Founded in 1994 by the efforts of 12 Black women, reproductive justice is “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities,” as defined by SisterSong. The reproductive justice movement positions reproductive rights and health within the larger context of families and communities. The fight for reproductive justice, to keep children and all individuals safe, is inextricably linked to the urgent fight to end gun violence. …
As a teenager, I remember my high school was heavily policed. And today, as a mother, I understand the urgency to ensure every child’s safety and wellbeing—so I understand the seeming appeal of armed officers at every school. The “out-shoot the shooter” approach brings comfort to some knowing immediate action is possible.
But this rationale is solely reactive and can be trauma-inducing for the overwhelming majority of students who may already experience bias from faculty and administrators. It is crucial for policymakers, school administrators, parents, teachers, law enforcement and representatives to decide on solutions for what is possible if stakeholders do to not want or need an armed officer at every school. Firearms are the leading cause of death among children ages 1-19 in the United States. An armed officer is a last resort. It is time to be proactive.
By centering a reproductive justice approach, it is possible to establish safe and supportive communities to raise children with proactive systems and initiatives. Young men perpetrate the vast majority of gun violence, and early evidence suggests a change in social norms and behaviors around masculinity may reduce violent behavior. Mental health is not an indication or predictor of violence—and for the majority of persons, mental health treatment can often prevent potential gun violence. The most consistent and powerful predictor of violent behavior is a history of violent behavior.
As my husband and I consider our son’s academic future and safety, our right to raise our son in a safe and supportive community has been stolen from us. Without proactive measures to reduce gun violence, it seems a day at the mall, school, grocery store or church can lead to a mass shooting.
The reduction of mass gun violence in all arenas is going to take intervention on all levels, including:
-
-
-
- policy, like the prohibition of guns for groups offenders of domestic violence and violent misdemeanors, background checks;
- community, especially supporting parents in raising emotionally healthy children;
- early violent behavior intervention; and
- a change in social norms related to gun culture and violence.
-
-
Just as the reproductive justice movement advocates, it is time to respect and ensure the personal autonomy and human right of personal safety for all.
— Veronica Ray-Whitehead in Stop Gun Violence With a Reproductive Justice Approach
Is she saying blacks should be prohibited from owning guns?
Accidentally yes.
In the Gun Control psychobabble world of veronica ray-whitehead chances are good you and yours will find yourselves unarmed and unable to defend yourselves against perps who criminaly misuse firearms, bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles, etc.
Gun Control zealots want useful idiots to fixate on the concocted buzzword Gun Violence when all along Violence is Violence like UnArmed is Unarmed.
Do not click reply aq, you’ll just be cutting in line.
pot, kettle.
“Gun Control zealots want useful idiots to fixate on the concocted buzzword Gun Violence…”
Kinda like how you have this demented fixation on the racist roots of gun control? 😉
Does anyone disagree that in the times after emancipation, even after WW1, many people lashed out at any black person with a gun, even if a veteran? Racism and gun control and class separation and gun control have plenty of supporting evidence.
How many still alive and relevant? It’s a dying issue on it’s last legs and time to move on to the bigger picture rather than letting it distract and divide us again, still.
WW1
What a fucking dope. Do you think the black politicians running the Dem-led cities with rampant crime are looking back to WW1 when they call for gun control?
Try and pay attention to what is going on in this century for fucks sakes.
CATO, it seems that your Black DEMONcRAT politician buds who are ruining cities, are not reaching back to WWI but are just too stupid to realize that the guns are not the problem.
PEOPLE ARE! You, see, a gun is an inanimate object uncapable of doing anything without a human. You Lefties just love trying to insert race into everything.
Nice try Walter…
I’m an independent voter. I know the Dems aren’t reaching back to WW1, that was my point asswipe.
My other point is and always has been that everything ISN’T about race.
Unfortunately, I can’t dumb it down any more than that for you
CATO, NICE TRY,yourself. “Independent?” ROFLAMOBT! There is NO SUCH THING! You may not claim to be a Lefty, but you are nonetheless. You don’t have to “dumb it down for me. You are dumb enough for both of us.
Calm down dipshit, there are such things as Independent voters. The truth is there are more Independents than Repubs or Dems.
ROFLAMOBT? Sure you didn’t mean ROFLMAOBT? Jesus Christ, you might want to have a 12-year old proof-read your stupid rants.
Walt I am not often in agreement with cato but he is correct on independents being a thing even here in NY with both third party and no party affiliation options for voter registration and voting habits/outlooks.
CATO, OK Shit for Brains, here you go. There is NO such thing as an :independent in spite of what the Lame Stream Media and you claim. There are actually two political parties. Republican and DEMONcRAT (intended). Republicans have a tendency to be Conservative by nature and unabashedly support and Defend the Constitution. DEMONcRATS are basically Leftist if not outright s o c i a l i s t by their political philosophy. Whether you like it or not, you either support the Constitution as WRITTEN or you are a Leftist. Your choice bub! Independent means you don’t really know where you stand.
SAFE, we are, I guess, going to have to agree to disagree. IN actuality, the so called “Independent” are for the most part people who feel they are “disenfranchised” by the “two party system.” The majority of “Independents” in fact lean heavily to the Left. Very rarely do you find the “Independent” Party here in NYS endorsing a Conservative or a Republican of any stripe. When a person claims to be an “independent” you have to examine his basic political philosophy.
This is what the Independent Party believes:
“Independent American Party
Basic facts
Type: Political party
Website: Official website
The Independent American Party (IAP) is a political party in the United States. According to the organization, the IAP aims to “promote respect for life liberty and property; strong traditional families; patriotism; and individual, state and national sovereignty – with a strong reliance on the Declaration of Independence and allegiance to the Constitution for the United States of America – by petition to God and by political and educational means.”
Examine that, asswipe.
CATO, NIce Try! My you are a glutton for punishment. Your contention that the “Independent (sic)” Party is anything but what I said it was is first rate propaganda. If you examine what you wrote, you will find that none of those so called ‘aims” are what the “Independent” Party really stands for. To read your redition, you would think that they are “conservative.” Here is an article by Pew Research which kind of emasculates your nonsense.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/
The platform you posted is remarkably like the American Independent Party which is a far right wing organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party
My, but you are a glutton for punishment.
Fair enough to disagree Walt and your reasoning was far better than most I have seen on the topic. I would counter that independents be they nonaligned (ie never registered with any party) may have views of all sorts on varying topics but few actually support gun control outside of working families (actual commies) here in NY. For me republicans are way too big government friendly but often are the least bad choice with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning so they tend to get my vote one way or another unless the democrats worm their candidate into the space(happens sometimes). The problem as you know is not every independent voter is pragmatic and there are enough to create chaos in some elections especially when niche issues are hit.
I don’t believe every goal/issue of any party. The Independent Party reflects more than others what I believe. I don’t consider myself a single-issue voter.
I don’t think all Repubs or all Dems think alike. Since more voters ID themselves as Independents I think it’s safe to say they have different views also.
The AIP believes in Natural or God given INDIVIDUAL rights, the 2A, no ILLEGAL immigration, they are pro-life, and believe the Constitution is the law of the land.
If you think I don’t believe in these things, you are wrong and a complete dumbass.
CATO, No, Republicans and DEMONcRATS do not think alike in any way. The Republicans stand for the Constitution as WRITTEN. The DEMONcRATS stand for s o c i a l i s m. AIP is a RADICAL right wing party.
And REPEATNG, as I have said, there is REALLY no such thing as an “independent.” I now note you claim membership in the American Independent Party?
SAFE, as I said. MOST “Independent” voters are actually Leftists at best and radical Leftists more than not. This CATO claims to be a part of the American Independent Party, which is really a FAR RIGHT ( I mean way far right) party. I would not associate with such on my wildest day.
Walter you retarded fuck
I did not say Repubs and Dems think alike. I said not all Repubs think the same (as other Repubs) and not all Dems think the same (as other Dems).
I see I didn’t dumb it down enough for you.
First you say I’m buds with black Dem politicians then you say I’m a far right Nazi. Which is it?
“Reproductive justice” are mother’s being able to legally shoot their children dead. At any age. Libertarians Liberals and the Left use to call this abortion.
Abortion is the number one killer of children.
Also, 18-19 year olds are NOT children, this is one of the lies. Also, beware of “stakeholders” and catch phrases like equity blah blah blah, cultural Marxism/ Maoism. This all comes from the same commie well.
” …if stakeholders do to not want or need an armed officer at every school.”
Yes, let’s oppose the only solution to school shootings that’s been proven to work in the real world.
Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns haven’t seen school shootings during school hours — https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/
obvious..but still unacceptable to many…a cheaper and better solution….
“Firearms are the leading cause of death among children ages 1-19 in the United States.”
So tired of coming across this absolute LIE from the anti-gun people.
Carefully include the fact that the most common homicide is between gang members between the ages of 14 – 19 and that no amount of legislation making it more illegaler to shoot each other is going to make any difference whatsoever.
And also carefully NOT including the hundreds of thousands of babies killed in the womb very year before they get to start counting those birthdays. Currently around a half million every year, although the number may be diminishing since the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade.
Concerned for the children my ass.
It’s not about the guns, it’s about the control.
“no amount of legislation making it more illegaler to shoot each other is going to make any difference”
An effective death penalty might help. Defining “effective” as: 1) zero doubts about guilt, 2) consistent application, and 3) reasonable time frame.
Eliminating the feral markets they mostly fight over would definitely help.
When was the last time you saw a gang war over beer?
Not in my lifetime for beer, moonshine within the last 3 years but there was also a long standing feud.
According to goober mint figures, drowning is the leading cause of death among the age group cited.
Maybe everyone can just hold hands and sing Kumbaya…that will solve gang violence, which is the root of most shootings, despite what the mainstream media says…Good lord, we are not a serious country anymore.
just had a couple of black kids shot in my immediate locale…citizen response was encouraging numerous witnesses came forward..in one case they followed the shooters and pointed out their location…arrests were quick to follow…that’s how you put an end to this sort of thing
I wonder if they will be charged, or charged and released, or acquitted, or convicted and early released?
Prior restraint is the essence of tyranny.
You would think (formerly) oppressed minorities would understand why that is not a good idea.
Hyphenated last name…
The equivalent of removing one of her husband’s balls… Poor guy.
“The fight for reproductive justice, to keep children and all individuals safe…”
The unborn babies she wants to kill might have a word or two about whether “reproductive justice” keeps “children and all individuals safe,” if they had a voice….
Cloudbuster,
If you were able to speak your statement directly to Mrs. Veronica Ray-Whitehead, her response screaming in her mind would be, “Stop confusing me with the facts!”
Never EVER forget that Mrs. Ray-Whitehead and her ilk simply want what they want and demand that they get whatever they want. Facts, standards, and wrong-versus-right are entirely irrelevant. You can no more persuade nor reason with her than a rapist’s victim can persuade or reason with her rapist that rape is wrong because HE IS ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO TAKING WHAT HE WANTS.
And this all-too-common worldview (that it is A-OK to demand and/or take whatever you want if you have intense emotions) is why we must INSIST on our right to keep and bear arms–in the doomsday scenario when we must fend-off some individual or group demanding our property, liberty, and/or lives.
I noticed the caption on that sign in the photo with this article, “My RAGE won’t fit on a sign.” That simple statement encapsulates several positions which are destructive to both her as well as society.
Her sign conveys that intense emotions:
— override critical thought and analysis
— “justify” quite literally anything
— threaten the well-being of anyone who fails to comply with her
Note that a rapist has the very same mental process (for lack of a better term).
She could make a larger sign? Just spitballin’ here.
You just described the Democratic Party platform.
Pretty much. (I wasn’t going to say it outright.)
And the sad thing is, that kid’s “parents” likely have no clue how much this crap is damaging her. The girl is just a tool, and none of them have a clue.
I see the usual anti-gun lies are strong with Veronica Ray-Whitehead.
Reproductive justice?!? Like punishing baby murderers?
“Firearms are the leading cause of death among children ages 1-19 in the United States.”
I’m calling BULLSHIT on this one.
mostly black kids…and they’re getting younger all the time…..
Looking at the false claim that firearms are the leading cause of death for children or teens
https://crimeresearch.org/2023/05/looking-at-the-false-claim-that-firearms-are-the-leading-cause-of-deaths-for-children-or-teens/
Yup. The only way in which firearms cause a large number of “child” deaths is for the 18 and 19 year old “children” who are killing each other without remorse in the very communities that Ray-Whitehead is complaining about.
This is not a gun epidemic. This is a violence epidemic. This is an absentee fatherhood epidemic. (or maybe in the case of Mr. “Ray-Whitehead” a sissified fatherhood epidemic)
Damn baby killers.
Their reproductive justice (abortion) kills a whole hell of a lot more children each year than firearms.
There’s your national tragedy.
Yet it’s always the very same people who believe in wholesale infanticide that want to take away the right to own firearms.
Also the 17–21 year-old thugs shouldn’t count in gun crime statistics as children anyway.
Like I wrote my black Congressman “Remember it’s your sons not our guns that’s the problem”.
If everyone is aborted, there will be no kids. With no kids, there will be no recruits to gangs. There will be no need for icky armed policy on campus, and there still won’t be school shootings because there won’t be schools.
Seriously though, there does need to be a community based action to stop gangs. If the kids have carring relatives that provide good role models and supervision, fewer will join gangs. Repealing the policies that have been destroying minority families for over half a century is another part, but that would interfere with Dems power base, so it will never happen. People who have hope and skills don’t need to rely on the government, so they won’t vote for the people who keep them on the dole.
ANYMOUSE, the way to combat gangs in your community is to assist the police when you see a crime committed be it by a gang member or not. It is up to the parents to supervise there off sping. It is not the job of the government etc to provide these kids with entertainment.
Other than repeating some incorrect data, many of these folks are focused on prevention and in that area they do frequently offer valid suggestion of what needs to happen even if their methodology is flawed or lacking. However, most 2A advocates, myself included, are focused on the response which requires the swift application of ballistic intervention after preventative measures have failed. The things needed for prevention are complicated with multiple factors and moving parts and require diligence from all parties involved, but the ability to respond is pretty straightforward. So while we figure out how to initiate greater preventative measures which ARE needed, we should also see schools prepare a more rapid response. I’ve been a teacher over two decades, and I’d be down to carry or know others are strapped. Concealed means concealed so nobody will be hyperventilating over the sight of a gun, as opposed to tactical guards with slung ARs roaming the halls. I carry everywhere other than work, and you can bet I feel like I forgot something important every day I head into work! We all want fewer dead kids, so start with prevention but have a plan for when the shooting starts beyond “wait to die” and hope the local PD get them before they get you.
“I’ve been a teacher over two decades, and I’d be down to carry or know others are strapped.”
Is there a “school guardian program” available in your state?
If not, would you want to organize one?
https://www.schoolsafetycertification.com/guardian
we’ve had armed teachers/staff here for the last 10 years. Not one accident, no student got their hands on a teacher/staff gun, and four school shooters were stopped before they could begin (school shooter never got the chance to fire a shot) because they were stopped by a teacher with a gun.
isn’t that the best outcome, that the school shooter never fire a shot? isn’t stopping school shooters what anti-gun wants to do? A teacher with a gun did exactly what anti-gun claims they want, not police or an SRO or a 911 call, but a teacher with a gun. Proven to be overall more effective in every school with armed teachers/staff in the country where nothing else has, yet anti-gun still continues with their crusade to injure and kill as many as possible with ‘no guns’ zones policies.
Prevention and intervention is hard. Much harder than reaction. It’s expensive and requires real work as opposed to making a sign, walking around and chanting.
I have a very unpopular view of reproductive rights. That the public has a right to protect the unborn from unfit mothers who use chemicals (crack, alcohol, solvents) that guarantee the birth of damaged children who will have a hard life and will make many others around them miserable. How can this be made to happen? By mandating sterilization of women who have proven a propensity to poison their fetus (addicts etc). Yes I fully understand this sounds evil but I argue this is less evil than banging out future criminals. Yes, people scream at me when I express this opinion, but I have very solid direct personal experience on what it’s like to be around such children.
Richard Kudrna,
As harsh as your suggestion may sound, I am hard pressed to find a better solution.
For reference a child is a child is a child. Age, awareness, development, autonomy, and location do NOT change their status as a child and human being.
Parents have both a moral and legal obligation to provide a minimal level of care for their children. Parents who fail to do so should spend decades in prison if they intentionally neglect their children and that neglect causes serious permanent injury/disability or death of their children. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this should not apply to pregnant mothers: if they fail to provide minimal care for their child in their womb and that failure causes permanent disability or death of that child in the womb, that mother should spend decades in prison like any other mother who intentionally starved, poisoned, beat, or murdered their older children.
If our society enforced that simple standard, it may deter future moms from neglecting the children in their wombs. At the very least, a multiple decade prison sentence would reduce repeat occurrences without having to resort to forced sterilization. And THAT would reduce the number of babies with permanent brain damage (from exposure to drugs / alcohol in the womb) who go on to become violent offenders in society as a direct result of their brain damage.
Richard correctly refers to a preferred group (voting block) of the demtard party.
Radicalized black women control their group/demographic. As their males have chosen drugs, and crime vs working/having negro wives. These nasty females allow the males unlimited access to their temporaty “favors” of illegitimate sex. Too stupid to PREVENT pregnancy. It’s “humorous” that these broads then call for “reproductive justice” when what they are actually are calling for is race based genocide (infanticide). Of THEIR own race. These amoral black women (and their babydaddies) have murdered MILLIONS of their illegitimate babies since SCOTUS invented law with Roe. The majority of US abortions of the last 50yrs.
“Firearms are the leading cause of death among children ages 1-19” – utter BS. The leading cause (mostly negro) has been abortion/infanticide.
About 20 years ago after Hillary announced gun death of children (she used 0 to 19 years), I dove into FBI homicide and mortality all cause data.
Removing teenagers (gang members),
Firearms were something like 54th. The biggest killer of toddlers, by far, was laundry powder tubs ( they are curious, tip in, and suffocate).
100+ years after Sanger, the propaganda’s strength shows itself, no?
I’m surprised that one of our local trolls didn’t jump on this from a religious angle, it’s his cup of tea, to a T.
Within the schema of traditional Western thought, that is, Judeo-Christian thought, yes this answer is extremely problematic.
The obvious production of this “decision dilemma” fits well enough with Leftist philosophy that one would be hard pressed to not believe that the dilemma itself is not intentionally manufactured in the Alinsky tradition and based upon his rules.
Without imparting any of my own opinion on the validity or ethics of such a thing, I can state with very high confidence that it will be seen as monstrous, and I don’t italicize that word lightly, by most of the public and that you will be immediately painted as, to put it lightly, a eugenicist.
Further, that public perception is the point of the exercise, to have goaded you into making yourself look terrible by forcing you to a purely utilitarian decision via a synthetic binary choice. As Rahm said, they don’t let a crisis go to waste. This is especially true if they manufactured it for a reason.
“Your real action is your enemy’s reaction”. I’d generally suggest you not give it to them, at least not along the rules they’ve laid out for this game.
To avoid the horns of the “dilemma”, the rejoinder here is questioning how to prevent such situations going forward, not what to do about them in the immediate from a purely mechanistic point of view. This forces them to react to your unexpected behavior and they are now the reactionary you can paint in a poor light, flipping the script of this game.
That is solid advice! Thank you.
You’re welcome.
I’ve just dealt with these assholes long enough to see their games.
They’re used to winning because people have been taking the bait consistently for so long. Which isn’t surprising since it’s generally carefully selected bait that makes the game very seductive.
Outside major academic circles, however, most of them are just following a playbook they don’t really understand. Real-time reaction to unexpected behavior isn’t something they, mostly, can handle. They’re inflexible in that regard.
Wow. This is pure left wing propaganda from start to finish.
From the article:
Despite multiple armed guards on campus at the time of the shooting, and 376 law enforcement officers eventually descending upon the school, no one was able to stop the gunman.
How hard did they try? We have video of law enforcement standing around in the hall twiddling their thumbs.
From the article:
More guns on campuses won’t make people safer, researchers say.
Researchers say links to an article about the the research. Guess who funded the research? Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Founded in 1994 by the efforts of 12 Black women, reproductive justice is “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities,” as defined by SisterSong.
Translation: Reproductive justice is the human right to engage in sexual activity without taking responsibility for one’s actions and dealing with the consequences. What sort of idiot thinks it’s actually a human right to avoid responsibility?
…early evidence suggests a change in social norms and behaviors around masculinity may reduce violent behavior.
They think the problem is too much masculinity?! It’s literally the opposite! These shooters aren’t masculine. They’re highly emotional losers and cowards who pick on people they know won’t fight back. There aren’t enough men manning up to be good fathers. We’re in this position due to a lack of masculinity! We’re in this position because illogical, emotion-driven women like this propagandist are in influential positions of power.
Careful dude you stir up the feminist hornets nest you will never hear the end of their buzzwords.
Yep, worse than farting in an echo chamber.
It is laughable to listen to these college “educated” black broads with their _____- studies degrees with the standard list of buzzwords and waving their protest signage. Can put a “protest” together in an instant.
the sort of degrees they expect you to pay for?….
@Dude:
You’re correct that this is propaganda and manipulation but your method for dealing with it attacks at the wrong angle.
How hard did they try?
Immaterial. The statement about what happened is factual, yes it’s misleading but that’s missing the point of the game. The question following that factual statement is alluding to the concept that something, intentionally left unstated, can be done about it and that the author knows this tantalizing tidbit.
Freire called this “critical consciousness”. Also known as “pure negative thinking”.
It’s a form of what amounts to guruism that is meant to sell you the hidden knowledge by giving you something you already know (you’re so smart) and then alluding to the idea that there’s something you don’t know, which is intentionally hidden from you and which the guru will happily enlighten you on (for an unstated price, Dr. Faust). It’s extremely alluring to most people and therefore a major tactic in cult recruiting and advertising as well as political propaganda. Within politics it’s particularly effective against women once they are scared of something. And that’s who, quite clearly, are the target here; moms.
“Reproductive justice is the human right to engage in sexual activity without taking responsibility for one’s actions and dealing with the consequences. What sort of idiot thinks it’s actually a human right to avoid responsibility?”
In reference to the question: The vast majority of them, actually, though perhaps not on this topic. This includes most of “the Right” as well. Not because they’re bad but because they’re human.
The argument contained in this is, again, extremely alluring to most people, especially when followed up with words like “freedom” (to choose, for example). It’s also a not-so-subtle allusion to “the patriarchy”, which is a self-reinforcing call because the existence of such is a more widely held (though erroneous) view than we’d mostly like to admit.
And the reason it’s alluring and has been for thousands of years is because it offers supposed freedom from the cruelest slave master of all; the reality of our biological being, something that whether we want to admit it or not, bothers us all on some level and has since we reached the “mirror” stage of development.
” They’re highly emotional losers and cowards who pick on people they know won’t fight back.”
They are, mostly, none of the above. They’re extremely vulnerable people who’s vulnerability is being exploited for the purpose of demoralization driving at a goal of social atomization. Some of them going totally off the rails and into *random* violence is a feature of the system, not a bug. It’s expected and desired as it draws attention to *the problem* and thereby reinforces the original argument.
This is straight up Lenin, refined by Mao and further purified to what you might call “weapons’ grade” by several Lefty academics in the past 50-60 years. It is the intellectual version of a blood poisoning at the societal level and it is purely by design.
At one time we could perhaps say that the *offshoots* of violence were accidental, but when someone “accidentally” breaks your window constantly for decades, perhaps a different conclusion is warranted?
And this is where, if you wish to reverse this, you must tread carefully and smartly. Many of the people who are abusers in these cases don’t realize that they are. They too are victims of the same propaganda and brainwashing that they then pass on to others.
Or, more succinctly; “Hurt people hurt people”.
You will not fix this if you cannot change that. And if you insist on a frontal assault you will be resisted to the absolute maximum allowable, which is quite considerable. Ponder that *they* control most of the institutions and LE, and are more than willing to bring them all to bear on you and you will realize that a frontal assault is really quite unwise at this juncture.
An end run is more advisable. I’ve only been discussing the mechanisms of that for, like, five years.
You previously mentioned the “traditional Western thought, that is, Judeo-Christian thought.” I know quite a few people on both the right and the left adhere to the live and let live philosophy. That’s okay to an extent because it usually means they’re tolerant of differences. I think there’s also quite a few on both sides that believe if you’re able to help someone, then you’re obligated to help them. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but that’s how they get support for things like welfare or helping to repel the Ukraine invasion. No one really believes that it’s about protecting democracy. They think it’s about protecting people (even if that isn’t really what happened, but that’s beside the point). If we think that it’s a right to avoid responsibility, then we’ve failed as a society. I understand that part of the appeal of the Democrat Party is built around avoiding responsibility. I don’t think rational, moral people believe that.
We have to do what they did. We have to push our values. Most on the right or libertarian are against this. They’re very uncomfortable with it. They hate using the government unless they’re expanding the military. We handed the left our institutions on a silver platter. They even own the military now. People need to understand that those in charge will always push their values. Do you want your young children being taught gender confusion theory and how to use $ecks toys or have a_nal $ecks? Do you want them to learn how to hate this country, and how to become a pissed off racist lib? Or do you want them to learn good morals and responsibility? It has to be one or the other. They aren’t just going to learn math and science. We need our own propaganda that pushes moral values instead of the typical useless right wing propaganda about lowering corporate taxes, etc.
When I mention “Judeo-Christian thought” my general point is that such thinking in the modern West is unavoidable. Even most Leftists have a considerable amount of such thinking because it’s socially engrained in them. This drives the hardcore Marxists nuts because they can’t shake the cognitive dissonance it produces without reducing themselves to pure Nihilism, which then reduces their own ideological position to meaninglessness as well and… well, they can’t have that, now can they?
Nietszche discusses that in The Genealogy of Morals, starting by stating “For the position is this: in the dwarfing and levelling of the European man lurks our greatest peril, for it is this outlook which fatigues- we see nothing which wishes to be greater, we surmise the process is always still backwards, still backwards towards something more attenuated, more inoffensive… -that in losing the fear of man, we have also lost the hope in man, yea, the will to be man. The sight of man fatigues – What is present-day Nihilism if it is not that? – We are tired of man”.
The West is simply built upon this kind of thinking at the bedrock level. It’s impossible to avoid.
With that in mind, as to your first paragraph I don’t think you’re mostly seeing what you think you’re seeing. Rather you perceive a caricature of a caricature of a mirage curated by media and laundered by propagandists which other people are following for reasons that they themselves do not understand. This produces a wide spread of very odd behaviors. The idea of 5th Gen warfare might be a new term but the concept, ultimately, is not. Information warfare is a thing and it’s warped our perceptions of huge numbers of things. This greatly alters our ability to reason, nullifies many of our heuristics and generally makes things murky, as it’s meant to.
If you want to get philosophical about it I’d point you in the direction of Aquinas, Summa Theologica I-II Question 19 A. 6 “Is the Will Good if it Wills in Accord with Erroneous Reason?”. It might also help to reference ST I Question 79 A. 12 (Synderesis) and A. 13 (Conscience) too.
In a briefer method, I’d simply say that a huge number of the people you’re discussing are not actually pro-*thing* as you suggest. They’re anti-*bad thing*. Anti-poverty, anti-Russian aggression (the root of this idea being too long to insert here but going back nearly 20 years to… well, nonsense).
Such people have been taught that *good* is the opposite of *evil*. Therefore, to be *good* one must adopt *anti-evil* opinions and acts reflexively. You can see how this line of reactionary thinking goes wrong on both sides.
The Lefties hate Putin because they hated Trump, and vice versa. The media associated the two via fraud. They hated Trump because he beat HRC. HRC was good, therefore Trump is bad. If Putin’s associated with Trump and Putin’s a strongman and Trump’s also bad… well… they’re bad. Good people oppose that, dammit! And so, when Putin does whatever he does they will condemn it provided that the act is brought within the window of their limited attention. They’ll do the same with Trump. This is Operant Conditioning on full display.
But in reality this isn’t very much different from Westboro Baptist who’s rejection of a sin has caused them to attack the sinners personally and that’s not popular even within the religious Right. That unpopularity is due, primarily, to the fact that as little as many people claiming to be Christian know about their own doctrine, the churches after ~1520 did a remarkable job of inculcating a level of tolerance that the Catholics couldn’t have imagined 100 years prior. Hell, the Catholics themselves became a lot kinder and gentler. A second, say, Albigensian Crusade, became unthinkable after this even though the end of the last Crusade in history was less than 30 years prior.
This is why I harp on propaganda and the psychology of propaganda so much (more long boring pieces to come once I run down a few things is this giant pile of books and papers). Once people are taught an antagonistic version of morality or ethics (that is, defining their being good by their reaction to what they are told is bad, no matter how little sense that makes) they are rather easy to control if you can convince them of the intrinsic good or evil of an act and draw their attention to it. It’s a really rather effective mechanism for steering a population via social mechanisms. But this mistake can be made clear to them and the ones who are not ideological will cease the behavior. The ideologues will then be pushed back into their tiny little corner.
==
As to pushing of values, I don’t disagree with the premise but I do disagree with the mechanism of using government to do it past a certain point. In that regard you might say I advocate a “light touch” here. The other choice simply isn’t very effective nor is it in any way safe. Let’s be really, really, real here; you want a restoration of the Republic, not the establishment of a strongman or a Right Wing dictatorship. Worse, a reflexive totalitarian state is a real possibility if you go down the heavier handed road because, honestly, the Right’s not going to wield the tools I’m talking about with near the precision the Left does. That’s simply due to a lack of practice. This isn’t something you can really afford to overshoot. That’s how you get Germany in 1935.
Therefore, this is an area where culture is far more powerful over time and in which you really do NOT want to empower government. The latter is a suicide pact for the Republic.
If you go look into someone I mention frequently, Paulo Freire, you will find the answer to how you have arrived where you currently are and thereby derive how to reverse course.
In a nutshell, Marxists noted long ago that Antonio Gramsci was correct. Stable and healthy societies are distinctly resistant to Marxism in all forms. This resistance is a social construct created by institutions within that culture. Courts, education, religion, law enforcement, entertainment etc.
Gramsci noted that the way to attack a stable society was to infiltrate these institutions and poison them overtime as a mechanism to disrupt cultural stability, providing an insertion point for Marxism which could then be introduced into those same institutions via Entryism.
In large part this is what Yuri Bezmenov describes as the KGB’s intent in the hijacking of their cultural exchange programs with the US in the post war period. Once this initial foothold was gained it became the injection point for the work of Freire. He his the godfather of Critical Theory specifically as an educational tool for the purpose of tearing down a society from the inside and creating the instability for a cultural revolution.
The simple fact however is that, as I pointed out, there aren’t even Western Leftists who don’t adhere to the basics of Judeo-Christian thought in some manner and the vast majority of people are nowhere near as internally conflicted or hostile towards such values, they accept them as the norm. You can see that with the rejection of things being pushed in schools these days, Bud Light, Target and with the wild acceptance of the film The Sound of Freedom by really normal people who are decidedly NOT on the hard Right.
It is a statistical impossibility that the people rejecting these things are all on the Right. This is the crack you get at a second Renaissance that I mentioned, oh, starting at least two years ago. The normies are, mostly, on your side. If a light touch is used, you’ll shift the entire culture back 25 years overnight.
If you push the Left back 25 years, you get them to where they were around 1998. A smidgen farther and you’ll push them back under a rock for several decades. If you’re smart, you can keep them there pretty much indefinitely.
And the key to the kingdom is the recapturing of the education system, starting with K-12. That starts with school boards. Happily, if we’re remotely intelligent (and sometimes I wonder about that) we have everything the Left wishes it has on that front.
We have an army of retiring Boomers with experience. Picking a few in each locality that are educated (self education being fine, though I’d prefer a different group in most cases simply due to type of experience) and you have the perfect army for retaking school boards coast to coast. Retired and not in desperate need of money they can do a couple years on a school board before handing it off. And we have the numbers with those people plus GenX and the conservative portion of Millennials and GenZ to run this for at least six decades provided we don’t get lazy. Done right, you’ve got this on lock for more than a century.
Do that, and you’ll control the university system within a couple of years. Combined with a few Federal wins and you’ve got the grant system back in a sane world. You have now aligned the incentive structures back to sanity and it will return very fast because, really, these ideas are fringy minority ideas being enforced by what amount to Commissars via a fear campaign. Once that goes away…
/solved and stabilized.
I like it. I know people get uncomfortable with the idea of projecting power. I don’t mean we need to be heavy-handed in any way. Some type of value system will always be taught. I think we have to make sure we propagate Christian values without being religious because that really makes people uncomfortable. Logical atheists and agnostics understand the value of a society with real morals. People also need to understand what is actually bad or evil. When I grew up in the 80s, I thought it was understood that Com-You-nism was bad. I still remember my grade school teacher giving a quick lesson on why it was bad. I was shocked when I later found out how many people were sympathetic to it. I also grew up in an area (bible belt) where I only encountered one open atheist in the first 20 years of my life. Even after that, I thought they were rare until I discovered the online world.
The only reason the Marxists have gotten as far as they have is because they use people’s tolerance against them. That’s why we’ve already blown past Pride month. It’s now Pride season, and basically Pride year. The Puppet’s handlers even made him say that in a speech on the White House lawn!
I live in a very conservative area. Not only do we have Pride marches every year, but I just discovered that we have a separate Pride festival! It’s like the county fair except, you know, super gae or something. (My son just went to an adjacent county fair and said they were selling pride flags beside confederate flags lol.) They use the same type of manipulation to push race struggle/conflict Marxism. If you disagree with any of it you’re called hoe- Mo -phobic (and now tranz_phobic) or a racist. No one likes getting called that, so they allow the nonsense. We have to stop that as well by taking that power from them somehow.
P.S. I agree with the Putin/Trump Russian/Orange Man Bad theory. It’s really sad to see manipulation on that scale. Also, people on the Right get uncomfortable when I discuss that conflict. What they don’t seem to understand is that I’m against war because I don’t want to see death and destruction. I’m coming from a place of caring about Ukrainians and their country. People need to understand that the USA enables global conflict.
I’m going to break this up so I can give you three links, which WP doesn’t like me doing.
In terms of your comments on tolerance:
https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publications/1960s/1965-repressive-tolerance-1969.pdf
26 pages. Marcuse et al on using tolerance as a weapon and how to do it. The paper is based on a 1965 book known as A Critique of Pure Tolerance (because the author was so, so, so humble that he likened himself to Kant).
Secondly, the Hermetic Library, a reference for the third thing I’m going to link here.
https://hermetic.com/texts/hermetica/index
Long, but searchable in this format. Forms the basis for the rise of certain ideas within Christianity post-Enlightenment which are the basis of Hegel’s ideas, from which Marxism flows. You’ll also find it useful in tracing the capacities of a great number of Malthusians, of which Marx was one.
A lecture on your discussion of how they use name-calling to force people into a “hyper reality”. ~2 hours, extremely detailed and an excellent video to source mine particularly in reference to the Hermetica. Apologies if I snagged a link that sends you to where I was last taking notes.
I’ll check it out.
“This is straight up Lenin, refined by Mao and further purified to what you might call “weapons’ grade” by several Lefty academics in the past 50-60 years.”
The word “putrefied” also comes to mind. Even so, well stated.
“The word “putrefied” also comes to mind.”
Fair point.
Guns ARE NOT the leading cause of death for children.
This article merely exposes the asinine nonsense of these so called “reproductive justice”.
brain briefly saw reproductive juices.
Guns DO NOT Murder People: Criminals Do! Statistics on Violence, Gun Ownership, and Gun Control.
AR15s are INSANELY Safe: The Statistics about how Safe.
Couldn’t get through the first paragraph without thinking that the author was in desperate need of some gun violence. We are never going to stop these people from harassing us except by doing so permanently.
“…except by doing so permanently.”
So, what’s stopping you, then?
Have the balls, and lead by example!
On the assumption that “gun violence” is actually real…
It already is and always was modeled after amoral criminal behavior.
“Founded in 1994 by the efforts of 12 Black women, reproductive justice is “the human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children we have in safe and sustainable communities,’ as defined by SisterSong.”
This leads to “safe and sustainable communities”? Really?
Then how come all forms of violent crime (which did not use a firearm) overall increased 115% average over time to present (starting the increase the year after roe-vs-wade became a reality) but in the first half of 2023 murder nationwide decreased 12% after roe-vs-wade was thrown out by SCOTUS but other violent crimes overall continue to increase in left wing liberal government cities and states where abortion is a common core practice – and firearms use in crimes still remain less than 11% overall nationwide like it has for the last ~50 years compared to all violent crime?
.40 cal Booger,
I always enjoy reading the facts that you provide.
Of course you realize that facts do not matter to a person whose emotions have the final say in their heads. Note that such people simply vomit words with two objectives in their minds:
1) They say something which “resonates” with their audience and gains the audience’s support. (For reference their message needs no factual basis and can even be demonstrably false as long as it “resonates”.)
— or —
2) They browbeat their audience into submission through psychological subterfuge.
Some on the left will also resort to talking loud and long in an attempt to drown out what they don’t want and refuse to hear. This kind of mental attitude is impossible to penetrate. Experience this foolishness, I have.
you mean like all caps?
ANYONE that uses “sustainable” (or “carbon/carbondioxide”) in speech is a moron.
I enjoy explaining to people why stupid people, by blocking nuclear, by actually destroying viable nuclear, have caused massive, gargantuan burn of coal and oil.
” … evidence suggests a change in social norms and behaviors around masculinity may reduce violent behavior.”
like the trans movement stated goal of basically grooming male children into being ‘neutered’ by use of dangerous drugs and surgery to turn them into faux females?
2022, 48.2% of lesbian women reported violence against them in the forms of physical violence, stalking (including with violent assault), or rape by their partners (either by their partner only or with the involvement of male(s) or female(s) bought in by the partner —- two thirds were exclusively the partner female perpetrator, one third was the partner female perpetrator with involvement of one or more males or females perpetrator bought in my the female partner perpetrator).
In 2022, 66% of ‘transgender’ (term as used here also includes those who have either partially or fully transitioned) individuals reported experiencing violence against them in the forms of physical violence, stalking (including with violent assault), or rape, with their ‘partner’ (the term ‘partner’ includes real biological male or female and ‘transgender’) being the perpetrator. (two thirds of perpetrators were exclusively the ‘partner’, one third of perpetrators was the ‘partner’ with involvement of one or more others either real biological male or female or ‘transgender’).
In 2022, 38% of gay and bisexual males reported experiencing violence against them in the forms of physical violence, stalking (including with violent assault), or rape, with their ‘partner’ being the perpetrator. (for perpetrator(s): 3/4 of those the ‘partner’ exclusively, one quarter of those were the ‘partner’ with others bought in that were either real biological male or transgender, with, in the case of bisexual sometimes real biological females were bought in by the ‘partner’)
In 2022, 63% of bisexual females reported experiencing violence against them in the forms of physical violence, stalking (including with violent assault), or rape, with their ‘partner’ being the perpetrator. (for perpetrator(s): 80% of these was the ‘partner’ exclusively, and 20% with others bought in by the ‘partner’ that were real biological male or female bisexuals or a mixture of ‘transgender’, lesbian, or straight males and females).
In 2022, (overall, for all violent crimes including sexually based offenses) 69% of violent criminals were either gay or bisexual or expressed ‘gender identity’ issues.
In 2022, (overall, for all violent crimes including sexually based offenses) 93% of violent crimes were committed by criminals who were politically left-wing.
doesn’t even seem imaginable, i shed my disbelief due to your and your wife’s research.
Degenerates of a feather flock together. And attract each other. By some means.
Not being of such a inclination, I find it unfathomable how this works. As, for example, Hunter Obiden apparently flits from city to city (with his illgotten chicom millions) and at every stop, apparently, instantly finds a new supply of cocaine and attractive hookers. How does this work (hotel employees)? That the cops can’t also figure out/suppress it. Or don’t they what to do suppress it (for VIPs)?
I feel so bad for the hookers.
.40 cal Booger,
“In 2022, (overall, for all violent crimes including sexually based offenses) 69% of violent criminals were either gay or bisexual or expressed ‘gender identity’ issues.”
I need to see rock solid evidence for this particular claim before I will accept it. Why am I extremely skeptical? The reason is simple. Violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of ALL crime–both violent crimes and property crimes. That particular statistic should not be surprising–especially if you realize that nearly all crime happens in our urban Hellscapes where violent criminal gangs abound.
Continuing with the fact that violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of all crimes–your claim that 69% of the violent crime offenders were homosexual, bisexual, or transgender means that the majority of the members of violent criminal gangs are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. I find that extremely hard to believe.
gay and bisexual and gender identity issues are very common among gangs that appear to be straight, but in the closet mostly. It depends on the gang. For example, there are violent trans and gay gangs which have bisexual members as well, I’ll post some examples later when I get more time.
and also to add, gay, bisexual, or gender identity issue gang members is not an unknown thing. In most stereotypical gangs they stay ‘in the closet’.
I’m not sure why this is a surprise to you. for example > https://theconversation.com/what-its-like-to-be-gay-and-in-a-gang-83023
What I posted was this:
“In 2022, (overall, for all violent crimes including sexually based offenses) 69% of violent criminals were either gay or bisexual or expressed ‘gender identity’ issues.”
what you replied was this:
“The reason is simple. Violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of ALL crime–both violent crimes and property crimes. …
Continuing with the fact that violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of all crimes–your claim that 69% of the violent crime offenders were homosexual, bisexual, or transgender means that the majority of the members of violent criminal gangs are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. …”
“69% of violent criminals” does not mean “the majority of the members of violent criminal gangs are homosexual, bisexual, or transgender.”
I said “(OVERALL, FOR ALL violent crimes including sexually based offenses)”
Not all violent crimes are committed by members of gangs. You equated the 69% with all being gang members, I never said that. For example; The Nashville shooter was not known to be a member of a gang and most domestic violence perpetrators are not gang members and most rapist are not gang members … the list goes on and on … although gangs commit about 80% of violent crime in mostly urban areas and some not so urban areas there is also violent crime in areas that are not urban (or in ‘suburb’ type communities) and not gang related and these are also reflected in the 69% where I said…
“In 2022, (OVERALL, for all violent crimes including sexually based offenses) 69% of violent criminals were either gay or bisexual or expressed ‘gender identity’ issues.”
and that 69% includes criminals that are members of violent gangs and criminals that are not members of violent gangs.
.40 cal Booger,
Thank you for the link and additional information.
With respect to violent criminal gangs, I am still having a very hard time imagining that gay, bisexual, and transgender gang members are a significant percentage of their membership.
In terms of the percentages:
Violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of ALL violent crimes in the United States. Location is irrelevant. Even if ALL of the perpetrators of the remaining 20% of violent crimes (not attributable to violent criminal gangs) are gay, bisexual, or transgender, that means the remainder (49%) of the 69% of gay, bisexual, or transgender violent crime offenders are in violent criminal gangs.
That is what I am having a hard time wrapping my head around–that approximately 49% of violent criminal gang members are gay, bisexual, or transgender. (My understanding of violent criminal gang culture in the recent past is that they would NOT tolerate gay or trans behavior in their ranks.)
Plus, aside from violent gang culture considerations, it is hard to imagine that 49% of any large grouping of people would be gay, bisexual, or transgender unless that grouping of people assembled for some explicit purpose directly related to gay, bisexual, or transgender objectives.
Caveat: my simple analysis above assumes a 1-to-1 ratio of perpetrators to victims which may not be anywhere close to accurate at all. It is simply a starting point for discussion.
“Violent criminal gangs commit about 80% of ALL violent crimes in the United States. Location is irrelevant. Even if ALL of the perpetrators of the remaining 20% of violent crimes (not attributable to violent criminal gangs) are gay, bisexual, or transgender, that means the remainder (49%) of the 69% of gay, bisexual, or transgender violent crime offenders are in violent criminal gangs.
That is what I am having a hard time wrapping my head around–that approximately 49% of violent criminal gang members are gay, bisexual, or transgender. (My understanding of violent criminal gang culture in the recent past is that they would NOT tolerate gay or trans behavior in their ranks.)
Plus, aside from violent gang culture considerations, it is hard to imagine that 49% of any large grouping of people would be gay, bisexual, or transgender unless that grouping of people assembled for some explicit purpose directly related to gay, bisexual, or transgender objectives.”
“that means the remainder (49%) of the 69% of gay, bisexual, or transgender violent crime offenders are in violent criminal gangs.”
You once again ‘equate’ incorrectly. It doesn’t mean that at all.
The “69%” of the criminals, not “69%’ of the crimes. Some were gang members are some were not. You are saying that since 80% of violent crime is committed by gangs it must mean that 49% of the gang members are gay, bisexual, or transgender.
“(My understanding of violent criminal gang culture in the recent past is that they would NOT tolerate gay or trans behavior in their ranks.)”
Yes and no.
gay, bisexual, or transgender ‘identifying’ – tend to remain ‘in the closet’ and play their expected ‘heterosexual’ role in strictly ‘heterosexual’ gangs. But not all gangs are the stereotypical ‘heterosexual’ gangs you are used to thinking about, and some tolerate gay, bisexual, or transgender ‘identifying’ if they are useful to the gang as long as they continue to not be open about being gay, bisexual, or transgender ‘identifying’. For example, its not uncommon for gay or transgender ‘identifying’ gang members to be kept around even though its suspected they are gay or transgender ‘identifying’ because they tend to be suitably violent or have skills the gang can use.
Then there are ‘hybrid’ gangs that are primarily ‘heterosexual’ but are accepting of gay, bisexual, or transgender ‘identifying’ as members because they are closely related to other gang members.
But for the most part, in gangs that are primarily ‘heterosexual’, gay, bisexual, or transgender ‘identifying’ stay ‘closeted’ and play their expected ‘heterosexual’ roles.
And yes, some gangs do not tolerate it at all. And also, some gangs have an ‘opposite gender’ component, for example, an all male gang might have a small numbers female component that’s not a part of the main gang but associated and used to do tasks ranging from prostitution to drug running to support the gang financially and it may employ lesbians in that component because, for example, they also serve a purpose for prostitution for female clients of the gangs ‘businesses’ who may be bisexual or lesbian.
“Location is irrelevant.”
Well, it depends on the location. For example, primarily male gangs in California would have a higher likely hood of having a closeted male gay person than say, for example, a primarily male gang in Great Falls Montana.
To add:
In 2022, as in past years the main ‘environments’ in which ‘transgender’ experienced violence involved prostitution, drugs, risky sex practices, and partner-perpetrator violence alone accounting for more violence against ‘transgendered’ than all other sources combined.
I mean, I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but the “reproductive justice” people have been following the “reproductive justice” model, and now Roe v Wade is history, and at least 20 states have brand new restrictive abortion laws.
Signed today in Iowa. The infanticide squad apparently will be sending TWO HUNDRED per week to the Peoples Rep of Minn for their murder. Despicable. Iowa doesn’t have a particularly high # of blacks or dems/progs. They must be breeding at a huge rate.
So, we should be modeling gun-control after a movement that encourages irresponsible behavior with no consequences and has racked up a body count orders of magnitude greater than what the gun guys have accomplished? Yeah, sounds like a brilliant idea.
You mean like staying married to the mother of your children, and working full-time to support them?
I’m guessing that’s not the sort of social norm she’s talking about.
normies are the problem to be fixed, (yes).
It seems family values are indeed hated by certain groups.
Some people think by emasculating boys they will be less violent. The evidence I see suggests the opposite.
Lopping of their Johnson and trying to make faux girls isn’t going to “fix” it?
It’s bad. From kindergarten on they are told to be quiet, sit still, they are bad because males are bad. Testosterone makes them bad. But if you take these shots and grow breasts you too can be accepted as human. If on top of male you are also white you killed and enslaved !! Hate yourself!! So they tune out, hide in the basement, and very rarely drive trucks into crowds. The woke culture is destroying boys.
Those pretty blue haired teachers are destroying children.
Someday, many switcheroonies like Bruce Jenner will miss the ability to parallel park and will begin the process of transitioning back to their former selves.
The intentionally weakened are the most dangerous when they fall for it.
They will nearly never confront their adversaries directly because they have been trained not to via conditioning, but they still dislike the abuse. Instead they will brood over their dislike until it becomes a hatred. Then they hatch a plan to catch their perceived enemies by surprise.
A strong and confident boy or man may fight and lose but will generally fight fairly in argument or even a match of fisticuffs.
Those abused and weakened will tend to lash out most viciously and go to great lengths to conceal what they are about to do and to whom they plan to do it.
“These birds of prey are evil, and he who is as far removed from being a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb – is he not good?” is an apt description of how the people running education work, it’s also stupid, counterproductive and, on some level, quite dangerous.
Some lambs will be pushed to far and, without a healthy outlet, realizing that they cannot truly strike the birds, will tend towards taking it out on other lambs for the sake of vengeance against those who failed to stand up on the behalf of the abused.
Or as Ed Norton, said in a far more entertaining manner:
Anyone who made it past eighth grade should know gun control was initiated as an effort to keep control of and at disadvantage those thought to be lesser humans. Blacks, Indians, Irish, Italians, recent immigrants, etc. Always with the claim of public good or public safety.
With the current efforts, as always, it is not about the hardware, but all about being able to have authoritarian control over the serfs and peasants. Can’t have those poor and less deserving or politically undesirable capable of resisting their betters.
18 & 19 year olds are considered adults by the government to pad your numbers is dishonesty!
Nice euphemisms for paying a failed doctor to kill your kid
Cantations and fairy dust to escape reality. Armed officers cause trauma? Wow! More than perps who shoot up schools? Maybe you should do a little research and back up your delusion with evidence.
I can’t begin to state how many times I’ve read, reread, studied, cross referenced and analyzed the Founding documents of our Nation. I’ve yet to find the term “Reproductive Justice” in those August Documents. It’s not there, stated or implied, which therefore, it doesn’t exist.
Roe v Wade, created a Right that doesn’t exist, and that’s as Unconstitutional as it gets.
Even Ruth Bader- Ginsberg, stated in more than one occassion, that Roe v Wade would not survive Judicial Review. That the Burger Court’s decision was erroneous and an Unconstitutional Overreach by the court. She urged Democrats to pass legislation that would codify the right to Abortion because Roe v Wade wouldn’t survive. They ignored her.
Anytime I read or hear someone spouting psychobabble like: “…centering a reproductive justice approach, it is possible to establish safe and supportive communities to raise children with proactive systems and initiatives…” I want to throw up.
Disgusting, meaningless drivel.
Intersectionalism is uh-maze-ing. It really is.
I mean, that avalanche of bullshit is actually internally consistent and logically sound if you know what’s being said. Sure, it’s rooted in a series of false premises which means the conclusions are garbage, but a damn fine piece of logic flows from those premises.
There are a few errors, such as “…and early evidence suggests a change in social norms and behaviors around masculinity may reduce violent behavior.” Which is actually an open admission of not knowing fuck-all because your dataset is woefully inadequate to form a predictive model, but hey, follow the science, amirite?
Regardless, if you’re interested in manipulation, propaganda, Leftist philosophy, entryism and generally defeating all of the above, this article is worth bookmarking and referencing back to. It’s really a rather handsome example of how these people operate.
Huge amount of replies. Remember, never give up the premise. In this case the author does for us on more than one occasion:
“But this rationale is solely reactive “
Wholly incorrect, armed officers at a school are most clearly Proactive!
“Firearms are the leading cause of death among children ages 1-19”:
I believe this is also completely incorrect unless you include suicide (which of course would be accomplished by any means).
“It is time to be proactive“:
That’s what armed school staff are. There’s never been an attack at a school with known armed resistance. You’re making our point for us, please continue.
whatever happened to “keep your comments brief”?
In the fast-paced world of online marketing, it’s crucial to make your brand stand out from the competition.Geek Web Solution offers (Search Engine Marketing) SEM services that enable you to reach your target audience through paid advertising campaigns. Our SEM experts develop customized strategies to maximize your online visibility and drive qualified traffic to your website. We utilize platforms like Google Ads and social media advertising to create targeted ads that resonate with your audience. By optimizing your ad campaigns, monitoring performance, and continually refining our strategies, we ensure that your SEM efforts deliver the best possible return on investment. With our SEM services, you can enhance your brand’s reach, increase conversions, and achieve your online marketing goals.
Comments are closed.