Friday, September 4, 2020

The Truth about Gender Theory

Gender theory postulates that masculine and feminine characteristics and gender roles are merely a social construct of the culture in which we live. The reasoning then is that there is no difference between boys and girls, and we can change genders as easy as changing our clothes. Much of modern gender theory can be traced back to sexologist\psychologist John Money. John Money was a deviant who among other things supported pedophilia. This will become evident in an experiment he conducted that much of gender theory is based upon.

John tested his gender theory by essentially using two twin boys as lab rats. The twin’s names were Brian and David Reimer. David had lost his penis as an infant in a botched circumcision attempt, his testicles were also later removed. His parents took him to John Money who convinced them to raise David as a girl. So as an infant David was raised as a girl named Brenda and not told the truth about his identity. During David and Brian’s sessions with John Money, he directed the twins to inspect each other genitals and forced them to reenact sexual positions and motions. In at least one of these sessions they were even photographed.

When David grew older he became discontent with his identity and when he was a teenager his mother finally told him that he was born a boy. From the age of 15 onwards David decided to live life as a boy, but the psychological scars remained for both him and his brother. Brain took his life in 2002 by overdosing on anti-depressants. David took his own life two years later by shooting himself in the head with a sawed-off shotgun. This sad and twisted tale is what gender theory is based upon.

First things first, gender is a linguistical term, not a biological one. In recent years, sex and gender have been obfuscated, but this hasn’t always been the case. Any pre-politically correct dictionary will tell you that sex and gender are synonymous. The 1828 Webster’s Dictionary defines “gender” as “sex, male or female.” In simplest terms, it means “beget, or to be born”. A person can conceive of an infinite number of genders, which have no scientific basis, but biologically there are only two.

Gender theorists will claim gender is solely a social construct. It’s true that some things could be considered a social construct. For instance, in the West the color blue is associated with boys and pink has been associated with girls. However, our gender roles are not purely a social construct. Men and women each have different hormone profiles that affect our behaviors differently. Men have more testosterone which makes them more aggressive, competitive, and physically oriented. Additionally, they produce more of the hormone vasopressin which makes them very protective of their loved ones. Women, on the other hand, produce more estrogen and oxytocin which them more sensitive, emphatic, and nurturing than men. This is the reason why in ancient cultures, with few exceptions, traditionally the men were the warriors and hunters of society while the women were the homemakers and caretakers of society.

Gender and biology are intertwined, and biology is not a social construct. The gender roles we have developed organically over thousands of years. You can’t artificially change gender roles and identifies without disrupting the social fabric of society. What gender theory has done is to create new problems that have not existed before. They have created an entire generation of confused kids who will grow up to be dysfunctional adults. This will be the true legacy of gender theory.

Sunday, April 12, 2020

The Worst Pandemic that Never Happened


COVID-19 was sold to us as the worst pandemic since the 1918 Spanish Flu, which killed an estimated 50 million people worldwide and caused 675,000 deaths in the United States.  On March 16, 2020, the Imperial College London (ICL) predicted that an unmitigated epidemic would cause 2.2 million deaths in the US alone.  Adding, even in the best-case scenario, with extreme mitigation and treatment, 1.1 to 1.2 million Americans would still die.  Gabriel Leung, chair of public health medicine at Hong Kong University, said that COVID-19 could infect 60 percent of the world’s population and kill 1 in 10 of those infected -- killing 50 million people worldwide.

These dire warnings inevitably snowballed and created widespread fear and pandemonium.  Panicked shoppers stocked up toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other goods creating a supply shortage.  The media predictably jumped on the bandwagon with their nonstop media coverage.  Governors and mayors, in turn, responded by enacting extreme quarantine and social distancing policies effectively shutting down the US economy.  This same scenario played out all over the globe causing the greatest viral panic the world has ever seen.  However, it didn’t take long for the initial projected deaths to become revised:

On March 29, 2020, NIAID director and White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci lowered initial estimates to between 100,000 and 200,000 American deaths.  

On April 8, 2020, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) revised their estimates from 94,000 deaths to 60,400 deaths, a decline of 26 percent.

April 9, 2020, Dr. Fauci said the final toll currently looked more like 60,000 deaths rather than 100,000 to 200,000 deaths.  Incidentally, an article co-authored by Dr. Fauci had predicted that COVID-19 “may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

In less than a month the estimates were revised from 2 million to 60,000 deaths.  Currently, there are 21,993 deaths in the US as a result of COVID-19.  No doubt that number will increase before this is over, but it has yet to compare with a bad flu season.  For instance, according to the CDC 61,000 Americans died during the 2017/2018 flu season.  There were no mass quarantines, stay-at-home orders, or economic shutdowns when that happened just two years ago.

According to Dr. Fauci, the models were revised down because social distancing has been effective, but how can we know that for sure?  There’s a certain degree of plausible deniability involved no matter the outcome.  If the initial estimates were correct then the experts can say “See, we told you so.”  And if the initial estimates were wrong the experts can say “See, we saved you!”  In other words, even if they’re wrong, they’re still right.

It appears unlikely that even with extreme social distancing measures the initial estimates could be lowered so drastically within such a short period of time.  Especially considering many of the models did factor in some degree of social distancing.  Regardless, how do we account for countries like Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Iceland, and Sweden among others?  These countries are dealing with COVID-19 without taking the same extreme social distancing measures, and they haven’t experienced exorbitant death tolls as a result.  Taiwan, for example, currently has had 388 cases of COVID-19 and only 6 deaths.

There are several things we must reevaluate in light of current events.  The first is the blind faith we put in computer models.  Models are not crystal balls, they can’t predict the future with any degree certainty.  They are designed to persuade and change behavior, and that is exactly what they have done.  Second, we should reevaluate the faith we put in the “experts”.  Experts are good at what they do, but it also makes them prone to tunnel vision.  They see problems and solutions only as it relates to their field of expertise. The experts do not take into consideration the social or economic ramifications of their recommendations, and are often unable to relate to life outside their own narrow field of specialization.  Expert advice must be balanced with the real world and the people that live in it.

Finally, we need to reevaluate if these drastic measures were warranted in the first place.  We’ve had pandemics before, such as SARS in 2003 and H1N1 in 2008, but we’ve never taken these kinds of actions before.  Not even during the Spanish Flu were such actions taken.  Yes, they had quarantines and partial economic shutdowns due to labor shortages, but not a nation-wide economic shutdown like we are experiencing now.  The actions we are taking are unprecedented and we don’t fully know the extent, especially to the economy.

The economy is our life-blood. There is never a good reason to shut down the entire economy because if we lose the economy we lose everything.  If that happens a pandemic may be the least of our problems.  A depression would cause untold misery, unemployment, and food shortages.  In addition, if the economy goes so goes our healthcare system, leaving us in a worse position if we need to battle another pandemic.  As President Trump said, "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself."

At the time of this writing, there are approximately 113,902 deaths globally as a result of COVID-19.  While a single death is still a tragedy, it must also be put into perspective.  Seasonal flu kills an estimated 291,000 to 646,000 people worldwide each year.  The H1N1 pandemic killed 151,700 to 575,400 people globally.  In comparison, COVID-19 is shaping up to be the worst pandemic that never happened. However, the consequences of our actions will have long-lasting repercussions.  It may take us years if not decades to fully recover from it.

Thursday, January 2, 2020

How sexual revolution exploded (and imploded) across 1920s Russia

Travesti parties, Vladimir Lenin advocating sexual freedom, nudist anarchists aboard trams, a nude beach near the cathedral of Christ the Savior… such was Russian life at the beginning of the Soviet state. What could possibly go wrong?

“Stark naked people wearing armbands reading “Down With Shame!” have recently appeared in Moscow. A group was seen boarding a tram. The tram stopped, the public was outraged,” Mikhail Bulgakov, the famous Russian writer, wrote in his diary in 1924. Just 15 years prior to that, women could not think of going out in a knee-long dress. But did these changes happen overnight?

Pre-revolutionary Russian society, especially in the capitals, was not puritanical in nature. An anonymous soldier born at the end of 19th century recalls (link in Russian): “at 10, I had already been exposed to all kinds of lewd behaviour… Pornographic pictures were not exactly a rarity.”

Cross-dressing, travesti and gay parties were popular in artistic circles, with even a certain few noblemen having been known for being gay. Party life, often involving multiple partners, was a regular pastime for some. However, male homosexuality was a criminal offense… until Bolsheviks came onto the scene.

‘Glass of water’ – fake theory? 

 

Ideologically, sexual liberation was one of the key weapons in fighting Orthodoxy, and the old order in general. Among early Bolsheviks, the key propagandist of a new family order was Alexandra Kollontai, Russian revolutionary and later, a diplomat. There’s a popular theory often attributed to Kollontai – that of the ‘glass of water.’ It states that love (and consequently, sex) should be available to anyone as easily as asking for a glass of water. This, however, is a gross oversimplification of Kollontai’s idea. 

 

Kollontai promoted a concept of the ‘new woman’ – one freed from the oppression of marriage, household work and the business of  raising children; all these chores must be taken on by society and state. They would take on children’s education (including sexual), urge a move toward a nationwide catering industry, collective housing, foster care and so on. For Kollontai, love was to be freed, too – civil partnership would take the place of traditional marriage.

Obviously, Bolsheviks were building their policy on family along the most progressive lines – something that would not be seen in the West for decades. However, the onus was now on the individual, and such all-encompassing freedom was simply too much for the agricultural, barely urbanized Russian society of the 1920s.

New world's dark corners

“On the abolition of marriage” and “On civil partnership, children and ownership” were among the first decrees of the Soviets in 1918. Church weddings were abolished, civil partnership introduced. Divorce was a matter of choice. Abortions were legalized. All of that implied a total liberation of family and sexual relations. This heralded the beginning of the raunchiest epoch in recent Russian history.

A relaxed attitude to nudism was a a vivid sign of the times: on the bank of the Moskva river, near the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, a nude beach formed, the likes of which Western Europe could not have dreamed of at the time. The aforementioned “Down With Shame!” society had held numerous marches, one numbering as many as 10,000 people. Alexander Trushnovich, a monarchist, recalls (link in Russian) one of their gatherings: “‘Down with philistines! Down with deceiving priests! We don’t need clothes – we’re children of the sun and air!’ – a naked spokesman was shouting from a stage in Krasnodar’s main square. Walking past this place in the evening, I saw the stage dismantled... and somebody beat up the ‘child of sun and air’”.

All of these wild developments had been taking place while Russia was still in the midst of the World War, as well as the Civil War. Amnesties in 1917, 1919, 1920 and beyond freed a great many criminals in a country where state power had only begun to form. The masses of criminals were joined by defecting and discharged soldiers.

Rape by 1920s has become an epidemic. Quite strikingly, sexual violence towards former noble and bourgeois women was for a time even considered “class justice” among the proletarian males. Meanwhile, up to 20 percent of Russia’s male population had carried sexually-transmitted diseases (although in Tsarist Russia in the beginning of the century, the numbers were 25-27%). New laws on marriage and the overall atmosphere of breaking with the past encouraged promiscuity and casual approach to sex, unthinkable just years ago.

Soviet society was breeding a dangerous generation of homeless orphans – official reports indicate that, by 1923, half of the children born in Moscow had been conceived out of wedlock, and many of them were abandoned in infancy. The pendulum of sexual revolution had to swing back – and if it didn’t, it had to be pulled forcibly.

‘Winged Eros’ of Soviet oppression

Already in the first half of 1920s, when sexual liberation was still in full swing, the Soviets had set about promoting traditional values… again.

In 1924, psychiatrist Aron Salkind publishes ‘12 Sexual Commandments of the Revolutionary Proletariat’, that read “love must be monogamous”, “sexual intercourse must only be the final link in the chain of deep and complicated feelings connecting two people in love”.

Even as “Down With Shame!” were parading naked through the Moscow streets, People’s Commissar of Public Health Nikolay Semashko wrote that such behaviour “must be most categorically condemned… At a time when capitalistic monstrosities like prostitution and hooliganism are not yet eliminated, nudity aids immorality… That is why I consider absolutely necessary to stop this disgrace at once, with repressive methods, if needed...”

Soviet leaders did not want the population to squander its energy on self-gratification anymore. Severe austerity and cutbacks were introduced. Women’s rights groups were in decline. Moreover, the women themselves now barely had any reason for the education the feminists had so desperately fought for: no sooner had the woman been freed from the traditional, patriarchal society the Bolsheviks sought to remove that she was being brought back into the kitchen, having to cook for her worker husband; meanwhile,  factory rations were already being redistributed, which made home cooking a necessity. Kollontai’s “new woman” was new for just about a decade.

Now, the family was once more the basic unit of society. Decrees were reversed one after another. Finally, by 1934, homosexuality had been re-criminalized, and a ban on abortion reintroduced (1936). This did not lead to a reduction of the free woman’s propaganda value, of course. Because now, she could “do it all” – perform the communist task of forging the revolution, while also being a mother, wife, cook and cleaner.

For decades to come, sexuality and erotica would be completely shunned by Soviet culture and society – and considering this, it is no wonder Russian society had become so hypocritical about sex. The next sexual revolution would take place only in 1990s.

Original article: https://www.rbth.com/history/328265-russian-sexual-revolution

From the 45 Communist goals for America:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural and healthy."

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.