The Consequences of Using Pseudo Science

Hitler used the pseudo science of antisemitism to dehumanize the Jews in order to justify the murder of six million Jews as well as to gain the public support of the German people for his actions. Just as today’s pro abortion advocates dehumanize the child growing within their mothers womb; by referring to the fetus as a clump of cells in order to justify the millions of unborn children murdered through the means of abortion as birth control.

Advertisements

Echos of Feminism

By abandoning both marriage and the traditional male role within the family the leading lights of today’s MRM are simply following in the footsteps of the feminists. Who hate, condemn and eschew the institution of marriage and the biological role of women within the family.

The fact is that a child’s best hope for a successful future and a life devoid of poverty is to be raised within an intact family composed of a man and a woman. Being reduced by divorce and/or choice to parenting one’s own biological children a day or two out of the week while standing on the sidelines during a crisis one’s child is experiencing, as an expression of fatherhood, is an extremely poor and unwise substitute for interacting with one’s children on a  daily and/or moment to moment basis.

The Unfortunate Consequences of Feminine Immodesty

1TIM 2:9 & 10:

“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.”

Down through the years women have blasted men for treating them as sex objects, making unwanted passes at them and outright sexual harassment. So it has simply become a matter of rolling the eyes and shaking one’s head as here we go again whenever a case such as the “Standford Rapist” comes along.

The simple truth is that men were created to become sexually aroused whenever they saw their wife’s naked body while the Father Above implanted within women a sense of modesty that was designed to prevent them from exposing their nakedness to anyone but their lawful husband.

Madison Avenue certainly understands that men are by nature visually aroused which is why they use scantily clad pictures of photo shopped genetic celebrities (women who are sexy because they are young and fertile) to sell their products.

What the feminists won’t admit is that the average woman whether she is worldly or a Christian is well aware of the affects her fertile sexuality has upon the men she comes in contact with. Indeed that is why she chooses to leave the sanctuary of her home in order to appear in public with the curves of her body clad and clearly outlined in skintight jeans and shirts that are in reality at least one size if not more too small. As well as the low cut dresses whose plunging neckline not only points to her breasts; but exposes the top of her bosom to the eyes of any male onlooker whether he views her from behind while she is sitting down or when her breasts nearly fall out of her dress whenever she bends over for what ever reason. And the short shirts that give the causal observer a clear view of her nether regions when they ride up her legs as she gets up and down and moves around.

Just as Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, placed herself in the position to be sexually assaulted (Genesis Chapter 34) when she left the safety of her father’s home in order to visit the ungodly daughters of the land in which her family dwelled.

Just as a drunk driver whether male or female fully consents to the tragic consequences of their actions when they choose to get behind the wheel of a vehicle after having too much to drink.

So too do women whether ungodly or Christian fully consent to the consequences of being whistled at, commented upon, sexually harassed and or sexually assaulted by the way she dresses. All of which she has invited by choosing to ignore and defy the Biblical Counsel to dress and comport herself with modesty in order to indulge her sinful and prideful nature by dressing provocatively while appearing in public.

Indeed the woman who chooses to expose her nakedness and leave nothing to the imagination by the scanty clothing she deliberately chooses to wear out in public. Is just as guilty and as much a sexual pervert as the man who uninvitedly exposes himself to women and children.

Ladies (and I do indeed use this word loosely) your sanctimonious and faux outrage whenever a male showers upon you unwanted attention simply won’t wash any longer. So long as you continue to invite that treatment by the way you deliberately choose to put the curves of your physical assets upon display like candy in a store window by the way you dress.

Why Bullying – Sociopathic Behavior – Is So Common

The Difference In A Sociopath and A Psychopath

The primary difference in a Sociopath and a Psychopath is this: A sociopath is a cowardly Predator who manipulates someone else – an unwitting or willfully blind proxy – into  doing their dirty work and/or into  pulling the trigger for them.  While a Psychopath is a predator who has the courage to commit their  own crimes instead of duping someone else to do it for them.

There are four kinds or Types of sociopaths:

1) Those who are born without a sense of empathy for others…

2) Those who are made into social paths by resisting and/or fighting back against the person bullying them…

3) Those who chose not to exercise empathy towards others and/or intentionally prey on another person…

4) Those who are taught to be a sociopath because they are superior to others…

The best way to identify a sociopath is through careful observation of their behavior patterns over time.

True sociopaths – those who are born that way – are some what rare while those who chose to be social paths are extremely common.

A sociopath is an individual who believes they have the absolute right to prey on others because they are superior.

Believes that they have the right to exploit the labor of others for their own profit.

That they are above the law.

Engage in sociopathic behavior in the outright theft of the property and natural resources of a less powerful group.

Seeks employment in organizations that allow them to have power over others in order to abuse that power.

Resorts to emotional abuse and implied violence in order to get their way.

Uses dishonest intellectual arguments to bolster their opinions in order to deceive others.

Believe they are entitled to having their own cake while eating someone else’s.

Examples of sociopaths both past and present:

Feminists

The Republican Party

The Democratic party

Conservatives

Liberals

Christians In Name Only

The One Percent

Sharon Osborne who thinks that it is funny when a woman brutally sexually mutilates her intimate partner

Women who divorce their husbands for non Biblical reasons, falsely accuse their husbands and/or the father of their children of Domestic Violence, child and sexual abuse and manipulate their children into turning against their fathers.

Members of the court and law enforcement who both aid and abet women in legally and financially abusing the former love of their life.

Those who chose to be sociopaths are quite common, come from all walks of life and tend to congregate in these professions: CEO’s of major corporations, Lawyers, Judges, Politicians, Management and the Health Care System: Doctors, Nurses etc.

Those who stand outside prisons celebrating the death of a individual being put to death by the state.

Why Sociopath’s Are So Common

This article is based upon my own personal observations of individuals  who willfully engaged in harmful acts towards others and myself  without seeming to have a personal sense of remorse. Indeed  the conclusions I have reached are the result of over forty years of personal observation; and is the only rational and logical way that I have come up with to fully explain and make sense of their behavior without excusing them.

One must first have a working definition of what a Sociopath is and that entails defining the harmful and negative behavior they engage in towards others as Sociopathic. I personally define Sociopathic Behavior as any behavior that causes harm to another individual whether it be physical, emotional or mental abuse. Hence I define a Sociopath as an individual who willfully engages in Sociopathic behavior by harming others without a sense of remorse.

If true Sociopaths are rare being approximately 1 – 5 % of the population then why do so many “NORMAL” average individuals willfully choose to harm others by engaging in Sociopathic behavior without even the slightest hint of remorse?

How did Hitler – a Sociopath – manage to convince an entire nation of mostly “NORMAL” individuals to persecute and murder six millions jews without a sense of remorse?

Why do men willfully bully other males without a sense of remorse and justify their actions by calling it male bonding?

Why do male and female bullies single out the one individual in their group who is different in some way from the others to heap their scorn upon without a sense of remorse?

Unless Sociopaths are far more common then anyone thinks then their can be only one answer; and that is that the CONSCIENCE which gives one their sense of right and wrong and the ability to govern their behavior towards others can be subverted or entirely switched off. So that engaging in sociopathic behavior that harms others becomes perfectly normal and justified.

Hence rich families teach their children that they are entitled to their unearned wealth and that others who aren’t as wealthy are worthless, shiftless and lazy. Small wonder that these children then end up abusing the power they have over others who are less wealthy without a sense of remorse.

Racists are taught to hold other races as inferior to their own and deserve the contempt they heap upon them.

As a general rule individuals who engage in sociopathic behavior habitually consider themselves to be superior to others – whom they hold in contempt – and believe that they are entitled to prey upon.  Instead of esteeming others better than themselves as the Bible teaches: those who engage in sociopathic behavior towards others hold themselves up as the standard by which they measure everyone else and judge all those who fail to measure up as inferior and unworthy and hold them in contempt.

Consequently Sociopaths are not only born but there are those who intentionally chose to be Sociopaths and others who are taught/trained to be Sociopaths. For anyone who chooses to engage in Sociopathic Behavior by harming others, whether without remorse or avoids feeling remorseful by subverting or turning off their conscience by justifying their actions, is in my own humble opinion a SOCIOPATH.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/18/it-all-about-contempt-how-bullies-really-think-about-others/

Not Much of a Difference

Both liberals and conservatives arrogantly claim the moral high ground in regards to abortion as a means of birth control: the willful act of murdering a child in it’s mother’s womb.

Unfortunately for liberals once one gets past their claim that a woman has the absolute right to control her own body. By coming to the realization that her actions in seeking an abortion as a means of birth control, is in itself an acknowledgment that she failed to exercise proper control of her body in the first place. The validity and morality of their argument utterly fails when liberals both deny the personhood of the child growing within their mother’s womb. Then demand that those who find such an act of murder despicable pay for the abortion through the tax dollars they are forced to pay by their own government at the point of a gun – force of law – in taxes.

On the other hand the conservative argument also fails because by using the power of the government to impose their own narrow minded moral viewpoint on another. Gives credence to the interference of individual personal liberties by the overreaching hand of government they all too often rail about in other debates on other social issues.

Neither are the hands of the conservatives clean nor are they free of the stain of immorality for even though they oppose abortion as a means of birth control. Modern day conservatives have absolutely no qualms about allowing the child they save from the abortionist’s hands stained with innocent blood. To die by starving to death from malnutrition or lack of medical care if the child’s parents can’t afford food or medical care – even through no fault of their own – by opposing the programs put into place to alleviate child poverty and universal healthcare for all citizens.

Hence the moral posturing of liberal’s and conservative’s on the issue of abortion as a means of birth control is neither moral nor acceptable and can only be characterized as ABSOLUTELY REPUGNANT!

If It Were Left Up to Republicans

Many years ago at one of my father’s family reunions my dad’s oldest brother was ranting and raving about how government regulations hurt business. So I asked him, “If a company was deliberately putting food tainted with a poison on the market did the government {in his view} have the right to step in and take the tainted food off the market and prosecute the company?”

His answer was an emphatic “NO!”

Today’s Republicans rant and rave{ just like my uncle did} about the evils of government regulations yet they don’t specify which regulations are bad and should be repealed. Leaving the impression that all regulations are bad and that we’d all be better off if the corporations were allowed to run amok doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted to whomever they wanted.

So I have to conclude that if it were left up to Republicans:

Not only would the American countryside be just as polluted with industrial wastes as East Germany was discovered to be; after the fall of the Berlin wall led to the corresponding fall of its communist government. But today instead of writing this essay I would be DEAD and MOLDERING in my Grave instead of walking away from the accident I was involved in a several years ago.

When without any warning whatsoever a large male deer, standing in the middle of the road, suddenly appeared in my headlights as I was driving to work that morning before daylight. Which the front end of my light blue Ford Taurus hit while traveling approximately fifty-five miles per hour just as my foot touched the brake petal. Were it not for the seatbelt holding my five foot six inch two hundred pound body in place and the drivers side air bag, which blew outward from the steering wheel into my chest and up into my  face. I would have most likely been thrown out onto the road through the front windshield that is if my chest hadn’t ended up being impaled on the steering wheel.

So if it had been left up to the Republicans {who hate government regulations with a passion better reserved for their illicit love lives} the government regulations requiring seatbelts, air bags and shatterproof windshields would never have been written.

Which quite simply means that cars would be quite a bit cheaper -er slightly more affordable- but I would be dead along with many others who have been saved by these safety devices.