Whoops, I Wasted My Entire Life

Most people I know live in a way that is wasting their entire life.  And these people are not just people I know personally, but those I have seen all over this country, via the various media we are submerged in these days.  In a way, these people live their whole life as if they were in Disneyland and focused entirely on making materialistic elements deathly oppressive:

“Did I leave the lights on in the car?  Where is the car?  Did you get the lot number?  How much was that?  Couldn’t you have gotten that for less at home?  Why did you eat that?  Look out!  Quit walking so fast, slow.  Where’s Susie?  Man, this line is soooo long.  It’s too hot.  Where’s the sunscreen?  How much money is left?  How could you have spent all that already?  Can I have some of that? (no). Oh my God, look at the traffic.  We’ll never get out of here.”

The people so oriented in their earthly existence see only asphalt everywhere, and it is rough, and potholed, and could skin your knee any second (and get in the cut and cause infection and kill you).

These people have completely missed the transcendent joy that can be expressed as simply as, “It is a grand thing just to be alive.”

The joy killing materialistic philosophy is passed down by generation after generation.  Children, who are not born with this philosophy, as evidenced by a million examples such as fascination with as little as an empty box, have their natural joy de vivre taken from them by the drum beat of this materialistic philosophy driven into their heads by adults–beginning virtually at birth.

Certainly many adults passing on this materialistic philosophy think they are being helpful, passing  on wisdom.  Many believe they are leading the child into adulthood.  A sign of adulthood being a person having come to “understand the value of a dollar.”   And, “One can never be too careful.”

Much more can be said about this materialistic philosophy and the joy sapping impact of its singular missing of the point.  But, for now, suffice it to say that inarguably ”joy” is the ultimate goal.  And joy is there in creation itself and the innumerable expressions of beauty of it, truly independent of one’s physical circumstances.

When you have lost joy, one is best served by asking what bad idea of materialistic oppression is one absorbed with now?

The Paterno Penn State Scandal: Tip of an American Iceberg

The Penn State child sex abuse scandal is an astronomical example of adults betraying children.  While many say that Paterno was doing a coverup to protect the institution’s reputation, I believe that more accurately he was just protecting one of his inner circle, Jerry Sandusky, the accused pedophile, who had worked for Paterno for over 30 years by 2002.  Beyond that, Paterno obviously didn’t care about the child, or any of the children.  That can be said of the Athletic Director Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz also.  None of them pursued the identities of the children to help them.

But this horrific example of child betrayal by adults in power is more indicative of American society than it first appears.  “Adults” in power have been betraying children seriously for 60 years.  The PSU scandal is an example of betrayal of children in sports and universities.  But adults in power are responsible for the extreme immorality on TV, betraying American children of wholesome depictions of life.  Pornography and violence are overwhelming TV, and “adults” in power are responsible:  Les Moonves of CBS,  Anne Marie Sweeney of ABC, Steve Burke of NBC etc. are examples of those who for money betray the good of children.

What is in the interest of children?  What do children want?  It is not that  difficult a question.  They want a sustainable society.  They want a social structure that is stable with security and protection in which they can live, and grow, and contribute to that sustainable society themselves.

How do we know this?  Look at what the youngest children do.  As soon as they are able they want  to go  with the adults in power, their parents, and do what the parents are doing.  A child will happily putter in a garden while a father plants seeds.  A child will stack pots and pans on the kitchen floor while the mother cooks dinner.

But, largely the adults in power in America are not giving a sustainable society to children.  And for a sustainable society to exist it must exist at every cell of that society:  in the family, school, city, organizations, and nation.

Recently in New York City a 33-year old woman was shot and killed, and it is said she died while covering children in the line of fire at the school.  A heroic act, but this woman is reported to have 13 children and be pregnant.  I can’t help but believe that more than one biological father was involved.  It is also reported that the “gunmen” were 15-year old gangster wannabes:  half-brothers of broken homes.  Where is the responsible parenting here?  Where is the sustainable society being provided by the “adults” in power here?

On a more populous scale, what about the “adults” in power in business?  “Business Leaders” such as Jeffrey Immelt of GE are quick to layoff thousands of employees to make another penny in dividends and make themselves more extraordinarily wealthy.  Immelt charges his lawyers to find ways for GE to pay zero in taxes as that corporation’s share of supporting the society in which his company thrives.  But who are the betrayed children here, you might ask.  They are in the families whose parents are sent to unemployment.  But frankly there is another child too, that one inside each person that never really goes away no matter one’s age.  It is the child who expected he could look up to the “adults” in power and trust them.

Of course Government too has betrayed the child.  Education is touted as key to the nation’s future by the same politicians who then cut education budgets–but not their own salaries.  Politicians in D.C. won’t pass a law that would tax a millionaire even one more penny so that a job might be created.  The economy is bigger today than it was in 2007, yet there are now millions more people who are not participating in our economy’s income.  Businessmen don’t want to spend any of the record $2 trillion in cash on their books to hire these people because the future is “unpredictable.”  That specious defense of greed is handled with one question, “When was the future predictable?”

So, the betrayal of children by Paterno etc., as horrific as it is, is the tip of an iceberg of betrayal of children in America.  I haven’t even gone into such things as global warming, and extermination of species and resources that “adults” in power are taking this unsustainable society into.

It is common rhetoric for many “adults” in power to speak of the urgency of actions necessary to save our children’s future.  But it is way past time for all ”adults” in power to actually do it.  Firing Paterno et al is just the tiniest of ice shavings in the work that must be done.

All babies want to get borned! All babies want to get borned!

Su-Chin: [protesting in front of the abortion clinic]

All babies want to get borned! All babies want to get borned!

The above quote is from the 2007 movie, Juno, in which an
unmarried 16-year old girl decides to give her unborn child to a childless, married couple.

Spoiler Alert!  Su-Chin
is a classmate of Juno, who runs into Su-Chin making her protest in front of the abortion clinic.  Juno changes her
mind inside the clinic, and the movie continues on with the baby ultimately being put into the arms of the adoptive mother.

The secular world doesn’t understand this decision, as
evidenced by the summary of the movie’s plot on the IMDb website:

“Faced with an unplanned pregnancy, an offbeat young woman
makes an unusual decision regarding her unborn child.”

Notice two key words: Juno is “offbeat” and makes an “unusual”
decision.

The dictionary definition of “offbeat” says a lot about the
secular mentality in the IMDb summary:

adj.: unusual – uncommon – unconventional

noun.  Nonconformist

Juno must be offbeat because in the secular society it is a fait accompli that anyone with an unplanned pregnancy would just have an abortion.  It goes without saying.  This unusual, nonconformist (odd) girl does
the unusual (weird) thing.  She has the baby and gives its charge to a married couple.
Zowie, how weird is that?

But the secular society doesn’t understand nor want to
understand the grave morality of bearing every child.

In a way, Su-Chin makes an emotional appeal to fulfill the
golden rule:  treat others as you want to be treated.  This rule is directly from Jesus Christ, but predates him in the Old Testament and is a most logical tenet for even the most irreligious person.

Because it is so simple, it may seem to apply to only the simplest things:  allowing someone to merge in busy traffic or
taking the smaller piece of pizza.

But the simplicity of the rule in no way minimizes its applicability:  it is even relevant regards birth of an unplanned baby.

Ask any person, “do you prefer to have been born,” and they
will answer, “Yes.”  All babies want to
get borned.  (Only the sickest person,
the suicidal, may say they wish they were never born, but that is the very sad exception that thankfully is so rare.)
In fulfillment of the golden rule then, if you prefer to have been born,
then this pregnancy must be allowed to be born too.

Some will say this does not apply to a fetus in a womb, that
this is not yet a person, this entity does not yet have a soul, an abortion is
the removal of cellular material only.
But this is a bogus point because though refutable, it is not a
necessary consideration.  The bald,
relevant, irrefutable fact is that whatever one calls the conceived, in 9 months it will be among us: a specific, irreplaceable person with a name and all else that goes with any one of us and in 21 months will gaze at the candles of his first birthday cake.  That is THE fact–THE
irrefutable argument that abortion is always wrong, because at the moment of conception a real, irreplaceable, unique person is on his way.  And it is only the specific intervention of the abortionist that leads to the future of a bloody mass in a bucket instead
of the person at the birthday party.

It is the lack of an abortion that is common to every person who walks on this earth, and every person is glad to have avoided it.  But, the abortionist says, “I am glad to have avoided it, but I will not treat you, future pre-schooler, the same way.  The golden rule will not apply to you.”

So, many people ignore reality and support abortion.  And as an exception to the golden rule, it is
always a selfish choice—even if for the mother the situation is a great burden.  Nonetheless, the selfishness is deep down
understood by those involved, for no one ever says, “I aborted this baby for its own good.”  Conversely, they all try to
forget everything that happened and was done.

Unfortunately our government is full of those who apply the
golden rule only when it suits them–people like Nancy Pelosi who with craven selfishness promote abortion, and in her example even add to that the megalomania of describing herself as an “ardent and practicing Catholic,” while stating heresy
that the Church is not clear on the morality of abortion.

The Church cannot be clearer on the morality of abortion as
it always has.  But for the irreligious
and anyone else, we do not need to make the theological arguments again.  We have the simple fact:

All babies want to get borned!

Thank you, Su-Chin, for that dramatic way of stating the
truth.

Two Kinds of Funerals

I think that a death in a dysfunctional family is more
painful than in the functional family.
Or should I say in less psychological terms, the unhappy versus the
happy family.

In the happy family, the mourners grieve the loss of the
person and all the attached happy memories, these memories never ending in the
mourner’s mind and being a lifelong comfort.

But in the unhappy family, the mourners grieve the loss of
the person and all the positive experiences that never were and the additional
grief that now they will never be.

Further, the happy family mourns together.  The unhappy family members mourn in solitary:
alienation and separation being a primary characteristic of the dysfunctional
family.

Healing of this situation requires divine medicine—which
is of course of the spirit.

 

 

October 11 GOP Debate: An Early Halloween

Watching the GOP debate, I find it amazing that not one of them could pass a high school civics test.
A key solution from the GOP Dream Team ad nauseum is to eliminate federal regulations.

Obviously regulations aren’t necessary.  Certainly there have been no abuses on Wall Street leading to any economic disruptions lately.  And, of course, in deep sea drilling there have been no accidents.  Clearly, regulations are completely unnecessary.

Sadly, none of the anti-big government superheroes recommended elimination of lobbyists.  For where your treasure is, there your
heart will be also.

Clearly, we should expect an iron fisted clinging to the status quo with any one of these poseurs.

Each of them just wants this job and will figure it out later.

Not one example of a short-term job growth program from any one of them tonight.  I guess their being advised ahead of time that the debate would be focused only on THE ECONOMY was inadequate preparation from the Gotcha Media.

Very sad, and we have over a year more of this!!!

Oh, yeah, to complete the Halloween analogy:   TRICK!

“Love Your Enemy” In Real Life

When one is mistreated, it is logical for someone who believes in Christian principles to wonder what is really meant by “love your enemy” in regards to that person.  What is really expected of us?  That is, what is Jesus asking us to do in practice?

Jesus says:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do
not even the tax collectors do so?  Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.”

The words “…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…” may seem to suggest to go out of your way to particularly lavish benefits on an enemy.  But the following words help
clarify:

“…that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”

The General Versus The Specific

The Father doesn’t necessarily dote on a particular enemy; He simply doesn’t restrict his general benefits to his friends.  The rain falls and it falls on everybody.  The sun shines and it shines on everybody.  The point is not to artificially restrict one’s positive behavior to only one’s friends.
So, Jesus goes on to say you should greet not just your brethren, but even your enemies.  Saying, “Good day” is something to be given to all.  But, this is being generally good to all, as does God with letting the rain and sun fall on everyone.  It is not advocating unique and special treatment be designed for one’s enemies.

You will notice that Jesus doesn’t say pull together a special gift for your enemy or plan a special weekend for two with your enemy.

In fact, Jesus goes on to be very clear about being careful about whom we give our special gifts and attention to.  He says:

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you in pieces.

A person who treats you badly does exactly this.  You give your best (pearls) and this person uses their personal access to you to (turn and rend you in pieces).  God/Jesus advises us specifically not to do this.

In sum, Jesus tells us to be good to all, in a general way that we can be good to all.  Pray for all, withholding no prayer for one’s enemies.  But, give your specific attention, and cultivate specific relationships with only those who appreciate it.  No special attention is to be given to an enemy, that is, someone who would turn and rend you in pieces.

To an enemy, say “Good Day” and keep moving on.  Pray for all.  And if the floodwaters were rising, put everyone in the boat.  But, no unique attention or involvement is necessary for an enemy.

I hope I have helped clarify how one might think about the meaning of loving one’s enemies especially when it concerns a person who in particular has abused you.

Homosexual Marriage: An Unproven Case

The promotion of “homosexual marriage” has primarily led to marriage defenders spending time justifing why marriage “is what it is.”  This is a wholly incorrect dynamic.  “The burden is on the prosecution to prove its case.”  Any change requires those promoting the change to explain and justify why the change is appropriate.  It is incumbent on those who promote a change in marriage and its relevant laws to explain and justify their desired changes–not for others to explain why it should be as it is.

The explanation and justification of why marriage should change has not been made.  It has not been made because there is no truth in changing it.

False Constitutional Reasons

We are told that marriage should become homosexual because of the constitution.  Equal protection under the law requires it.  This is not
true.  Equal protection is required among equal things.  Homosexual marriage is not the same; it is not equivalent.

However, we are told that homosexual marriage is the same.  It is equal.  But we are given no demonstration of this.  It is not the same.  It carries the illogic that it is the same though different.  That is clearly false.

The Misleading Sentiment of Love Justifies All Things

There is the argument that love should transcend all arguments; and if any two people love each other they should get married.  This too is false as the idea that any two people who “love each other” should get married doesn’t hold up to the many conditions in which two people are correctly forbidden by law to marry, e.g., minors, close relatives, etc.

Personal Benefit

There is the argument that homosexual marriage will benefit the homosexual persons involved.  A law that benefits a specific group does not justify that law.  Any special interest group can construct laws that would benefit them.  That does not make any law benefitting a special interest group correct or legitimate.  It has not been demonstrated how a change in marriage law would benefit these couples or society as a whole.  Simply stating that it will is not a demonstration or proof that it will.

The Real Basis for Changes in Marriage Law

A change in marriage has not been justified.  Where changes in marriage law have been made, it has been achieved not on a legitimate demonstration of its correctness either morally or socially.   It is a change promoted by a special interest group who simply wants to do what they want to do.  The change in law has been made for materialistic reasons:  the belief by politicians that they will benefit more financially and politically by supporting a vociferous special interest group than by supporting a passive majority.

Unfortunately, the passive majority has become so in part due to the general deterioration of social standards and the majority’s overriding
personal/economic concerns.  The general deterioration of social standards is apparent in any observation of television
programming.  Even the networks broadcast a majority of shows that promote and capitalize on immoral behavior:  fornication, adultery, drunkenness, materialism–and strategically to the point: homosexual sexual behavior.  The FCC doesn’t keep up with the complaints from the minority of people who still complain.

The personal/economic concerns trace to the lack of economic advancement of the American household over the last 25 years.  The devastating further deterioration over the last four years has further eroded the majority’s concern about moral and social issues, if for reasons of fatigue only.  Furthermore, due to actions of the special interest group and politicians to date, the fear of being sued or losing one’s job for not promoting homosexual marriage has further cemented the majority’s passivity.

Where changes in marriage law have occurred it has been due to the passivity of an overwhelmed majority in the face of a vociferous minority and a materialistic political body, which is a theme that has precedent throughout history and does not end well.

Did God Create Evil?

It has been suggested that God created Evil.  A seemingly heretical idea, but perhaps useful to explore.

1.

John 1:3

New International Version (NIV)

³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

This suggests that if Evil was made, God made it.

2.

We also can note that God created the Devil, that is, Lucifer.  An omniscient and omnipotent god would of course know what this Devil would eventually do.  Is the “parent” responsible for the broken plate glass window of the child’s baseball playing?  Perhaps a weak analogy, but a suggestion of one reason why it might be said God created evil.

3.

In the Garden of Eden, the snake (the devil), also a creation of God, manipulates Eve into eating the apple from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  The snake God made; the snake does evil.  By syllogism is not the evil made by God?

4.

Answer to Job:

Carl Jung introduced this idea of God creating Evil in his book of the above name.

As we know, the snake, the Devil is allowed to treat Job in a very bad way.  The Accuser, as Lucifer was called then, wants to prove God wrong that Job is purely god-fearing and not due to good fortune.

God, again being omniscient and omnipotent, knows what is going to happen.  Who then is God really trying to demonstrate Job’s righteousness to?  God doesn’t need to see it.  Is He trying to impress Lucifer?  What “insecurity” would God be demonstrating that He concerns Himself with what an angel thinks of Him?  But, God allows Lucifer to rake Job very seriously over the coals.

Job loses his family, his riches, his health.  God then rails against Job and his friends on the theme of who are they to second guess God, and who of them can do any of the incredible works God has done.  God then restores Job.

However, God considers what he allowed to happen to Job and decides that the human condition, the sinning state in which man lives, is partly His responsibility.  God made us the creatures that were susceptible to the snake’s wiles in the Garden of Eden and the resultant life outside of Eden traces to what He made us to be.  God made the very snake that tempted Eve.

Genesis 1:31

New International Version (NIV)
³¹ God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

God was initially very happy with what He had made, but by the time of Noah He had changed his mind.  The God who would eventually preach “love your enemy” was antithetically harsh in treating those humans who failed His standards.  And He drowned the whole world except for Noah.

But, God is a complicated person, to say the least, and this act he decided He wouldn’t do again, and he so promised.

Genesis 9:11-13

New International Version (NIV)

¹¹ I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”

¹² And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: ¹³ I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

One could say that against Job and against all the world inhabitants except Noah quite a bit of evil was done.  Who did it?  Of course, God did.  Not simply did he allow it, as is usually said about God’s position about evil in the world, but He did it—especially in the case of The Flood.  Did man deserve it?  Again, the Jungian idea is that Man was God’s creation; and Man would do what he was given the character, by God, to do.

5.

By the time of the New Testament era, God has determined it is time to send Jesus down to earth as a man to pay for mankind’s sins.  God still has a dark side, in the sense that he wants punishment for misbehaving, for sinning.  But, God also has a light side, as evidenced by Jesus Christ, the second person of the same god.  Jesus who tells people to turn the other cheek, and to forgive not just seven times, but seven times seventy times, is different from God, who notwithstanding that exhortation, wants a sacrifice for the sins of man.  And it is Jesus who will pay it.

This doesn’t change this fact of scripture:

John 3:16

New International Version (NIV)

¹⁶ For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

But, this idea of God’s sacrifice of Jesus makes more sense to me if God created evil.  God wants payment for all of man’s sinning; but He knows that doing evil and succumbing to evil is partly a facet of man as he made him.  So, though still requiring payment, he gives man a pass from another Flood or other such destruction, and puts Jesus Christ in man’s place.

This makes more sense to me than the idea that man’s sins on earth God had nothing at all to do with occurring, but he put his own Son in our place of punishment anyway.

The fire and brimstone preachers LOVE the idea that God had nothing to do with man’s sinning situation.  They paint quite extremely that we are all just a bunch of scum and we should be thankful that God chose to give us an out through Jesus Christ—which we don’t deserve at all!  This seems contradictory to the fact that God did like us at one time: God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

Of course, God can do what he wants.  The Jungian idea is quite noble that He acknowledged some role in how man is a sinner; and had Jesus take full punishment.  And it is even nobler the traditional idea that He had Jesus take full punishment when man’s sinfulness is purely his own and in no way traces to God’s recipe of man.

6.

Jesus himself says when asked how we should pray, that we should address God in the following way:

Matthew 6:13

New International Version (NIV)
¹³ And lead us not into temptation,

This is a direct prayer to God.  Jesus knows his Father.  And Jesus is implying that God is a complicated person who has in the past and may well still lead us human beings into temptation.  Jesus tells us to pray to God to please don’t, “but deliver us from evil.”

7.

For what it’s worth, let us remember again Lucifer, the Devil, that Snake in the Garden of Eden.  He is a doer of evil.  God knows it; God knew it.  God knew he would be.  But, did you notice that God never eliminated Lucifer?  He let him live all through the Old Testament, the New Testament, all the way into Revelation’s prognosis and even after the first rapture and the 1,000 years of peace, God still lets Lucifer live.  He doesn’t consign him to eternal Hell until after the last fight with the Devil and his minions; and even then, God does not destroy Lucifer.

An omnipotent God could have destroyed the Devil/Evil, but God didn’t.  God is a complicated person.  How can we with our tiny minds even comprehend a mite of what He is doing?  But, it seems that God has a purpose for evil lest why would he keep it around?  Perhaps God created evil for us to overcome it–for us, by His grace, which He said is enough for us, to overcome evil and become perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect.

If God keeps evil around, that He has a purpose for it, is it too much of a stretch that He created it?

Conclusion:

In any case, this heretical idea that God created evil probably doesn’t really amount to much, except make it a little easier to understand why God would give his only begotten Son to us.  But the key thing doesn’t change at all.  Our salvation depends on only one thing, and that’s amazing:

John 6:28-29

New International Version (NIV)

²⁸ Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

²⁹ Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

Of course, there are aspects that then build up from there, works, and loving thy neighbor and enemies etc. etc.  But there you have it—the only requirement.

Kate and William–as powerful as their Tussaud’s copies

So, the hoopla of the “Kate and William” “royal wedding” may at last be over.  What an anti-climactic thing that was–this had one thousand times more disparity between the media buildup and the real event than Geraldo’s Capone vault opening. 

It really was a vacuous affair, and the two stand-ins for the “royal” bride and groom could not have been more unimpressive.  Frankly, given how common a “commoner” William chose to wed,  he could have just as well went down the avenue alone in a carriage and grabbed the first woman who caught his eye in the crowd.  His whole interest in Kate seems to trace to a modeling gig where Kate wore a bikini under a see-through veil.  (Didn’t anyone tell Will that this type of attraction is meant for the mistresses?)

When the “royal family” really was royal, really did rule Great Britain, then national and international interest in who is getting married was quite understandable.  These were the people who ruled a world-wide empire, for god’s sakes.  These were the people who through this wedding were going to continue the rulers.  All the pomp, circumstance, and finery was overlay to incredible, ruling power.  Today, the Queen and her descendants are just ornamentation, I have more power in Great Britain than they do, and ornamentation for ornamentation sake is just so uninteresting puffery.  (As representation of how unreal the governing relevance this wedding has, neither of the most recent prime ministers was inivited–but Posh Spice was!  Ha!)

Of course, the fantasy of the royal wedding has many fantasy elements that did not pass me.  Who is Kate Middleton trying to fool by wearing white?  William and Kate have been co-habitating (shacking up to use more common parlance) for years.  Were they really just royal roommates?  This is just part of the baloney that the whole royal family pretending is about these days.  No high qualities, no dignity, no real tradition.

To continue that note, Kate decided to omit “obey” from the vows.  She is withholding full commitment even before she gets to the altar.  And William, the fool, let her–even though  his own mother, Diana, omitted the same word from her vows.  Did he forget how that “royal union” worked out?  William apparently never heard of the old truism, “He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it.”

I think Queen Elizabeth herself has kind of given up in the fatigue of her old age and enduring 3 offspring with failed marriages already.  The reception in the palace does not even include a sit down lunch–just canapes, finger food to eat while standing.  I think the Queen wants to get today’s event over sooner rather than later, while keeping her poor fingers crossed.

The Biggest Male Enslavement of Women Ever: The Feminist Hoodwink

Imagine this, if you will, in or about 1950 Hugh Hefner and other men like him, asked themselves the question, “How can we maximize the number of women we have sex with, avoiding all responsibility for disease or pregnancy or marriage?”  They were highly motivated to achieve this orgiastic Nirvana. 

A few of these highly motivated men said, “What about this Feminism?  What if we played on women’s desire for power and independence from men and turned it into enslavement to men?” 

“What are you talking about?” others asked, pantingly. 

“We introduce the idea that for a female to be a real, independent, powerful woman, like a man, she should be like us:  looking for sexual conquest, oblivious to disease and pregnancy—tough, calling her own shots.” 

“Hey, that’s brilliant,” said another of the group.   “We appeal to the human ego.  Be powerful all you women, be like a man.  Go after your sexual conquests.  He isn’t screwing you.  You’re screwing him!  Load up for battle, get that pill, stash those rubbers, and get out there and show man who’s boss.”

“This is genius.  We get women to believe that being strong and independent means screwing man after man.  We all get our turn, and with no responsibility or ramification.  You deserve a medal, Man.”

“And, better yet, we can add that real independence is ‘having control over one’s own body’ meaning if she does get pregnant, she heads right into the abortionist for a scraping.” 

“Oh, Man, now you’re getting greedy.”

“No, no, a segment of women who are ego driven will swallow this pill (again, no pun intended) and push this like it’s their own idea.  And a bunch of other women will acquiesce because of peer pressure.  Some women will even pat each other on the back and give each other awards for this.”

“You are a genius, Man.  This could be more fun than our wildest dreams.”

And so it was, from a little seed (no pun intended) planted by the ever lascivious male part of the population, feminism became women consuming health-altering contraceptive drugs at their sole expense, allowing one penis after another to penetrate them, without marriage, and if pregnancy should occur, putting their back on the abortion table to show that man who’s really boss.

And that segment of the female population did buy it hook, line, and sinker.  Even today they proudly assert their fandom for and portrayal of Sex and the City and similar stories which espouse that original ruse that it’s the woman running things, fornicating her way to social and financial advancement.  And those men of the Hugh Hefner generation, and today’s version, continue to have that “fun” beyond their wildest dreams.

A fifty year and counting avalanche of STDs, abortion, single motherhood, poverty, and divorce rolls along.  And this very moment, the “Hefners” applaud from the back of the ballroom (no pun intended) as another feminist proudly receives another award for power and independence.

It don’t get any better than that…Man.