Comments

Teach your children well — 41 Comments

1. The best argument ever for abolishing the Department of Education.

   Keep your tax dollars local. Don’t launder them through D.C. so they can take a massive cut for their bureaucrats to be able to afford McMansions, then return a small fraction on the condition you abuse your children.

2. just another *reason * to stay far, far away from the Public school system. And then there was Obama, the guy with kids in private school who went to private school himself, telling us if we become more affluent you & I should just be sure to keep our kids in *learn nothing* public schools, because there they won t learn to be suspicious of government. ROFLOL

3. PS. sounds like *they* are getting concerned about
   affluent flight, dosen t it ?

4. Here’s a comment I made over at Bookworm Room:

   Something that’s been bugging me for awhile is they current fad/PC baloney being shoved down our throats: the normalization of transgenders/transexuals. Personally, I think it’s a mental disturbance, not really didn’t from people who fixate on thinking they’re too fat, or thinking they need to have a limb amputated to be “fulfilled.” And it’s along the spectrum heading towards people who think they’re are Louis XIV or Alexander the Great. People with these “dysphorias” are treated, not accommodated. There are extremely few people who are transgender/transexuals to begin with, though you wouldn’t guess by the constant way we’re assaulted with it. Add to that that no matter what they do, they are extremely depressed and have a high suicide rate.

   There is a wide spectrum of mental disorders that don’t preventr people from functioning on society to a certain extent. Heck, I once knew a very functional schizophrenic. But they’re ability to function die not mean they are “normal.”

   Heaven help us when we start encouraging anorexics to starve to death because of the moral relativism that dictates that their belief about themselves is what matters. Or when we start lopping off limbs to make those people who think they should be an amputee (even with perfectly normal body) because of that same idiotic moral relativism. How they hell ate we going to accommodate the people who think they’re Spock, Uncle Martin? And what of the very functional schizophrenic I knew — just let him go on, encourage him, in the belief that he is an undercover Mossad agent?

5. Transformative. To be fair, a criticism of the trans (e.g. homosexual) equality movement is that it established a selective exclusion or pro-choice policy. Unfortunately, gender fluidity, while progressive, still reflects a pro-choice (i.e. unprincipled) mindset. Liberals, by definition, should be open-minded, and yet they continue to cling to select clumps of cells, orientations, behaviors, species, etc. Perhaps with an appropriate administration of opiates (e.g. marijuana, insurance, cell phones), their conscience can be completely suppressed.

6. Furthermore, the number of labels is progressive. Just call it trans which is inclusive.

7. “Sexual orientation and gender identity terms will be discussed with focus on appreciation for individual differences.”

   The doubt, tolerance v ‘something else’, expressed in the very next paragraph is much too charitable. The odds board lists ‘something else’ as short money favorite. No social accommodation with Liberal/Leftist demands has ever put an end to Liberal/Leftist ambitions. It’s no matter how large the box is made, The L/L, are always outside the box demanding more be added. How long before sexual orientation, there where your bliss is greatest, includes the differently pleasured, i.e., interspecies sex, i.e., bestiality? Peter Singer has already weighed in — the matter is of no moral consequence; he does not recommend it but, hey… tout ce qui fait que vous séisme.

   After homosexuality had been tolerated, it then was normalized, then accepted, then appreciated, then it become the ne plus ultra of coupling — sexual and social. One study after another radiates gayety-ism – children of gay couples, happiest, smartest, most fashionable.

   Now, petitions to psychiatry boards to decriminalize/normalize pedophilia… from leak to deluge.

   No-one should tolerate any of this nonsense about sexual or gender identity. Our primary identity is not our foremost indulgence. We are not our particular sin. Agere sequitar esse — doing follows being — NOT the other way up. Homosexual is not identity; heterosexual is not identity, pedophile is not identity; philanderer is not identity; philatelist is not identity; gourmand is not identity; drunkard is not identity; hedonist is not identity. A human being may be known only by what he is foremost — a human being; and obviously, male/female. He may be known as being his father’s son; he may be known by his place; he may be known by his work — Wright, Smith, Taylor. But he may not be known for what pleasures him. That is, of course, in a world that had not gone non compos mentis, i.e., unhinged from reality.

8. This has never been about tolerance. It has passed through acceptance and went into recruitment.

9. “I doubt it’s just a call for tolerance of differences and an admonition to avoid name-calling (neither of which I would object to),” writes Neo.

   Neo and I hold differing opinions on a number of topics. This appears to be one. I object to that which she would accept, above.
   “Tolerance of differences” is a slippery slope. Have we not learned this by now? Tolerance of differences eventually leads to worship of Diversity as an inherent good; resistance to Diversity today inevitably leads to corrective punishment. A society that rates non-judgmentalism and tolerance of extremes above cohesive values is a society in trouble. The Fairfax sex standards are a perfect example.

   Cohesive social values and standards, aka normative, are centripetal.The centrifugal forces of hedonistic freedom and non-judgmentalism require energy to prevent a society so oriented from flying apart. That energy is repression and oppression. Call it social physics. A balance of the centripetal and centrifugal forces is required to maintain a stable and worthwhile society.

   “Name-calling” done by the young often has normalizing effects on those called names, the outliers in appearance and/or conduct. Calling someone a geek or a nerd may have a de-geeking or un-nerding effect; is that ipso-facto bad? But now “hate speech”is condemned.

10. Frog:

    The “differences” referred to here are specifically those of a transgendered child in a school system which already has made the decision to accommodate (for example) a child who is biologically a boy but is identifying and dressing as a girl. I really see no problem whatsoever in discouraging kids from teasing such a child. Teasing is NOT going to change that child’s point of view, except to make him/her (never was that awkward pronoun construction more appropriate!) miserable.

    The question of punishment or zero tolerance for such teasing is a different one. I don’t advocate some sort of Draconian punishment for teasing, unless it takes on repeated, abusive dimensions.

11. How about insisting that the men on the school board wear tutus to all it’s meeting to show understanding of the transgendered? Time to make them live up to their rhetoric.

12. Time for some serious Eff Offing, it is for the children.

13. ” I doubt it’s just a call for tolerance of differences and an admonition to avoid name-calling (neither of which I would object to); this sounds like a great deal more than that.”

    There is IMO no doubt whatsoever that it is “a great deal more than that”. As George Pal points out, “No social accommodation with Liberal/Leftist demands has ever put an end to Liberal/Leftist ambitions”.

    In the real world, this is where we are:
    “Parents of transgender first-grader file discrimination complaint”

    “A transgender rights group announced Wednesday that it has filed a discrimination complaint in Colorado on behalf of a first-grader who was born a boy but identifies as a girl.

    The filing stems from a decision announced last December by officials at Fountain-Fort Carson School District that Coy Mathis could no longer use the girls’ bathroom at Eagleside Elementary.”

    “Edmonton Catholic school bans transgender child, 7, from girls’ washroom”

    “An Edmonton mother has filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission after the Catholic school district refused to let her transgender child, born a male, use the girls’ washroom.

    “It’s something that needs to be addressed, especially with the Catholic system,” the mother said.”

    “It is true that gender is not always a simple thing in the biological sense” neo

    I do believe you neo and accept the linked article as factual. I would however point out that the article describes these ‘complexities’ as, “sex chromosome aberrations and abnormalities”

    “Sex chromosome abnormalities are gender specific. Normal males inherit an X and a Y chromosome while females have two X’s. A single Y chromosome is sufficient to produce maleness while its absence is necessary for femaleness. Female abnormalities are due to variations in the number of X chromosomes. Male abnormalities are the result of irregular numbers of either the X or the Y chromosome or both.”

    This is absolutely being driven from the federal level and its purpose is indoctrination into leftist memes.

    Those suggesting that private and home schooling is the answer are perhaps failing to appreciate how temporary a solution that will prove to be if the left continues its cultural advance.

    If such should be the case, I fully expect legislation constraining home schooling and lawsuits seeking judicial rulings outlawing home schooling (“Holder’s DOJ: U.S. Has Right To Outlaw Homeschooling In Defense Of Minorities And ‘Open Society’”) and private schools to be forced to effectively teach the same ‘progressive’ curriculum as do the public schools.

    My guess is that hate speech laws will be the wedge used to obtain entry into private schools. “51% of Democrats support criminalizing hate speech”

    Only the naive can imagine that the left has not realized that the remaining primary obstacles to leftist indoctrination of the young are religious schools/instruction and parental influence.

14. I do not understand the concept of “gender” as distinct from the biological sex. Try to apply the same reasoning to height – if I am 5′ 6” (call it “biological” height), but I WISH I were petite, so I insist I am 5′ 3” (call it “identity” height), do I have the right to have the information in my medical and legal documents changed in order to fit my “identity”? And if I INSIST that I really AM 5′ 4”, in spite of measurable evidence to the contrary, how is that not a sort of wilful delusion?

    Exceptions made for genuine medical anomalies (intersex etc.), humanity comes in two morphological variants: the male and the female. It is called sex. Why introduce the notion of “gender” to blur things? Shall we also introduce the notion of “identity height”, “chosen weight” (now, THAT would be a neat one!) or “preferred eye color”? And if my analogy does not stand, why? Either I am missing something really basic here, or the idea of separation of sex and “gender” is a bit fluffy.

    None of this is to say that individuals have no right to identify however they wish and arrange their lives accordingly, but I do not wish to be criminalized for refusing to play the linguistic game (normally I do not employ the word “gender” except to refer to the *grammatical* gender, such as in French) or refusing to accomodate, such as the Catholic school from Geoffrey’s link.

    OF COURSE that a Catholic school worthy of its name will not admit the notion of “gender” and will consider it a hubris to not accept the biological limit of sex. Why do these parents put their children into Catholic schools if they object to it? What is next, objecting to the teaching that potentially procreative acts are reserved for married couples alone, and that a life thus created must be protected? If one has a problem with these teachings, can one simply NOT put one’s child into a Catholic school, instead of putting him there only to “provoke” later on these issues?

15. Anna, the children are just expendable items in this game.

16. Assuming the school day will not be increased, what current curriculum content will be dropped to make room for this gender ideology insanity?

17. Fairfax County is SJW central — and is, last I looked, in the top counties for per capita income. It’s fed by Washington, DC, of course.

    ( Washington DC abandoned the Virginia half of itself — back to Virginia. So today’s Washington DC consists solely of the Maryland part of the original parcel. Fairfax County is, de facto, a western suburb of Washington DC)

    Its population exploded from 1940 through 1960 – – consequent to Big Government.

    Its demographics must warm the hearts of SJWs everywhere.

    Hence, top-down tolerance.

18. How is it, when an anorexia sees and feels themselves to be ‘fat’ it is ‘compassionate’ to get them help, but someone who rejects physical evidence of gender needs to be indulged?

19. “Why do these parents put their children into Catholic schools if they object to it?”

    “It’s something that needs to be addressed, especially with the Catholic system,” the mother said.” ‘

    There’s your answer Anna, ‘especially’ is the key word. As Steve57 intimates, it’s not about the children.

    “For the left, it’s never about the issue, it’s always about the revolution.” David Horowitz

    Mr Frank,

    First, reading, writing and arithmetic, then later math, science and English. History will stay because it can always be changed to serve the narrative.

20. Love your neighbor, for they will make your child into their slaves.

    Isn’t that how it went or how people think it goes?

21. Anna, the first problem you have and it causes all the rest, is that you do not comprehend the extent of the Left’s true nature. After that, the rest will make automatic sense sooner or later.

22. God is very clear on genders. His role for women is clearly spelled out in the Bible. Woman was created to be mans helper, man is to rule over her, and she is to submit to her husband. Why do people reject the principles set forth by our Lord?

23. The brain rules over the body via the spine, but often times human reactions bypass the brain entirely.

    That is nature and it was something God, assuming it exists in the Christian sense, could not communicate or explain to semi literate savages in the years before Christ.

    For a civilization that could barely count beyond roman numerals, who may not even have had roman numerals, attempting to count down the days of creation, explained through God, or attempting to piece out Genesis, is far far beyond their mortal comprehension.

    That means the “rules” aren’t really the rules. They are merely human convenient interpretations of the rules. What makes Islam so fanatical is that Mohammed decided that nobody could re interpret the rules, or at least no one could countermand his own.

24. The problem the Leftists pose is not their re interpretation of rules. Re interpreting the rules to make live more secure and prosperous is a good thing. But the issue with the Left is their evil nature. The fact that they aren’t destroyed is the issue, not how they interpret things.

25. If one has a problem with these teachings, can one simply NOT put one’s child into a Catholic school, instead of putting him there only to “provoke” later on these issues?

    Why can’t you just go to another baker or florist if they refuse to serve you? Why is it necessary to use the power of corrupt Society to force them to bend knee to you?

    You might as well ask that. You’d get the same answer.

26. So glad my kid is in private school!

    Bookworm wrote the best post I’ve seen on why this is happening – the Left’s quest to sexualize children. Worth the read if you haven’t seen it already:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/sex_and_state_power.html

27. Ymarsakar:

    On what grounds do you decide, though, that the Left’s particular reinterpretation of the rules *coincides* with Evil? How do you decide that Left = Evil, rather than that the Left’s reinterpretation is a possible one, but incoherent, unprincipled or misguided? One what point does it become positively morally evil?

    I am not sure it is more tyrannical than the Right would be if it held as much institutional power; in fact, was not the political and the academic rise of the Left (both in the US context – as far as my parents tell me – and in the mythical ’68 often referenced over here) a reaction to a previous tyranny of the Right? At what point does either one become positively morally evil?

28. (To be sure, I certainly describe what these “gender” ideologues advocate as evil and more broadly I am highly skeptical of most ideas propounded by the modern pseudo-liberals. But at what point do you reach the definite Evil = Left conclusion?)

29. Steve and Geoffrey:

    I understand that, in the BIG picture and to large-scale interests behind it, the children are just pawns. But to their own parents? I suppose I am more inclined to presume their parents to be very and horribly misguided rather than *knowingly* play the game with their children as pawns.

    Or am I that naive and people are that evil?

30. Anna – This sounds evil, no?

    What’s interesting is that, because the Left expresses itself in terms of “freeing” people’s sexuality, many people miss the fact that it is every bit as sexually controlling in its own way as Islam is. This control comes about because the Left works assiduously to decouple sex from a person’s own sense of bodily privacy and, by extension, self-ownership. If a person has no sense of autonomy, that person is a ready-made cog for the statist machinery…

    The Left, therefore, needs to decouple self and body as early as possible in a person’s development — and it does this by bringing its own peculiar notions of sexuality into the realms of child-rearing and education.

31. Anna:

    I believe (and I’ve written about this many times, although I can’t find an example right now) that one must make a distinction between leaders on the left and what one might call “useful idiot” liberal followers. The former are sometimes evil, but the latter seldom are.

32. Anna, I had an argument with a relative’s online friend who stated that gender is a social construct. I replied that it’s not, it’s simple biology. She ended by feeling sorry for me that I’m too dense to understand.

    This issue is a large part of why Michelle Dugger is on the progressive hit list – she opposed a similar bill in Arkansas. And it’s not only in the schools. Planet Fitness terminated a woman’s contract because she complained about a man (who self-identified as a woman) walking into the women’s locker room while she was undressed. Yes, they threw HER out, not him.

    This may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. I live in a rural area where most people are Democrats. If they try to bring this into our school or if the Democrat Presidential candidates start talking about it, you’ll see a lot of new Republicans at the polls in 2016.

33. Anna
    “But at what point do you reach the definite Evil = Left conclusion?”

    Neo-neocon;
    ”one must make a distinction between leaders on the left and what one might call “useful idiot” liberal followers. The former are sometimes evil, but the latter seldom are.”

    One could make a philosophical night of this but I’d have to have a good cigar and at least a bottle of 15 year old madeira to go there. So here’s the gist of it.

    One may consider only this…:
    All that hate Me love death. (Proverbs 8:36)
    …to conclude Left = Evil (and BTW, Islam (if A = B, and C = B, then A = C))

    It is the devaluation of life, the desecration of the human, and the desacralization of both that indicts the Left. What convicts them — evidentiary mounds and mass graves and pits of limed corpses. Hobsbawm’s* Law stipulating, in essence, principle and sanction: if it saves but one life it’s worth the death of millions

    Add to the evidence the Left’s resolve in killing the unborn, and their easy support for other yearnings of death cultists — euthanasia and assisted suicide. The jury need not leave the box to deliberate… the Left is guilty of EVIL. The only Leftist who will ever be happy is the one who’ll be the last man on an earth on which nothing exists but ossuaries.

    As for the followers, the useful idiots, of evil leaders… uh-uh, no more benefitting them the doubt, unless of course they are genuine intellectual morons and have the diminished capacity of a very low IQ.

    *British Marxist Historian* whose histories were replete with ommissions of Communist mass murders and who’d been asked if he still would have a socialism if the cost of it was a million lives, answered, simply and unhesitatingly, yes.

34. On what grounds do you decide, though, that the Left’s particular reinterpretation of the rules *coincides* with Evil?

    The Leftist alliance is an evil, but not because they are an organization or because of who they were or intend to do.

    Looking at their handwork over the years, it’s not that anything they did was particularly evil, but it was more like who they were. Euthanasia, eugenics, slavery, all of them have been practiced before, but not in the way the Leftist alliance did it.

35. Correction, it’s not because they are what they are or what they do. The evil has to do with who they are.

    rather than that the Left’s reinterpretation is a possible one, but incoherent, unprincipled or misguided?

    The easy explanations have been used and tested before. People thought the Leftist alliance was incompetent. That the harm they produced was either unintentional, due to stupidity, or due to some political ideology or misguided utopia.

    That does not address the issue of who is involved. Who is involved, strikes closer to the heart of the issue. Because if it is free humans involved, then being misguided means they can be guided back on the right path, they can be saved. However, if it is not humans involved but slaves, then there is a larger problem at hand. And if the question of who involves slave masters, but not temporary slave masters of the bible concerning prisoners that we don’t want to kill, but a eugenic empire of caste slaves forever bound to obey their masters as tools, then it becomes a different matter. Then and only then, does the question of “what” and goals come into play.

    But the Left was already evil way before their intentions or goals were misguided, incompetent or bad. If they weren’t an organization, I would have to query every individual involved. Since they obey a chain of command, it is easy to see how they function by looking at the top and then at the bottom. And the bottom obeys the top, no matter what.

    Mayflower and Jamestown were early colonies. Jamestown was destroyed, probably due to putting communism into effect. Mayflower attempted it, then retracted their belief in communal property and laws. They recovered, with the help of Massachusetts, the Indian leader. So those people were ideologies, true believers or fanatics. But being a fanatic or true believer does not make a person into evil. There is something else involved. If they were evil, they would have continued their communist policies and destroyed themselves, but they did not. So it is not what they do or what they are, but who they are. Humans that are free can make a decision that they were wrong.

    Can the Left do the same? Are they even human any more? How does one become an enemy of humanity? Is an enemy of humanity someone who is misguided or are they an enemy of humanity, i.e. evil?

    a reaction to a previous tyranny of the Right? At what point does either one become positively morally evil?

    Perhaps if what people thought Republicans did in the 20th, 19th century, etc were true. But it is not. It is a false history.

    Everything from MacArthur to Roosevelt’s “economic miracle”, to the post reconstruction and reconstruction era, to who is responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow, to the causes of the US Civil War I (First), has been clouded. Clouded by what? More like, clouded by whom, clouded by the agents of the Leftist alliance, who the Democrats were a founding member of.

    So this “previous tyranny of the Right” is more often what the Left does when it accuses its enemies of what the Left itself has done, has always done first even.

36. Anna wrote:

    “I understand that, in the BIG picture and to large-scale interests behind it, the children are just pawns. But to their own parents?”

    Yes.

    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/business-tech/global-economy/111027/occupy-children-protests-photos

    “Now that Occupy Wall Street has entered its second month, police in various cities are demanding that protesters leave their camps and increasing the use of violent means to remove them. And as some protests turn violent, the question remains, is it still safe to bring these tiny protesters out to demonstrate?”

    They took their little pawns to these protests precisely because they intended to turn the protests violent. And they wanted to use the kids as human shields.

    I wish I could find the photos or videos of parents (and grandparents) bringing their children to Occupy protests precisely to put them in harm’s way so they could blame the police when they got hurt.

    A particular incident that stands out is when the protesters in Washington D.C. tried to force their way into a building where a conservative event was taking place. The babies in strollers were right up front as they confronted the police.

37. This was the event.

    http://nypost.com/2011/11/05/occupy-dc-trio-run-over-outside-conservative-conference/

    Of course they were trying to block traffice. And they used their children for that. And of course several fights broke out. If you remember the Occupy Oakland protests then you remember how violent the protesters became. And of course the mayor of Oakland, just like the mayor of Baltimore, gave them “space to destroy.” She told the police to back off.

    But they were still violent, trying to provoke a response. From the police if possible, from the general public is necessary.

    And the kids were there for a photo op. So they could pretend that when they threw rocks at the police and threw themselves in front of cars that the mean capitalist system attacked and hurt the peaceful, caring leftists’ children.

38. A university lecturer has come under fire for screening a graphic video of her vagina to a class of shocked first-year students in the UK.

    In clips from her “feminist performance art”, Lauren Barri-Holstein inserted a knife handle into her vagina and threw tomatoes at the blade, gave birth to a plastic Bambi figurine and urinated on stage.

    She told students at Queen Mary University of London that the work of art was relevant to her teaching module but some were left scarred.

    “It was surreal. I honestly didn’t know how to react. I don’t think I’ll ever be able to look her in the eye in person. It’s just weird,” a student told the campus newspaper The Tab.

39. If they could have 6 to your 0, they would take that over having 10 to your 6. The idea that people are beneath them, that they are above others, is more beneficial to them than having a higher stake of resources, or a higher overall resource pool for use in survival. That is the Left’s zero sum philosophy.

    How the Left consistently creates people who choose the zero sum option instead of working for the benefit of humanity, is what makes them evil. If it was just one momentary phase or person that was bad, but their descendants reformed or changed the ways, they wouldn’t be evil. Natural disasters are bad but they don’t reproduce themselves like evil does. Evil has a different quality, the quality of remaking itself, of unmaking others in the world. Thus Margaret Sanger’s philosophy is alive and well in the Leftist alliance. The Jim Crow and intolerance of slave masters, are alive and well in the Leftist alliance. A misguided culture would have learned their lessons like the Mayflower colony did. If they had even half the worthy leaders humanity could produce, they would have remade their decision and their ways. Unless the guiding hand of evil was involved. Unless people were remade into what they are now, incapable of choosing other than to obey the Left.

    One generation of rapacious, uncivilized barbarians, can be explained by culture or by the necessities of migratory survival patterns. 10 generations, however…. cannot be explained by any social, cultural, technological, or intent based system of judgement. Something meta would be involved, something overarchingly above the limits of the system.

    In other words, if Islam or the Left could survive by doing good instead of evil, they would still choose to do evil. So it’s not about their survival, it’s a choice. It’s not an intent to do good or harm, it’s a choice. Once made, they can’t unmake it. What they unmake are individuals who refuse to abide by their system. Thus instead of allowing individuals to corrupt their system, they destroy those individuals, remake them, reform them, into a better generation, a better family, a better wife.

    The pattern of human evolution and social transformation has been tied to both mass mind behavior and exceptional individuals. Without the exceptional individuals to change the course of human history, humanity can progress little. That gets us to the subject of enemies of humanity. Why are the Leftist alliance enemies of humanity? Why is Islamic Jihad, their allies, also the same?

    Nations and families can have enemies in war. But being human, having exceptional individuals involved, they can communicate, make peace, form pacts or alliances. Has the Left ever not been the enemy of humanity? Has Islam ever not been the enemy of humanity? If evil was something so weak that it could die out in a single generation or two, then why hasn’t it died out already? What perpetuates the cycle of violence, what fuels the perpetual motion machine of evil? If it was merely the cycle of violence, America would still be at war with Germany and Japan. Why are some people capable of fighting wars and letting the past go, but the Leftist alliance is still the enemies of humanity even now? Why is America capable of dealing with foreign enemies as equals, but we still are refighting the same conflict that the States fought over the first Civil War? If WWII was a crusade against evil, something that could only be killed via a war, then what was America fighting against in Civil War I? And did America even succeed in killing that evil, or did it merely go dormant inside America for later?

    These are the questions people who confront this subject with a lack in polymath subjects, seem incapable of answering or dealing with. Since it requires a broad range of categories, no amount of specialized degrees will unlock the proper understanding for them. No academic authority can search it out either, often because the Left bars their path and they obey. In other cases, because they lack the background and the intellect/heart for it. So when individuals want to seek out the blinding truth, they have little choice but to do the work on their own. Allowing Leftist and Jihad authorities to “help” isn’t going to help.

    Working again on the Mayflower colony template, except I’ll make an alternate fictional account. If the Mayflower people decided to kill Massachu and his tribe, by enslaving all the women and killing off the men folk, they would still have acquired the secrets of farming (native style). If the Mayflower people wanted to survive and not starve, they could simply use military might to extract tribute from the surrounding tribes, or bribe other tribes to raid the other tribes, sort of like how Cortez did things down south. And if the Mayflower people continued this military oppressive system of governance and imperial decrees, they wouldn’t have to starve due to having communism, they could infect all the healthy farming communities and use them to ensure that the Mayflower colony survived. The 50 Year Plan they could call it.

    They would get almost the exact same results as the timeline where they cooperated with Massachu as an ally, since America eventually pushed all the tribes out any way.The devil would be in the details. So who was evil? What kind of a person would choose the alternative template over the primary template, if it meant having the same survival chances? Which America would be the evil America, when the tribes are wiped out and exiled, since that happened in both timelines?

    Evil would choose it, the alternative way. There are many ways to recognize and reverse engineer the effects of evil to the source. This is only one of them.

    The difference between a good hero and an evil villain is that the good hero’s laws and rules are perfectly okay for the hero to have applied to himself, even by a higher power. But the villain… the villain could never allow his own rules to be applied to himself, not unless he wants to suffer and die on some godling’s pokey stick.

    This is a version or application of the Meta Golden Rule, which is a more complete version of the Golden Rule. It is also a way to detect evil people, by looking at who is involved, not what they are doing or what they intend to do or what they say their intentions are.

40. Interesting thoughts, thanks for expounding.

41. Massachu seems more like the name of the tribe, minor fix.

    Anna, you’re welcome.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>