The Weaponization Of Hate

 The Gender War

Part 1 

The rise of Christianity and the persecution that followed undeniably contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire.  The monotheistic Christian religion ran counter to the traditional Roman religion, which was polytheistic (many gods). At different times, the Romans persecuted the Christians because of their beliefs, which were popular among the poor.

In 313 C.E., Roman emperor Constantine the Great ended all persecution and declared toleration for Christianity. Later that century, Christianity became the official state religion of the Empire. This drastic policy change spread this relatively new religion to every corner of the Empire.

Herein lies a strange paradox, America is following in the footsteps of the Roman Empire. By approving Christianity, the Roman state directly undermined its long-held religious traditions, the same as America's attempt to switch from a Christian society to a godless society. The Romans considered their emperor a god. But the Christian's belief in one God — who was not the emperor- weakened the emperor's authority and credibility. So likewise, America's switch from a Christian-based society has weakened the authority and credibility of the nation.

With the ongoing internal turmoil ranging from a belief in God, culture, race, and gender to financial disparity to political tribalism and other countries gradually pulling away from the idea of U.S.-led supremacy, the tides are turning against us. This mere statistic may soon become a reality that alters the course of our lives. After all, many everyday citizens, celebrities, social justice warriors, and politicians would celebrate the downfall of The United States, not realizing the dangerous impact on the freedoms they believe they do not have. Experts are not sure if a substantial international conflict, a financial catastrophe, an internal civil war, or a gender war will cause the United States to self-destruct like the Roman Empire. Still, learning from the past is critical if we are to slow down the inevitable.

The gender war seems to have spontaneously erupted. But, on the contrary, this war has existed in a more subtle form since the beginning. The success of the African Americans in their fight for civil rights and social justice added the necessary fuel to transform the battle for gender equality into a cringe-worthy event. No longer content to sit silently by and wait for changes, these emerging and seemly disenfranchised groups took to the street with a rekindled fire of discontent. As a

result of this renewed spirit and a growing support base enhanced by the media, the demand for gender rights changed its tactics. It morphed into a multi-facet attack akin to a ballistic missile with multiple warheads, strategizing its ability to attack numerous fronts.

The Gay, Lesbain, and Transgenders organized under the new banner of LGBTQ+ and chose the appropriate moment to make their voices heard. "Don't ask, don't tell" initiated under the Clinton administration was declared a non-workable solution akin to government-enforced discrimination.  The demand was for the law to provide LGBTQ+ the same protection as other members of society under the gender of their choosing. "The gender of their choosing" is the catchphrase that opens the gate to a world of confusion.  The right to live as you desire should be within your rights, but to change the rules to force others to adapt to your idiocracy should be wrong on all levels.   Unfortunately, what once began as an experiment protecting human rights has devolved into a cesspool of in-your-face stench. 

 Sex and gender once were two simple words with no adverse connotations,  interchangeable, and whose definitions were set by biblical standards.  The Bible proclaims that God created males and females, blessed them, and told them to be fruitful and multiply.  Today the debate centers around the existence of God.  Once we remove God from the equation or redefine God, we achieve the freedom to redefine sex and gender.  There is a belief that redefining gender and making it inclusive would help eliminate hate.  But as in any war, hate is an important ally, and it is necessary to recreate words that create hate.  To use gender and sex as interchangeable words is now a misnomer that adds to the confusion of attempting to transform a so-called Bible-based society into secular Humanism and materialism.  Sex and gender are tools used to intimidate and control the dormant culture.

The dormant culture is under constant attack.  The never-ending race war, the feminist movement, and the ever-expanding gender war have brought about changes that cast aside the majority's traditional values.   

When there is a desire or wish to transform or promote an alien agenda, a bad idea, or a sinful concept, it is wrapped in black skin and presented to the populace.   Shaming the opposition into silence is an effective technique used by the woke generation.  As a result, freedom of speech, a constitutional right, takes a significant hit and gets replaced by political correctness.  Many will consider this statement homophobia and transphobia, but this might be this country's Achilles heel that sends it toppling into the abyss.

The right to yell fire in a crowded theater should not be a yardstick in determining freedom of speech.  Instead, the consequences of our actions should be the restraining force.   To infringe upon one liberty is an infringement on all.

 Declaring the constitution an outdated model and the dormant culture or white race as villains were necessary for the woke generation to prosecute the race, culture, and gender wars successfully.

Race, culture, and gender wars use weaponized hate as the weapon of choice.  Scorched earth is the only acceptable conclusion.  Thrown around consistently, words like "racist,” "hateful,” "bigoted," and "phobic," so much so that it seems to be part of the progressive liberal handbook.  For example, the left throws those exact terms in the discussion of allowing biological men to compete in women's sports.  If you disagree with the liberal argument, using those words will shame you into silence. 

The sacredness of the lines between man and woman is being blurred, creating a level of hatred and confusion the dormant culture has never experienced.  A recent supreme court nominee stated under oath that she could not define a woman.   It is hard to visualize a black woman, or any woman regardless of class, creed, or color, ascending to the office of Supreme Court Justice, unable to explain what a woman is.  But unfortunately, in today's society, her answer was the only acceptable answer.   This confusion arises when we attempt to merge the definitions of male and female, gender and sex, without using the Holy Bible as a guide.

Gender has always been the range of characteristics of femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them.  Gender may include sex-based social structures and gender identity.  For example, most cultures use a gender binary, having two genders; those who exist outside these groups may fall under the umbrella term non-binary.  In addition, some societies have specific genders besides "man" and "woman," In India, there is a third gender called "Hijra. "Before the British incursion, the Hijras had their separate community apart from the mainstream community.   There appeared to be a type of contentment in separation.    This arrangement worked well for a country with a rich and recorded history of 4000 years.  The Hijras also contributed to India's culture.

Regardless of how crude it might sound, everyone has a place in society.  There is merit even in the ancient cast system.   Regardless of what line of justification we use, a doctor and a waitress perform a necessity but function on different societal levels.  We would not expect a doctor and a waitress to attend the same functions.

To Be Continued 

THE WEAPONIZATION OF HATE, The Culture Wars

 The Culture Wars

 "We have forsaken our God for baubles and chosen the path of hate. Now the eve of destruction is upon us, and we have no hope for tomorrow, for we have cast aside our God and are staring into the abyss."

Behind the glorious façade of multiculturalism lurks an intense hatred fueled by the vocal minority who feel the dream of mutual advancement has left them behind. The vision once held by the majority has evolved into a nightmare.  Manipulated by a woke media, ethnic disparities, and social justice warriors, the cauldron of hate is boiling and overflowing.  This overflowing has created a more profound and perverse hatred, a type of hatred that many countries have never faced. This weaponized hatred processes the innate ability to flow from generation to generation and even alters our offspring's value of life.

Multiculturalism is a powerful word with a range of meanings; two words combined to form a new word distinct in a sense whose definition continues to evolve.   Unfortunately, the growth of the American version of the English language has led to the formation of many compound terms while enhancing or even overlooking the true meaning of individual words. The creation, redefining, and overuse of the word phobic is a prime example.   Treated as a suffix, it can transform a word into a weapon of hate. 

Multiculturalism is a synonym for "ethnic pluralism." The two terms are often interchangeable, but multiculturalism has a better ring. In theory, ethnic groups collaborate and dialogue for ethnic pluralism without sacrificing their particular identities. It can describe a diverse ethnic community area where multiple cultural traditions exist or even a single country within which they do. Groups associated with an indigenous native or indigenous ethnic group and settler-descended ethnic groups are often the focus. A more appropriate meaning would also include cultural displacement, which always lurks in the background because two different values occupying the same space are impossible.  One gives while the other takes. 

When the settlers arrived in what is known as America, interaction with the indigenous ethnic cultures initially proved fruitful. Historians agree that without the support of the indigenous tribes, the Pilgrims' survival would have been in doubt. However, the erosion of trust exposed a hidden hatred, and war became inevitable because of cultural displacement, cultural differences, and a lack of understanding.   The problem always stems from who or what is in control. 

In the United States, like in many countries, multiculturalism was never considered an established federal policy.   The founding fathers knew the elephant was in the room, but they pretended it didn't exist. Yet, at the same time, they began to create laws that recognized and regulated the elephant's presence. But unfortunately, these laws caused it to grow and take control of the room. 

Ethnic diversity is common in all areas, primarily rural, suburban, and urban areas, and it is also one of the most manipulative entities that affect the human condition. 

The Elephant, In many countries, is not allowed in the room.  For example, during censuses in France,  unlike in America, they steadfastly refuse to measure counts based on race, ethnicity, or religion because they see themselves as a color-blind society.  France is an undeniable, multicultural, multi-ethnic, multiracial society and has been at least since the nineteen-fifties when large waves of immigrants began arriving from its former colonies. France's approach to ethnic diversity is the melting pot theory.  The melting pot's idea became a metaphor that implies that all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. The melting pot theory suggested that each immigrant and group assimilated into society at their own pace without government intervention.  France has significant discrimination and racial and economic segmentation problems like many other countries but realizes the government has limited tools to measure or correct them. These are problems that individual groups must fix without government acknowledgment or intervention.

Multiculturalism in the United States has a long and dubious history. The United States has, from its founding days, taken in immigrants from different cultural backgrounds, many of whom were, at the time, controversial. First, it was the Germans. Whether they could become "real Americans" was the question. Next was the Chinese, Irish, and Eastern European immigrants after them. Now it is Hispanic Americans and Muslim Americans.

Continuous mass immigration has been a factor in the United States economy and society since the first half of the 19th century. As a result, the absorption of the stream of immigrants became a prominent feature of America's national myth. Excluded from these algorisms were indigenous natives, labeled the untameable savages, and the Africans viewed as the beasts of burden. 

The melting pot theory is different from the salad bowl theory.  The salad bowl theory does not include complete assimilation and integration. Instead, each culture struggles to maintain its distinctive flavor. It is a fragile concept attempting to coexist with a strong belief in national unity.  It is a flawed belief dating from the American founding fathers:

"Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs... This country and these people seem made for each other. It appears as if Providence's design that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united by the strongest ties, should never be split into many unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties." 

These noble words, in a sense, were a declaration of war, for they did not consider the plight of the Africans or the indigenous natives as they were considered a part of the God-given inheritance. Instead, Americans would engage in a brutal civil war to retain the African Americans' chattel state.  

There are thousands of cultures worldwide and numerous in the United States, with the most dominant being Western. However, African, Asian, Native American, Polynesian, and Latin American cultures also influence the United States' cultural makeup. The United States is unique because it has a rich mixture of cultures, which may not be in its best interest.  Early biblical teachings supported the separation of different cultures, mainly if their belief structure differed from the predominant culture. Today, many nations still adhere to this policy—those who do not follow this policy suffer from internal disputes resulting from cultural integration.