One thing I didn't understand on that California certificate was the requirement for the Parent Not Giving Birth to write down his "Birth Name". Is that the same as requiring a person to cough up his or her so-called Dead Name? Is that not... violence, perpetrated by the state? Is that really the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest? The Parent Giving Birth had to write down her Birth Name, too. And hers got written down second, ha.
"Is that not... violence, perpetrated by the state?" The vast majority of violence is perpetuated by the state. Wars, for example. The state has a monopoly on the use of violence and government regulators make the most of it.
In the end, reality will win, but logic and reasoning make no headway against the strong winds of progressive "thought." But after how many years/decades?
Progressive beliefs are enforced because they have complete control over the media and culture. They get to decide what is acceptable and what is considered gauche. A generation, at least, has been raised to believe that sodomy "equals" procreative sex, and those opposing this "love" are hateful bigots.
The light will appear eventually at the end.of the tunnel, but I think we have many years of darkness ahead of us yet.
Dec 26, 2023·edited Dec 26, 2023Liked by William M Briggs
Radical progressivism advances by degrees as a strategy. If California is still around in 10 years check in again whether the birth certificate only has space for couples.
I had never thought of being married to yourself, but it might have benefits, which of course is why the LGBTQ+ crowd wanted "marriage" rights in the first place. Write yourself off as a dependent on your taxes. Get double health insurance, or halve the deductible, your choice. Get two ballots, legally. And best of all, get to argue with yourself without anyone thinking you're crazy.
Dec 27, 2023·edited Dec 27, 2023Liked by William M Briggs
There is no hope here. In the end, the last 70+ years of ruling-class social engineering has shown that you can, in fact, continually stride along the very edge of the abyss without falling off. All you have to do is keep 'fudging' or 'nudging' your direction.
'Reality' isn't the cavalry we might like it to be.
It's not possible to beat power except with counter-power.
Enough people believing anything - no matter how unlikely - who are willing to act on their belief can keep bailing any sinking ship long past the point where it makes sense to say 'Reality is going to catch up with them'.
Knowledge is not power in and of itself.
Knowledge that leads to power has value in the pursuit of power but it is not, itself, power.
"Marriage" is a meaningless, cultural convention. It can mean anything you want it to mean. It merely means that a man is willing to provide for and protect one or more women. In half the world it is more than one. It means in general that the partners will more or less stick to having sex with only the other partner/partners.
It was primarily a financial and political match for 99% of history and only very lately (100 years or so) a romantic, mushy kind of union. In most cultures dissolution of marriage (divorce) is relatively simple and painless. Give back whatever property (Dowry, Lobola, Bride price) was paid and she goes back to her family. Boys stay mostly with the father and girls go with the mother, no problem.
As far as 'birth certificates' and that nonsense, it also (like passports) is a very recent development.
Once settlements became large enough that not everyone knew everyone else, there needed to be a record of who owns what so that inheritance was not decided purely by the sword. As Church clerics were the only ones who could read and write, it fell on them to keep the family records of who gave birth to whom, and whose property they would/could inherit.
However it only became widespread and mandatory in the 1910s/20s and the state took control.
You may wonder why.
-
The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph of theFederal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realising it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
You and Briggs seem to be 50% in agreement. He opposes the state recognizing male male relationships, you seem to be opposed to the state recognizing any relationships. You are essentially allies at present and his hill seems easier to conquer than yours in the current social environment.
I am saying that any arrangement that protects and provides for women and children is good but it does not need any formal recognition by state or religion. Inheritance and property contracts can be made without any interference by outsiders.
In an ideal world one does not need to 'enforce' a contract and thus the state has no function.
The cool thing about this "birth certificate" is that's it's clearly (though probably unintentionally) farcical and therefore illustrative and subversive to wokeness. No one with a stem-cell or two to rub together could ponder it for more than a few seconds and not conclude something like "what the actual fuck are we doing here??" There is simply no possible way to make a non-ridiculous woke birth certificate. What does that tell us?
And beyond the magic number of 2 parents, what do they actually mean by "parent" anyway? And what relevance is there to the one that is "giving birth"? That sounds rather biological and bigoted to me. And what is this about "names" anyway? Names are not immutable characteristics. We are all free to choose our own names according to our own identity or whatever. Why should a child have their deadname shackled to them forever in this document? That is actual violence that could lead to suicide, white supremacy, and other bad stuff.
Reminds me of a bit I read about religious people who were sent to the gulags... they could tell when it was Easter, because that's when the admin would bust out the propaganda/parody to the tune of traditional Easter hymns.
One thing I didn't understand on that California certificate was the requirement for the Parent Not Giving Birth to write down his "Birth Name". Is that the same as requiring a person to cough up his or her so-called Dead Name? Is that not... violence, perpetrated by the state? Is that really the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest? The Parent Giving Birth had to write down her Birth Name, too. And hers got written down second, ha.
Acute observations.
"Is that not... violence, perpetrated by the state?" The vast majority of violence is perpetuated by the state. Wars, for example. The state has a monopoly on the use of violence and government regulators make the most of it.
In the end, reality will win, but logic and reasoning make no headway against the strong winds of progressive "thought." But after how many years/decades?
Progressive beliefs are enforced because they have complete control over the media and culture. They get to decide what is acceptable and what is considered gauche. A generation, at least, has been raised to believe that sodomy "equals" procreative sex, and those opposing this "love" are hateful bigots.
The light will appear eventually at the end.of the tunnel, but I think we have many years of darkness ahead of us yet.
Radical progressivism advances by degrees as a strategy. If California is still around in 10 years check in again whether the birth certificate only has space for couples.
Good to see the Cuban race finally being recognized.
I had never thought of being married to yourself, but it might have benefits, which of course is why the LGBTQ+ crowd wanted "marriage" rights in the first place. Write yourself off as a dependent on your taxes. Get double health insurance, or halve the deductible, your choice. Get two ballots, legally. And best of all, get to argue with yourself without anyone thinking you're crazy.
It´s all about OBAMA. His was the most corrupt, get-rich administration in US history. All of this is designed to BLIND us.
There is no hope here. In the end, the last 70+ years of ruling-class social engineering has shown that you can, in fact, continually stride along the very edge of the abyss without falling off. All you have to do is keep 'fudging' or 'nudging' your direction.
'Reality' isn't the cavalry we might like it to be.
It's not possible to beat power except with counter-power.
Enough people believing anything - no matter how unlikely - who are willing to act on their belief can keep bailing any sinking ship long past the point where it makes sense to say 'Reality is going to catch up with them'.
Knowledge is not power in and of itself.
Knowledge that leads to power has value in the pursuit of power but it is not, itself, power.
They don't let me decide what kind of quakcines the government forces on my child but I can decide what sex the kid is. This is our reality.
You are picking the wrong hill to fight over.
"Marriage" is a meaningless, cultural convention. It can mean anything you want it to mean. It merely means that a man is willing to provide for and protect one or more women. In half the world it is more than one. It means in general that the partners will more or less stick to having sex with only the other partner/partners.
It was primarily a financial and political match for 99% of history and only very lately (100 years or so) a romantic, mushy kind of union. In most cultures dissolution of marriage (divorce) is relatively simple and painless. Give back whatever property (Dowry, Lobola, Bride price) was paid and she goes back to her family. Boys stay mostly with the father and girls go with the mother, no problem.
As far as 'birth certificates' and that nonsense, it also (like passports) is a very recent development.
Once settlements became large enough that not everyone knew everyone else, there needed to be a record of who owns what so that inheritance was not decided purely by the sword. As Church clerics were the only ones who could read and write, it fell on them to keep the family records of who gave birth to whom, and whose property they would/could inherit.
However it only became widespread and mandatory in the 1910s/20s and the state took control.
You may wonder why.
-
The conspiratorial nature of matters is exemplified in comments by one of the major actors in the triumph of theFederal Reserve, Edward Mandell House, who had this to say in a private meeting with President Woodrow Wilson:
“[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. Every American will be forced to register or suffer not being able to work and earn a living. They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, forever to remain economic slaves through taxation, secured by their pledges. They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability. After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges. This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call “Social Insurance.” Without realising it, every American will insure us for any loss we may incur and in this manner, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and, we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation to foment this plot against America.”
Edward Mandell House
-
This was/is true of every western country.
You and Briggs seem to be 50% in agreement. He opposes the state recognizing male male relationships, you seem to be opposed to the state recognizing any relationships. You are essentially allies at present and his hill seems easier to conquer than yours in the current social environment.
I don't oppose it, I am saying it is irrelevant.
I am saying that any arrangement that protects and provides for women and children is good but it does not need any formal recognition by state or religion. Inheritance and property contracts can be made without any interference by outsiders.
In an ideal world one does not need to 'enforce' a contract and thus the state has no function.
The cool thing about this "birth certificate" is that's it's clearly (though probably unintentionally) farcical and therefore illustrative and subversive to wokeness. No one with a stem-cell or two to rub together could ponder it for more than a few seconds and not conclude something like "what the actual fuck are we doing here??" There is simply no possible way to make a non-ridiculous woke birth certificate. What does that tell us?
And beyond the magic number of 2 parents, what do they actually mean by "parent" anyway? And what relevance is there to the one that is "giving birth"? That sounds rather biological and bigoted to me. And what is this about "names" anyway? Names are not immutable characteristics. We are all free to choose our own names according to our own identity or whatever. Why should a child have their deadname shackled to them forever in this document? That is actual violence that could lead to suicide, white supremacy, and other bad stuff.
O! Parent not giving birth, who art in heaven…..
Reminds me of a bit I read about religious people who were sent to the gulags... they could tell when it was Easter, because that's when the admin would bust out the propaganda/parody to the tune of traditional Easter hymns.
Not sure what you write if you have an unusual occupation or more than one