Are We A Nation Of Whores? by Terri Lynn Tersak

© 2005 Terri Lynn Tersak

Used with permission of the author


 

| EJF Home | Where To Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? | Newsletters | Get EJF newsletter |

 

| Civilization Book | Contents | Index |

| Next — Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led To A Men's Marriage Strike |

| Back — The Peter Pan Establishment |


 

Are we a nation of whores and whore mongers? The November 2, 2005, Op/Ed by Kathleen Parker, Feminism's devolution from hoaxers to whores. seems to take an affirmative position that this is in fact the case. Are we all whores? No, but my guess is at least half of American women are, and an equal number of our men. If you count those who claim to be "liberals" or "feminists" that percentage would be considerably higher.

I would bet all the women who fought and suffered getting the American woman the right to vote, smoke, drive, drink, and to get paid for being naked, are turning over in their graves due to the mockery too many of today's women make of themselves. Why is it that women today who are working for social, political, and economic equality of the sexes or support the notion that men have the right to exist (beyond breathing air and paying any bill for a woman that can be conjured up) are called "women haters?" I will admit that if it is ever proven that all feminists hate men I, for one, would not be a bit surprised. But that still wouldn't make any woman that believes equal protection under the law is true equality, a woman hater.

Where does this social insanity come from? I believe it is from selfishness and its expansion into accepted pragmatism for dealing with any issue. Selfish behaviors are a fundamental part of any person's character. But those who are ruled by their selfishness are concerned only in indulging in their immediate, private desires — instant gratification. Otherwise stated as a rule by a sense of an obligation only to one's self. This is a self-inflicted personal tyranny of emotions that is restrained only when it is personally convenient, not through any fixed set of values such as ethics or morality.

When such lack of personal restraint and rule by emotion is reinforced by a civilization and its laws, the citizenry at large will lose their sense of society and respect for those in it. The rule of law is then exerted by the irrational understanding resulting from the discarding of moral restraint in favor of convenience — selfishness. This dictates that citizens' wishes are more important than societal needs and emotion trumps intelligence and truth. Those that accept being tyrannized by their own emotions, in effect, become agents of the tyranny they emote.

Consequently, if there are enough selfish people that share the same discretionary inclinations, they will form a group and demand these desires be consecrated by force of law. Any society that permits such rule by selfishness will begin to see its authority indulge its citizens' wishes at the expense of the sanctity of the society as a whole. Its parents will become the servants of their children and children will start to only respect themselves.

The expression of ideas is the essence of a free society. Spirited debate over contention of an ideal is an integral part of the true democratic process. But freedom will only succeed if accompanied by respect and tolerance of the opinions, based on reason and sincerely-held principles, by opponents of any reasoning. In societies ruled by selfishness the target of social stigma will move away from people who ignore moral restraint toward those who condemn the absurd, irrational state of such a society, and laws will be promulgated to impose the illogical on those that dissent.

Of the many absurd laws that exist in our nation today, two come to mind as prime examples of initiating the imposition of the tyranny of emotion upon the citizenry at large by legislating selfishness to become the rule of law. The first such act to become law was no-fault divorce. This marked a unique step away from reason, personal accountability, responsibility, and moral restraint. Through the adoption of these statutes, for the first time in our history we permitted one party of a contract to not only unilaterally terminate the agreement they may have in fact violated, but to also be rewarded for their violation of the agreement.

The other example are our various "protection" laws, such as protection from domestic violence. Protecting someone from abuse and, most importantly, restraining yourself from abusing others is a moral obligation. Today our protection laws have no basis in ethics or morality. They are widely used by individuals as a mechanism for abuse of others who simply disagree with them and are widely accepted as the proper way to deal with such issues. No other law in the history of civilization has ever been so perfectly structured within the spirit expressed by Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin) as our protection from abuse laws.

Lenin said, "I think we must stick the convict's badge on anyone and everyone who tries to undermine Marxism...even if we don't go onto examining his case." This stratagem has been developed into a fine art by many in today's politics, media, education, special interest groups and other areas of social activity.

There can be no rational doubt that the present destruction of our society was initiated and formally promulgated by the Great Society policies of the liberal Democrats of the 1960's. However, they cannot be solely faulted with its expansion over the past decade.

The current manifestation of the Republican Party has clearly done as much damage as any other group during the later period of the last century and up to the present day. They too have become the embodiment of our efforts to be "politically correct." Over the past four decades we have tried to social engineer the protection of everyone from everyone else. We have developed a system of social statutes that attempt to encompass protecting everyone from everything, from facial expressions to mere perceptions of maltreatment. We then go about enforcing these idiotic laws by illegally destroying the civil rights of half the population and yet somehow we actually believe we are civilized.

The ethical and moral illiteracy we suffer from today is both reflected and taught by academia through mechanisms of relativism, positivism, humanism, and distorted concepts of diversity. The common refusal to recognize the necessity of ethical absolutes and moral values has all but removed the notion of the nuclear family from our society. The propagation of this societal self destruction is defended under the guise that it is a critical function needed to protect us from what would otherwise only result in a totalitarian rule by theocratic tyrants.

This is the result of a trend to enforce "political correctness." Like McCarthyism, and even more tyrannical examples in modern history, it creates a form of communal hysteria where the most ridiculous arguments are importuned to rationalize the compulsory imposition of an ideology upon the society. The adherents to this group insanity demand not only the framing of ludicrous laws to secure their agenda but also the complete acceptance of their views by everyone and that any dissent be punished without question. All of which history shows will lead to totalitarian rule by secular tyrants.

We seem to have jumped head first into what may be described as communal senility. Like a diagnosed mental disorder, it is an equally degenerative condition that we are well on our way to. It is frightening to witness our rapid decline into an aggregation of societal dementia and impotence. The growth of irrational anxiety throughout our society is undeniable. The occasional media coverage that contradicts the popular paranoia is either ignored or castigated as the work of the insane. All of which are symptomatic of the mass hysteria created by the decay of common sense. Such decay is the direct product of our failure to educate our children to understand the value ethics and morality have to them and to our society. Sadly, such failing to our children is among the vital components required for totalitarianism, such as feminism, to be able to take and maintain control of a society.

We stand at a critical crossroad. The death of reason and collapse of intelligence that marks the beginning of outright tyranny and totalitarian rule is clearly at hand. We are inundated by irrational laws, procedures, and the destruction of civil rights. We face judicial tyranny that has no regard for truth but still falsely promises to control the faults of all human frailty. The fact is our legal processes have collapsed into a state where they are simply the means to suppress contrary opinion.

This social experiment of ours, our Great Society, hasn't worked out the way it was professed to and we learn every time we encounter systems like it that they don't. Modern law can not protect people from their own selfish greed, stupidity, and caprice. History shows that every attempt to do so has only made greed, stupidity, and caprice the dominant and controlling features of the societies that have tried.

Relying on individual accountability and responsibility within stable families, rather than an overabundance of laws and regulations to provide answers and societal stability is not a new ideology. It is simply common sense. As we continue to raise children devoid of personal responsibility, the symptoms of our social decline, such as rudeness, impatience, contempt for reason, unbridled greed, and promiscuity, will become even more evident in our daily lives until they become the most pronounced symbols of our culture. Many fear we are long past the point where a return to reason is possible. I truly hope not.

Terri Lynn Tersak

Equal Protection Under the Law is True Equality

Top


 

| EJF Home | Where To Find Help | Join the EJF | Comments? | Newsletters | Get EJF newsletter |

 

| Civilization Book | Contents | Index |

| Next — Have Anti-Father Family Court Policies Led To A Men's Marriage Strike |

| Back — The Peter Pan Establishment |


 

Added December 5, 2005

Last modified 7/21/12