For the Children
If society really believes children are valuable and are the "future", then why does it promote and support so many anti-child beliefs?
“[L]et all of us do everything we can for the survival of our children.”
~ Nancy Pelosi (June 3, 2022)
The cause célèbre of “Pride Month” and the consequent orgiastic celebrations have bothered me more this year than past years.
It’s not because I am anti-LGBQ, because I am not (I am very anti-“T” for specific reasons revealed later in this post). I am generally libertarian from that perspective – you do you and I’ll do me. It isn’t really because the cartoonish virtue signaling “celebrations” reinforce the very same theatrically campy, over-the-top, sexually libertine anti-Christian and anti-heterosexual stereotypes that most gay people I know despise.
As I dug deeper into my psyche to try to discover why my irritation has grown, I wound up at a level that may or may not make sense, a level that includes more than just flamboyant “Pride Month” celebrants and the hollow, disingenuous corporate endorsements.
The survival of every species depends upon the capability to reproduce itself. No other imperative is as important as this, not even curing incurable diseases, the accumulation of wealth or knowledge, or living together in a peaceful, civil society - because without the continuation of life, without survival, all other things have no value.
Not only is reproduction critical to the continuation of the human race, but it is also critical to the maintenance and survival of cultures and the societies upon which they are based.
That is why children have been the most valuable human commodity in history and why the status of motherhood has been venerated throughout history. It is why Mother’s Day is a bigger deal than Father’s Day. This is not a modern concept; the archeological record has unearthed images of fertility goddesses from the earliest times of humanity – and this celebration of fertility is common across far flung civilizations.
We hear it all the time that “we are doing this for the children” and “children are our future”. Politicians are the worst offenders, overusing these phrases that, much to our misfortune, have become trite, perfunctory, ubiquitous, and therefore, meaningless.
For example, one simply cannot claim to value children and then support abortion.
It logically follows that if children are most valuable in the paradigm of survival of the species, the second most important thing is the process that naturally produces them. The biological definition of that “thing” is heterosexual couplings – the sexual/emotional union between male and female.
There is no other natural process available for this biological process to occur. Even so called “test tube” babies are the production of spermatozoa and ovum extracted from a natural male and natural female.
Lesbian couples can parent a child, but not without the aid of a natural male. Gay men may also parent a child produced through surrogacy of a female. The fact remains that neither form of same sex union can produce a child without the assistance of a third party. Transgender couplings can produce a child if one or the other partner remains non-surgically altered to conform to their delusions of being the opposite biological sex.
Contrary to the lie we are told by the spirit of the age, biological men cannot have babies.
To say that does not mean that same sex unions can’t be additive to society in other ways or that the people engaged in such relationships cannot be as emotionally attached to each other as a heterosexual couple, because they most certainly can. It just occurs to me that our society’s celebration of human unions that can never naturally produce children is not sustainable.
As crass as it sounds today, prior to the industrial revolution large families were common. Children were units of labor in a world based on agrarian pursuits. The more units of labor in a family meant more productive output. As the world shifted from manual labor to mechanical advantages, that need for productive units declined and families began to shrink.
The effect of industrialization is statistically evidenced in the shrinking of the American family. In the America of 1850, families with six to nine children were the norm. A century later, by 1950, that number had begun to stabilize around two children per home and has largely remained at that level through today.
Perhaps the most disturbing trend within the developed world is the trend toward childlessness. A 2018 survey of women of child-bearing age revealed that 33.6% of American women are childless. There are organizations that fight against childbearing because they see it as pressure to conform to societal norms. One site, called nonparents dot com, says:
“Many childless people are living happy and fulfilled lives and that needs to be talked about and promoted in the same way that we are constantly bombarded with images of seemingly happy couples with children, implying that having children is the key to happiness, when the reality is anything but.”
When viewed from a biological perspective, things like abortion, voluntary childlessness and the promotion of same sex unions are soft forms of misanthropy.
If children are the number one prerogative of humans, why does our society celebrate emotional unions that defeat the biological purposes of said unions?
Regardless of whether we find such unions socially and culturally acceptable, would that support not be counterproductive?
Beyond the obvious misanthropy, there is an insidious misogyny.
Along with the obvious devaluation of children comes the devaluation of the mother, the female component of the reproductive unit. Pregnancy is often treated as a curse rather than a blessing.
Nowhere is that more evident than the celebration of “transwomen” (biological males “identifying” as women) being allowed to take sports achievements and podium positions away from biological females.
This soft misanthropy and misogyny are “luxury beliefs” only accepted in any society that can afford to support a segment of the population that cannot or chooses not to reproduce itself, it can only be tolerated in a world where a certain percentage of reproductive unions are NOT necessary for the survival of the society or culture.
Sometimes one wonders if the ultimate goal of first world humans is their own eventual suicide.
"The only serious question in life is whether to kill yourself or not" - Albert Camus
There is a spirit of death and inevitable destruction in the world today. It doesn't matter whether it is reflective of the commandments of the Georgia Guidestones or whether it has been caused by the lab-created virus and the nearly unanimous decisions by the world's governments to lock humanity down as a first step in the depopulation experiment.
Those who think about what human life should be like are aware that we live on a dying planet and as people reduce the size of families, there will soon not be enough working people to support and provide for the elderly and infirm.
There is no question that the traditional model of an extended and intact family has provided stability and love in society for countless generations. It is sad that commodities needed for modern civilization are becoming unaffordable and unavailable.
The nearly daily mass murders taking place in America are either a sign of mass psychosis or that people have internalized the 1619 Project and now hate themselves, their society, and their nation.
The "trans" sensation is another sign of mass psychosis and since the media and the government have taken up the flag of perversion as their final stand against Christianity and the family, we may actually see the numbers of humans living reduced to the level where humans can live in balance with nature.
It is obvious that it is turning away from God that leads to people following these beliefs, many of which are, as you yourself termed them, "delusions" (we could probably discuss all day the spiritual and mental health issues involved). Knowing this, and short of God's intervening hand, I'm forced to ask if we really want such people to reproduce or raise children. I know it's somewhat of a Darwinist perspective, but... Survival of the fittest?