(02-15-2020, 06:56 PM)Mystic Wanderer Wrote: Up for discussion:
I fear for the next generation who are buying into this crap of "no gender" nonsense.
It's also why they want to break families apart and have single parent homes. Children grow up without having the
balance of male/female energy to help guide them toward a successful life/future.
Since 99% of the creatures on this planet benefit from male/female procreation, questions can arise of:
Why is a 'no gender' agenda being promoted...? who gains from this?
I agree that family unity is being undermined and if those same 'Powers-That-Be' had a well-being-based outlook on the
way a society should flourish, then surely a two-parent relationship would not only assist in rearing generations of prepared
children into adulthood, the encouragement would ease assistance from said political-jurisdiction.
But they don't.
So what can be obtained from having a single-parent household of one possible income, one particular gender-based
guidance and only one adult to protect the children during their development...?
Well first-off, financing a family becomes a problem and a reliance on a separate regime becomes standard.
Male and female parents teach their children to deal with life with a duel perspective, to trust that a woman's perception
holds values that a man's awareness may lack. And -of course, visa-versa.
Two weapons are better than one.
With the accepted 'traditional' view that males role fulfil in a family is to acquire food, utilise its mass and strength
to protect the brood and female, I would suggest the priority would be to alter the male's outlook on what a male's
personification really is.
The female tends the offspring, nurtures and promotes mental growth and is the backbone of a child's development.
Every male knows that his part in the whole action of rearing a family is orbited around the female, for she is not only
the tutor to the children, she is the producer of them.
I'd propose here that to constantly convince females that her position in a family unit far outweighs her partner's
representation and ergo, eject the male from the situation, it is an ideal way of isolating the female and weakening
any strong network between the trusted male.
Divide and conquer.
And what for...? To perform such tactics would add a burden on social management, on the financial running of a tribe,
country or planet. It would weaken human confidence in itself and lead to what the MSM like to call 'mental issues'.
But it does assist in making humans more compliant and make it easier to control the herd in general.
The dilution of standard gender roles creates chaos on many levels, it confuses and dissuades unity and single people
are easier to control than an agreeing group. One's self-preservation beliefs can be bombarded with external influence
and without trusted parents to boost confidence, values and thinking can be changed to benefit a different tribe or group.
That child becomes pliable, but the basic need to seek solace in a trusted unit is still there and this is where the external
force steps in. Rules are administered -just like a true parent would do and assignments given.
The female will be resigned to her original role of child-producer -but the whole atmosphere of being a woman will be
extolled so that she comes to believe she is still independent and strong. Whilst the male will be issued with doctrines
that ensure fear of a stronger masculine force is always their if he dares to attempt to be what nature built him to be.
The standard manner of sexual intercourse will be diminished and a sense of homogeneous interaction will be popularised
under the banner of freedom from outdated-moralistic-control. Men and women cannot create a family unit if they only lay
with those of their own sex and through popularisation of physical desire, will ensure that no possible tribe can be created
to oppose such control.
It's how you make -and keep, individuals weak.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.