ArchiveCategory Archives for "Evolution"
How evolution works and the consequences for human nature and the future.
How evolution works and the consequences for human nature and the future.
We need honest debate more than ever given that our governments and media promote fallacies, suppress honest debate, and force integration. The only reason that such heavy handed political correctness is not fascism, is because we don’t call it that. They even deny that race exists!
Another reason we desperately need honest debate is because all humans are racist.
The reason all humans are racist is really simple. It is evolution.
We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who got the most offspring into future generations.We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same genetically programmed impulses that got more of their genes into future generations. To be clear, we have those same genetically programmed impulses.
One genetically programmed trait that would help all humans get more of their genes into future generations would be distrust of those passing through their territory. The reason that distrust of transients would better protect one’s genes and one’s life, resources, and offspring is because transients are indeed less trustworthy, because …
Transients have no stake in the future of your community.
It is obvious how one’s life, resources, and offspring are at far greater risk from a minute of exposure to transients than from a minute of exposure to the folks in one’s community. However, one’s genes are also at risk. For example, a man travelling through a community will feel the genetically programmed urge to impregnate women there and move on. Therefore, the men there will have evolved the genetically programmed urge to drive him out as soon as possible.
Suppose a transient male has impregnated a woman in a community, then he does have a stake in the future of that community, but not as much as one might think, because he cannot be sure he has impregnated anyone, and he is already moving on at that point anyway. In fact, if he did not move on immediately, then he would be in even greater danger from the local males who want to either kill him, beat him, or make him stay and marry the woman he tried to impregnate.
Genes are not rational, it is not as if they can directly evaluate who is transient and who is not …
The genes that protect us from transients would thus operate by making us fear those who look and act differently than those in our community.
Why do men and women seem to have such different goals, interests, and behaviors?
Both men and women often get mad or frustrated because they don’t get what they want from the other. They also get mad or frustrated with themselves for making choices that do not get them what they want.
The anger, frustration, and stupid choices men and women make are the source of most of our comedy and drama because, after thousands of years of recorded history, we still don’t seem to understand why men and women behave the way they do.
The reason men and women behave the way they do is really simple. It is evolution.
We are not the product of everyone before us. We are the product of only those before us who’s genes caused the most copies of themselves to make it into our generation. We are thus the product of those whose genes caused them to employ the most effective reproductive strategy, and the most successful reproductive strategy for men is different than for women because:
A woman can have about 10 kids, and a man can have about a hundred kids. The genetically programmed male strategy thus focuses on quantity, and the genetically programmed female strategy thus focuses on quality. Quality in this context means “most successful at reproduction”. This is the root all of the interesting differences between men and women.
The men who had the most kids in future generations were those who were able to impregnate as many women as possible – regardless of how or why they were able to impregnate more women. The women who had the most kids in future generations were therefore those who tried to reproduce with those men who were best at impregnating as many women as possible – regardless of how or why those women tried. We are thus the offspring of those men and women, and have the same impulses that got more of their genes into future generations.
It is true that a man’s offspring were more likely to survive and reproduce themselves if he stuck around and helped raise them, but some men also impregnated additional women and thereby tricked other men into raising their offspring, so they had far more offspring in future generations than the men they had tricked. We are thus not only the offspring of those men who tricked (cuckolded) other men, but we are also the offspring of women who favored those men – regardless of their reasons – and thereby got more of their offspring into future generations too.
It gets even more interesting than that. A woman needed a man to provide food and protection for her and her kids, but not every woman could have the biggest, strongest, smartest man. So the best reproductive strategy for a woman was to be as loyal, helpful, and sexually available as possible for her husband, and then once per month, she would try to put herself into a situation where an alpha male could impregnate her. Therefore, we are the offspring of those women who loved their husbands but still tried to get impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, women today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those women.
Just as the female reproductive strategy was shaped by the male strategy, the male strategy adapted to the female strategy by optimizing for both the husband role and the alpha male role.
Both the husband role and the alpha male role had reproductive advantages. We are thus the offspring of those women who tried to have some children by men who excel at the husband role as well as some children by men who excel at the alpha male role.
This is a self reinforcing cycle that would only get stronger as we evolved.
Let’s look at some specific consequences.
A husband who let his woman be impregnated by an alpha male or a better husband would get fewer of his genes into future generations than a man who took measures to prevent his woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, we are the offspring of those men who took measures to prevent their woman from being impregnated by other men. Therefore, men today have the same genetically programmed impulses as those men.
Being a husband might seem like a good strategy because a prehistoric husband had 24/7 access to his woman, but evolution can be pretty sneaky. For example, an anti-husband mutation caused women to be more likely to get pregnant if they have an orgasm, which obviously was an advantage for alpha males who got fewer opportunities to impregnate any given woman but whose one try was more likely to induce an orgasm than any of the husbands’ multiple tries.
Another anti-husband mutation has enabled men to produce sperm that would form a rear guard and thus block other men’s sperm from reaching the egg. Therefore, when a woman became fertile each month, if she let the alpha male try first, then his sperm might successfully block the husband’s sperm for the period in which the woman was fertile that month.
Although some men are alpha males and some are husbands, both have the same strategy. The difference is that alpha males are more successful at implementing the male strategy, which is why we are the offspring alpha males and of those women who were most successful at being impregnated by an alpha male instead of their husbands.
Clearly, a woman must be one heck of an actor to pull off the female strategy. Therefore, the descendants of those women are good actors, but the women before us were more than just great actors. The most successful women would have been those who really did love their husbands but who still tried to be impregnated by an alpha male. Therefore, the descendants of those women really do love their husbands – and – they are good actors.
The dual nature of the genetically programmed female strategy is one of the reasons men think that women send mixed signals and play games, and why women will often agree and not be able to explain their behavior, but it is not a game or mixed signals. It makes perfect sense once you understand its evolutionary underpinnings.
Another reason men think that women send mixed signals and play games is actually a real game.
Consider that in prehistoric times, if a man was able to chase a woman, catch her, and impregnate her without letting her injure him with her feeble blows, and without injuring her, then that man must have had good genes, and good genes was exactly what she wanted. It would have been a good reproductive strategy for women to put themselves into a situation where a man she was certain had good genes would attempt to prove himself in this manor. Obviously, when the game went as planned by both parties, it was quite mutual in spite of the woman running and fighting. Women today are thus the offspring of women who employed such a strategy and thus feel the impulse to engage in this strategy themselves.
Now the game would have been great fun for both the alpha male and the woman, but what if the woman was wrong and the man was weaker than she thought and he failed to block some of her feeble blows. The woman might then suddenly decide that the game was over because she could do better in this menstruation cycle, although she would have reserved the right to change her mind later that day – just in case there were no better males available. Therefore, given that a woman can only have a few kids, and so every one must count, a mutation would thus have succeeded in pre-historic women so that when they were already trying to get pregnant by a given man, they might suddenly think that being impregnated by that man was horrible based on any one of many possible ques.
Hence, a woman today might really change her mind at the last minute for any one of many reasons that may be mostly subconscious, but which are real from a previously evolutionarily optimum perspective. Of course, this would seem really insulting to a man as well as making him think the woman was shallow and irrational, but if both parties understood the evolutionary forces at work, then they would be more likely to enjoy themselves as well as being more likely to part amicably if evolution throws them a curve ball at the last minute – and more likely to try again later.
The political elite use our genetic programming to manipulate us all the time. Just one of those manipulations relies on the fact that evolution has caused women to feel like they need a husband more than just about anything else. For many women, a priest has subconsciously served as a surrogate husband, and now politicians like Obama are also subconsciously seen as a surrogate husband by many women. Now that women are in the workforce, their boss and/or company can serve as a surrogate husband. Of course, government itself can serve as a surrogate husband too.
Religious and political surrogates, in addition to trying increase their own competitiveness with real husbands by playing a role or sometimes actually giving stuff to women, also try to reduce the competitiveness of real husbands. One way priests and politicians manipulate women is by raising women’s expectations for real husbands, so that women will be perpetually disappointed. Another way they manipulate women is by reducing the effectiveness of real husbands – consider how many black men are in jail.
Never forget that we each have a brain, which can override any genetic programming – especially if we are aware of that programming. Also, remember there is certainly no reason to get mad about our genetic programming.
Does race exist? In other words, are there genetic differences between races?
Some scientists and most journalists say that race does not exist – except for skin color, but if one thinks for oneself, then the claim that there are no genetic differences between any groups of humans – except for skin color – just doesn’t pass the smell test – so one must investigate.
The common sense answer is that race exists because races look different and evolved in separate locations, but the politically correct answer is that there is no genetic difference between any groups of humans – other than skin color. Of course, independent thinkers quickly learn to be suspicious of politically correct answers because politically correct answers keep proving to be based on “science” that cherry picks, does not consider all the variables, and suppresses alternative thought.
For example, one of the questions he answers is:
Question: What is the probability that a random pair of individuals from the same local population is more genetically dissimilar than a random pair from two distinct populations?
Answer: The probability is shown to drop to zero with increasing number of genetic markers even for very closely-related populations and rare alleles.
In other words, when we consider all versions of all genes, then it is certain that an individual from a given local population will be more genetically similar to another individual from that same population than to an individual from another population – even when the two populations are closely related – let alone when they are distant.
Is it any surprise that the politically correct elite are just as wrong as when they insisted that there are no differences between men and women except for difference caused by how they were raised?
Is it any surprise that the politically correct elite are just as wrong as when they created the hockey stick chart?
Let’s continue thinking for ourselves.
If we accept the data from those who deny race, then there were only 10,000 humans 70,000 years ago because other humans were killed off by the Toba event, and thus these were somewhat closely related humans from one geographical location. This is somewhat speculative, but it is plausible. what is not plausible is the more speculative politically correct conclusion that race does not exist.
The politically correct conclusion is that we are all the same because the 10,000 Toba survivors were the same and because there has not been enough time for significant evolution since then. However, there can be a lot of genetic diversity in 10,000 people from the same region, and 70,000 years is a lot of time for significant evolution to occur.
For example, 700,000 years ago, 600 species of cichlids lived in Lake Tanganyika and only one species of cichlid from lake Tanganyika ever survived the journey to Lake Malawi, and possibly as few as one male and one female made it to Lake Malawi. Over the next 700,000 years, 500 species of cichlids evolved from just a few individuals of that one species. Therefore, anyone can estimate that in the first 70,000 years, anywhere from 5 to 100 new species evolved from just a few individuals of one species.
There are a couple of reasons why the range of 5 to 100 is so large. The number of species could potentially grow exponentially. For example, one species could have evolved into two, and then those could have evolved into 4, and then those could have evolved into 8. However, there are limiting pressures that increase as the number of individuals and the number of species increase, which means that the evolution of new species could have tapered off during the last half of that 700,000 years because they were all in that one lake competing with each other to fill the limited space and limited niches. It is not as if they migrated all over the world while they were evolving – like humans did.
What we have actually proven is that there are many many human races, and thus there are many races within each skin color. Therefore, skin color is one determinant of race, but by itself is not the sole determinant of race; however, skin color does delineate one group of races from another group of races.
Still, we have not gotten to the heart of the issue. The real issue of race is whether there exists genetic differences that cause important differences in behavior and values. Given that differences in behavior and values could be caused by just one gene, then based on what we know, it is highly probable that different races within the same skin color have a few genes that cause different behavior and values. Likewise, it is highly probable that if there were 10 genes that varied among races within the same skin color, then there must be at least one variation of one gene that causes important differences in behavior or values that is unique to skin color, but as far as I know, no one has proven or disproven the existence of such genes – probably because the answer could be politically incorrect.
Although we have not gotten to the heart of the issue, I would say that based on what we can see for ourselves, the issue of race is largely irrelevant because differences between races just can’t be that big. For example, the difference between cultures is larger. The differences between men and women is larger. The differences between adults and children is larger, and the differences between religions is larger.
Therefore, progressives need to get over their obsession with race and their contradictory denial of race. Why do the politically correct want everyone to be the same anyway? I like diversity, and the politically correct also claim that they like diversity.
You may recall that politically correct “science”, fudged the data, and committed atrocities, like on David Reimer, to make the data conform to the preconceived notion that the the only difference between men and women was how they were raised. Then they used peer pressure to force everyone to conform to their beliefs – even after their science had been falsified.
You may recall that politically correct climate “science”, fudged the data and smoothed out the data to make it conform to the hockey stick chart they already had in their minds. Then they used unprecedented peer pressure to force everyone to conform to their beliefs – even after their science had been falsified.
The goal of politically correct “science” is thus conformity.
Evolution began the moment some random molecule had the ability to replicate itself. Evolution progressed whenever a mistake (a mutation) during replication created a new molecule that was at least as successful at getting copies of itself into the future. Evolution thus requires that the evolving entity possess both a means of reproduction and a means of mutation. For example, a complex object such as the proverbial “Swiss watch lying in the desert” could not have evolved because it has no means of reproduction and no means of mutation.
Although more than 99% of mutations are not successful, given enough time, the replicating molecules evolved into proto-DNA, and later evolved into cells, and later into flatworms before evolving into species that specialized into male and female roles.
Most mutations died out quickly because mutations are both common and random and thus unlikely to be beneficial. It only seems like mutations occurred when they were needed because when a need arose, sometimes one of the many random mutations that were already occurring was useful.Some of the most obvious evidence that evolution happened is the discovery of DNA, the growing fossil record, the increasing complexity and variety of species, the early hominid fossils, and the age of the earth and the universe. Consider that none of this was known at the time of Darwin, so he is not a good source of expertise on evolution.
Most mutations died out quickly because mutations are both common and random and thus unlikely to be beneficial. It only seems like mutations occurred when they were needed because when a need arose, sometimes one of the many random mutations that were already occurring was useful.
One species does not mutate directly into another. Mutations are usually very small, and thus the offspring of a species will mutate over a very long time until some of them are different enough that they start living separately and reproducing less with the earlier versions. Eventually, they would no longer see themselves as the same species and would not try to reproduce with each other, but they could, and their offspring would still be fertile – like grizzly bears and polar bears. They would then be evolving independently, and after enough generations had passed, their hybrid offspring would not be fertile – like when a horse and a donkey produce a mule. Eventually, after more independent evolution, their hybrid offspring would not be able to survive birth, and eventually, their evolution would diverge until the sperm of one species could no longer fertilize the egg of the other.
When trying to understand evolution after DNA, it is often helpful to think of genes (snippets of DNA) as the replicating organisms, and to think of ourselves as their outer layer of mobile thinking armor, which they evolved in order to get as many copies of themselves into future generations as possible.
For example, if a gene mutated and made its carrier more likely to create children (e.g. better looking), who were themselves more likely to create children, etc., etc., then each generation would have more copies of that version of the gene than the previous generation until it was the only version in existence. Likewise, if a gene mutated and made its carrier less likely to create children (e.g. homosexual), then that mutation would die out quickly.
Therefore, human behavior is the product of those genes that have caused our ancestors to get them into every generation to date, so we act a lot those particular cavemen. Most of those genes existed before we were human, so we also act a lot like animals too.
We may be the product of more than one billion years of evolution, but we are also the product of more than one hundred thousand years of human evolution, and we instinctively know that in the last few thousand years, we have evolved – a soul.
The soul of humanity is the peak of human evolution; but just as most (maybe all) of us carry the soul of humanity, most of us still carry the soul of animals – the peak of pre-human evolution, which consists of conformism and hierarchy, which are incompatible with the soul of humanity.
However, today’s leaders and their followers act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are a part of the soul of humanity, and many act as if they believe that conformism and hierarchy are themselves the soul of humanity.
Consider that fascism is little more than the open belief that conformism is a good thing – that when we’re all on the same page, we all benefit. Consider that fascism is thus at the core of political correctness, big government, reeducation camps, progressivism, genocide, slavery, socialism, militarism, tribalism, racism, and communism – all bad things.
The soul of humanity has not yet evolved to the point that we always have the strength to do the right thing, but we have evolved to the point that we at least always instinctively admire the right thing – it’s in our genes.
Animals, of course, do not admire conformity and hierarchy. They just apply them – instinctively.
Surely there must be other intelligent life in the universe, and they must have evolved at least the equivalent of the soul of humanity in their genes at some point. Perhaps they are waiting for some of us to also evolve the strength to live consistently with the soul of humanity and abandon the instinct for conformism and hierarchy.
Whereas, evolution was heading the direction of giving us the strength to do the right thing (live consistently with the soul of humanity) and erasing the instinct for conformism and hierarchy; governments have been changing the direction of evolution by rewarding those who not only instinctively accept conformism and hierarchy, but who admire them. Admiration of conformism and hierarchy is new in human evolution.
Government is killing the soul of humanity – erasing it from our gene pool – forever.
There is much reason for hope. Although conformism and hierarchy are part of our genes, the soul of humanity was able to evolve later – in spite of conformism and hierarchy.
Evolution has given the vast majority of us the ability to instinctively know which principles are right and wrong. For example, we are genetically programmed to dislike cheating, pettiness, and short sightedness; whereas, we are genetically programmed to admire integrity, open mindedness, tolerance, responsibility, curiosity, and courage.
Majority Principles are even more difficult for us to articulate than for ancient cultures because politicians, the mainstream media, and government schools are very careful to never draw a connection between majority principles and the positions they choose to promote, ignore, or ridicule. We are thus divided on positions because The Prince keeps it that way, but we are less divided on principles.
Majority Principles are:
Integrity – Your principles are consistent with each other. Your positions are consistent with your principles. Your decisions, actions, and inactions are consistent with your principles. Your life is consistent with your principles. You make personal sacrifices to live consistently with your principles. If you discover your position is out of sync with your principles, then you change your position. The end does not justify the means, which means that you do not violate your principles to promote your principles.
Open Mindedness – You are always open to the possibility that someone else is right and you are wrong.
Tolerance – You are tolerant of that which does not violate your principles.
Responsibility – You accept the personal debt you incur when you violate your principles.
Curiosity – You need to know why.
Courage – You overcome your fear to be true to your principles – your fear of pain, embarrassment, peer pressure, and the unknown.
Independent Thought – You are already an independent thinker if you have Open Mindedness, Responsibility, Curiosity, and Courage.
Honesty – When interacting with another person, you will never be the one who initiates fraud, cheating, lying, evasiveness, or deception against the other.
Peace – When interacting with another person, you will never be the one who initiates force, violence, or physical aggression against the other.
Nobility – You honor your agreements. If you created an expectation, you try to honor it. If you would have agreed to someone’s terms before, then you will try to honor those terms now. You treat others as you would like them to treat you – even when responding to an initiation of force or fraud.
Progress – You try to leave the world a better place than if you had never existed. Not to be confused with Progressivism, which violates all Majority Principles.
If you are among those of us who instinctively admire these principles, and who instinctively know that the world is the result of our individual choices, and who instinctively want to leave the world a better place than if you had never existed, then
you are among those of us who carry the soul of humanity.
I would like to see the government out of the marriage business entirely, and thus I propose the Freedom of Marriage Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of marriage, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of parents, or of procreation; or the right of the people to peaceably engage in sexual activity.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
However, the Freedom of Marriage Amendment is not the law, and so the government is all up in our business about marriage – and everything else. Therefore, we have many government laws about marriage; and thus we have gay marriage advocates claiming that equality under the law demands those laws apply equally to gay marriage because they claim gay marriage is the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to the government.
Does equality under the law really apply? If only straight people could own slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to own slaves? If only straight people could be slaves, would it also be necessary to allow gay people to be slaves? If government is all up in our business about hetero marriage, would it also be necessary for government to be all up in gay people’s business about marriage? If everyone must be forced to subsidize hetero marriage, then would it also be necessary to force everyone to also subsidize gay marriage? If only some gays wanted marriage laws to apply to them, would it also be necessary to force those laws on all gays?
Government has a monopoly on making laws, so from government’s perspective, is gay marriage the same as hetero marriage in every way that is relevant to government?
Libertarians like myself do not consider the differences between hetero marriage and gay marriage to be very relevant. If gay people say they want to get married, then that is a good enough reason to change the definition of marriage. Whereas, progressive advocates (usually not gay themselves) violently resist all of the evidence of differences, and they use the full force of their dominance in academia, media, and government to dishonestly suppress these points and advance fallacies.
Do you remember in 1987 when Oprah was one of many voices who were spreading alarmist propaganda? She said that AIDS would kill one-fifth!
… of the hetero-sexual population!
… by 1990!
Progressives would be apoplectic if the army forced men and women to shower together because naked people cannot relax when other naked people are sizing them up sexually and also looking for an opportunity to initiate a sexual encounter, and yet, progressives are determined to force straight men to shower with gay men.
Have you ever noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge how homosexuality is a factor when men rape boys in Catholicism, Judaism, athletics, charities, etc.
Have you noticed how the media absolutely refuse to acknowledge any evidence that Obama is gay?
Why do progressives feel the need to take away the tax-exempt status of churches whose doctrine will not allow them to perform gay marriages? Why are progressives so obsessed in their desire to force others to conform? Why can’t progressives ever mind their own business?
The repulsive hypocrisy, dishonesty, and fascism of progressives is unnecessary because …
Now we know there is another group of people who genuinely want marriage law to apply to them too.
… and their claim is sufficient.
To deny marriage to gays would just be mean.
To summarize, libertarian advocacy is fundamentally different than progressive advocacy. Whereas, libertarians say the law should apply the same, progressives also want to create new fascist laws, such as punishing churches who refuse to perform gay marriages. Whereas, libertarians embrace reality and tolerance; progressives are evasive, hypocritical, and fascist.
Test Yourself – Polygamy vs. Gay Marriage
Whenever any progressive advocate asks me if I support gay marriage, I say, “I’ll support your right to marry another man if you support my right to marry more than one woman.”
Now, any principled and honest advocate for gay marriage would respond, “Hmm… Well, yes of course. That is only fair. After all, the law must apply equally to all marriages. Thank, you for enlightening me.” However, not one progressive advocate for gay marriage has ever responded anything like that, although two have reluctantly kind-of sort-of agreed after a few minutes of arguing.
The typical progressive advocate for gay marriage gets angry, and the typical responses I get from progressive advocates are:
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a person and another person.”
“Polygamy is unnatural.”
Now compare those responses from progressives to the responses I get from conservatives when I ask them to support gay marriage:
“What is your real agenda?”
“You are a threat to the institution of marriage.”
“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”
“Gay marriage is unnatural.”
Note how …
Progressive advocates and conservative opponents sure do sound a lot alike.
I expected as much from progressives given how the media promotes and celebrates gay marriage while disparaging polygamy. What would their so called “liberal” friends think if they didn’t conform!?
At least conservatives are not being hypocritical. They are just being consistent with their instincts and with pretty much every major religion.
Libertarians, and in some ways conservatives, are more liberal than liberals.
As we learned from the issue of polygamy vs. gay marriage, we can learn so much more beyond the legal questions on gay marriage by comparing the various factions themselves.
Everyone agrees that gay marriages claim to be partnerships between consenting adults who expect from each other a lifetime of exclusivity, sex, cohabitation, income sharing, etc.
Libertarians agree with conservatives that gay marriage is different in some ways, but libertarians disagree with conservatives that we can’t redefine marriage. Libertarians also disagree with progressives who claim that marriage has always included gay marriage.
Libertarians know the world is the result of our individual choices, and the future is limitless.
Libertarians disagree with progressives, who want to create additional laws to force everyone to promote homosexuality and gay marriage. For example, forcing churches to perform gay marriages is pure fascism.
Many libertarians disagree with both conservatives and progressives who claim that gay marriage has been illegal in recent decades:
Polygamy has been illegal – Gay marriage has not.
For a long time before Obama was president, gays have been allowed to form marriages just like hetero couples. What gays have not been allowed to do is use the government to force others to react to both marriages identically.
Libertarians agree with conservatives who have noted progressive hypocrisy where progressives thought it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was a choice, and then progressives decided that it helped their agenda to claim that homosexuality was predetermined. Why did progressives flip flop on whether homosexuality is a choice vs. predetermination? Although predetermined homosexuality elicits more sympathy from others, it also invites others to find a “cure.”
Whereas, many gays would have actually welcomed a cure (before they were conditioned by the media to conform to the progressive agenda) most progressives would block development of such a cure because they would lose some of their political base. Progressives care more about political power over those they hate than they care about gay people.
The Elites (a.k.a. The Prince) behind both progressives and neocons (Republican progressives) want to divide us against each other in order to keep us distracted, to keep us weak, and to gain more power. The Prince wants greater division until its power is permanent. Then the prince will want greater conformity – including a cure for homosexuality. The Prince cares nothing about gay people.
Regarding reproductive freedom, there can be common ground and mutual respect based in reality, but first, let’s consider the biggest impediment to finding common ground and mutual respect …
It is liberal hate and hypocrisy that is the biggest impediment to finding common ground and mutual respect based in reality. Although I am pro-choice and atheist, I do not call myself a liberal.
Liberals are not liberal. I will thus expose liberals to their own hate and hypocrisy so they can begin the path to recovery.
To fully grasp the first liberal hypocrisy that I will expose, all sides need to consider a current legal reality that seems difficult for everyone to get their head around – birth is a choice – because abortion is a choice – hence the term “pro-choice”, and if abortion is a choice, then birth is a choice. Also, abortion is solely the choice of the woman, and if abortion is solely the choice of the woman, then birth is solely the choice of the woman.
Many prerequisites are necessary for birth. For example, it is necessary that the couple had sex, and it is necessary that the couple’s parents gave birth to them, but only one prerequisite is both necessary and sufficient.
A woman’s choice is the only prerequisite that is both necessary and sufficient for birth, but I have yet to meet a person who has already grasped this simple truth – let alone considered the implications.
What are the implications? Let’s consider an analogy.
Suppose a woman says a man she barely knows can help her plant acorns in her garden – because it is fun to plant seeds together. Suppose 50% of the acorns were given to her by that man. Of course, it is still the woman’s garden, and the choice to care for the trees or to extirpate them at any time is solely the choice of the woman because it is her garden. If the woman chooses to let the trees take root and care for them for the next 18 years, then the man is clearly not responsible for 50% of the care.
Likewise, suppose a woman says a man she barely knows can plant DNA in here uterus – because its fun to plant DNA together. Suppose 50% of the DNA were given to her by that man. Of course, it is still the woman’s uterus, and the choice to give birth or to abort it at any time is solely the choice of the woman because it is her uterus. If the woman chooses to give birth and care for the child for the next 18 years, then the man is clearly not responsible for 50% of the care.
The liberal hypocrisy around child support is very difficult for people to understand because child support affirms the very different biases of both liberals and conservatives. It may thus seem like both sides already have common ground on child support, but such common ground is irrational and not based on reality. It is necessary to overcome liberal hypocrisy if we are to be rational people and thus have the opportunity to achieve common ground and mutual respect based in reality.
The liberal hypocrisy surrounding child support can be summarized as a pro-woman double standard:
Liberals say that a fetus containing a man’s DNA is none of his business.
Liberals say that a fetus containing a man’s DNA obligates him to pay 18 years of child support.
This liberal double standard for child support creates another hypocrisy in the form of a pro-rich double standard. Under thousands of years of “conservative” laws, a rich man and a poor man could impregnate many women; whereas, under today’s “liberal” laws, a rich man can impregnate many women, but a poor man cannot.
(Remember, forcing men to pay child support to women they barely know without giving men the chance to opt out – like women can do by aborting, is not only unfair to all men, who are never the ones whose choice causes birth, but it is especially unfair to the majority who are not rich.)
The liberal hypocrisy around child support denies reproductive freedom for men.
Now lets consider a related liberal hypocrisy – another pro-female double standard.
Liberals say that men have all the reproductive choices, but consider:
A woman can choose to be pregnant or she can choose to not be pregnant; whereas, a man can never choose to be pregnant.
A pregnant woman can choose birth or abortion for her offspring; whereas, a man can choose neither birth nor abortion for his offspring.
It is thus men who have no reproductive choice.
The next liberal hypocrisy demonstrates that the pro-female double standard in liberal hypocrisy is actually a pro-female voter double standard. Under thousands of years of “conservative” law, a woman who reached reproductive maturity could compete with older women to get a man; whereas, under today’s “liberal” law, a woman who reached reproductive maturity several years earlier is still not allowed to compete with older women to get a man.
Now lets move from liberal hypocrisies such as pro-female and pro-rich double standards to liberal hypocrisy surrounding abortion itself. Liberals will now experience what they do to others.
How is it that liberals say they are defenders of the little guy when it is liberals who say it is OK to kill the littlest of little guys – a fetus – even as it is being born.
How is it that liberals say it is the responsibility of everyone to fight those fascists who oppress the little guy when it is liberals who say that anyone who defends a fetus – the littlest of the little guys – is a fascist.
How is it that liberals say those who fight the fascist governments that exterminated millions of people are heroes when it is liberals who label as “terrorists” those who fight the companies and governments who exterminate millions of fetuses?
How is it that liberals say the rich and powerful must pay the price for bad decisions by the poor and weak (because the weak are innocent victims of circumstance) when it is liberals who say that the fetuses (the most innocent of all) must pay the price for the bad decisions of adults, who are infinitely more powerful than the fetuses?
How is that liberals can say that killing a fetus one minute before birth is no more wrong than throwing out the trash when liberals also say that killing a fetus one minute after it is born is murder.
Liberals look a lot like slave owners to pro-lifers. Let’s look at a few examples:
To those who believe that a fetus is a person, arguing for the freedom to kill a person for one’s own convenience, just because the fetus is weaker and not fully human, is tantamount to arguing for the freedom of slave owners to own slaves – who are weaker and not fully human.
Liberals say, “Everyone acknowledges that abortion is an ugly thing, but many normal respectable people do it, so mind your own business.”
Slave owners say, “Everyone acknowledges that slavery is an ugly thing, but many normal respectable people do it, so mind your own business.”
Liberals say: Abortion is about freedom – the freedom of the mother.
Slave owners say: Slavery is about freedom – the freedom of the slave owner.
The morality of the decision to abort is between the woman and her priest, so mind your own business.
The morality of the decision to own slaves is between the owner and his priest, so mind your own business.
Liberal men say, “I am pro-choice because I don’t have a uterus and I am not a fetus, so it’s none of my business.”
Poor whites said, “I am pro-choice (for slaves owners) because I don’t have a plantation and I am not a slave, so it’s none of my business.”
Pro-life activists are ridiculed by the mainstream for defending those who are weak and who the mainstream feel are not fully human.
Abolitionists were ridiculed by the mainstream for defending those who are weak and who the mainstream felt were not fully human.
As you can see, from the perspective of pro-lifers, they are the abolitionists and civil rights activists of our day, while the pro-choice activists are the slavery apologists of our day.
At this point liberals are screaming in their minds, “OK. I may have some double standards about child support, but those examples about abortion itself were not hypocrisies if I believe that a fetus – even as it is being born – is not a person! Please respect me enough to understand that such belief is rational!”
Liberals, I feel your pain – brief though it were. Perhaps now you can empathize with pro-lifers who you make feel that way all day, every day.
You big meanies.
What? You think liberals don’t do that!? Allow me to enlighten you.
It is obviously consistent to advocate death for the guilty and life for the innocent, and yet, all liberals say that pro-lifers are hypocrites because they often advocate a death penalty but oppose abortion!
Like I said … You big meanies.
The corollary would be for conservatives to claim that liberals are hypocrites because they favor killing the innocent and not the guilty, and yet, I have never heard this accusation from conservatives. No doubt I will hear it soon in reaction to the relentless campaign of escalation perpetrated by liberals.
Like I said … You big meanies.
Although some liberal positions are not actually hypocrisies (because liberals really do believe the fetus is not a person), it is unfortunate that liberals obfuscate the issue and bully others with so many logical fallacies. For example, liberal men say, “I don’t have a uterus, so abortion is none of my business,” which is a fallacy. It is tantamount to saying, “I don’t own a plantation, so slavery is none of my business.”
Even if you could not to afford slaves, it is your business when millions of others buy slaves. Even if you don’t live in Rwanda, it’s you business when millions are being exterminated. Even if you didn’t live in Nazi Germany, it would have been your business when millions were being exterminated. Genocide and slavery of other persons are always your business – if you want them to be. It is thus not relevant whether one has a uterus; it is only relevant whether the fetus is a person – that’s what determines whether abortion is different than genocide – and it is rational to believe that a fetus is not a person, and it is rational to believe that it is a person.
The only difference between a baby one minute before it is born and one minute after it is born is whether it is inside the woman, which has no relevance to the rights of the baby because it was the man and the woman who put it there, and it was the woman who decided to leave it there. It is thus a fallacy to claim that even if it is a person, it can be aborted simply because it is still inside the womb, and even if one believes that a fetus is not a person, it is a fallacy to say it is not a person one minute before it is born and that it is a person one minute after it is born.
When liberals can’t explain why a fetus has no rights and instead use logical fallacies to defend abortion, one can’t help but think that maybe such liberals actually do believe the fetus is a person, but are willing to kill it anyway – because they can.
This does leave a final and rather disturbing hypocrisy …
Most liberals believe that people have souls, which is what makes them people, which is why they have rights.
Many of those liberals say that one can kill a fetus – even as it is being born – when they cannot possibly know whether that fetus already has a soul.
Liberals are able to be such extreme hypocrites without knowing it because for generations they have controlled the media, academia, and government. Whereas conservatives and libertarians are confronted and challenged all day, every day; liberals can go all day, every day, without being confronted by any serious challenge. Hence, they can get pretty nasty when challenged. Come to think of it. Liberals don’t sound very liberal at all. It seems almost as if conservatives and libertarians are more liberal than liberals.
Until liberals reject their fallacies, their hate, and their hypocrisy, common ground and mutual respect will elude America. The reality is that both pro-choice and pro-life positions can be based on noble and rational values. Defending the rights of women is noble, and defending the rights of the little guy is noble (and liberal). It all depends on whether you believe the fetus is a person. Although a fetus is not a sentient being and is not a part of any society, it is a person in every other respect. Therefore, one can rationally hold either belief.
Regardless of one’s belief, the reality is that abortion is legal and enjoys wide support, and thus the reality is that sex causes pregnancy, and a decision causes birth. For several decades now, it is the woman’s decision, and only the woman’s decision – every day of a pregnancy – to choose whether to abort or continue.
I am pro-choice. Pro-lifers get it wrong when they try to forcibly prevent abortion through legislation or other means. One reason pro-lifers can’t justify enforcement of their beliefs is because they just don’t have any compelling evidence that their religion is real, that souls are real, or that a fetus is a sentient being. Also, a fetus is not a part of our society and never was a part of our society. Therefore, pro-lifers simply have no compelling justification to forcibly prevent abortion. The strongest argument pro-lifers can make is that it really hurts their conscience to allow what they perceive as innocent persons to be killed, but that is not sufficient justification to force women to carry a fetus.
So, where are all the people in the middle who take the position that abortion is wrong, and who would try to persuade other couples to choose birth, but who also take the position that one must never use the government to enforce one’s beliefs on others. Well, so called liberals have bullied them all into fully adopting the liberal pose or keeping their mouth shut.
Pro-lifers, I feel your pain.
Nevertheless, I am not in the middle. The middle is no more or less rational than the two main sides. It is just a side that should also exist, but which has been extinguished by liberals.
The most rational position is: First, souls are purely speculative, and religion is purely speculative. Second, if I expect others to respect my rights as a sentient being, then I must respect their rights as sentient beings, and a fetus is not a sentient being – nor can it defend anyone’s rights. Third, although a newborn baby is not a sentient being either, parents value the lives of their babies more than they value other actual sentient beings, and if I expect other people to respect my values and especially my values as a parent, then I must respect the values of other parents.