOSEXUALITY FROM A MOHAMMEDAN PERSPECTIVE

Monday, June 13th, 2016

The great, anonymous, military strategist who coöpted Sun Tsu’s name emphasized the importance of knowing the enemy. To Mohammedans, we infidels are the enemy. They know us, and none among us is worse than a homosexual.

Do we know them? Do we even want to know them?

See “Americans?” under …
http://nationonfire.com/category/government/foreign-relations/ .

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind; it is an abomination.” -Leviticus 18:22

“And if a man lie with mankind as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they surely shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -Leviticus 20:13

The Hebraic Bible is explicit and unambiguous. Homosexuality is an abomination before God, demanding of capital punishment.

The Hebraic Bible is the foundation firstly of Judaism then Christianity then Mohammedanism (aka/Islam). In this age of secular relativism gripping the West, such notions seem archaic and barbaric — not to orthodox Mohammedans (aka/Muslims), however. Make no mistake. Orthodox Mohammedans are no more “radical” than orthodox Jews or devout Catholics; they are orthodox.

As such, they respect The Book and that which it says. They act accordingly. Their recent, homosexual victims died in testimony to that respect.

To Mohammedans, homosexuals have made a mockery of sacred beliefs. They view so-called homosexual marriage as, perhaps, the ultimate affront to the Almighty. To them, these United States of America have degenerated into an immoral cesspool of depraved degradation, and this nation has transformed itself into the “Great Satan”. We infidels’ calling Mohammedans names does not diminish the force nor negate the substance of their argument.

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.” -Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

In fact, many Americans view homosexuality with disdain if not disgust, the media notwithstanding. They view a tiny, homosexual minority as having turned the morality of these United Stated inside-out and upside-down; thereby, imperiling its very existence as a republic. They believe that the Founding Fathers would agree with them.

Science tells us, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Homosexuality is a behavior. It has its consequences.

One billion Mohammedans consider it an abomination before God. They are not alone. Many in the East view homosexuality as unacceptable if not intolerable. Many in the West agree but mostly keep silent. Although most Americans rightly would not condone homicide, some may be quietly sympathetic to it, affrighted by the wrath of organized homosexuality and its supporters to admit their sympathy.

Omar Mateen, the alleged avenger in Orlando, was willing to die for his beliefs. In doing so, he quickly has been characterized as “mentally unstable”. Was he?

Meanwhile, we Americans hardly are willing to fight for ours. By the way, what are our beliefs?

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