Social changes come in many forms, some of which we might not immediately recognise or identify as such. Some kinds of social changes are natural, generally manifesting themselves slowly and occurring over long periods of time, normally without upheaval or societal distress. Other kinds are consciously contrived by persons with an agenda, these appearing suddenly and evolving much more quickly, often with considerable social upset and distress, at least in some quarters.
The easiest way to identify normal evolutionary social change from the contrived kind is that with natural social change there is no noise. We do not have the mass media beating the drums in support of the new order and, if the change attracts their attention at all, the media most often rail against it in favor of protecting the status quo. Newspaper owners and editors argued strongly against the abolition of slavery, of child labor, of giving women the vote, for example.
By contrast, the social changes contrived by our NWO masters-of-the-universe-to-be, are always noisy, their media compatriots leading the charge with well-prepared psycho-babble designed to eliminate our natural resistance to change, to shame us into new ways of thinking, and generally to extort our compliance. To assist in the public propagandising, vocabulary is re-assigned new meanings and connotations which serve to disguise the anti-social purpose of the changes. Resistance becomes not only increasingly futile but personally dangerous, because resistors are early on identified as ‘the enemy’ who, unlike a social tradition, are personally identifiable and can thus be targeted. In this latter category we have items such as the alphabet soup of (negative) sexual perversions now categorised as (neutral) “preferences”, and the campaign to legalise marijuana (and soon, hard drugs as well), both led by our media with the volume turned to ‘maximum’.
It should be noted that with many of these agenda-contrived changes, morality and values are either discarded or, like the vocabulary, re-assigned new values. Consider in this light the issue of homosexuality. For at least the past 80 years, the sexual molestation of young boys by older men was considered a reprehensible crime leaving personal devastation in its wake, claims of its negataive effects supported by enormous volumes of medical and other evidence. And even today, young athletes are still pursuing in civil courts retribution for such molestation committed by coaches and others while the police are still laying criminal charges against those responsible. And it isn’t only sports venues; the Catholic Church is being bankrupted in many dioceses for its long covert approval of the practice and its vast support of the perpetrators.
But the landscape appears to have changed suddenly to the point where two men can marry, become husband and wife, and adopt small boys, with absolutely no mention of the potential emotional damage to those same young victims. The effects on the child-victims have totally and entirely fallen below the media radar. So where is the truth? If the sexual use of small boys was psychologically devastating and a reprehensible crime 80 years ago, it must be the same today. If the practice were harmless, as seems to be what we are told today, then it was harmless also 80 years ago. But then why the vast medical evidence in opposition, and why the criminal and civil trials occurring regularly, along with the serious prison sentences meted out?
Only one side of this story can be true. If we were being told the truth in the past, then everyone is lying to us today. If what we are told today is the truth, then everyone has been lying to us for 80 years. But lies of this kind don’t put basketball coaches in prison and bankrupt dozens of Catholic churches. The logical conclusion is that we were being told the truth in the past and that our masters-to-be are perpetrating an enormous fraud on Western nations today. It would appropriate to ask who are these people and what is their purpose. How did we travel from the point where some acts considered deviations – such as pedophilia – have morphed into conditions where even political leaders celebrate their existence in public parades? Of course, it isn’t the specific act of child sexual molestation that is being celebrated, but this is precisely the problem in that the act is in large part inseparable from the fundamental condition, but this part of the story is being silenced, presumably on the grounds of ‘fake news’.
But with my statements, please understand I make no judgment or condemnation of other people or their conditions or preferences, but then neither do I participate in public parades to boast that I am a typical run-of-the-mill heterosexual. And I don’t participate in public sexual parades for two reasons. One is that the very idea is stupid and the second is that nobody would care. In this context, the power of the political pressure that can be created by the media is astonishing. There are few government leaders with the character to avoid being used by private interests in such a shameful way, and even fewer with the courage to do so. The ‘gay pride’ movement, to my best knowledge entirely a Jewish initiative, has accumulated a power equivalent to supporting Israel: both are pre-requisites for re-election, and both involving an insignificant percentage of the population. You might care to think about that.
If you have been watching the media carefully, we have slowly been prepared not only for the praise of these new sexual ‘preferences’ so far listed, but also for the practice of incest – which will be next on the list. The relentless propaganda campaign in favor of casual abortions is part of this series of contrived social change – instigated by the same people and accompanied by a huge volume of incessant media noise.
There are other kinds of changes that, due to media conditioning, we tend to identify as political or financial, but that are very much social changes and usually with vast implications for society as a whole. Consider the matter of infrastructure privatisation, which we have been conditioned to look upon as purely a commercial concern, but which is in fact almost entirely social in its effects. You might care to read earlier articles I wrote on the evils of privatisation, to see some specifics on the effects of a society.https://www.npr.org/2020/11/05/931726205/denmark-to-...avirushttps://news.yahoo.com/danish-pm-tears-visiting-mink...7.htmlhttps://www.unz.com/lromanoff/world-map-of-privatisation/
In this category we find toll highways, airports, hospitals and medical care, prisons, electricity generation, pensions, driving licenses, education, and much more, all creating unpleasant social changes in addition to the financial implications. When Britain was pushed to privatise their public railways – with immense financial losses to the government and untold misery for the travelers, the procedure was re-categorised from ‘privatisation’ to ‘liberalisation’, suggesting that the railways had been hamstrung by their public owners and were now being set free, any kind of “freedom” being a universal value and thus cannot be challenged.
There are many others that fit more comfortably into what we might term ‘social change’, such as the animal-rights activists and various environmental groups. For many reasons, I have little sympathy for most of these people or the groups to which they belong. To begin, you might have noticed that in addition to the more or less sudden appearance of these groups, there is the inevitable accompanying media noise which is prima facie evidence of these movements having been contrived by persons behind the scenes with an agenda. Also, if you haven’t been sleeping, you may have noticed that these groups are all promoted and funded by people like George Soros and the usual group of suspects, and could not exist without such support and the media encouragement.
These people are not much motivated, at least in my opinion, by true social values or instincts to do good. The attraction seems more an opportunity to rebel, to give an unjust society the finger, and to engage in outrageous conduct while protected by some level of political correctness. Perhaps even more, it is the exhilarating feeling of power over others, the power deriving from some measure of extortion to enable one to force others to do one’s bidding by the false expedient of causing moral discomfort.
No Mink Allowed
One of my favorites in this regard is the “fur coats are evil” movement, perhaps best manifested by the young psychopaths who accost you on the street and spray-paint your mink coat a pretty fluorescent green. These are the same people who sneak into a mink farm and release the thousands of animals into the wild where they will all die for lack of food and hunting skills. These people are not animal-lovers in any sense, and probably wouldn’t know a raccoon from a skunk, much less be able to identify a mink. They are merely anti-social trouble-makers looking for an excuse, and would have latched onto any cause that would give expression to their criminal instincts. They might just as easily have become tree-huggers if George hadn’t gotten to them first. We might wonder why they aren’t more interested in preventing the loss of honey-bees than in exterminating mink, but the answer lies with those who set the agenda, and bees aren’t on it while your mink coat is.
I admit to some perplexity on this above issue. For untold generations a fur coat was not only a useful luxury but a source of some satisfaction and pride, as well as a lovely status symbol. As usual, there is the issue of hypocrisy: These same people, agenda-makers or trouble-makers alike, have no hesitation in wearing leather jackets, leather shoes, leather belts and sheepskin mittens while a fur coat is re-categorised as a crime against humanity (or at least against the animal portion of it). With the willing help of the media, we are being made to feel ashamed for wearing one kind of animal skin while other kinds are permissible. But a mink is just a kind of weasel, and a generally nasty creature at best. It’s a surprise anyone would care. There are some big lies being told here.
This is partly an aside, but it’s more than nothing. Denmark recently killed more than 17 million mink on more than 1,000 mink farms, which had an export value nearing $1 billion annually. It was so bad that Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen broke down in tears when visiting a mink farmer who lost his herd following the government’s order to cull all the mink in the country, ostensibly to curb the spread of the coronavirus.https://www.npr.org/2020/11/05/931726205/denmark-to-...avirus In related news, the government later admitted the cull was illegal, the Agriculture Minister resigned in shame, and the government faced a non-confidence motion.https://news.yahoo.com/danish-pm-tears-visiting-mink...7.html If you followed the tales of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the UK a few years back, the cause was different but the result was the same: thousands of small farmers were liquidated – illegally – eliminating the entire livestock herds, and soon afterwards Big Agra was there to take over. My guess is that history is repeating itself here, as it has done in so many sudden and unexplained infections resulting in the elimination of small farmers and providing an opportunity for Big Agra to fill the supply deficit.https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/06/larry-romanof...h.html
In any case, this is one social change that can and should be resisted. In addition to the genuine practicalities and ostentatious luxury, fur coats are like Ferraris and Lamborghinis – they need no further reason to exist. Mink is one of the nicest furs. Sable is especially luxurious, and very expensive. Perhaps the best is a floor-length chinchilla – if you don’t mind looking like a pimp. My point is that we needn’t latch onto every orchestrated social change just because the NYT and WSJ tell us ‘blue is the new red’. We have the power as individuals to simply refuse to accept the agendised propaganda and continue as we have always done. This applies as much (and even more) to matters involving morality as to those of activity or purchasing.
In the matter of orchestrated and contrived social change, I cannot ignore the matter of cigarette-smoking. This is not an argument in favor of smoking but instead is a tirade against an enormous hypocrisy that stinks up the entire room while everyone pretends to not notice.
When I was a child, smoking was an acceptable and deeply-ingrained social habit. You would no more refuse permission to smoke than refuse a glass of water to a thirsty guest. Every table had an ashtray, as did every airplane on every seat-rest. It seems a bit strange now that we would smoke up an enclosed space like an airplane, but we did. Most of the famous news anchors and the well-known talking heads regularly made cigarette commercials. There is a well-known film clip of the young actor James Dean casually smoking cigarettes during a long TV interview. My point is that I did not create this world. I was born into it. And, because that was all I knew, I believed that was the way the world was. And that was the way the world was.
The younger generation today would like to change this, and I have no objection. They will inherit the world into which they were born, and they are free to make whatever social changes they deem appropriate. But recall what I said at the beginning about natural social changes occurring slowly, without noise, and without social distress. The front-line soldiers pushing changes as this and others, benefit from the noise and have no concern about causing distress. My suggestion to them is to change the future and not the past. Corporations do this easily. When implementing major policy changes, they often apply those to only new hires, excluding existing staff or some subset of them. This is what we have come to call a “grandfather clause”, leaving untouched what is while changing what will be. In simple terms, change your world – for you – but leave me out of it. I do not want to do what you want. I want to do what I want. And my wants are every bit as valid as yours.
But the real issue is the hypocrisy. We know all about the dangers of smoking and have read much of the toxic nature of ‘second-hand’ smoke. So, if you are a parent (preferably a mother), let’s make a deal. I will give you a choice. Your child can sit next to me for 20 minutes while I smoke a few cigarettes or, for 5 minutes, I will hold your child’s head under the exhaust pipe of your car. You and I both know that in the first case nothing will happen while in the second case your kid will be dead.
You pump more toxic and deadly chemicals into the air in one day of commuting than I would do in one year of smoking cigarettes, so where is your concern for your health, my health, the public health, and the environment? The non-existent elephant in the room. Why is it okay for you to poison me with your automobile exhaust but not okay for me to do the reverse in a far milder form? The answer of course is that you drive but you don’t smoke. Your position constitutes not only willful blindness but an hypocrisy of an astonishingly high order. If you are one of those righteous Christians who treasures the opportunity to despise others for not behaving the way you want, my advice to you is to either throw away the keys to your car, or put a sock in it.