En-gendering self destruction

"At what point then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer that if it ever reach us, it must spring from amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be the authors and finishers."
- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln was referring to the danger of physical destruction, but I've been warning people that our physical destruction is inevitable, if it follows our intellectual and moral destruction. We are currently destroying ourselves, much like the fabled City of Atlantis.

Back in the days when people were still interested in attending my Constitution class, I would explain that we were engaged in an "ideological war". It is a war of words and ideas. I explained that the definitions of words are being changed, sometimes ever so slightly. Most people do not challenge the "new and improved" definitions. The phrase "community rights" has such a noble ring to it that most people are eager to support such an idea. The problem is that "communities" are abstract concepts that cannot have rights attributed to them. The only kind of rights are individual rights. Correctly stated, communities do not have rights. Only the individuals within those communities have rights. However, if you believe the twisted definition, it's possible to allege that "community rights" supercede "individual rights", and then ignorant individuals will be numb to the desire to defend those rights. Much like the prey injected with a neurotoxin and unable to move, they are unable to do anything to prevent their own destruction.

"The greatest good for the greatest number", taken from the Communist Manifesto, suggests a theory that the average happiness of a society can be increased when we distribute property evenly among the members of that society. The fundamental flaw is that people who work hard are granted the same amount of benefit as people who do not work at all. The result is that nobody works, because there is no personal benefit to above average effort or performance. Therefore, nobody does much of anything, and society fails because everyone is "equal", but only at the poverty level. That's when pseudo-intellectuals will claim that "we didn't do it quite right", and another grand experiment in wealth redistribution begins anew.

The parable of the Tower of Babel is a significant lesson in the importance of accurate communication. From Wikipedia:

"According to the story, a united humanity in the generations following the Great Flood, speaking a single language and migrating eastward, comes to the land of Shinar. There they agree to build a city and a tower tall enough to reach heaven. God, observing their city and tower, confounds their speech so that they can no longer understand each other, and scatters them around the world."

In my 08/15/2012 newsletter I complained that countless people on Facebook cannot differentiate between THERE, THEIR, or THEY'RE. They also fail to see a difference between THEN and THAN. In my last newsletter referring to the Ministry of Truth, I talk about the way history is deliberately rewritten to alter what the people in a given society are conditioned to believe. Words no longer mean anything. The words "boy" and "girl" are now completely interchangable, since "girls" and will now be openly admitted into the "Boy" Scouts. I don't see a problem with that. Do you? Except that it won't be long before sticks are not the ONLY thing rubbed together in the forest. Hey! Don't yell at me! I'm not the one who decides who can or can't join this iconic organization! So... exactly what is the "Girl" Scout organization supposed to be for? Never mind! Details, details! (I wanted to join the Girl Scouts when I was young. I was denied. Something about a fox in a hen house? I didn't understand what they meant.)

Stanford University is famous for many of its psychological experiments that would not be allowed to take place in today's society. The "Asch Conformity Experiments" placed subjects in a room full of "confederates" (actors who are co-conspirators with the psychologist) who all gave deliberately false answers to an obvious question. ("Which stick is the longest?") It is claimed that 74% of the subjects studied deliberately gave the wrong answer, rather than contradict the "combined wisdom" of the group they were in. In other words, people would rather be wrong than risk being ostracized by the group. Other famous experiments were "the Milgram Experiment" where subjects were willing to inflict harm on an unseen person because they were following the orders of someone perceived to be in authority. And, perhaps most famous, is "the Stanford Prison Experiment" where college aged students were divided into "guards" and "prisoners". That experiment had to be terminated prematurely when "guards" began abusing "prisoners", and "prisoners" began initiating violence. This is a sober indication of how quickly the fabric of society can be ripped to shreds.

The same technique is being used over and over again to cause hate and discontent within various factions of society. The technique is very clever. I simply tell you what you mean by the words and symbols that you use. Keep in mind that nobody can truly read someone else's mind, but that fact is conveiniently overlooked. Activists hostile to the Civil War insist that the Confederate Battle Flag represents only slavery. Statues erected nearly a century ago are simply slave owners, not generals who fought to defend "states rights" as southerners proclaim. Statues of Thomas Jefferson are labeled with accusations of "racist" and "rapist". How sad that the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence isn't here to respond to these accusations. These accusations are assumed to be true, simply because they were accused!! No trial. No rebuttal. I say that you're guilty, so... you are!

I am finally, but reluctantly, willing to accept that human-ity is being led to self-destruction simply by changing the accepted definitions of "gender". Before I begin, let me assert in the strongest possible terms, I AM NOT A MYSOGYNIST!! as was recently alleged. I LIKE women! I like them a lot! If I'm going to be guilty of something, let it be that. I had an uncle that used to say, "I'm against women! [pause for effect, then more quietly] And the more I'm against them, the more I like it." I can only imagine what goofy rhetoric feminists are going to use to turn that joke into an alleged, "chronic abuse of womanhood". Oh, just f-cking get over it already!

Do I really have to give a beginner class on the "birds and the bees"? Single celled organisms that reproduce through mitosis (multiplying through cell division - something you would have learned in a real school), is far less efficient than exponentially increasing diversity within the species by arranging for combinations of DNA to be created that have never existed before. Spermatozoa (I didn't use the shorter version of the word so fewer people had to feel squeamish) and the egg are each "haploid cells". In other words, they only have HALF as much DNA so that when the sperm and egg come together - oh crap, I said it - they generate a zygote (another fancy science word) that once again contains the proper amount of nucleic acids (adenine/thymine & cytosine/guanine). Now frankly, I don't give a shit what your personal beliefs are. This is the way biology works. Babies are not delivered by a stork. When you sleep with your sister, you're much more likely to have babies with deformities. That's why it is cultural taboo in almost every society... except royalty. (Oh, yeah. Like they can do anything to me.)

I scored zero on a test to measure my level of conformity. I have a well known reputation for saying things that most people are afraid to think. (2010 Texas LP convention - "The question is not whether you're willing to die for Liberty. The question is whether or not you're willing to kill for Liberty." Followed by murmurs of, "Did he really say that?!") So, even though I know this is going to really piss some people off, I am going to state, unequivocally, that MEN AND WOMEN ARE DIFFERENT!! Please note that I did not say that one gender was better than the other... but only because we haven't specified what "better" we are talking about.

Try to follow along. Some of this may be new information to you. And if you disagree, well then... just go ahead and disagree. Take my birthday away from me if you like. Women are the ones who carry the baby for approximately nine months. Their bodies change dramatically as the baby's body increases in size and mass. They also carry vast quantities of fluid necessary for a successful birth. And as many exercise videos are quick to point out, it takes lots of exercise to return a woman's body to a condition they believe is once again desirable to males for having the babies in the first place. Women are much better at nurturing children, especially when the children are very young. Women are the one's capable of breast feeding. All of this is due to the higher levels of estrogen than men have. And I don't disagree. Estrogen is what causes the soft, curvy bodies that men are interested in.

If society can accept that women are better at nurturing, why is it heresy to suggest that higher levels of testosterone in men makes them better suited for other activities? Testosterone give men more muscle mass (ON AVERAGE) than women. Testosterone makes men more aggressive (ON AVERAGE) than women. When I say, ON AVERAGE, I am scientifically acknowledging the fact that SOME women have more muscle mass than SOME men, and that SOME women tend to be more aggressive that SOME men. Yes! There are individual exceptions to nearly every rule. But ON AVERAGE means that MOST MEN have more muscle mass and are more aggressive than MOST WOMEN. This is no longer obvious to some people in our society. Little girls on a playground create games without "points", preferring to participate in activities that are cooperative. Little boys on a playground don't like those games. They play "King of the Hill", fight, wrestle, and play things like hockey or soccer. Anything with a clear winner or loser. Just yesterday morning I visited my friend's home for the first time. His three year old daughter curled up in my lap and asked me to comb her hair. Which I did... happily. My paternal instinct instantly kicking into high gear. The two boys, ages seven and five, also vied for my attention. But they clearly wanted to wrestle. They were measuring their strength against mine, instinctively trying to determine if they had achieved the status of "men". Two distinctly different social responses. I'm pleased to note that I didn't have to teach these children to do that. In most cases, it happens very naturally.

I was raised to be an Alpha Male from the moment I was old enough to recognize gender difference. I knew I was a boy, and I remember consciously thinking that I had to grow up to be a MAN, just like my dad. Today, the phrase Alpha Male has been twisted to mean male chauvinist. A chauvinist is a male who is so insecure in his masculinity that he uses his superior size and strength to abuse women. I will not tolerate anything close that that type of activity, and I have numerous personal stories of how I reflexively came to the aid of a women being harassed by someone with a "Y" chromosome. Unfortunately, these days, any male who claims to notice a difference between the sexes is quickly and publicly deemed to be a "rape apologist". So much for logic. No vitriolic character assassination here! Seriously? That is a purely emotional reaction without regard to any factual information at all.

The women's liberation movement characterizes the nuclear family of the 50's and 60's as an affront to women because they were "forced" to stay home to cook and take care of the kids. While I do not deny that women CAN get up at 6:00am to work in the factories, dig in the coal mines, and join the military to do calisthenics before the break of dawn - I am stymied why they would WANT to! Rather than being "forced" to stay home with the kids, I view it as being "allowed" to stay home with the kids. Changing diapers is far less strenuous than digging ditches or carrying 50% of your body weight on a construction site. I remember my father telling me that several of his male friends lost their jobs at the oil refinery because there was a new quota for women in each department. Females replaced several of the men, however the women couldn't carry the 50 pound tool box to the job, much less use the tools in the box to actually DO the job. The men were faced with a moral dilemma. Ordinarily, these men would have gladly carried the heavy load for the women - as they had been trained to do as boys. Now, they refused to carry anything, or give the women any leeway on the job. Their attitude was, "You took George's job, now carry George's toolbox to the job site". You want to talk about job disparity? 99.99 percent of the people killed in war are male. 98% of the people killed in work related deaths are male. Should we extend equal rights in these areas as well? There is a blatant double standard in our society. When Captain "Sully" Sullenberger landed his plane in the Hudson River, and people began to leave the aircraft, it was "women and children first!" Men are considered expendable.

Soon after leaving college I was told - in all seriousness - that "Women can do anything a man can do... they can do it better... and they can do it while they are pregnant." Wow. This is all very Helen Reddy, "I am woman. Hear me roar.", but it simply isn't true. Pretending that it is is simply ludicrous! Some pregnant women remain bedridden in the weeks before delivery. I've also seen bumper stickers that claim, "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." Really?! So why are so many women complaining that there are "no good men out there"? I am in favor of women's sports, but I'm not the least bit surprised that men's professional sports are significantly more profitable. We watch sports to see demonstrations of physical strength and endurance - qualities significantly increased by testosterone. Yes, I have found myself watching women's volleyball from time to time - but I don't actually pay attention to the score. Excuse me all to hell for being instinctively preoccupied with nearly naked female bodies. The Devil didn't make me do it, as Flip Wilson might allege. It's the god-damned testosterone coursing through my veins. Millions of years of biology have predisposed me to be attracted - nay, strongly attracted to the female form. I don't apologize for breathing air, eating food, or drinking water. Why the hell would I apologize for liking women?! I should point out here that I am a huge fan of Danica Patrick who races automobiles professionally. She's very good, and I cheer for her to win so I can see her in the winner's circle... covered in champagne. She also does a fantastic job of laying across the hoods of shiny sports cars in various stages of undress. (Yea, team!) However, I think I'm beginning to be insulted that male race car drivers don't have the same opportunity to profit from their partial nudity. (OK. I'm making a philosophical point here. I have absolutely NO desire to see Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt, or Tony Stewart posing in the "all together". Ewww!) My point is that there are numerous differences between men and women. Some are eagerly accepted, and some are deemed heresy by those who want to change - not just the words - but the fact that there are two sexes.

You want to talk about sexual harassment? I point a very accusatory finger at nearly every marketing strategy in the world. "Sex sells" is not just a cliche', it's a freakin' way of life. If you want to sell something, just have a scantily clad female holding it. Or standing in front of it, in the case of The Price is Right. A huge percentage of YouTube videos have thumbnails containing a bikini or nearly naked female, when that image isn't contained at all in the accompanying video. I know this because a buddy of mine did a scientific study of this phenomenon. I'm sure he would have saved the statistical data if he had known I was going to write this article. Men (and everyone else, including children) are subjected to sexual stimuli all day long, and then men are threatened with a harassment lawsuit if they tell a woman they don't know that she is dressed attractively. I've already written a previous newsletter on R-rated commercials that capitalize on a man's instinctive attraction to women.

One very disturbing aspect of this refusal to acknowledge sexual differences is highlighted in a documentary about rape in the military called, The Invisible War. If I remember the conclusions of this 90-minute expose', it was that at least 25% of women in the military are raped, and that military superiors are hesitant to do very much about it. It is a sad state of society when I feel obligated to preface my comments with ALL RAPE IS BAD! I don't condone it. I have actively risen in defense of women all my life. However, I am surprised that the percentage is so low. Most of the soldiers in the U.S. Army are male. This is not a subjective preference on my part, it is simply statistical fact. It is also a fact that our military takes advantage of the testosterone laden males who are forced to march with heavy packs, do countless situps and pushups, to become the efficient killing machines that testosterone allows the body and mind to become. HOO-rahhh! So now, into the middle of this seething mass of unbridled masculinity, you're going to allow women to venture unescorted?! Are you NUTS!! That's like saying, "We threw those Christians into the lion's den, but those nasty kitties nibbled them up like lunch meat! Who could have seen that coming?" Really?! Why do you think they require chaperones at high school dances, fer chrissake?! That's like checking the gas tank with a match to see if it's full, and then being shocked and surprised when the damn thing blows up in your face. I can't think of an example of cognitive dissonance that is more blatant than this.

So, is this just a rant by some cynical guy who can't get a date for Saturday night? My love life aside, there is a serious problem in Japan. Their population is decreasing significantly for a variety of factors. Prostitution is more widely accepted, so there's less reason for men to get married and have children. Women are forced to choose between motherhood and a career, and many simply choose a career. So while feminists insist that it their right to hold down a job and earn a wage equal to men, what it means is that fewer females are having babies. And - unless I misunderstood my high school biology class - it's highly unlikely that men are going to start giving birth to pick up the slack. The divorce rate in this country is staggering. Children are raising themselves because both parents make their career a priority. I know of very few marriages where both partners are actually happy, and it seems to me that more single people are "hooking up" for weeks or days, rather than looking for a permanent relationship. If this trend continues, the population in this country will begin to plummet, and when there are no more people, it won't matter who is in the White House.

So, yes, I am a sexist. That simply means that I'm smart enough to notice a difference between men and women. But I was informed today that this instinctive skill may be getting harder and harder in the future. Just weeks (days?) after Huge Hefner's death, Playboy magazine has published it's first transgendered centerfold. Guys buy the magazine to look at naked women. I predict that subscription rates are going to be just as flaccid as many of their readers.

If you're going to get your panties in a wad and argue that there's no significant difference between men and women, then you don't have the brains that God gave a piece of broccoli. I suppose the world isn't round, gravity doesn't exist, and two plus two is no longer four. Will this insanity ever stop?


If you have any close influence over some young men, teach them that until the world is rational again they should not practice chivalry. It is suicidal under present conditions.
I am glad to see that you are writing again and look forward to an analysis of the first nine months of the Trump administration.
I did not hear of your brilliant analysis of killing for liberty as well as dying for liberty until now.

Well written

So many good points you bring up, Michael.  Couldn't agree with you more.

Perhaps I would also point out that decades of ingesting female hormones in terms of PCB's, plastics, soy (even in infant "milk"), injesting the pesticide atrazine on corn and soy and other products (but mostly on corn) that alters male frogs and fish in the wild to become female -- they actually grow female organs -- news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs -- isn't helping this cause either due to the fact that perhaps the male of our species is being targetted unbeknownist to parents, etc.

But my goodness you make this subject come alive.  And I so agree.

Destruction of us

 Hi, Michael. It’s been awhile. I agree with all of your comments 100%. I’ll just say what I’ve been saying for decades, “We should remove all crossing guard rails everywhere so we can Cull the Herd of dumb people”! I have a feeling that many of the same idiots that try to change the Fundamental facts of life are the same ones that are so unaware of the real dangers in life that they would walk into the path of a deadly force without looking first. 
 I really believe that would help turn the tide on our demise of our society. By the way, I’m celebrating my passing of the top License of Amateur Radio; the Amateur Extra Class License. Normally I sign my emails with my call sign but I’m waiting for the FCC to give me my new one. So I’ll just sign, sincerely yours;
Steve Wolfe. 

End-gendering ( my own term, close to yours)

 This situation has worse ramifications than those you mentioned. 

I work in a pharmacy in an "old money" town in Southern California.

We are seeing more than our share of gender changing youth.  I do not believe they are being fully counseled about the rest of their lives. The alleged mental health physicians are having these kids believe this change will make them "happy." However, the rest of their lives ( most of our changing children are under 18) is a very long time. One of our patients came in presenting a prescription for a medication that is not recommended for teenage females due to possibility of pregnancy. We have to ask... are you pregnant, is there a chance you could become pregnant, and are you using precautions against pregnancy while on this medication? The poor young child ( going from boy to girl) was traumatized by our trigger questions and ran from the pharmacy crying. 

Thankfully, her Father is a man of humor and came in to let us off the worry wire, letting us know she ( the child ) has become very sensitive since the estrogen (duh). I am certain this will not be the last time she is asked that question .... every single Dr visit I have I am asked and I am nearly 60 with "hysterectomy" all over my records. Therefore it's not insensitive on a professionals part to ask, it is up to the whining child to deal with all that comes with this decision. 

My secondary beef on this subject is that ( and you Michael are 100% correct) people are confusing gender with sexuality, and gender with ability. As you stated not everyone of a gender performs as well as another of the opposite gender, and sexuality is not your sex or gender it is you performing the act of sex with whomever you choose. There is a Grammatical Line that is being crossed to this writers dismay. 

Viva la difference, 

small error

 "DNA (also known as RNA - Ribonucleic Acid)"

Noooooo! DNA and RNA are different chemical compounds, with different functions. DNA makes the famous double helix, the master plan in all animal and plant neuclei. Genes in the DNA are copied to RNA, and the RNA strands function as program tapes, in conjunction with rhybosomes, to direct the assembly of amino acids into proteins.
I don't know why you added that parenthetical comment, since it seems irrelevant to the point of your article.

At any rate, it's nice to see you're still alive and kicking.

Hey Michael!  It struck me

Hey Michael!  It just struck me as I was reading your article that instead of "the world isn't round, gravity doesn't exist, and two plus two is four" you should have borrowed from Little Milton's  lyrics "grits ain't groceries, eggs ain't poultry and Mona Lisa was a man..."

Great Article

 Enjoyed your article thoroughly!


So true, so true and so sad.

Took the words right out of my mouth

Great article, although long winded. [How unusual for you....lol.]  You said what most men are thinking. And you'll take the heat for it. Thank you. 

Also, this was a better article then your last one. Their all going to love this article. [errors in gramar for agrivation puprposes only].  And please refrain from showing your [and my] age..."Helen Ready and Flip Wilson". 

Your buddy

Buy the Book or DVD Today!

Find a class in your city

JAW-DROPPING 8 hour immersion
into a subject you THOUGHT you knew.

Recent Articles

Witty, funny, engaging, educational, articles by Michael Badnarik.