>>>>>And I suppose if the wrong person set foot in your covenant community, they'd be blown away by private security guards.<<<<

It would probably behoove the community to post warnings.

>>>>> A vision of countrywide gated communities. Talk about nuttiness.<<<<

So you consider gated communities nutty? Or just nutty when they are available to regular folks. I read somewhere that commie Michael Moore lives in a gated community as do many rich people and well to do types. Many neighborhoods have restrictive covenants as well. Are they nutty, too? Why?

>>>>>>And very weak rationalizations, trying to excuse these anti-statists' hypocrisy.<<<<

Limiting options to force people to use services they'd rather not use is not a "weak rationalization" at all. Millions use the govschools for exactly that reason.

>>>> Sure, lack of alternatives forced the anti-statists into employment by the state.<<<<<

Sometimes, sure. Especially as science and academia becomes dominated by the state via outright state schools and also through research grant funding. There are not many sectors that are not dependent in some way on state loot.

With the world divided up into little covenant communities, there could be cannibal communities, ritual murder and mayhem communities, Brave New World communities, Spartan war communities, polygamous and polyandrous communities, child-sacrifice-to-the-gods communities, kidnapper-cannibal communities, human lab experiment communities, illiterate communities (who couldn't read posted warning signs), whatever people wanted.

Wouldn't that be just dandy if everyone were free of all laws and constraints, free to do whatever they wanted to within their own covenant community.

To try to force any such communities to do otherwise would be a violation of their freedom, coercion, especially if a "state" were involved in such coercion. I mean, you just can't have a state telling people what to do or forcing people not to do certain things.

After all, flawed men have no right to govern or rule over other men.

Sure, there'd be murder, theft, private wars, genocide and stuff. But flawed men have no right whatsoever to tell other men how to live.

>>>>With the world divided up into little covenant communities, there could be cannibal communities, ritual murder and mayhem communities, Brave New World communities, Spartan war communities, polygamous and polyandrous communities, child-sacrifice-to-the-gods communities, kidnapper-cannibal communities, human lab experiment communities, illiterate communities (who couldn't read posted warning signs), whatever people wanted.<<<<

Possibly, especially as the general culture has become DE-civilized and dumbed down by the govschools and media. The thing is, all of these communities would have to trade with each other for survival or resort to war against those from who they will attempt to steal rather than trade.

>>>>>Wouldn't that be just dandy if everyone were free of all laws and constraints, free to do whatever they wanted to within their own covenant community.<<<

Those communities would have their own laws and standards that would bind those that contracted to live within them.

>>>>>>To try to force any such communities to do otherwise would be a violation of their freedom, coercion, especially if a "state" were involved in such coercion.<<<<

Yes.

>>>> I mean, you just can't have a state telling people what to do or forcing people not to do certain things.<<<<

A state is simply a class of parasitic human masters weilding aggression against those not in the state class for their own benefit. Are you prepared to explain WHY they should be allowed to rule over ANYONE?

>>>>After all, flawed men have no right to govern or rule over other men.<<<<

Exactly. And as is demonstrated almost daily, the members of the state class are often more flawed than the general population.

What do you have against small communities and people who think differently than you? Weren't you not long ago complaining that I don't like people who think differently than me? I am more than willing to live and let live. It is mankinds only hope for peace.

And yet your speech is warlike. You are unwilling to even say discuss and let's discuss.

You reject Lloyd deMause's ideas out of hand, referring to them as scapegoating instead of being willing to examine them or say maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Let's see what he has to say. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar or maybe there's something to his theories on war and violence.

Does it make sense that children are affected by violence if they have experienced it as small children in the family? What causes violence? Do children do unto others what has been done unto them?

Where does the drive for power over originate?

You are unwilling to examine any ideas that might conflict with what you think you already know and are more than willing to start forum conflicts, using insults and personal disparagement to block out whatever you don't want to hear.

You seem to have little intellectual curiosity about any topic that is not on how and why government is bad or school is bad. Further, you are unwilling to discuss or consider almost any ideas that do not correspond with your own, all the things under the sun which you believe you already know the TRUTH about.

Instead of seeking truth, you seem to believe you've already found it and are certain you are right. This is not the way to learn anything new. Not only that, you rationalize your insults by claiming they name things accurately. Anyone who wants democracy or any form of government must be a "commie," etc., ad nauseam. There is no such thing as self-government. Oh, but there is self-ownership, according to you.

Your speech is that of a martinet, not someone who's interested in learning anything new.

>>>>>And yet your speech is warlike.<<<<

Promoting “live and let live” is “warlike”??

>>>>You are unwilling to even say discuss and let's discuss.<<<<

Because that requires living within that aggression paradigm. People should certainly have the option of making their own decisions without being forced to discuss and compromise in a dialectical spiral. Those who WANT that within their communities should have it, of course.

>>>You reject Lloyd deMause's ideas out of hand, referring to them as scapegoating instead of being willing to examine them or say maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. Let's see what he has to say. Maybe sometimes a cigar is just a cigar or maybe there's something to his theories on war and violence.<<<<<

I see no proof or evidence of his “theories” and, yes, I reject them as downright evil and scapegoating of a particular “religionist”demographic hated by libs.

>>>>Does it make sense that children are affected by violence if they have experienced it as small children in the family? What causes violence? Do children do unto others what has been done unto them? <<<<<

Many, many do, many, many do not. You notions of perfecting humanity by decreeing how they should be "parented" REEKS of govschool behavioral training ideology.

>>>>Where does the drive for power over originate?<<<<

Original sin, human nature. You have more than your share of it yet curiously do not blame your parents.

>>>>>You are unwilling to examine any ideas that might conflict with what you think you already know and are more than willing to start forum conflicts, using insults and personal disparagement to block out whatever you don't want to hear.<<<<

LOL. That is because SOME ideas cannot be countenanced because they are scapegoat, the result of the view that the ends justify the means, are naked aggression and mob rule, are immoral. Ideas that conflict in that manner are EASY to reject and SHOULD be rejected no matter how much “examining” you think removes the stink from them.

>>>>You seem to have little intellectual curiosity about any topic that is not on how and why government is bad or school is bad. Further, you are unwilling to discuss or consider almost any ideas that do not correspond with your own, all the things under the sun which you believe you already know the TRUTH about.<<<<

I confess I have ZERO “intellectual curiosity” on how YOU think “religionists” are de facto child beaters and the cause of all wars and violence in the world. Nor do I have any “intellecual curiosity” on many ideas that conflict with my morality and worldview. I have that right. There is nothing WRONG with that. YOU are free to get as “intellectual” as you want, of course.

>>>>>Instead of seeking truth, you seem to believe you've already found it and are certain you are right.<<<<

SOME Truth I HAVE found. SOME things I know are righteous. You arev free to have alternate moralities, of course.

>>>>>>This is not the way to learn anything new.<<<<

New?? What is new? Scapegoating a religious demographic that you despise with outlandish claims about it being the cause of all violence and wars?? That tactic is as old as time itself. That you do not see the parallels to Hitler is astonishing….but then, maybe not.

>>>> Not only that, you rationalize your insults by claiming they name things accurately. Anyone who wants democracy or any form of government must be a "commie," etc., ad nauseam. There is no such thing as self-government. Oh, but there is self-ownership, according to you.<<<<<

You do not govern yourself and you cannot prove that you do. You are ruled by a parasitical class of politicians and thugs who will throw you in jail or kill you for doing NOTHING and get away with it if they choose to do so. We are forced to pay 9 months a year of our productive labor at gunpoint, something no one in their right mind would do to themselves, kids are indoctrinated in kid jails. Self government!, are you nuts?

>>>>Your speech is that of a martinet, not someone who's interested in learning anything new.<<<<

If you ever come up with anything “new” maybe I’d be interested. It is the same old socialism, people pushing, planning, and clawing and grasping at controlling others, especially the kids of those who you hate…over and over and over.

Origins of War

the slaughters committed by Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao?

Or does only the slaughter of Jews by supposed "Christians" count?

How do his dubious extrapolations regarding a supposed German obsession with feces prove that "religionist" parenting causes all the violence and wars of the world?

Since MOST of us have parents, and the atheistic state worshipping commies also apparently parent murderous spawn, and the social engineering nosy butts ALSO have parents, WHO is to be deemed "nonmurderous" enough to be fit to rear children? And WHO decides THAT? Or are social engineering nosey butts simply above suspicion because they are DO-ERS, "constructing", and "selfless", according to their own assessments of themselves and not to be questioned?

Just as gradeschool boys are now labeled as sexual harrassers for stealing a kiss on the playground your plans to scapegoat traditional parents as abusers will lead to a ridiculous and dangerous dialectic spiral of stripping of parental rights on the grounds that whatever they do is de facto abuse by virtue of their simply being traditional (and therefore "evil" under the fiat "morality" of de Mause, Eisler, Al Gore, etc., etc.). We already see signs of this in cases where courts force homeschooled kids into schools so they are trained in moral relativism instead of the objective morality of traditional religion. This is ALWAYS phrased as giving the child a "well-rounded" education, of course.

You clearly are not interested in anything deMause has to say, believing you are already in possession of all parenting truth - and religious truth - and he is not.

Since he advocates stateless society, one could hardly call him a social engineer, yet you manage to, along with the other unsavory terms you use to describe the people whose ideas you don't like.

If you are interested in deMause's work, rather than asking me to explain it to you, you can visit his site:


deMause

Btw, your pretensions to Christianity are remarkable considering the antipathy you express toward anyone and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you. And you use this education forum to express that antipathy in endless tirades.

>>>>You clearly are not interested in anything deMause has to say, believing you are already in possession of all parenting truth - and religious truth - and he is not.<<<

A lame dodge. I posted specific questions in response to this article you linked and you choose not to respond to the questions.

>>>>>Since he advocates stateless society, one could hardly call him a social engineer, yet you manage to, along with the other unsavory terms you use to describe the people whose ideas you don't like.<<<<<

Sorry, but his theory scapegoats a religious group just as his Nazi example scapgoated Jews.

>>>>If you are interested in deMause's work, rather than asking me to explain it to you, you can visit his site:
deMause<<<

Why would I be interested in that?

>>>>>Btw, your pretensions to Christianity are remarkable considering the antipathy you express toward anyone and everyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you.<<<<<

Eye to eye??? Blaming traditionally religious people for causing all the violence and wars of the world is scapegoating and ESPECIALLY in view of the FACT that atheist commies kill far more and just as atrociously. In your view I am supposed to "consider" this preposterous and evil smear, actually "dialogue" about it and arrive at some kind of mutually acceptable and intellectually driven compromise about it, thus beginning the dialectical destruction of ttraditional religion. What you call "antipathy" is simply the refusal to agree that this groundless smear be discussed at all, any more than I would "dialogue" over whether all Jews were the cause of Germanys problems and needed to be eradicated to perfect "society". This is such an obvious attack on who you refer to as "religionists" you should be ashamed.

>>>> And you use this education forum to express that antipathy in endless tirades.<<<<

Again with the "hate" rhetoric. I point out issues, I ask questions, you refuse to respond to them or defend your postings and accuse me of "tirades" because I object to your persecution of traditionally religious parenting. We are seeing more of this kind of thing. I read in San Francisco, an area where people routinely have themselves radically surgically mutilated they are trying to outlaw infant circumcision, no word yet on infant ear piercings. This is truly the bizzarro world.

You posed specific questions such as why he didn't focus on Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. I don't know, but I imagine it's because he is more familiar and has more knowledge about German child-rearing practices.

It is not scapegoating, as you insist, because you refuse to examine ideas that conflict with your own in anything but the most kneejerk superficial manner.

What about Flogging for God?


Flogging for God

Do you believe this is some kind of aberration, religious cultists run amok? Where in the New Testament does Jesus ever recommend violence or hitting children?

Also, deMause is not saying that poor child-rearing practices are restricted to people of religious faith. These practices, as he makes clear on his site, are nearly universal. But you go into fits and tizzies over it because of your newfound religiosity and believe it is an attack on you specifically.

You're wrong about that and too blind to see you're wrong.



No, I think you should be ashamed for your near constant antipathy and endless smears toward people who are actually doing things in the world to help kids and families, people like Mitch Hall, whom you referred to as a nutjob.

You constantly smear with names such as slimebag and nutjob and commie creep, etc., then turn around and accuse other people of smears. You have so little knowledge of your own speech, your own blind defenses, that you make it nearly impossible to reason with you. You are against dialogue, believing it is some form of Hegelian dialectic, so you talk at people not with them, as you smear them and call them names.



Considering the trauma newborns males suffer as a result of the practice, that's probably a good idea. If someone wants to be circumcised, they can always make that decision when they are 18 or 21 years old. It is a barbaric practice that sends infants into shock.

>>>>>>You posed specific questions such as why he didn't focus on Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. I don't know, but I imagine it's because he is more familiar and has more knowledge about German child-rearing practices.<<<<

How convenient to ignore the NON-traditional religious violence against children and families and quote anecdotes supporting the scapegoat of the religious. How convenient that a huge hole in his theory troubles you not.

>>>>>It is not scapegoating, as you insist, because you refuse to examine ideas that conflict with your own in anything but the most kneejerk superficial manner.<<<<

Yes, it is.

>>>>>What about Flogging for God?<<<<

What about the Duke homo perv pimping his “adopted son”??? Would you find it credible if I scoured the internet for homosexual and violence against children perpetrated by NON- traditionally religious people? Listed instances of it and then claimed that NON-traditional parenting MUST be the cause of all violence?? Your equating a judicious parental spanking with “flogging” (for God, yet!!!) is just an attempt to tar all religious people as violent child beaters. The anti-traditionally religious agenda of this site is filled with hate and intolerance of religion in its attempt to paint traditionally religious people as child abusers (as opposed to state worshippers who perform THEIR violence in government schools against GENERATIONS by “molding” their minds to suit the needs of the ruling elites and their power seeking toadies…..AND schools are frequently the sites of worse than spankings….also the fault of evil parents, I‘m sure!). The “traditionally religious” tend to HOMESCHOOL, they tend to obey God rather than the edicts of whatever crat is selected to rule us, and they do not worship the eco-dogma, multiculturalism and “dialogue” trap that would inevitably assimilate them into YOUR religion. And THAT is what this is all about. When YOU start condemning the far greater government school violence and intellectual damage with HALF the froth and spittle you condemn traditionally religious people you might get an ounce of credibility. The Quiverfull women must have REALLY scared you! Think of it, all those traditionally religious women (possibly even DOBSON listeners!), just having baby after baby and being homemakers and deferring to husbands instead of having careers and expecting Uncle Sam to be their protector! The selfish child abusing pigs! The insanity of it! Everyone knows you are supposed to skip the marriage and just go on the dole having baby after baby (by whatever sperm donor happens to “do it” for you) for the gov school gulag to swallow up and train into a herd animal.

>>>>>Do you believe this is some kind of aberration, religious cultists run amok? Where in the New Testament does Jesus ever recommend violence or hitting children?<<<<

I believe it is a LOT of aberrations and people selected out for the purpose of smearing traditionally religious people. Now what is YOUR excuse for the Duke “perv dad for fun”?? Is he REALLY secretly traditionally religious?

>>>>>Also, deMause is not saying that poor child-rearing practices are restricted to people of religious faith. These practices, as he makes clear on his site, are nearly universal. But you go into fits and tizzies over it because of your newfound religiosity and believe it is an attack on you specifically.<<<<<

Funny. I missed his concern for the violence committed by atheistic collectivists. Who are THEY “flogging” and murdering for? Please direct me to that portion/article. On second thought, never mind. I steer clear of “hate” sites, especially ones that claim it is “for the children”.

>>>>“because of your newfound religiosity”<<<<

Please enlighten me as to how long I must believe in God in order to satisfy your requirement? I have been “religious” all my life. I simply was deprogrammed from YOUR religion to another. Your opinions on my personal religious faith and it’s quality are irrelevant here. Unless of course you want to start discussing YOUR childlessness, your apparently poor parenting that has caused this crusade against parents.

>>>>>Quote:
Sorry, but his theory scapegoats a religious group just as his Nazi example scapgoated Jews.XXXXXX
You're wrong about that and too blind to see you're wrong.<<<<

No, you are wrong. I have explained why and you think that all you have to do is say I am “blind”. You are unable to defend this terrible smear and scapegoating.

>>>>>>Quote:
In your view I am supposed to "consider" this preposterous and evil smear, actually "dialogue" about it and arrive at some kind of mutually acceptable and intellectually driven compromise ……….eradicated to perfect "society". This is such an obvious attack on who you refer to as "religionists" you should be ashamed.XXXXXX
No, I think you should be ashamed for your near constant antipathy and endless smears toward people who are actually doing things in the world to help kids and families, people like Mitch Hall, whom you referred to as a nutjob.<<<<<

Yes. Yes! They are HELPING the traditionally religious by explaining how evil they are! They are HELPING open their eyes to the evil that they do so that they may understand that Riane Eisler and Lloyd de Mause are the TRUE “Way, Truth, and the Life”…..at least until some other lame social theorist comes along with designs on their kids and families! They are ALWAYS such DO-GOODERS, aren’t they?? They are ALWAYS just brimming with concern for their fellow man and ESPECIALLY children! These social planners and theorists, the Margaret Sangers who just want to stop so many of the poor unfortunate substandards from being born to the Deweys who just want to keep them intellectually stunted so they won’t mind their servitude to “society” so much to the Eislers and YOU who just KNOW that their demented religion is causing all the violence in the world (just ignore the millions slaughtered en masse by atheists)!

>>>>You constantly smear with names such as slimebag and nutjob and commie creep, etc., then turn around and accuse other people of smears. You have so little knowledge of your own speech, your own blind defenses, that you make it nearly impossible to reason with you.<<<<<

You think I don’t know what I am posting? What do YOU think of people who use Nazi tactics and ideology?

>>>>>You are against dialogue, believing it is some form of Hegelian dialectic, so you talk at people not with them, as you smear them and call them names.<<<

WRONG! I have REPEATEDLY posted that “dialogue” and your dialectic are perfectly fine for those who want to live under that paradigm. I see no need for it nor is it morally acceptable to force people to live as I say they should, even if I do happen to be part of a majority. YOU are welcome to this worldview as are those who don't mind being ruled by engineered consensus of mini gods posing as social "scientists". We have seen the dismal results of 100 plus years of social theories and "helping".

Misses the point so many times it can't be answered without taking hours I don't have.

Enjoy your insult and hate festivals here. Thanks to you, the new reason the education forum is here, so you can vent, insult and misunderstand every word that's written.

....you can't so you call it a "rant" to attempt to marginalize ME personally, instead. Leninist "debate" tactics, yawn.

First one would have to unravel all you've misconstrued and distorted in the original message. I don't have time for that.

I hope someday you overcome your penchant for pandiculating here - and likening my debate tactics to Lenin's.

You are marginalized. No one has to TRY to marginalize you.

As I posted above.