new

I am amazed by the number of liberals who understand how the natural environment is interconnected and that all events have innumerable repercussions, most of them impossible to predict, and who appear completely unable to understand that the same principles apply to the social environment. If the social environment is radically altered, as it will be with the acceptance of the idea that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, widespread and fundamental changes with unpredictable repercussions will follow, yet so many rush heedlessly ahead. As with emitting CO2 in the natural environment, often the act that will radically alter the environment appears harmless at first glance. But unlike the situation with CO2, no one in academia, Hollywood, or mainstream journalism will alert the public of the dangers, lest they be blackballed.

Since humans evolved in small groups, the construction of large, self-sustaining societies that provided well for the welfare of the members has been difficult and has quite often led to failure. Any large society we construct will likely be quite fragile, like a house of cards. The adoption of same-sex marriage throughout a society would be akin to simultaneously pulling out a great many cards in this fragile structure.
One of the key elements in this fragile structure is the duty to protect or care for other members of the society. This obligation originates with the duty that all men have had historically to protect all women in the society and the corresponding duty of women to nurture all men. This has always made men feel obligated to and connected to all the women in the society and the women to the men. Reducing traditional gender roles has eroded the strength of this feeling of duty, but it can still persist as long as men feel an attraction to women and women to men. However, with equating homosexuality with heterosexuality, the universality of opposite sex attraction is eliminated, this duty vanishes, and the society is atomized.

Liberals often claim that preferences for gender roles and heterosexuality are socially constructed, when it appears clear that biological differences developed from millions of years of evolution across the great majority of species explain the gender roles and the predominance of heterosexuality, while the beliefs that the genders are the same and that homosexuality is the equal of heterosexuality are completely socially constructed, in a somewhat Orwellian fashion. This Orwellian crusade resembles the efforts of alchemists of a bygone era who tried to alter what they did not understand. These modern crusaders will likely be about as successful as alchemists, but with far more tragic consequences. This crusade also brings to mind Mao’s Cultural Revolution, where people were deemed to be equal in ability and suitability to tasks regardless of their actual situation, and retribution was swift toward anyone who questioned this.

Given that lesbianism is rising rapidly among the lower socioeconomic classes, it’s probable that life will soon become hellish for most non-elite men, who will be lonely and lost, and that the middle class will disappear among a rising tide of violence, crime, poverty, and homelessness. This will terminate the social contract for young men, as they will no longer be assured of love, marriage, and children even if they work hard and follow all the rules, and many of them are likely to feel isolated and become alienated. I wouldn’t be surprised if a great many become antisocial and even violent, and I suspect that more than a few will go on shooting sprees.

Political/legal systems are mostly arbitrary, while the laws of nature are not, implying that a political system delegitimizes itself, not nature, when it arbitrarily imposes an unhealthy and unnatural form of equality.

A man who found six children in his driveway in Newtown, Conn., after their teacher had been shot and killed in last month's school massacre has become the target of conspiracy theorists who believe the shootings were staged.

“I don’t know what to do,” Gene Rosen told Salon.com. “I’m getting hang-up calls, I’m getting some calls, I’m getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I’m lying, that I’m a crisis actor, ‘How much am I being paid?'”

Rosen, a 69-year-old retired psychologist who lives near Sandy Hook Elementary School where the shootings took place, says his inbox is filled with emails like this one:

How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting’. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov’t sponsored hoax anyway?

“The quantity of the material is overwhelming,” Rosen said, adding that he's sought the advice of a retired state police officer and plans to alert the FBI.

On the morning of Dec. 14, Rosen had just finished feeding his cats when he saw six small children "sitting in a neat semicircle" at the end of his driveway. According to the Associated Press:

A school bus driver was standing over them, telling them things would be all right. It was about 9:30 a.m., and the children, he discovered, had just run from the school to escape a gunman.

"We can't go back to school," one little boy told Rosen. "Our teacher is dead."

Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old gunman, had shot his way into the school and opened fire, killing 20 children and six adults.

Rosen took the four girls and two boys—students of slain teacher Victoria Soto—into his home, gave them toys and comforted them while he tried to reach their parents. He spent the days following the massacre telling his story to the swarming media that invaded the small Connecticut town in the wake of the shootings.

“I wanted to speak about the bravery of the children,” Rosen told Salon. “I guess I kind of opened myself up to this.”

A quick Web search for Rosen's name reveals some of what he's opened himself up to: Appearing online are photos of his home, his address and phone number, several fake YouTube accounts and plenty of conspiracy theories.

One post, entitled "Grieving Town Grandfather, or Bad 'Crisis Actor,'" reads in part:

Gene's oft repeated, and changing, story about that day, focuses totally on the kids and the sound of gunshots. Even though his eyes and ears should've taken in the whole scene, his story focuses completely on the kids and the guns.

Why? Well, if this was a false flag event designed to move political opinion on gun control, here in America, then you would get a lot more bang for your buck by talking about the innocent little children. That's what tugs on America's heart strings the most ... especially around Christmas time.