Women and men

Elder Oaks made an offhand observation in General Conference that I disagree with. Now, this doesn't mean that I'm questioning the veracity of prophets, seers and revelators, merely that I think an offhand political reference he made was mistaken. There's an old joke, which is funny because it's true; Catholics believe by doctrine that the Pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, although none of them really believe that. Latter-day Saints believe that the prophets are just men, subject to frailties and error, except when under the explicit direction of the Spirit (and even have the example of the 116 pages right there in first few sections of the Doctrine & Covenants to prove it), but none of them really believe that either. 

Elder Oaks believes, as have many other prophets before him, for that matter, that the Constitution was a divinely orchestrated document, set up among righteous men by divine intervention, who had had scores, if not hundreds, of generations of preparation to be exactly the kind of people who would establish such an order, specifically so that the Gospel could be reestablished in America just a few years later. I believe this too. Elder Oaks also believes that some of the later amendments, like the expansion of the voting franchise to women and Fake Americans was inspired. I absolutely do not. I think the original Constitutional premise of only allowing franchisement to those who had skin in the game, i.e, property-owning male citizens, was an inspired situation, and feminism all the way back to the women's suffrage movement, was Satan playing on the envy and covetousness of the descendants of Eve to demand what had been given to Adam; dominion over the Earth. Righteous dominion, to be sure. We've been carefully warned of unrighteous dominion, and it's easy to translate dominion into unrighteous dominion if you're not very careful, very thoughtful, and very caring of the women and children under your care. But the caution against unrighteous dominion is in no way meant to be a call to abdicate our righteous dominion; in fact, such should be seen as a cowardly and unworthy act for any man, especially one who holds the Priesthood of God.

Before I begin, a taste of the data. I personally am prone to dialectical arguments, although I know that most people are incapable of being convinced by dialectic. As Aristotle himself observed thousands of years ago, there are those who are incapable of recieving instruction, refering to people who only understand rhetoric, or emotional dialogue, rather than dialectic, or factual dialogue. So, I present to you this small sampling of the data. Not as a comprehensive thing, but as a place to start.

https://thosewhocansee.blogspot.com/2020/06/fall-of-empire-thy-name-is-woman_30.html 

Women's role is both of supreme importance and a source of satisfaction for most women. Ever since women have coveted and started encroaching on the role of men, not only has society had a rapid decline in every measurable aspect, but we've seen especially the rise of anxiety, depression, and other mental/emotional maladies, especially among women. Especially among big-city, career-driven women who have rejected the role of women and tried to embrace the role of men. To quote Madeleine Dahlgren, an anti-suffragette and a woman of keen insight and wise counsel, "The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. … The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. The special advantage as a safe advisor to man that woman holds at present arises entirely from the neutral ground she occupies in the political world. … The fact is, women reason less and feel more deeply than men. … Take woman out of her proper sphere, and in place of man's precious and true guide and best coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy."

For those of you limited to rhetorical speech, who find that emotionally triggering, all I can say is read the article. It's long, but worth it. And even if you don't, ask yourself if her prediction hasn't completely come true. Yes, it completely has.

Anyway, here's a bit of rhetorical stuff, cribbed from a comments of an article posted by Vox Day. The author is a woman, and she gets it just like Madeleine Dahlgren did. Women and men are simply different in many respects, and because of that difference, expecting them to slide into and out of each other's preferred roles and to do so successfully is complete rubbish. It's disrespectful not just to men to suggest that women can replace them, but also to women, who are indirectly told that being a woman isn't good enough; they need to be Fake Men to be fulfilled, etc. Read the following and think about how that has impacted our society. How has it impacted our freedom? Our social and political and legal landscape?

Women are naturally prey animals; they naturally, usually unconsciously, look for protection. The chatting, the 'being social' with a man from whom they are TAKING something (his time and effort, his protection, the possibility of him being hurt letting HER escape) is part payment for his 'offer' to her.

How do women deal with fear? NETWORKING! By looking to those around them for support and help and 'a group.' Being alone, being shunned or cast out of the tribe MEANS death. It's why women are so easily swayed by their milieu (and thus the destruction of our nation)!

So, by chattering with her protector-escort, she is ensuring his attention on protecting her, else he might wander off and leave her unprotected. And, 'charming' is how women work to get their way' again: consciously or not.

And yes, women are ALWAYS scared. Ask your peers: does a man EVER EVER think to himself, before going down the drive to his mailbox, if he is safe to do so? Even in many dangerous areas; it NEVER crosses him mind. NO woman ever thinks about going down the drive to the mailbox after dark without thinking, however fleetingly, of her safety. Even IF she lives in a safe-ish White area! Men NEVER get this about women's minds!

Alison Armstrong, a good educator, talks about one of her co-ed seminars, where she asked the men to hold up their hands if they have felt physically threatened in the past year. Some hands go up, but few. Okay, if you men have felt a physical threat in the past month, leave your hands up. Fewer hands still up. How 'bout this past week. No hands.

Okay, women: hands up if you have felt physically threatened in the past year. Nearly all hands go up. Past month? Only a few go down. Past week, still only a few go down.

Alison then tells the men: LOOK at how many hands are still up, for having felt physically threatened in the past week. This is not something wrong or strange about women. This is how woman are BUILT to feel. You men generally have no conception of being afraid pretty much most of the time. Nearly all women do!

Think that's stupid; start asking women around you. See if they'll just head out of the house for the mailbox at night. See if they leave a store, at night, at dusk, more and more during the day, withOUT checking their surroundings. Do NOT assume women feel the way you do. Prey vs. predator.

I hope by pointing it out everywhere I can that a least SOME men and women will begin to realize that women really and truly ARE fundamentally different from men.

Alison Armstrong also teaches, 'modern' women have been taught to view men as 'large hairy women who misbehave.' This was eye-opening for me. Men will do or say something that no woman EVER would do except to a hated enemy, for reasons that entirely make sense to MEN.... and women have been brainwashed to attribute that to men being bad, not to them being MEN! (i.e., the hoax of toxic masculinity.)

I used to ruefully say to my husband... 'I do NOT understand how you could POSSIBLY see this-or-whatever that way. I accept and acknowledge that this is how you, and most men see it ... but it baffles me completely.' I also differentiate carefully between MEN and males... But, when a woman re-orders her perception of 'how men are' -- then his actions or words, seen through the MEN-FILTER, usually makes total sense.

A little bit personally, my wife will readily admit that she is an exceptionally emotional person, even for a woman, and that she feels very deeply certain things. I greatly value her counsel on a great many things, many of them beyond the scope of the home and family; just two days ago, for instance, I sought her counsel on a ministering issue that I had and if she thought my proposed response was appropriate or not. I value what she does well, and I recognize it, and I think that it is worth preserving, appreciating, etc. But there are other things where her advice is going to be bad. She does feel a lot of irrational fear (and even she admits that it is irrational—but it is real fear nonetheless) that will often, without my help, lead her to making bad decisions based on that fear and trying to alleviate it.

Men and women are supposed to be partners and compliments to each other. Women should not covet or envy the "glory" of masculinity and attempt to usurp it, and men should not covet or envy the "protected" status of women and stand aside and shirk their responsibilities as men. Men and women should work together, bringing to bear their own respective strengths, and respecting the strengths of the other. Women coveting the vote was an early example, and a dam-breaking moment in fact of the later flood of such actions, of doing the exact opposite of that.

Martyr for America

The Z-man often takes a somewhat fatalistic pose, even when he is otherwise saying sensible things. There's a lot of sense in what he's saying here. I'll quote this particular post, almost in full, because I think it has relevance. What it doesn't have yet, are any solutions. The Z-man is correct to point out the grifters of conservatism, but given his own fatalistic, "we're all doomed" approach, it's hard not to occasionally see him as a variant of that in his own right. That said, he's considerably more cogent and salient than some idiot like Rob Dreher or Kevin Williamson, or the others of back-stabbing Conservative, Inc., so I'm not likely to stop reading the Z-man anytime too soon. While his analysis isn't necessarily so brilliant that I haven't figured out most of what he's saying on my own, he says it considerably better than I do. I just find his "oh, well, throw up your hands because there's nothing to do about it" routine rather tiresome. Not that I have any solutions either, at this point, other than to pray for the delivery of our people from bondage the way Alma did when under the thumb of the Nephites and Ammulonites.

The Derek Chauvin trial came to a speedy end yesterday with the jury finding him guilty on all counts. What this means is they thought he intentionally caused the death of George Floyd and unintentionally caused the death of George Floyd. To a normal person, this makes no sense, but it is another reminder that America stopped being a rational society a long time ago. In a sensible society, this trial never would have occurred, because George Floyd would never have existed.

Lots of people were jubilant over the result. They do not know why they are happy, as they lack the ability to reflect on their own actions. They just know that their tribe won and that means they should be happy. That is the nature of liberal democracy. It is always about “who” and “whom” because everything is partisan. Those people celebrating are not happy for themselves. They are happy because they believe their enemies, real and imagined, are unhappy at the result.

It is not a lot different than a blood feud. When one side kills a member of the other side, it is not about righting some wrong or solving some problem. It is about adding more blood to the feud. That is how the Left sees white America. It is the people they hate and anything they can do to harm a white person is automatically good. Most of those people celebrating know nothing about the law, policing, crime, or the people involved in the incident. They just know Chauvin is white. (ed. and of course that George Floyd was black. No one could have predicted that the greatest false idol offered up for worship in the latter-days would be black people, because the notion is so intensely stupid that who in the world could ever have predicted it? And yet... here we are.)

Of course, the other side of this, the sensible white people trying to make sense of what is happening, are not happy. Many were willing to be reasonable and meet the other side halfway on this. Maybe Chauvin was wrong or made a mistake. Maybe he should face some sort of punishment. Maybe he needs to be made an example so other cops are more careful. They thought that was the point of the system. The jury would do the right thing and find a suitable compromise.

Those sensible white people are waking up to the terrible reality of America. The system they have spent their life trusting is now as irrational and deranged as those people celebrating in the streets. America is not the land of Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other Founders. It is not the land of Abraham Lincoln. It is the land of Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez. They not only run the country, but the country also runs by the deranged logic of their minds.

For sure, many will rationalize what happened in order to stick to the old civic nationalist slogans they love so much. “This will be overturned on appeal” or “we have to take our country back from these Democrats” will get a lot of play. This is behavior of people in a cult when the tenets of the cult are disproven. Instead of accepting that beliefs were false, they internalize the disconfirmation into a justification for a more intense commitment. These people will decide to vote harder.

The parasites in Conservative Inc. will fund raise off this, telling those people desperate for answers that they will fight those liberals on their behalf. In a bankrupt society like America, every event is a chance for the grifters to grift a little bit more. You can be sure the conservative talk show hosts were popping champagne last night when the verdict was announced. There is nothing better for the conservative grift than losing, which is why they have been making sure to lose for generations.

Many, though, will let go of that last reed that was tethering them to the old America they grew up believing was real. Many will go through the stages of grief, maybe skipping to step three by this point. The realization that this is not their country and they are now second class citizens will not bring them comfort. It will free their mind of the frustration of believing in a myth. They will quit Red Team and start the process of looking for a new team, which will lead them to this side of the great divide.

This is the reality of a cultural revolution. The people smashing the system in the name of the revolution are beyond reason. It takes time for the rational, the people who make society function, to come to grips with it. Little by little, one martyr at a time, people do come to grips with this reality. You can be sure that every white cop in America is having the conversation with his wife right now. He may not know what to do, but he no longer sees himself and his job the way he did not so long ago.

It is frustrating, of course, for the people who have been on this side of the great divide for a long time. How is it that white people cannot see what is happening and where this must inevitably lead? The fact that no one was born on this side of the great divide, and we all made our own journey, is easily forgotten. For those on this side, this is the new normal and it is hard to imagine thinking any other way. The other side is a foreign country populated with people living a delusion.

That is the real test in these times. Those who have opened their eyes and see what is happening have to avoid being bitter about it. The job at hand is to wake up as many people as possible, ignore those who cannot open their eyes and help those staggering into the sunlight adjust to this new normal. There will be many more martyrs in the days ahead. Every war has them. The challenge is to give their martyrdom meaning so that one day, there are no more martyrs to our cause.

Statistics

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-violence-merrick-garland-gun-politics-gun-violence-7ddb30681ca3abbf1a0faa286e3df7b2

Fake President Joe the Pretender has signed some fake laws into effect as executive orders. They won't be successfully challenged, even though they blatantly violate the Consitution, because the Courts and the Legistlature are unable and unwilling to do so.

There's no such thing as a gun violence epidemic in America. What there is is a black crime epidemic. If you run the "gun violence" statistics and separate them by race, what you'll find is that the white gun violence crime rate is identical to other white European countries where the gun violence rate is apparently to be admired rather than embarrased by, such as the Dutch gun violence rate, or the Danish gun violence rate.

But I've mentioned many times before that the statistics, although they tend to make people sad to be aware of them, show that clearly black males are an order of magnitude more likely to commit violent crime than any other group, including MENA Moslems, although they are also much more likely to commit violent crime than white people. That's where we are; diversity means actual difference in attitude, in behavior, in culture and in society. It just is. Although I'm not a huge Ben Shapiro fan, he's right about one thing; these facts don't care how you feel about them. They're true nonetheless.

Elder Oaks talk

I've seen a number of liberals point to Elder Oaks' talk as "blasting" "right-wing extremists." And as being completely unprecedented as a political, American talk. Both are completely nonsense.

Of course, the way that they're attempting to link it as blasting "right wing extremists" is largely based around the "mob attack on the Capitol" hoax. Given that the media and the federal government has doubled down on promoting the hoax, I can't exactly fault them for believing that, I suppose. Five years after the popularization of the term "fake news" plenty of people still get their "news" from... the news, I suppose. Otherwise, as I've pointed out before, video clearly showing the "mob" being waved in by the police, walking peacefully through the velvet ropes, etc. shows that of course it wasn't a "mob" at all... with the exception of a few bad actors. Many of whom have been identified as left wing agitators known from Black Lives Matter mob action.

See, that's a mob. When we endured the better part of a year straight of left wing extremist mob action and a few liberals are breathlessly heading for the fainting couches over a hoax mob of right wing extremists, I think Trump supporters can confidently assert that Elder Oaks' talk doesn't apply to them. Even if Elder Oaks himself believes the right wing extremist hoax himself. His advice is universal, however—it applies to whatever specific situation is on the ground. 

It is ironic, however, that the actual supporters of mob violence are trying to utilize his talk as a cudgel... against people who only wanted to support the Constitution itself. Although from what I know of the Left, that can hardly be surprising. There's a reason why every prophet for a hundred years warned us in General Conference about Leftism, usually under the labels of socialism or communism, up through Ezra Taft Benson at least, although quotes of a similar nature can be found by Gordon B. Hinkley and Thomas S. Monson as well. I think a lot of liberals try to sweep that under the rug and pretend that it didn't happen, and that Ezra Taft Benson was some kind of political anomaly in the Church who must not have been speaking prophetically when he lambasted Leftism, but that requires accepting that same paradigm for Elders Joseph F. Smith, David O. McKay, Harold B. Lee and Heber J. Grant as well, who spoke just as pointedly about politics. For that matter, nothing that they said is inconsistent with remarks made by Brigham Young, and even Joseph Smith, and for that matter, all of the prophets, when they've expounded principles that are opposed to Leftism, albeit without the specific label. 

Similarly, Elder Oaks' talk is not some kind of fluke. Almost all of the prophets have made similar remarks about the Constitution. President Benson gave a similar talk in 1986. Elder Oaks himself gave a talk that in many respects was nearly identical to the one he gave recently back in 1992. This isn't the first time I've noticed that a General Authority has dusted off an older talk and reworked it somewhat to give it again when they felt that it was relevent to do so, but I particularly noted this one, because I was given that talk specificially by my Bishopric a few years ago to use as source material for a talk that they asked me to give for the Independence Day Sunday.