With few exceptions, such as Polynesian cannibals who practiced polyandry, or tribes who shared wives with visitors as a perk in search of fresh DNA, sexual restraints have otherwise been core to civilized middle class values in support of social order, no matter the time, place, culture or religion.
Hence, “Middle Class Values” have often been used by society to define limits of acceptable behavior during modern development. Although the view has substantial epistemic and empirical merit, it has been systematically attacked by Marxist spawned social constructivists, who, when we examine context in view of theory and actual praxis, have predominantly been associated, directly and indirectly, with murderously oriented misanthropes, Jews, or even Jesuit trained revolutionaries, anarchists and atheists. Some of these had significant frontal lobe brain lesions, such as Stalin, a crypto-Jew and Jesuit Priest (Dr. A. M. Lobaczewski, 1998. Political Ponerology).
Other proponents kept the company and counsel of sociopaths like Theodur Hertzl or Ze’ev Jabotinsky, whose revisionists works served to construct the Zionist State. Still others hobnobbed with full blown psychopaths like L. P. Beria and Genrikh Yagoda (Jewish Chiefs of Stalin’s Secret Police), and many academics were psychologically captivated (made dependent) by the political system of the day, and thus, supported the ne0-norm with outstanding intellectual apologetics (also noted by Dr. Lobaczewski).
Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution was a direct result of communist inspired constructivist thought, and Pol Pot soundly executed reconstructive educational theory by eliminating every teacher, intellectual and professionally trained middle class human he could find. This lot of mad men not only represents the greatest mass murderers in humanly constructed history, but their cast off students spawned the founders of feminism. The latter group’s well documented goal appears to be the normalization of hussiness with a view to subvert global societies for purposes of collectivist social reconstruction, which is exactly what Marx and Engels called for in their manifesto, as did the Protocols of Zion.
I remember being naturally attracted to hussies as a young testosterone factory, much to my mother’s alarm. And, as an old declining reservoir, I still am; something my own and my good wife’s inherent radars attest. The difference is that I now know who hussies really aren’t and actually are. They really aren’t good for anyone and they actually are nothing but trouble. Hussies and good girls of modest demeanor are, indeed, troublesome amendments to all men, but only so-called ‘good girls’ are of lasting constructivist benefit for fathers, children and the community. Mohammad (pbh) even went far enough to say that “Good women are for good men.” However, this is not to say that hussies do not have a place under sun or sheets, or that good girls cannot act like hussies privately for pleasure and spouse. The inverse construct of the prophetic dictum is that the bevy of the world’s ‘bad girls’ belong with the criminally minded immoral majority of un-virtuous men. The positive corollary is that ’good girls’ are well advised to reserve their fifty shades of hussiness for their good husbands, even if it means being second or third wife to an elect member of the dwindling population of good men. It is all quite simple when you dismiss revolutionary rant.
Hence, confining hussies and their clients to the ‘other side of the tracks’ on the seedy-side of town was a reasonable approach to human resource management. Nevertheless, Twentieth Century social constructionists have since removed the boundaries and managed to popularize sluttery by placing wanton trollops in penthouses, presidential offices with cigars, CEO lounges, Main Street coffee shops and prime time front page media venues for star-search bosom patrols. All of this and much more constitutes a rational assault on traditional Patriarchy. In essence, it is cultural war, a revolt against the authoritarian rule of culturally conditioned chauvinist law makers—often referred to as the ‘Dead White Males’ of educational essentialism — who may have proved unworthy of the honor they so gravely pretended.
Frankly, men have generally failed to responsibly manage their manhood and overcome the many evils of vice and promiscuity which are counter-intuitive to self preservation and Middle Class sustainability — not to mention national security.
What Mr. Hackard describes is the immutable and Satanic inverse principle of Spiritual Determinism by which men who defer to vice eschew beneficial social relations and thereby assure the dissolution of self, family and community by promoting and/or consuming the charms of hussies like Madonna. Today’s educators might ask if this is the result of social constructivism? Without entering the privileged domain of professionals who ignore time honored wisdom by justifying their chairs with abstract neologisms only they can comprehend, the answer is ‘yes’. A typical example of the devolution of such a hussy-specific approach to social re-construction was the Weimar Republic of Germany after WWI. This unfortunate State provides a perfect example of socially constructed sexual deviance that was consciously guided by a predominantly Jewish elite to destroy the old order for the purpose of socially reconstructing the entire continent post WWII. America, nay, the world, presently faces the very same situation pending WWIII.
Since we are all constructivists, we cannot, therefore, completely avoid other constructivists. Furthermore, for this reason “society must be rationally modeled in order to minimize conflict” (Branko Malic), which is fine when dealing with rational citizens imbued with tolerance and sober cognition. Nevertheless, the giveaway passage in Mr. Boghossian’s thesis, relevant to our discussion, is this: “… had we had different needs, values, or interests.”
Of course, we all have the same basic human needs that keep us in life-long servitude; including hussies and their multiple partners as well as pope’s, CEOs, preachers, PMs, presidents, coffee shop owners and prophets. However, what we do not all share are common values and interests, and this is the hard-ball social reality that marks the dividing line between hussies and good girls and those who service and protect each group, as well as other ‘special interest’ cliques. Hence, the concept of value holds all the cards across the table of this great divide. The ace in the deck is ‘belief’, but when hands hold different beliefs plus a full house, ‘push comes to shove’ over the money pot much too frequently, which is where the term ‘special interests’ comes into play.
To avoid failure, meaning the loss of respective ‘special interests’ as well as the money pot, social constructivists naturally form cliques that become dependent on what they believe is the alpha paradigm that will sustain them. Those who deny the wisdom of the High Cultures that initially gave us the Middle Class values of modesty and chastity, have chosen two routes to hegemony. Both methods involve the imposition of their will on constructivists with opposing values and beliefs. One path is outright war and mass murder of all opponents, as per Mr. Solzhenitsyn’s testimony. The other path utilizes the semiotics of memes that often obscure the truth, and the symbolic language of game theory (e.g., ‘players’) in support of their values, including meaningless political slogans.
Hence, we now have the proliferation of universal hussydom after the prosecution of a One Hundred Year Cultural War that embraced two world wars on its behalf. This followed the application of Mass Educational and propaganda techniques by constructivists from the same elitist families who financed both sides of each war as well as Marx, Engels, Stalin, Trotsky, Hitler and Lenin (four of five were Jews). Faithfully following both conflagrations, their efforts were assisted by a party of apologetically justified feminist re-constructionists who, as it turns out, were/are being played along with the rest of us. As for ‘belief’ from the constructivist perspective:
‘Special Interests’ groups that favor hussydom do not wish to grant such a concession to those who, like me, admit the necessity of hussydom but refuse to equate it with legal Middle Class values that benefit the social welfare of modest minded people in pursuit of virtue and equanimity. We happen to know, as did our revered ancestors via sufficient empirical evidence, that it does not promote a commonwealth of amicable armistice.
What came into being when hunter gatherers discovered wild grains and built their first settlements was the need for stable human relationships in a venue that provided a degree of security that was hitherto unknown to cavemen and womenfolk. Hence, passports, exchange systems, signets, standards, ledgers and leadership protocols, etc., all required ‘construction’ to define boundaries and limitations for human rights of passage and commerce to order domesticated social living.
The basic unit of all prosperous human relations is the natural family for which stable marriage is essential. And though many have tried to deconstruct this fact of life in order to reconstruct alternative fantasies that endorse hussydom and its attendant trials, science is presently validating what all of us know instinctively. This brings us to ask ‘From where do we derive our instincts?’
As surely as quarks, molecules and dinosaurs preceded Neolithic communes, so also did instinctive human knowledge. Hence, there are matters of reality affecting human relations that cannot be socially constructed, restructured, deconstructed or possibly, even known. The point I’m trying to make is that social constructivism has limitations of knowledge and, as a valid tool for enhancing civilized communities, it is a great error to let it be turned in the hands, minds and hearts of immorally fixated ‘special interests’. Otherwise, hussydom and malfeasance will be guarding the gates of the city as well as knocking shops for vice mongers as the nation disintegrates.
The challenge is for all persons adhering to the middle path of human decency to acknowledge the phenomenon for what it is and take counter actions. If not, we should stop complaining and consciously allow the ongoing erasure of the time honored traditional and cultural values that preserve moral integrity along with national dignity, unity and security. The best counter activity is to preserve the privileged status of heterosexual marriage via moral injunctions that enjoin modesty and eschew wanton behavior in public venues, including the media. This conclusion further implies that marriage must be made affordable and available to all, and sexuality must be celebrated privately to its fullest measure within marriage, so that sluts and slut chasers have less public cause for celebration, which presents a valid educational challenge for authentic social constructionists. Unfortunately, the alternative, for example, is to suffer the scourge of groups like ISIS:
Aleksandr Bovdunov quoted in Facing Terror by Mark Hackard, http://souloftheeast.org/2011/01/29/facing-terror/ accessed April 2015.
These young men of ISIS were marginalized by a biased system of governance and futile approaches to education that deny wisdom via socially constructed ideations that reward dubious praxis. Such systems impede equanimity by preventing people from attaining basic human needs (like marriage) and the satisfaction of personal achievement. Their instincts howl against the injustices of those who guard the gates of the nations only to hoard provisions intended by God for all. In their ignorance, their values were turned by masters of deceit towards the sub-human pursuit of ‘special interest’ extremism, as were Bolshevik Jews; all for the purpose of destruction followed by NWO reconstruction.
The resurrection of Vygotsky [a Russian elitist Jew] has led to strong beliefs and practices around the role of the teachers and collaborative learning and the belief that social context lies at the heart of educational problems. Here, it is clear that Marxist ‘class consciousness’ is replaced by ‘social consciousness’. We no longer have Marxist ideology shaping education, but we do have their ideas dressed up as sociology and social psychology.
-Donald Clark, CEO &founder of Epic Group Plc. Today’s
The education system, selects obedient individuals for more important roles in society, encourages conformity and discourages independent thought, which stifles societal progress. – Noam Chomsky:
Category: Essays to the ContraryTags: Bolsheviks, Communist Party, fallen women, Feminism, heterosexual marriage, Hussy, Isis, Madonna, Marx and Engels, Middle Class Values, Russian Revolution, sexual deviance, social constructivism, Spiritual Determinism, Wahabbis, Weimar Republic, women’s liberation