The Pro-Life Right versus the Broken Anti-Life Left - the current cultural landscape. The cultural left sees itself as broken, and it is. Why? Because they forgot that humans are a sexual species, and sexual animals Have Babies as their first priority. The cultural left comes up with every manner of excuse to not have children, and by their actions they show how broken such a view is:
1. Advocacy for unhinged illegal immigration.
2. Strong advocacy for Islam and censoring detractors and truth tellers re the abuses of Islam.
The left, as typified by Unitarian Universalism, has thrown out the baby of evolved morality out with the bath water of mysticism, regarding traditional religion. And UUism isn't a traditional religion such such. Rather it's a leftist social club.
pro life, choose life, life, ldc, leftist death cult, unitarian universalism, uuism, left, leftist, right, give life, have children
Postmodernism births sterile wastrels. Choose life instead.
Postmodernism (and racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger's birth control pill): Helps females become fat pigs. Next, overly attractive males have no females to hook up with. And thus, the Stonewall LGBTQPZ project was born: a place for abused abusive wastrels to go, so as to engage in mutual wankery to no good effect, other than some nice art perhaps, but zero kids born into best-for-the-kids settings.
Lives derailed. Lives destroyed.
Yes, it's true, wankery in and of itself won't make you a LGBTQPZ. For the Mormons & Ex-Mormons in my feed: Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball's claim that wankery will may you a sexual invert (i.e. a g,a,y), which was taught textually AND verbally in the Mormon (LDS) Church, yes that's not correct. And mandatory sexually explicit interviews of children and adults absolutely drives some of those people to be angry reactionaries when they get older or become more mature. All abusive Mormon she'at which other flavors of Christianity don't do (e.g. Evangelical and other protestant).
But the ultra left is not a panacea answer to the abuses of sections of the ultra right.
Oh, yes, as an ex-religionist, you can be so angry angry angry, with religion in general. But, we being evolutionary animals with emergent properties, happen to couch our evolved morals within religious contexts. Religions are evolutionary artifacts and engines themselves.
The (French) bullshit postmodernist ideology, derails the lives of many.
Gender is binary in the human animal.
Yes, children need a mother and a father, for their own best evolved and natural well being.
Gender is not changeable in the human animal.
There's no such thing as "gender identity," just moronic and stupid and abusive gender dysphoria.
Secular people can have bad dumbshit memes running on their brains, too.
Thus, to be a conservative, means you want to conserve things. Today being a conservative means conserving free speech. Conserving British Western Enlightenment values. Conserving the American project is the best example of those values. Universal slavery, ended. Science and human knowledge, advanced. True free speech, present, something not as fully present in any other country or community. The ability to fry sacred cows, yes, that's included. But let's not toss the baby of evolved morality out with the bathwater of mysticism. And I agree with Jordan Peterson that even the mystical stores have evolved natural good utilitarian value.
Social conservatism is the >default< useful natural evolved position, because that position promotes live, preserves life, and continues life. Ok let's call out abuses, but let's also value what should be valued.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
Reasonably responding to Reza Aslan & the Anti-Life Nihilistic Left, versus Trump & his supporters.
Regarding the constant drip, drip, drip of nihilistic psychopaths:
The charlatan virtue signalers are pointing fingers everywhere except where they should be pointed. Leftist generators of cultural nihilism & lost boys:
1. A key generator of nihilism in the West is culturally Marxist postmodernism.
2. Third Wave Feminism.
3. The LGBTQPZ Stonewall project.
4. The leftist competition to see who's the very best at not having children.
5. Redefining marriage.
6. Denial regarding the sexually dimorphic nature of humans.
7. Devaluing motherhood & fatherhood.
8. Shaming pinks skins AKA whites for having pink skins.
9. Shaming boys for being boys.
Pink-Skin-Carried British & American Western Enlightenment Values ended universal slavery.
Where's my reparations for that (not that I'm asking for any)?
Children are born innocent. Meme sets however can be blamed. When you have a culture which generates nihilists that culture has a problem.
Democrats seek to import voters. The nihilistic violent youth who're members of #Antifa support the corporatist elitist gated community leftists with these goals: open the floodgates.
The native born of all colors are pitted by the Democrats against the people whom the Democrats wish to import as a means of maintaining & gaining power. So that's an abusive situation.
Another meme set that the cultural left loves, Islam, also generates lost boy nihilists so they can have virgins in an afterlife. This is a real thing. Listen to Tawfik Hamid:
In today's world we need to be be prepared. Take a multi-faceted approach. The Democrats lie about the motives of Trump and of Trump supporters. 99.9% of Trump supporters would like all potential mass shooters erased.
The Democrats have their violent arm, the death cult army of #Antifa.
Promote life. Find a way to make life - the most important thing we can do during our speck of time here. Christopher Hitchens said this.
Question the dominant paradigm. Question your own beliefs. This is the key spirit of what Christopher Hitchens advocated for.
The people putting out the most racist & pro-violence dog whistles these days are the Democrats.
Reza Aslan is such a one, a man who's apparently pro-violence-against-Republicans type of guy.
Reza Aslan is a slick tongue opportunistic charlatan who promotes a rose colored view of Islam. His longer term game has been to go on legacy media news outlets and basically lie about Islam.
POS violence promoting Aslan claimed that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is "dangerous."
Hirsi Ali and Theo Van Gogh created the film "Submission Part 1," a film critical of how Islam treats women. Van Gogh was killed as a result. And Hirsi Ali must have round the clock security & moved to the USA a result of threats against her. And yet asshat Aslan thinks Hirsi Ali is dangerous.
Yes and while Aslan should be rightly seen as a lying opportunistic charlatan, the same can also be said of prominent Democrats especially Democrat blacks, who belong to a party which enslaved their ancestors, a party which booted the Amerindians off their lands, a party which interned the Japanese Americans during World War II, and a party which has imported anti-American anti-Enlightenment culturally-Marxist postmodernism into America.
The Republican Party was against all these things.
If you're going to ascribe blame to meme sets, let's blame the Democrat Party for what they should be blamed for. This is why I renounce my prior association with the Democrat Party.
I voted for Obama twice, but now I regret those votes primarily because of:
1. Obama utterly betrayed the Western Enlightenment & American projects by stating that his preferred future must belong to those who don't slander the prophet of Islam. Does Obama consider himself to be the America's Islamic Imam? Blasphemy laws are antithetical to the American & Enlightenment projects.
2. Obama associated with leftist terrorist Bill Ayers.
3. Obama greatly appreciated the work of anti-American anti-Enlightenment leftist traitor Saul Alinsky.
Democrats de facto and in fact support the violent terrorist organization Antifa - the angry nihilistic youth who misdirect their anger toward people who can help them be less nihilistic, toward the cultural right in other words.
Trump has denounced white supremacy. If you're a virtue signaling lying Democrat, you'll seek to deceive the chump left regarding what Trump has actually said & what Trump's supporters actually believe.
Lost Boys: Leftist postmodernist ideology & Islam both are generators.
Fascism is an offshoot of Marxism
Some meme sets can create lost boys and which promote nihilism.
Teach that pink skins should hate their skin color.
Teach that boys should have their evolved male human nature.
Systematic hatred of being male and hatred of having pink skin.
That's going to have some downstream effects and create disconnected boys.
Islam teaches young men that one way they can have a sexual relationship is via a suicide bombing. This is a real thing. Listen closely to Tawfik Hamid:
Naturalistic Secular Advocacy for Social Conservatism.
Normal, natural, evolved human nature. What shall we call this? In today's world racked by the cancer of postmodernist denialism, how about: Evolved Social Conservatism.
Being naturally pro life, pro children, pro family, and pro having children born to and raised by the setting which is best for them via a 1.2 billion year evolved process (the time sex has existed on this planet). August 2nd, 2019
My family has been de facto booted from the U of U Health System. Socialized medicine fully exemplified.
The U, has blocked me from posting on their Hospital related public Facebook page. They also very quickly sent me generalized letters of threat after I used their public employee directly to complain about poor treatment. Additionally, the midwives at the U pushed abortion onto mothers who show up tired to their first OB visits. And if you complain about that, you will also get a letter of threat from the U.
Jessica Howsden in customer service, is a traitor to any semblance of public service.
The U is a rogue state agency. Does the Governor really want an agency pushing abortion onto new mothers? Or is the governor just a virtue signalling milquetoast RINO? All talk. No action. While the U runs rough shot over the First Amendment, patient rights, patient safety, oh and promotes abortion too. An unaccountable bureaucracy.
Because of the highly hostile, unaccountable, and abortion-promoting atmosphere at the U, we've taken our business elsewhere. Elsewhere from a state agency we are still forced to pay our taxes to.
Welcome to socialized medicine.
================
University of Utah Hospital University of Utah Hospitals & Clinics Greenwood Center Redwood Center Madsen Center Midvies College of Nursing Medical School School of Medicine Abortion pro-life pro life
The Value of Foreign Brides: Life! Family! Responding to Stefan Molyneux on the issue. Also general commentary on Molyneux's social issue call in shows.
I like 70% of what Stefan Molyneux does with his YouTube show, but the 20-30% social issue call ins are a problem.
My response to the following Molyneux video, and more generally to all of his social issue call ins: https://youtu.be/CyIM4d_-rcY
To Molyneux:
There is something perverse regarding your fixation on being anti to all things “foreign bride.”
You treat all flowers the same, with an overly harsh broad brush. You have an apparent fixation on the foreign brides issue, and on marrying people outside of your own country. You're not a U.S. citizen (I presume) and yet you seem to comment a great deal about who is allowed or welcome to come to America. You de facto express disdain for a situation where American men might cause some non-American humans to enter America, for any reason. Love. Having a more meaningful life. Children. That's all mostly of no meaning apparently to you, because those men are causing non-Americans to come in. This is the general tone of your approach in my view. But you're not even American, again I presume. You're Canadian.
As for your general social issue call ins: They sound staged. Who, exactly, would call to a stranger and reveal such things, and place their hearts in your cold and harsh hands? Hands cold and overly harsh due apparently to your own problematic upbringing.
Yes your philosophy and anti-Marxism shows are ok. But as for the social issue call ins, bring me a bucket Stefan.
There is beauty and valiance in the world which you know nothing of. Your social issue callers don’t deserve you nor your abuse toward them.
On Marxism and socialism, ok good work. But your cruel crass approach on social issues, is solely your own angry ghosts in action more than anything else.
It's too simplistic to state that because human brains have come up with medical advances, that therefore a child does not need, and would best benefit by having, a father and mother - normally, ideally, usually.
From an experiential perspective I've seen a lot of gay culture. For several years I went to gay parties & gay bars with a nephew of mine. However we recently had a falling out & no longer speak. I feel I’ve finally seen the light about his position & my need to stay away from it.
My gay nephew spends his life chasing his own tail, going to petty alcohol centered parties & bars, and in vain & petty pursuits that lead nowhere. When a convicted child abuser (12 year olds – sex related) was released from prison, my gay nephew & his friends readily accepted the man back into their social circle. And like I say he appears to be living a life that will in the end count for pretty much nothing.
Also I have in my experiential profile a gay uncle who died of AIDS because he cheated on his wife during the ‘60s, therefore leaving his family with no father or grandfather. Also he apparently influenced one of his daughters such that her brain was modeled in such a way as to allow herself the internal latitude to consider herself to be gay.
Ok, so there's that. But, I also have been an observer of some gay people who are not quite so petty, shallow, and destructive. For example there's a very nice man who helps us out when we go on vacation. He spends his life helping others, both professionally and personally.
Here is a list of my current views, after making all these observations, and taking into account exposure to cultures outside of the United States which are largely secular, but which also have concerns about homosexuality:
1. People who are accepting of convicted child abusers are themselves suspect. There may be a dangerous trend or propensity within some parts of “gay culture” to be accepting of child abusers.
2. Having children is a good thing. People who "choose" to not have them are making a huge mistake, in their own lives, and for humanity as a whole. Also people who don't have kids due to environmental concerns are also highly misguided & deceived.
3. Maybe human children really do need a father & a mother, normally, and ideally. Children can adapt, but I'm talking about what is "preferred" and "ideal."
4. What if science of any reasonable flavor disproves progressive or liberal dogma or presuppositions?
5. Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. What can be "instilled" by a religion, can nevertheless be fully natural with fully naturalistic roots. Concerns over masturbation & pornography. Concerns over non-procreative sex. Concerns about preserving life. It's simply too easy and lazy to state that all such concerns can be dismissed out of hand because leaders in a given religion express concerns. For me, as an ex-Mormon, it's a matter of balance.
Should children be shamed for masturbation? Should adults be prevented from viewing porn? No to both. But on the other hand, both pursuits can be detrimental if they prevent someone from having real meaningful interactions with another flesh & blood human being.
Should life be valued? Yes. In my view abortion should be discouraged, but not illegal before viability.
And so on.
It's very hard work for an ex-religionist to find what really is of value, from a human perspective, amongst all the chaff & lies in their former religion. With religions like Mormonism this is a particularly hard task because of the incredibly strict & controlling nature of Mormonism. When one leaves such a religion one can naturally feel the need to let it all hang out & to rebel as much as possible. On the other hand, if you let it all hang out for too long, you may either a.) cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father, or b.) spend your life as a morbidly obese virgin who's obsessed with porn & masturbation - to the exclusion of normal & healthy flesh & blood human relations.
Do humans have a right to marry if they're gay? Perhaps. But regardless enough people now feel as if their "moral zeitgeist" has moved along such that they now feel self-professed gay people should be able to marry legally. Most any opinion can be justified by case law, left or right or otherwise.
Should gay couples adopt children? Maybe. I suppose if abusive straight ones can adopt & take in foster kids, then more reasonable & kind gay couples probably should be able to. But it's still an open question for me as to whether having a lack of gender balance with parents has a negative or detrimental effect on children. It may, at the very least, allow the brains of children to be drawn more readily into them considering themselves to be “gay,” when they may accurately be more “bi” or a mix, or both, or able to go either way – reasonably. Being "gay accepting" can allow for the brains of children to consider "gayness" as more of an option. There are gradations.
People can choose to become "ex-gay" or to live the life of a straight person - and be happy.
Saying all these things is heresy to the Stonewall liberal. Non sequitur assumptions, accusations, ad hominem attacks, black listing, and heresy trials – leftist style, can quickly and easily begin when a person says much of any of the above. But, in my view we need to nevertheless question liberal dogma points as well as conservative ones.
The person who angrily tells either side to just "shut up" goes too far & needs to be militantly ignored. Both the conservative preacher and the politically correct liberal need to be ignored & pushed past in my view.
Anyway, I appreciate hearing what you have to say in most cases. I’m simply trying to convey that it’s too simplistic to state that conservative views can be dismissed out of hand because people who’re currently religious happen to make such claims. Dennett’s truth about the natural state of religion does cut both ways, and should give pause to the liberal as he may be working to fervently adhere to his own dogma points.
What comes out of the mouths of humans is always natural. I think we can be more kind & compassionate though, and expand our in group morality. But we also need to be careful. Warnings from religion can have value & can be fully natural & reasonable. It's hard work to separate the lie-infused covering from the nevertheless-naturalistic-truths which may be inside and which need to be considered even if they were inside of the Mormon or Catholic burrito. My apologies to Mexican food. I prefer human free thinker atheist Chinese burritos myself. Much more tasty.
=========================
1-16-2014 afternoon addendum containing a discussion exchange:
Another person wrote:
>I do think it's a good idea to be very skeptical of ideas promoted by religion. <
My reply:
Skeptical, but not dismissive just because the ideas happen to be harbored within a religion. Does Thor exist? No. But natural human morals & ethics existed within the religion which loved him.
It's hard work for a liberal to be skeptical of liberalism. Pinker / Harris / Dennett / Dawkins have been skeptical of certain aspects of "liberal" as well as "conservative" thought.
>It can be very hard to know which of your values have been instilled by your upbringing and which have rational justification. <
Taking a step further back, away from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, helps one to see the forest through the trees. If all the cultures I had examined thus far were Mormonism followed by ex-Mormonism, more of my views would probably lie firmly within the liberal camp.
<clip>
>In particular on masturbation and pornography<
<clip>
I'm a masturbation advocate, as well as a marriage, life, and children advocate. I'm also appreciative of the fact that certain forms of porn can be useful, to adults, and in moderation. But what I'm trying to say is there's value in making note of why people say the things they do. When people express concerns over non-procreative forms of sexuality, why do they do that? Because their mommy said so? Because the Bible says no? What I'm saying is that the answer seems to be, n-o - no it's not that simple.
The lies expressed by religion, especially by religions like Mormonism, have tainted the well of conversation. Their lies & controlling nature have made it more difficult to sift & see if, and what, they may be saying may actually be of value. How can we free ourselves of this problem? Go visit China. That's one way. Perhaps 99% of Chinese people have 0% exposure to Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. And yet, for some reason, they do express concerns about destructive or non-procreative forms of human sexuality. Why is that? Maybe because they're human, and such concerns have naturalistic roots.
It's rather highly inconvenient to be a liberal and to find out that some of your own suppositions & opinions as a liberal may in fact be wrong, unfounded, or damaging.
<clip>
>... it really does seem to me that you are left with a lot of overly-conservative values that need to be re-examined... <
After leaving Mormonism I did a fair amount of exploring. Time & experience has allowed me to take a step back from the letting it all hang out "phase" of my departure from Mormonism. I ain't goin' back. I also am not going to kiss the rear end of Jesus in the future.
I don't advocate the type of concern level expressed by people in Uganda for example. That goes way way too far. Mormon Prophet Spencer Kimball's book Miracle of Forgiveness also goes way way too far in the level of concern expressed. But, on the other hand, I've also seen what happens when people let it all hang out in their rebellion.
The death of my uncle who died of AIDS is one example. He was perhaps a victim of the strictness of Mormonism. Perhaps he would not have rebelled quite so much if either a.) the Mormon Church were itself less strict on sexuality, or b.) his wife had met him part way in his exit by leaving Mormonism herself & being more open sexually with him. It's a valuable thought experiment to consider - post mortem iudicium of rebelling too much and getting AIDS & dying as a result.
> Your overly negative stereotype of masturbation, <
There's no need to personalize too much on that point. I'm advocating looking at what non-Abrahamic cultures do & think. Masturbation can lead one to very much want a real relationship - that's also true. It can enhance a real relationship. But there's destructive forms of the activity which can also lead one away from a real relationship. Do you have enough "sexual energy" left for the date you're about to go on, or are you pooped out? That's one small example. But again I'm advocating taking a step back from American / Christian / Islamic / Jewish myopia on this & all issues. What do non-Abrahamic cultures do & advocate in countries which have had little exposure to the religions of our youths?
>I mean, why should it be?<
Are humans more happy when they are led or lead themselves into a relationship which is inherently non-reproductive?
Is being straight "better" than being gay? Exclude the outliers (psychopaths, etc.), what if the answer is yes?
Is the "childfree" life better? No.
Would it be better if humans had never existed? No.
But liberals tend to answers these questions differently.
Rejection of the nihilism present in Evangelical Christianity is a happy activity of some atheists. But how about a rejection of the nihilism & defeatism of the left? Who's advocating for that?
Only the "Black Atheists of Atlanta?" I'm not a member of their group, and some of the stuff they advocate for is quite nutty. But, listening to them at the very least provides an opportunity for your average ultra-liberal rebelling atheist to take a step back and question liberal presuppositions as well. And perhaps more importantly, listening to my own wife who had zero exposure to all the (admited & acknowledged) crap I was exposed to as a kid, has helped me take a step back as well.
What I'm advocating for is that the questions of whether elements of conservative thought are actually valid should be *on the table* so to speak, and not swept under the carpet out of fear of offending the new self-appointed leaders of dogmatic liberal de-facto religion. One way of sweeping them under is to try & dismiss them out of hand "because a religion advocated for a given point." It's not that easy or simple is what I'm saying.
