From its inception the United States has firmly maintained its sovereignty as a Constitutional Republic. Apart from America’s Revolutionary War and World Wars 1 and 2, there has been no threat to America’s sovereignty. But America’s fundamental ideology is under siege now—greater than any I have ever known.
This time, there is a severe internecine rift between America’s major political parties. This time, personal attacks are visceral. This time, vituperation is spiraling to unprecedented depths. Ominously, what comes to mind is a warning attributed to various political celebrities over the years, including President Lincoln. Over the years, the warning’s wording somewhat differs, but it was true that the United States could be “destroyed only from within.” The Civil War proved that at an unfathomable price. But now, there is no guarantee that America will not be destroyed from within…not necessarily by a conspiracy or an insurrection, but legally and in broad daylight.
The extraordinary social discord we are experiencing throughout America stems from a much deeper source than just a routine difference of opinion about some bill or another. That source is the unprecedented possibility that our Constitutional Republic may become a ‘Socialist’ or ‘Democratic Republic’ or some other form of socialist government other than a Constitutional Republic, e.g., the People’s Republic of China which is not at all a republic but a communist nation.
Many people claim that socialism is not the same as communism or that it leads to communism, but socialism and communism are at least fraternal twins, if not identical twins. The same is true of Parliamentary Democracies and Constitutional republics. Their differences are technical, not fundamental.
The proponents for a socialist America (at least for now) are alienating millions of Americans because of the bazaar notions ‘woke’ people have under the banner of ‘reinventing’ the United States. The underlying efforts to motivate the ‘reinvention’ of the United States include the creation and use of special American words and expressions: For example, their jumbled pronouns and changing the word <mother> to ‘birthing people.’
When most people hear that the word <mother> should be changed to ‘birthing people’ they think that is both offensive and absurd. So do I. The same is true of ‘invented’ words which serve to avoid the standard centuries-old pronouns (he, she, him, her, their) for the comfort of transgenic individuals and purportedly for the comfort of heterosexual individuals as well. Some ‘woke’ words do not distinguish plural from singular along with other gender identity titles which have never been part of the English language. On one of the ‘woke language’ charts posted on the Internet, I saw a four-or- five letter word for the pronoun <their> which doesn’t remotely resemble any English word.
One chart I encountered describes eleven sex categories: LGBTtqqiapp. I subsequently discovered that there are lists and/or descriptions of gender categories which number higher than76 categories, as described by one of the charts!
But sex is not exactly like the Periodic Table. The descriptions vary according to the person(s) who describe them, many of whom are sociologists or psychologists. Fine novels, books, films and friends tell us more about sex categories than charts and lists do. Besides, the descriptions for LGBT, etc…are not precisely uniform from chart to chart or list to list anyway…sex is too complex for that.
The slaughter of language and its sister…logic…are primarily intended to make both transgenic and heterosexual individuals feel comfortable with each other. But I don’t believe that anyone would attempt to know all the varieties of gender or even find it essential to discuss them—especially on their first encounter. After all, when exclusively male and female individuals first meet, they don’t need to make gender adjustments socially. The same should be true for everyone else.
Another ‘woke’ anomaly is the ‘cancellation’ of the word <mother> and changing the word to the expression, ‘birthing people. ‘ We all know what a mother is. All mammals do. So, why the change in nomenclature? There can be only one reason: Socialists revere sameness: ‘Birthing people’ highlights the purported sameness of people.
Socialism quells individuality and is hostile to the human aspiration to rise above nature. Sameness is revered by socialists. it is the centerpiece of socialism.
Question: If a woman is a birthing person, what is a man?…a fertilizing person?