The End of Co-Ed Education

So... I am a chess enthusiast. Here is how someone who thrills to combinational game theory sees recent events:

Liberal opposition research and political operatives read the books written by Judge Kavanaugh's boyhood friend about their drinking and carousing in their high school days. Armed with that, all they needed was a girl who went to school contemporaneously and nearby who is also a "True Believer."

They create a narrative back when it looked like Mitt Romney might be president and Kavanaugh was on his short list and use the material from the book to create the narrative and provide some level of corroboration. This narrative included having one of the True Believers seek out professional help to document a "repressed memory" that never happened.

Romney loses.

Trump wins.

Trump nominates Kavanaugh. (I believe at the behest of the Feminist Republican Senators from Alaska and Maine and I believe they are in on the gag.)

The repressed memories surface after the judiciary hearings. The woman of this sordid he-said-she-said drama cannot remember:

Where the party was
Who she went to the party with
How she got there
How she got home
None of her friends can corroborate that she went to the claimed party
Nor anyone else at the party
In fact, there is no evidence that this party happened
She was not old enough to drive

BUT she remembers the names of both boys from another school!!!

I can't imagine that she is going to be willing to be questioned under oath, although she might be pathological enough to make a statement under oath and then disappear before standing up to scrutiny.

Feminism has become fully weaponized. What is next? Licenses for sexual activity and sexual security cameras where the action is filmed from start to finish to assure that everyone stayed within the lines? Obviously, we cannot be trusted to work this out between ourselves. Society must protect our male children, our young men, and every other man from predatory and weaponized Feminism.

At one time, marriage was the safe harbor for sexual relations. No more. Now there is no safe harbor for heterosexual men—anywhere. 35 years is not enough distance from "Weaponized Feminism." Being a teenager offers no protection—for boys. For girls, it is another story completely.

Did anyone alive today read Huxley's "Brave New World"? Or Orwell's "1984?"

Those writers painted a grim future for humanity—one in which children are conceived without sexual intercourse.

Radical Feminists like Julie Bindell & Company dominate the Left—and their clearly stated goal is the end of heterosexuality.

The Left has become the most anti-social political organization since the squalid criminals and goofballs of the Third Reich. This level of evil boggles and bends the mind. And to what purpose? To keep the abortion ovens burning.

Why are Friends aligning themselves with these people?

Sometimes I think I am the only normal person left.


QIASL

Some Hard Truths About Political Coercion, Violence, and Hypocrisy

There are many wonderful and fulfilling aspects of living a long life. There are a great many humbling realizations too. It is a funny old world. In an essay I wrote many years ago I described the human condition as the "arrogance of youth followed by the hypocrisy of age." I think that is a reasonable one-liner on the subject. Nowhere is our hypocrisy greater than in the use of violence and coercion. The generation that protested the American war in Viet Nam has been in power in the United States since Bill Clinton took office in January 1993. 25 years!

What did this generation do? Did they bring the peace they so rightly agitated for to the world?

It seems to me that as we age we become supportive of others—the police, the military, Planned Parenthood, the IRS and other government tax agencies, the "intelligence community"—to engage in violence by proxy (original to me; feel free to use it early and often) to achieve moral, political, and personal agendas. We all know, intuitively, that using force, violence or coercion on our fellow man is evil. Somehow, the ethics of it all is improved when we hire a proxy to do the dirty work. And there are always people willing to carry a spear for money/status/prestige—and some will do it just for the fun of it—these are the proxies. Failing to reject the violent and coercive activities of proxies is complicity in their activities.

Support the War on Drugs? Support the War for Oil? Support the confiscation of private property to pay off your favorite charity case (or worse, to pay off part of your political coalition)? These are all acts of coercion or violence by proxy. We, as individuals, would not commit these acts ourselves. Why would we support policies to have others commit these acts for us?

Well, that's a complicated question. One that doesn't really need to be answered, because we must not fund and/or support others who are willing to commit acts of violence or coercion (for rank, money, a pension, status, or whatever their motivation is) for our personal moral, political, or personal agendas. Please note that the aforementioned does not preclude using violence for self-preservation for the state or self-defense for a human being, but it does preclude killing people to keep cars on the road (oil) or to prevent them from having agency over their own body (drugs). And that requires us to think for ourselves, and stop thinking that we need to thank people who got paid every Friday for their "service." The next time someone asks you to thank some government career employee "for their service" I hope you will keep this in mind:

There are people doing far more dangerous work to keep a roof over their family's head and food on the table. No drama.  No pensions. And no "thank you for your service." It is not even close. The occupations best defined as "willing to carry deadly weapons for the government and use them on their fellow man" don't make the top 10 most dangerous occupations—but they pay A LOT MORE than the statistically most dangerous occupations.

If you are called to non-violence, to reject the use of coercion and force, then you must reject violence by proxy to achieve ALL moral, political, or personal agendas and outcomes. This is as true for private property and personal agency as it is for sex. Coercion is evil. We can't get a little bit pregnant when it comes to coercion.

Of course, rejecting coercion means the acceptance of a human nature and all of our foibles, because the definition of foible is subjective—and man is exactly what he was meant to be. The idea that some special interest political group can improve on human nature through the use of government coercion is the definition of ("the) hypocrisy (of age") and ("the) arrogance (of youth"). And of evil.

It is the Socio-Economic Framework—NOT the Chickens

Our community is engaged in a serious outreach effort to meet young families from outside of the area who are interested in our way of life and the socio-economic framework of a real and productive family homestead. There is a great deal of unproductive and unhelpful noise on the web, but we are doing everything we can to get our message out to those who it might help. We are also willing to provide some assistance to families to help get them started, but we can't do everything. People have to have some skin in the game.

We have memorialized a detailed approach and framework to the transition to move from the urban and sub-urban socio-economic model to a very different rural socio-economic model, but it is only for those people who are ready, willing, and (most importantly) able.

Somehow, some people have taken to calling this way of life "homesteading." We think it is better described as the resettlement of the American countryside, but "homesteading" is as good a moniker as any. We don't think that "homesteading" is anything you want it to be. We think you need a goal, a destination, and a clear objective if you are going to succeed. If your life's ambition cannot be defined, it is unclear to me how you will get anywhere. To succeed at anything, you must have a method to measure your progress.

Or you can wing it. And fail.

There is only one socio-economic "homesteading" model that is proven to work over the long term. Every other model—communes or collectives, political activists, social justice and gender warriors, rugged individualists/loners, and people dependent on government assistance (government disability), do not have any history of success to point to, let alone intergenerational success. But our model does. A family and a community define a homestead—not a goat, a couple of chickens, and a half dozen tomato plants.

Does that offend you? Well, good. Does this ring true to you? Well, that's good too. We need to make distinctions. A homesteading community is not a cult. We are not looking for bodies like a nursing home out hunting for a government check. We are looking for families and young couples with whom we can engage in cooperative interdependence. People we can build something around. People who have something to offer—now, and in the future. Because the future belongs to our children and the people who have, raise, and care for their children. No community can survive without children to take our place—for we are all mortal. Those people who have decided on a childless existence, have also decided against an investment in their own future and are not a good fit for a cooperative and interdependent community. A cooperative and interdependent community needs families. 

A "homestead" is a family with resources (to get started), skills (to provide an income), and a willingness to work and to think for oneself (to reduce interference from outside forces that will keep you dependent). A homestead community is a group of families who have a bond and an allegiance to each other, and not some far off political struggle of strangers. No community can survive the poison of outside politics or grandiose efforts to change human nature. No family can endure the influence of the gender wars and victimhood. 

It is not a homestead's workhorses, or cisterns, or garden that makes it work—it is the entire framework of a family cooperating within a community to provide a path to the future for the generations to come. No children means no future for the community. For no way of life can be called "sustainable" unless it accepts our mortality and develops a culture that will give future generations a culture and a way of life to hold on to. A family needs food, shelter, clothing, culture, stimulation, and tradition. A family means children. And that means someone has to provide for them and someone has to care for them—until the youngest is an adult. You will need an income—not a job or a career. Your homestead will be your career. You will need some capital to get started, and you will have a learning curve. That means you need time (youth).  

What will your life be? An adventure? Or a hamster running around the suburban maize with an extra 50 or 100 lbs on your back just to make it more miserable than it already is. Because that is the current construct. It takes planning, courage, and brains to escape its clutches.

Want to know more about this way of life? Read "Prosperous Homesteading." If that doesn't scare you off you can come for a visit. Someone will be happy to show you around.

Treat the Cause Not the Symptom

Well, I am back after a long hiatus from blogging to finish up my new novel, "Seven Years of Famine," due out  April 1. "Famine," as I call the book for short, is going to knock people on their butts. I give great story and the book is—without question—the most politically incorrect novel of the politically correct period.

Let me remain politically incorrect and make an observation that cannot be proved or disproved because it is simply not testable. But that is what writers do. They observe. And here is my observation:

The feminization (we are long past emasculated) of men, the obesity epidemic, and the rampant belligerence and rage of our time;

are all symptoms of a base cause.

The media is having a field day with the absurd image of Jared Kushner in Iraq. I can't imagine why. Or should I say, why is it that Kushner appears ridiculous and the women in the photo above Kushner are "strong and independent?" I think the media should turn the cameras around and look at themselves. Kushner is the natural outcome of a human infant who came home from the hospital to a climate controlled, sterile, artificially illuminated environment where comfort and convenience were prized above all else, and so are the women in the above photo.

Childhood obesity is getting worse (click the link!!!!), and some researcher somewhere projects (I have no idea how) that 75% of the Millenial generation will be obese before their 40th birthday? You don't say!

"MALE INFERTILITY CRISIS IN U.S. HAS EXPERTS BAFFLED"

Nonsense. The "experts" are not baffled. They are scared to death of offending the Authoritarians. The media is only too happy to talk about falling sperm counts and testosterone in men, but the endocrine status of women seems to be off-limits, as is female obesity and mental health. Why?

I very respectfully submit that there is no such thing as a "cure" for a symptom.  I further submit that there are no macro solutions to any of this. It is up to the individual to go after the cause.

And Jared Kushner, nay all effeminate metrosexual men, deserves the same empathy that the "body acceptance" people demand their victim group. The enemy isn't Republicans, Democrats, the Left or the Right. The enemy is the universal comfort and convenience of modernity.

If you are interested in maintaining your sanity, your health, and building a real-life: email me at greg@quuchurch.org. You don't have to live like that.

A Friend of Man (and Israel)

Several years ago an article was published in the WSJ: “The Quakers: No Friends of Israel.” I was appalled and embarrassed.

How did this happen? How did an article like that get published? Why were Friends not outraged? Frankly, the article escaped my perusal at the time it was published, but when I (finally) saw it I had an epiphany: The national “Quaker” organizations, if not the local meetings, have been seized by political extremists and are now taking political positions in the name of American Friends. Including seeing to it that this article proclaiming their opposition to Israel and the Jewish people in favor of the Palestinians was published.

Why?

The vast majority of those taking a hardened position and opinion are not students of the history of the region or the history of the parties involved, have never lived in or visited Israel, and "know" only what they have been indoctrinated with, and yet Friends let that article go unchallenged and unconsidered.

Why?

The philosophies of the American Friends and the philosophy of the Jewish people are almost perfectly compatible. In fact, I would assert that the Pennsylvania Friends, William Penn in particular, were informed by the Jewish philosopher Maimonides, and Friends’ practice of silent and expectant waiting is, without doubt, a direct expression of our Jewish cultural heritage (click the link to an excellent article, one of many, by Rabbi Brant Rosen).

Some form of silent worship has a long tradition in Judaism, one that our people has regrettably allowed to lapse. The Talmudic sages would “be still one hour prior to each of the three prayer services, then pray for one hour and afterwards be still again for one hour more.” (Moses Maimonides) interpreted this as silent motionlessness in order “to settle their minds and quiet their thoughts.”

In this new age of Reason, most of us have come to reject the dogma and the infallibility of ancient religious texts and recognize our common humanity, while accepting that some groups of people are not interested in subjugating and subsuming their culture into the whole. On a personal level, I reject the idea of “peoplehood,” ethnicity, and race identity. But that does not mean to suggest that I would use force or coercion on those who feel differently, and I am completely untroubled by the inconsistency of rejecting “peoplehood” while thoroughly enjoying the cultures created as a result of “peoplehood.” People will associate, disassociate, propagate, miscegenate, evolve, and devolve as they will and must be free to do so. Humanity will be unrecognizable to any of us in a thousand years.

But who is it in America, and in the West in general, that has taken this stand against Israel, and the absurd posture and policy culminating with the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement? Well, it is the same political interests that have seized control of the national organizations claiming to speak for American Friends. I think we all know who “they” are. “They” are the inherently violent political factions that hate family, children, property, and liberty in general—and the United States and Israel in particular. They are the purveyors of anger, the promulgators of propaganda, and the sworn enemy of the life force that provides humanity with a path to the future. We all know whom I speak of. Apparently, it is not enough to hate America, the moral and political scions of the greatest political achievement ever—the Friends' creation of Pennsylvania. Now we must hate Israel, too.

So I say to Israel, and to the Jewish people:

This Friend is your Friend. I consider you, and all people of reason and peace, to be Friends. All of us have been confronted with the incredible and overwhelming evidence and discoveries regarding our existence that has come to light since the dawn of the Age of Reason and that have swamped and routed the explanations that came from an earlier time in human history. The Jewish people have made greater contributions in this effort than any other “peoplehood”—and they have also suffered the “blackest crime in human history". One wonders if these are not related (and I do not mean to belittle the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cambodian Killing Fields, the Cultural Revolution, the Ukraine Famine and Stalin in general, or the slaughter in the Congo; these are also “the blackest crimes”).  Please do not think or believe that American Friends are “no friend of Israel.” I don’t know the precise genesis of this story, why the WSJ thought it was worth publishing, or why more people here were not appalled by it—but I have my suspicions and I am working to counter the disturbing ideas of these people in my sphere of influence.

Gregory T. Jeffers
Quaker Universalist and Unitarian Church, Inc.

Israel Gets It, Russia Gets It

Demographics trumps politics in any intergenerational struggle for primacy. No belief system, no faith, no political ideal, and no socio-economic strategy can overcome demographics. Quakerism collapsed in North America. It was almost completely extinguished by demographics—the meetings that survived the collapse did so via recruiting members, not by producing children. And let us speak "plainly": Many of these self-identified Quakers are not attempting to live out the testimonies. They are using the brand name of the Quakers to legitimize the political belief system that took one of the largest faiths in Colonial American and nearly killed it.

We can get a good idea how close an idea has come to the "Truth" by the violence, if any, of the response. If I said that little green men nearly killed Quakerism, people would sympathize with my obvious mental illness. If I say that scolds and anti-family/anti-children political sensibilities (nearly) destroyed Quakerism, I am set upon with requests for censorship. And though I do sympathize with the mental illness of those who wish to engage in censorship, I will not stand down.

What happened in the 1600's in England is historical fact—but it has little to do with Quakerism in America. Too, we have a great deal more information about existence than the people who were relying on Bronze Age politicos engaging in tribal aggrandizement. I am sure that George Fox was a good and prophetic man, but reason and rationalism, like shaving cream, cannot be stuffed back in the can. The evolution and the subsequent political achievements of Quakerism in colonial Pennsylvania dwarf's everything before or after it—with the possible exception of the Magna Carta—and that incredible achievement was brought low by demographics. By identity politics; and—irrespective of what the agenda editors and astroturf specialists of the humanities professoriate in general, and the "Women's Studies" departments, in particular, have to say in their Wikipedia edits—it was not the scolds putting men out of meetings over their participation in the American Revolutionary War. That idiocy is an outrage.

Israel gets demographics. (Click the link.)

Russia's President Putin gets demographics (if you don't want to watch the 5-minute address, and I highly recommend it, just watch from 3:45 to 4:30. "Let children be born!").

What about us? What is it "we" get? That was rhetorical.

What we get is outrageously hypocritical identity politics and requests for censorship.

Several years ago, a couple of friends of mine and I conducted a demographic study of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Senate, and the Arizona state legislature (we felt a state legislature would be less elite, and one of the people helping was from Arizona). What we found was that Republicans produced nearly 3 children each and Democrats produced less than 1.4 children each. We also found that the SCOTUS had very high fertility (well, the men on the Court had high fertility. The three Feminists on the court had 2 children between the three of them; Scalia skewed the distribution as the father of nine. 9!!! But all of the men on the Court had gone through the maturation process that comes of being a parent; unfortunately two of the three Feminists on the Court had not had the benefit of the experience of parenthood). In fact, roughly 1/2 (50%) of the elected female Democrats were childless vs 1/5 (20%) for elected female Republicans. Only 3% of Republican men where childless.

The mathematical model that governs demographics is "e" when women produce more than 2.1 babies, or "exponential decay" when women produce fewer than 2.1 babies. Well, sort of. The equation is complicated by the number of years between generations. Hence the imperative for the demographic dead-ends who now control the power structure of the humanities professoriate. They simply do not produce enough offspring to maintain their numbers, and so must recruit the offspring of others.

We also did a follow-up study on Democrat marriage. NOT ONE of the "white" Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate was married to a non-white. ZERO interracial marriages.  In fact, the only prominent (Governor, U.S, Senator, Congressman, Big City Mayor) "white" politician with an African American wife was the mayor of New York. (If you have a data point of other such unions, please point them out to me.) The hypocrisy of that one still boggles the mind, but there it is.

"Those who breed, succeed. Those who do not, lose their seat at the table." (Original to me, but feel free to use it early and often.)

What is it "Liberal" Friends want (there does not seem to be any "Conservative" Friends)? To be "right"? To be virtuous? To claim the moral high ground in every conversation? Because what we are really doing is sitting together in silent expectation of our impending doom—unless we stop politicizing everything and start creating families who produce children. I write to reach out to the young and potentially fecund among us. I am not trying to change the mind of a 50/60-something, childless, and self-identified "Liberal" (read: Feminist/LGBTVQRS)—because it wouldn't matter if they changed their minds (though I would hope that such people would not be hostile and do damage to the cause given the short time they have left). The philosophy of liberty and freedom of conscience that yielded the testimonies will live or die in the conception of children, at the First Day Schools, and perhaps at some of the colleges that carry on the tradition. At the moment, things are not looking good—but that can change. And the only way it will change is to renounce the gender and identity politics that has set us at each other's throats and raise happy and well-adjusted children. If we do not change we will die.

QIASL




















#Simplicity #Integrity #Localism #Community #Feminism #Authoritarianism #PrivateProperty #Liberty #Family #Abortion #Collectivism #Authoritarianism #Family #Quaker #Philosophy #Libertarian

Why Do We Believe The Things We Cannot Know

What matters most to you as an individual?

What do you have real and meaningful control or influence over in your life?

The conflict between these two simple questions is driving modern mankind insane. Why would we believe we should take action regarding assertions we have no way of confirming on issues we have absolutely no control over while—and as a direct result—floundering in the areas that are of great importance to us personally and that are under our control and/or influence?

We see this everywhere and at all times. I see it in myself quite regularly. All of us have things to do that would be to our great advantage that we let lapse and we use that time to form and internalize hardened opinions on something we can't possibly know a thing about. It does not help that our leaders are busy voting on legislation that they have not read and do not understand. We must feel that since our leaders do it, we should too. Now that is #@!&* insane. It's just the craziest thing ever if you think about it. We insist on putting forth propositions based on premises with no evidence. And we do this because we think we have evidence—because we saw it on TV, read about it on an internet news site, or heard about it from people who have similar biases, some of whom are so evil that they commission "studies" to support previously reached conclusions. The energies we put into the thoughts and consideration of things we have absolutely no control over, as the stuff we can influence/control falls apart as it stares us in the face, boggles the mind.

I am starting to think that this is not just phenomenon. I am becoming convinced that some kind of fairy or pixie or mini-drone or gremlin is flying around our heads and when we are not looking they are blowing sh#! in our face that we breathe in and this stuff causes us to self-destruct.  Or maybe the fluorescent lighting is telling our bodies to secrete a hormone that causes hypocrisy (just in case: tongue firmly in cheek!). Whatever it is it seems to make us want to take on the misfortunes of billions of strangers—as if we could do anything about it—by hiring tens of thousands of government thugs with guns, dogs, clubs, and jail cells, when we should be concerned about the expanding blob taking shape in the mirror, or the sullen kid taking up space at the kitchen table furiously thumbing away at the distraction device he has been provided with to help pass the time of his sentence in suburbia, or if you want to get really heroic by becoming good and real neighbors.

We see this nonsense all the time. We are castigated to do something about the homeless by a person who binge-watches Netflix but who have never strapped on a tool belt, or to do something about the environment by people who have not put up a &^%$# clothesline, or having to listen to someone breaking their arm patting themselves on the back because they are helping save the earth from exceeding its carrying capacity by not having children (while their social interests have no possible risk of conception). We are all guilty.

The truly nutty take it a step further. They get "active", i.e. doing things that now cause actual harm—things like protests and marches or engaging in deception—rather than just being pathetically ineffective and hypocritical. These folks have stepped it up to criminal and haughty. That's a heck of a combination.

But there is good news. At any time of our choosing we can stop the drama of pretending to matter on some national or international issue—becasue we don't—and get "active" (goodness, I hate that word) locally: Have a FAMILY! Run for dog catcher, volunteer to put up a neighborhood vegetable garden, or organize transportation for elderly neighbors to go grocery shopping or to have some company. Whatever. Anything is better than social justice warring and virtue signaling. There are lots to do. In our community, it happens all time with no organizational effort required. On a regular basis, there is someone at my door who needs a ride to town, has a calf stuck in a cow, or needs help loading a deer onto a field wagon (we get some strange opportunities engage in real community in my 'hood). And I find myself at least as often knocking on my neighbors' doors to help me get the hay in, or catch an errant horse, or hold up the other end of whatever broke that day—but that's the way it is in small communities. It might take a little more effort to actually accomplish something—rather than virtue signal—in the city or in a suburb, but with a little effort, and if we completely ignore national and international politics, I think some measure of "community" can be had. Certainly more than is had now.

Of course, there is a huge difference between politics and policy and ethics and morality. Discussing ethics and morality are incredibly important for human development. And while confusing the inherent violence of politics and policy for ethical and moral conduct, and the conflicts and social miasma that error creates is the crux of the problem, we do not have to participate in any of this as individuals. The power structure that wishes to consume the energies of our lives to further their agenda can best be defeated by ignoring them, by refusing to fund them, and spending all of that wasted energy and resources "locally". I place that in quotes because most of us do not have a "local" anything anymore, and it was this power structure that stole that from us. We have been convinced to migrate to large population centers so that we can live without family or children, stacked up on top of each other like cordwood while remaining strangers, taxed into submission, breathing the air of traffic jams and office chemicals, in search of "elite employment"—all the while  operating in a complex and nefarious social environment that has as one of its imperatives a need to convince us that we are immortal. (No one sends us a note when we have "aged out"—and we will all "age out" (if we are lucky). This hits some people harder than others going by the demographic data on anti-depressant and anti-psychotic meds).

To date, most of the "localism" propaganda we have been hit with has come from aging hippies (and other aging deviants) in deep regret of a misspent youth—but I have come around to thinking that they are really onto something, in much the way that I think the recent regathering in Quaker philosophy is on to something. But there is a key ingredient missing—a path to the future for the generations to come. No children = no future. People can—and will—argue from the margins: "Lots of children at our Meeting!" But any rational examination of this will only show that we are busy going extinct—again. Aging out. Dying off. By rejecting reality we sow the seeds of our own demise. Condemned to online "retirement communities" of virtue signaling in an effort to compensate for earlier failures. But we have credentials and approvals from the self-destructive power structure, so it's all good!

The cities can flourish temporarily via immigration (well, until they run out of immigrants) from the countryside—but local communities must be self-reinforcing. They must provide their own building blocks of "Community"—children. The evidence is all around us: Well adjusted children and functioning adults come from a culture of respect for family and private property (the accumulation and maintenance of "capital" or "surplus" to be passed on to future generations). Feminism/collectivism and the rejection of family and private property yield empty nurseries, obesity/tattoos/piercings/opioids (self-harm/mutilation), and lots of "crazy aunt in the attic" syndrome—before causing the culture to die out altogether. This is not a rejection of their humanity. It is a rejection of the philosophies and sensibilities that always leads to oblivion. Of course, the individual should be free to pursue oblivion. Now, if only misery did not just love company. But misery does love company, and the examination of this falls under ethics and morality and not dreaded national and international politics and policy.

More soon,

QIASL

















#Simplicity #Integrity #Localism #Community #Feminism #Authoritarianism #PrivateProperty #Liberty #Family #Abortion #Collectivism #Authoritarianism #Family #Quaker #Philosophy #Libertarian