SHRINKING SEX LIFE AND NEUTERING MANKIND

 

 

Mechanization and the resultant degeneration are turning modern human into a species similar to the single-celled parasitic asexual. And this feat is achieved by the systematic NEUTERING of mankind. This neutered type of trait is on the rise in human consciousness and this key ‘achievement’ is being widely celebrated around the world by the market economy leadership of the GLOBALISTS. The process has brought about, among other pitfalls, the sub-standardization of human affairs. Modern human is thus turning out to be a solitary creature and continues living as a new species that is much detached from the rest of mankind, as though he/she is an open enemy and a disgraceful neuter to mankind.

 

“There is evidence that BPA emasculates males and makes them sexually undesirable. …. One of the prominent effects of early BPA exposure is that it eliminates a number of sex differences in brain and behavior”

~ LIISA GALEA and CINDY BARHAIN, authors and neuroscientists at the University of Missouri , in a new study in 2012 — Are The Chemicals of Modern Society Emasculating Men?

“Japan is in danger of heading for extinction after researchers found that more and more of the country’s young people are shunning the idea of marriage and having children. One in four unmarried men and women in their 30s say they have never had sex, and the majority of young women prefer the single life. A record 61.4% of unmarried Japanese men aged between 18 and 34 have no girlfriend, up 9.2 percentage points from 2005” — Report of the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Japan

 

 

 

Shrinking sex drive or growing sexlessness is bad for both males and females. Lesbianism is itself defined and diagnosed as a sexual disorder or a mental disease and so are gay traits, among men. Feminism and its corollary , the men’s rights movement (MRM), are certain weird social constructs that are born out of mental and physical deformities and degenerations.

Beginning in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, American medical writers first attempted to define the troubling specter of the lesbian. As a central part of this endeavor, medical professionals tried to pinpoint the lesbian’s status in the intellectual hierarchy of the era. Given the assumptions of the time that masculine intellect was superior and that lesbians were masculine, medical writers had to respond to the possibility of a “superior” lesbian intellect. The resulting tension between prevailing medical images of the lesbian as both “degenerate” and “intellectual” played a significant role in the explosive controversies surrounding women’s higher education, and in debates about the proper place of homosexuals in society. Furthermore, discussions of the lesbian intellect indicated the lack of a single unified medical evaluation of “masculinity” and “deviance” in this time period, producing a diversity that should be considered by historians of gender and sexuality.

Neutering of mankind is the end result of massive degeneration and shrinking sex life in the highly mechanized society: “Japan is in danger of heading for extinction after researchers found that more and more of the country’s young people are shunning the idea of marriage and having children. One in four unmarried men and women in their 30s say they have never had sex, and the majority of young women prefer the single life. A record 61.4% of unmarried Japanese men aged between 18 and 34 have no girlfriend, up 9.2 percentage points from 2005”, a report of the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Japan said. Reports on this topic coming from other parts of the world too have no different stories to tell. People in the West are too mean to each other. No one knows how to start a conversation, and if you try to do so, you’re labeled a stalker. Women love to do this. That’s why guys don’t like to approach women anymore. The case in the Third World is no different, as has been discussed earlier in Chapter 9 on Big Crunch under the title Shrinking Sex. Thus feminization or trivialization of innate human traits can certainly be taken as the clear symptom of degeneration and the fast ongoing shrinking of sex in modern humans.

It is unfortunate and imperfect that, in neutered or sexually degenerate persons, because of the deficiency in them of normal sex attributes and impulse, are shut out from the richest and sweetest, most sacred emotions of Humanity – precisely as persons of defective brain are debarred from the richer and fuller appreciations and joys of consciousness. And yet, apart and distinct from, although at the root of this abnormal neuterdom wherein the traits of one sex are antagonized by those of the other that the finest powers of both are nullified, normally, all men possess latent qualities of woman; all women have latent qualities of man. Otherwise, this third Neuter-gender – mannish women and womanish men – could not have come into being.

Nature, marvelously prescient in all her processes, has provided that the sexes, by being constituted wholly different in body, brain and bent, do not normally come into rivalry and antagonism in the fulfillment of their respective life-roles. Their faculties and functions, being complementary and supplementary, men and women are naturally dependent upon one another in every human relation; a dispensation which engenders reciprocal trust, affection, comradeship and kinship.

It cannot be doubted that human perfection reaches its climax in the accentuation of the differences between the sex-characteristics, physical and mental, of the one sex from those of the other. The best types of men differ far more from the best types of women than inferior men and women differ from one another. In body and in attribute, the sexes are complementary and supplementary. And their dissimilarities are the measure of their complementary and supplementary values. Their attraction to one another, their interest and happiness in one another’s’ company, are proportional to the degree in which members of one sex supply for members of the other, sentiment and qualities lacking in their own. Mannish women and womanish men are alike incapable of experiencing and inspiring the love-passion, which charms and transfigures life for true man and true woman.

The normal males protect the females. Even the gorilla, savage and most terrible of beasts, lies at night on guard beneath the tree in which his mate and offspring sleep. If need arises, he fights to the death in their defense. For the preservation of species, two roles are essential – the Male role of Combat, demanding strength and boldness, resource and fighting-quality, in order to protect and provide for the female and offspring; and the Female role of Understanding and Self-surrender, in order to nurture offspring antenatally, and, after birth, to nurture and to tend its helplessness.

Here, sorry to say, the new trends like the feminist doctrine and practice menace these most excellent provisions of Nature by thrusting personal rivalries, economic competition and general conflict of interests between the sexes. And the reigning corporate intellect, in their hope to exploit the innocent conflict between the two sexes, and in their age-old divide-and-rule strategy of exploitation, lavishly promotes this bizarre logic. The only Nature-made division of labour is the one between the two sexes and it is indispensable to human progress as was the case of the millions of years long human story. And this is the text of the feminist creed; the elimination of sex-differences (Nature-made division of labour ) and the abolition of sex-distinctions in every department of life and activity. This division of life into two sexes, in human development, is achieved by the two sexes travelling along diametrically opposite lines of ascent, is to nullify all that mankind has secured, and to transform the impulse of PROGRESS into one of DECADENCE.

Feminism, the predominant cult of the modern woman’s movement, is indeed masculinism. It makes for such training and development in woman, of male characteristics, as shall equip her to compete with the male in every department of life; academic, athletic, professional, political, and industrial. And it neither recognizes nor admits in her natural aptitudes differing from those of men, and fitting her, accordingly, for different functions in these. It rejects all concessions to her womanhood; even to her mother-function. It repudiates all privileges for her. Boldly it demands a fair field only and no favour ; it demands equal rights, political and social, identical education and training, identical economic opportunities and avocations, an identical morale, personal and public.

However, the neutralization of mankind is so complete, so thorough, that it is no longer certain if old-fashioned, masculine men are even desirable anymore. You would not know it by looking at our politicians, or our preachers, that is for sure. The politicians, and everyone else, seemed determined to continue to appease the feminized traits in majority that comprises this new world.

Reductionism, fall and neutralization of mankind

Ours is a dualistic universe that exists in a state of unity in dualism. For millions of years, all matters on Earth – organic and inorganic, living or non-living – existed in a wholistic state, that is, in a state of dual unity. Here things fall into one of two poles like day and night, male and female, space and time, matter and energy, reason and passion, good and evil, positive and negative, pleasure and pain, success and failure, flower and thorn, fruit and seeds, solution and problem, and so forth. Even light has a dualistic characteristic and that is why they call it “electromagnetic radiation”. The dual poles of light are the electro and the magnetic. The two elements make it when they come together as the two opposites. So there is the duality and there is the unity.

Men and women are not equal but completely different. Male-and-Female is duality in unity. The combining of whole hydrogen atoms in the universe cannot produce even a drop of water, nor can it by combining the whole of oxygen atoms in the universe. Only two contrasting fundamentals, as different as hydrogen and oxygen can produce water.

We consider both, human and water, as whole. In the case of water (H2O) the union of oxygen and hydrogen forms a chemically distinct substance. Water is a chemical compound in which the component elements do not retain the identities they have when separate or when part of a different compound. To study water, one does not study hydrogen and oxygen; what one studies is water.

Much like the water and its components, Nature’s design for man is perfect. By some amazing feat one male and one female with different wills and bodies are willing to stay, live and work together throughout their lives. They seem to be a universe in themselves. A special powerful force keeps the different moving particles working together. In other words, we can call this reality as the eternal SEX LIFE of NATURE. This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 19, under the following subtitles:

 

 

• Man: The One With Two Different Parts That Complement Each Other
• Male and Female Complement Each Other
• Male and Female: Duality In Unity
• “Two-in- One Flesh”

 

Here, the sudden neutering of mankind has its genesis in the sudden development of dualism in the knowledge process. The modern split up of the wholistic natural pairs in nature resulted in the linear development of isolated state of existence of broken pairs as singles, leading to their premature decay and degeneration. The present ‘dualist’ world is in the grip of an ‘Asexually Transmitted Disease’ that results in the growth of asexuality (sex-lessness), infertility, inhumanness, and a threatened future of all life forms. An asexual in Nciku English-Chinese Dictionary is shown as a nonsexual or some sexless matter/species. The seedless water melons, for example, are scientifically developed fruit via asexual reproduction. Asexually produced offspring are genetically identical clones of the parent organism.

Living in a mechanical era of artistic and scientific dualism – that revels in ‘divide and rule’, separation, isolation and categorization in the name of class, creed, color, region, religion, language, etc. – feminists, male-ist, gays, singles have all become the norms today. By totally depending on the reductionist shortcut method, modern man is avoiding the ‘unwanted’ or ‘inconvenient’ half part of each dualist matter like evil, negative, pain, failure, thorn and the like, and started going mechanically for only the ‘wanted’ or ‘convenient’ other half of each dualist matter like going from good-to-good (not from good-to-evil), from positive-to-positive (not from positive-to-negative), from pleasure-to-pleasure (not from pleasure-to-pain), from female-to-female-to-female (and not from female-to-male), or from success-to success-success (not from success-to-failure-to-success), flower without thorns (thorn-less flower), fruits without seeds (seedless fruits) and so forth and vice versa type of repeating instant solutions. Hence, life turned non-cyclical. And suddenly everything sharply changed.

Degeneration of sex

Our supermarkets are full of products that exhibit a sort of flawless perfection that does not correspond to anything in the natural world, nor to anything real. Our meats come parceled and packaged with no blood in sight; our fruits are becoming spotless and seedless; our pets are sterilized and neutered.

Most of us may be wondering as to what has happened to those high quality men and women about whom we have only studied in history or in their writings, in classic literature or in some of our own good old great-great grand-fathers and grand-mothers!

If I am asked to explain the main root problem visibly faced by the world today, I may answer it in one word: neutering of mankind. That is, mankind, on the whole, is succumbing to certain trivial human traits that are very much degenerated and hedonistic is essence. Asexuality – a sort of gender-neutrality – is on the rise. Some surveys of sexual behavior indicate that there could be almost as many people who are asexual as are gay. But in a society where sex is all pervasive, asexual people tend to be invisible. Here asexuality is meant to connote much dried up sex life and this vital and now degenerate energy subsequently finds expression through certain perversions and other sex-bordering acrobatics.

Then there are other examples of certain feminizing and degenerating hormones of modern lifestyle. The researchers, Lee Ellis and Jill Hellberg of Minot State University, North Dakota, questioned more than 5,000 U.S. and Canadian women in an effort to determine the effects of drugs they had taken during pregnancy. They found certain types of pills were associated with a much higher rate of lesbianism among the women’s daughters. Mothers who had taken the diet pills were eight times more likely than other mothers to have homosexual daughters, whereas those who had taken the thyroid pills were five times more likely, the researchers found.

There is no conspiracy here, no invisible entity directing things from the shadows. We might even say that the process is natural and the consequence of a “normal” social progression that started mainly in the modern era and has resulted in the emergence of a huge socio-economic machine, with its own logic and interest, assimilating, conforming, leveling and eradicating everything human in its path. We have seen in chapter 9 (The Big Crunch) the fast shrinking of every organic human functions and organs, including human sex organs and sex life due to the ongoing massive DEGENERATION which, on the other hand, is the result of massive MECHANIZATION (ridden in DUALISM and REDUCTIONISM) that was unleashed by the industrial civilization.

We might also say that this ‘natural’ process has its roots in human physical disadvantage causing psychological insecurity that makes the cooperation of individual beings on same gender lines a forced necessity. Women are not allowed to fulfill their role as women. Mankind today has become a society of automation workers and programmed consumers – jackasses and she-asses on the treadmill of production – while the government controls every aspect of our lives. First corporatism destroyed the extended family. The extended family was once the basis of society. Then the corporate structure expected workers to move to central locations. The nuclear family became the standard. This was facilitated, as was said, by the welfare state. Or more properly, the welfare-warfare state; warfare provided many of the corporate jobs, and welfare broke up families. So the dissolution of the nuclear family is not just the work of feminists. It’s the continuation of a trend that has been in place for a long time. The corporatist paradigm looks favorably on having women work, since that creates more taxpayers and more extravagant consumers. It discourages taking responsibility for one’s own kids, and encourages single-by-choice type of life styles.

Hedonism in the past was materialistic and was confined to a very microscopic phenomenon among a microscopic elite group of the global population. Today, thanks to the massive globalization, privatization, hi-tech mechanization, media digitization and virtualization, today’s hedonism is not only merely materialistic, it is also a highly abstract process – both materially and socially – on a hi-tech and massive social lifestyle and not sparing even the leaders and the so-called intellectuals and the spiritual heads. In sum, this is the present state of the degenerate mindset of the modern world.

Centuries of social engineering and ‘civilization’ have led to a type of human being unlike our ancestor and, still to this day, socialization persists to filter out all the ‘unwanted’ human characteristics, altering, in this way, human nature and degenerating human spirit into indistinct oblivion.

Today’s mankind is more sex-starved than food-starved folks: And while our society is rich enough that few starve for food anymore, wealth is much less able to prevent sexual starvation. Rather modern method of wealth creation that is based on commoditization of everything – including morals , values and sex – only promote sex starvation. So our society has far more sex-starved than food-starved folks. Yet it is far more acceptable to publicly lament the plight of the food starved than the sex starved. Signaling compassion is not about helping the needy.

Food starvation may be justified and can be the result of hundreds of factors including some faulty weather, massive crop failure etc. But how can we justify sex starvation in modern society when nature has provided it in ample measures for all species, including humans, by evenly distributing male-female ratio everywhere, and for all seasons. Should joblessness, lack of sufficient wealth, sex commoditization, strange religious and other social customs etc., be any strong reasons for a whopping majority of eligible people in the developing nations to remain unmarried and lead sexless life — as chronic bachelors – even during their 30’s and 40’s.   This may be due to a sort of groupthink – collective stupidity – born out of the above rationales. But this is the shocking reality.

Feminism may superficially be one of the reasons in risking rape. Males, as a ‘rejected’ lot in the present imaginary and image-led world, are at increased risk of suicide because it is harder for them to find an identity in our society and they often have a sense of being lost.  They have greater difficulties in expressing their feelings particularly emotional feelings and describing interpersonal difficulties.  The female has better verbal skills, better empathy, better interpersonal skills than the male and this is important in reducing suicidal tendencies and other frustrations.  The male mind is more of a mechanical type which is less good at emotional processing.

However, unlike many people believe, feminism cannot be construed as playing any significant role for the sort of sex crisis we have today, though feminism may be playing certain superficial role for the sort of sex starvation in the developed parts of modern society. Actually no species, including the pre-modern humans in nature is sex-starved, except modern humans when the menace is becoming a global epidemic today. The root cause may be the most dry modern industrial civilization which, under the reductionist mechanization has become instrumental bringing massive degeneration and drying up of everything organic (including sex), ecological and valuable that led soil to lose fertility, on the one hand, and water, soil and air to get polluted, on the other. On the whole, all this overarching degeneration also causes humans to lose values, love, sex passions and fertility, and indeed leaving them degenerated, disintegrated and disfigured in every respect.

Evolution of sexless mankind: sex starvation, sexless marriage, rape, sex dry-up, feminism, lesbianism, gayism and so forth are just some of its complications and symptoms

“Today 40 million Americans are feeling sex-starved”, writes New York Times best-selling author and sexuality counselor Ian Kerner (as reported by cnn.com in its ‘health blog’ on 14th April, 2011). And, if this is the case of America , there is no reason to believe the case to be any different for the highly globalized post-modern society today. It has been commented by many that Japan might be the first civilization, in the near future, to literally die off because of old age. According to the December 2012 ‘Survey of Male-Female Couples’ Lifestyles and Awareness’ carried out by the Japan Family Planning Association (JFPA), the percentage of couples who said that they ‘had not had sex in the past month’ was 41.3%. This is a considerable percentage, and it is not the only problem. It appears that sexless-ness is even epidemic among unmarried couples in their twenties and thirties. When their magazine carried out a survey of 400 men and women (200 of each gender) between 25 and 34 years old who were in a relationship, around 30% of them (29.6%) answered the number of times they had sex was less than ‘once per month’.

According to the popular television personality and psychologist, Dr. Phil Mc Graw who wades through the intimate details of his guests’ as well as his professional clients’ lives — there is an epidemic of “sexless marriages” these days.  His observations coincide with recent articles in popular magazines like Time and Newsweek and in more upscale journals like The Atlantic, Salon, Psychology Today and First Things.  In the midst of a sex-saturated culture, overflowing with dramatic images of the female anatomy, a new phenomenon has developed: men losing interest in sex.

Even the prolific political columnist, Mark Steyn has weighed in, asking, “Do you notice anything shriveling?”  In his essay, he reports that the lack of sexual enthusiasm has even extended to the Netherlands, a place known for sexual permissiveness.  Now, according to the ANP news agency, “the Dutch now derive more pleasure from going to the bathroom than from sex.”  So much for “free” love.

Living in sexless marriage has become a silent, massive and an undeniable epidemic. Today they’re called the married singles. Meanwhile, a recent article in Newsweek attempted to quantify the problem: “It is difficult to say exactly how many of the 113 million married Americans are too exhausted or too grumpy to get it on, but some psychologists estimate that 15 to 20 percent of couples have sex no more than 10 times a year, which is how the experts define sexless marriage.”

Clearly, something is weird when everybody’s talking about it and nobody’s doing it.  Could it be that sex has become just another item to periodically check off on the “to do” lists of too-busy couples? 

In a fascinating study two Wharton economists analyzed what they called “declining female happiness” using 35 years of data collected by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  Their startling finding: none of the recent societal trends benefitting women has increased their happiness.  In fact, the opposite has happened.  Throughout the industrialized world, women’s happiness has declined in absolute terms and in comparison to men’s happiness. 

Mary Eberstadt, in her October 2009 First Things article, “What Does Woman Want? The War Between the Sexless,” gives her explanation for so much unhappiness troubling today’s war-driven women:

Perhaps some of the modern misery of which so many women today authentically speak is springing not from a sexual desert but from a sexual flood — a torrent of poisonous imagery, beginning even in childhood, that has engulfed women and men, only to beach them eventually somewhere alone and apart, far from the reach of one another.

At least that way of looking at the puzzle might explain some of the paradox of all that female unhappiness.  Between bad ideas of gender neutrality and even worse ideas about the innocence of pornography, we reach the world … where men act like stereotypical women, and retreat from a real marriage into a fantasy life via pornography … and where women conversely act like stereotypical men, taking the lead in leaving their marriages and firing angry charges on the way, out of frustration and withheld sex.

Perhaps millions of husbands around the world are sneaking into their computers and logging onto cyber porn. The trend is so pervasive — and numbers are so high — it would be of little use to pinpoint these men. They are everywhere, and they are of all types, size and age, race and religion, education and profession. Most married men won’t admit they patronize cyber porn, but the sites grow exponentially. The industry is making billions of dollars, and the profits are aggressively pursued by shadow-like operations, many based offshore or in Eastern Europe.

Here’s another slant — whether it’s marriage, inherently, that is the challenge, with its emphasis on long-term fidelity, that some may view as unrealistic…, or that we are talking about a particular problem in someone’s marriage… either way: , perhaps married men trying to fill a void are turning to cyber sex instead of real sex. Cyber sex is convenient — it involves no travel, no personal relationship, and no risk of disease. We’ve come a long way. (Or have we?) Cyber sex on the flip side also offers no intimacy, human touch, or love.

On the woman area, Dr. Marie N. Robinson MD says that millions of American women suffer from frigidity. Dr. Robinson is a Cornell educated psychiatrist devoted her New York City practice to the treatment of frigidity. While she explores many different causes, she notes that frigid women universally adopt the feminist view. This view, that a career as a wife and mother is demeaning and men exploit woman, creates an “emotional logjam” which obstructs sexual response and psychological development. Her views on feminism confirm a connection between sexual inadequacy or frustration and the pull towards violence or rebellious outlook which is indeed a neurotic development.

Her book, The Power of Sexual Surrender (1958) is a revealing study of the feminine psyche. It is out-of-print. Why? It is politically incorrect in today’s market-led world.

Robinson further says that if feminism had brought women happiness, the game might have been worth it. Thus, according to Robinson, feminists and Victorian women both laid the foundations for modern female neurosis. The feminist-Victorian antagonism to men was handed down from mother to daughter so that “to millions of women, hostility towards the opposite sex seems almost a natural law. Although many a modern women may pay lip service to the ideal of a passionate and productive marriage to a man, underneath she deeply resents her role, conceives of the male as fundamentally hostile to her, as an exploiter of her. She wishes in her deepest heart, and often without the slightest awareness of the fact, to supplant him, to exchange roles with him.” 

Another prominent author, Arabella Kenealy, L.R.C.P., through her book, Feminism and Sex Extinction, has no different story to tell, as she writes:”Feminism, the extremism—and of late years the predominant cult of the Woman’s Movement — is Masculinism”.

Deconstructing the Family: The institution of family is a basic unit in society since hundreds of millennia, and the multifaceted functions performed by it make it a much-needed institution in a society. Some of the important functions performed by the family include reproduction of new members and socializing them, and provision of emotional and physical care for older persons and young. In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. Family in fact, is an institution which resolves or eases a large number of social problems.

First the industrial civilization smashed the long joint family and herd-like living system by splitting it to nuclear families. Today this nuclear family too is again breaking up, thanks to highly radical ideas like feminism, gayism, corporatism all gaining sudden prominence.   Incidentally, feminism is so deeply entrenched in our society’s cultural elites and the institutions they dominate — really it is the defining ideology of Western society today — that whether she wants to or not, no thinking woman can escape the necessity of negotiating some kind of relationship with its claims. 

Sex within marriage is supposed to be the most beautiful, fulfilling, emotional, satisfying experience in the world. By urging millions of already mechanized (and thus having reduced sex drive) young women to see husbands as oppressors and family as bondage, feminists damage the relationship within marriage irreparably. Here every young woman is being counseled that her sex is a weapon she wields in order to get her way if she has a disagreement with her husband. But it is stupid for her to use it this way because she will eventually push him away. She ruins their spiritual connection; their sense of closeness, togetherness & trust. Here the diminishing interest in sex and commitment among even the married men adds fuel to the fire.

Every day it hits us in the face, our best friends are getting divorced. What? How can this be? They otherwise seemed so perfect for each other, and what about their beautiful little children? Everywhere we turn, it goes on and on and on. This grim reality is confirmed by the statistics which say: 45 – 50% of all marriages in America end in divorce. Even worse, 60% to 67% of second marriages end in divorce, and 70% to 73% of third marriages end in divorce.

And this tragedies escalates into the open societies too where the chronic sex-starved, who by then having ended up psychopathic, becomes the brute rapist. In the endemic conflict between the two sexes, the long unused and frigid sex started atrophying, especially for women, leading to sex-starvation, especially for men, and the resultant complications including the eclipse of the basic human institution – FAMILY – that connotes everything human.

Meltdown of the last family unit – the nuclear family – and the evolution of parentless society

For about the last one hundred years, the family unit has been under assault. One of two vital players – fathers – is increasingly not showing up on the job. Why? And where will it end?

Who are you? What made you the way you are? What do you look like? What do you value in life? What are your hopes, dreams and goals?

None of these questions (Courtesy to authors KEVIN D. DENEE AND H. CHRIS LOMAS) can be answered in a word, or even a sentence. However, the basis of these answers, the material that you would need, began to be compiled when your life started. A plethora of other ‘deep’ or ‘probing’ questions could be asked about your person – but in almost every case, you could not turn to a single event that forms the answer. This is because your life experience from the day you were conceived has helped shape the person you are today.

From a scientific perspective, any answer to the above questions would come from your brain. Let’s notice how your brain has been working from the beginning of your life (emphasis ours): “Brain cells are ‘raw’ materials – much like lumber is a raw material in building a house. Heredity may determine the basic number of ‘neurons’ (brain nerve cells) children are born with, and their initial arrangement, but this is just a framework. A child’s environment has enormous impact on how these cells get connected or ‘wired’ to each other.”

“A brain is not a computer. The brain begins working long before it is finished. And the same processes that wire the brain before birth also drive the very rapid growth of learning that occurs immediately after birth. At birth, a baby’s brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way…During the first years of life, the brain undergoes a series of extraordinary changes” (‘Brain Development,’ University of Maine).

From a young age, you were a giant sponge, drinking in your environment – sound, shapes, lights, faces, voices, languages, music, emotions, etc. As you grew, more complex things impact your world, ultimately growing into who you are today – parents, other caregivers, siblings, friends, education, physical environment, etc.

Now ask: Which individuals were most responsible for your developmental years of life? For almost every reader, the answer is your parents. For millions of years, and for millions of other species on planet Earth, this has been the reality.

For millennia, this has been the cycle for the family unit: A man and woman come together in marriage. They have children. They care for their children and teach them how to live. The children grow up, take what they have learned and live their own lives, usually becoming parents. And thus, the cycle continues.

That cycle is quickly falling apart. The social experiments of the 20th and 21st centuries – which have attempted to redefine the roles of parent and child – have caused the family to come under assault. One of the greatest factors is that families are increasingly becoming fatherless.

The Facts: Over the last 50 years, more and more children have been growing up without their fathers or their fathers working and living in distant lands, thanks to Industrial Revolution. The role of a father should, simply from a mathematical perspective, be one that contributes 50% to the development of any child. But tens of millions of children in the United States, and the world at large, will put their heads on a pillow tonight in a home without a father.(In the vast rest world too, the father may be away in some distant land or region working in his factory or industrial unit)

Here are some statistics from Focus on the Family (emphasis ours):

• “The United States leads the world in fatherless families, with roughly 24 million children (or 34% of all kids in the United States) living in homes where the father does not reside.”
• “Nearly 40% of children in father-absent homes have not seen their dad during the past year.”
• “More than half of all fatherless children have never been in their dad’s home.”

Stop and consider the first two points. In US alone, twenty-four million children are growing up without a father figure – without the teaching, guiding, experience-building, correcting, nurturing that a father can bring. When you see 20 children, realize that seven are not living with their father. Then realize that nearly 10 million have not even seen their father in the past year!

Consider a point of reference: “In 1960, less than eight million children under age 18 were living in families where the father was absent” (U.S. Bureau of the Census). This means that the number of children being raised in single-mother homes has tripled in less than 50 years! The statistics of the vast rest world of the industrial society too is not much different in this aspect.

In the 1950s, the term ‘nuclear family’ was coined. This essentially described a family of a father, mother and children. This was to distinguish from an ‘extended family,’ which could include grandparents, or others. By the 1960s, 80% of America’s children lived with two married parents.

A 1996 Gallup poll revealed 79% agree that “The most significant family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home.”

Additionally, the poll stated that 54% feel that fathers do not know what is going on in their children’s lives and that 95% feel it is important that a child lives with both a father and a mother.

The nuclear family is facing a sharp meltdown today. Where will it all end? What impact will this have on tens of millions of minds – after a generation – let alone after another generation? How can we solve the mess in which our social experiments have put us?

Modern world is fast heading towards a mechanical state of FATHERLESS SOCIETY and MOTHERLESS MANKIND.

Fatherless Society Motherless Mankind: Fatherless America! – thundered the title of a provocative book, followed by the subtitle’s pressing tone: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem. The most urgent social problem in the United States today, according to some scholars, is the increasing number of fathers who either are not in the home or are ineffective parents while at home.

Now close on the heels of stories of absentee/ineffective parents come the stories of ‘hypothetical or scientific’ parents that turn out to be another curse to human society.

In a case before the Kansas Supreme Court, as reported by Kay S. Hymowitzin Chicago Sun-Times on April 29, 2007, an unmarried woman decided that she wanted a child and asked a friend to be a sperm donor. He agreed, and the woman gave birth to twins. The mother says that she always intended to raise the kids alone and never wanted the friend involved in their lives. The donor says that he planned to be the twins’ father in name and practice. There is no written contract. What does the contemporary Solomon do?

Well, in a Kansas trial court, Solomon rules that without a contract the twins have no father. The man who provided half of the children’s genetic material has no more relationship to them than does the taxi driver who rushed their mother to the hospital when she went into labor. Now, assuming that the Supreme Court upholds the decision, the state of Kansas can celebrate adding two more fatherless children to its population.

In another court case, A Beverly Hills woman cannot force her former     fiancé to financially support the child she conceived via in vitro fertilization with the sperm of an anonymous donor, a federal judge ruled. (http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/27/47854.htm).

The above two examples are just the tip of the iceberg of modern invented living in which senseless mechanization, apart from doing many other immoral things, is fast rendering man increasingly infertile. Modern man lives in an invented, fictitious world. Behind a front of satisfaction and optimism he is deeply unhappy; as a matter of fact, he is on the verge of desperation. Modern man is starved for lively life. Since being an automaton, he cannot experience life in the sense of spontaneous activity; he takes life as some surrogate kind of excitement and thrill.

You’d think that we have enough problems keeping fathers around in our society, what with out-of-wedlock births and divorce. But these days, Fatherhood in modern society has yet another hostile force to contend with: artificial insemination, or AI.

While the number of kids born as a result of the procedure (about 1 million so far in the United States) is still quite small, AI is having a disproportionate cultural and legal effect and is advancing a cause once celebrated only in the most obscure radical journals: the dad-free family.

Today’s sperm banks provide lengthy online catalogs of donors, containing such basic stats as height, hair color, eye color and education, as well as results from personality tests for an extra fee.

The sophisticated marketing of sperm banks, which appeals to single women and lesbians as well as infertile married couples, has coincided with what one may call the ‘unmarriage revolution’ – that is, the decoupling of marriage and child-rearing. The California Cryobank, the country’s largest sperm bank, estimates that about 40% of its customers are unmarried women. The Sperm Bank of California says that two-thirds of its clientele are lesbian couples.

In her recent book Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice, Rosanna Hertz found that most of her (non-lesbian) subjects had struggled for years to find husbands and start families before finally concluding that they had no choice but to go it alone.

Many mothers find that for all the magnificence of human intentionality and free choice, biology just won’t go away. As they watch their children grow, they might notice an unfamiliar crooked smile or a musical talent when they have a tin ear. They wonder: Are these clues to the mystery man who is my child’s father? They often try to flesh out an image of human being from the sperm bank’s description. Odd as it sounds, they may become attached, even romantically aroused – after all, they selected the donor because he sounded like the kind of man they might have wanted to marry.

In his fascinating new book, The Genius Factory, David Plotz describes one mother who fantasized that she would “meet [the donor] serendipitously, fall madly in love, and he would become the father of his own children.” Another keeps a picture of a man she believes is her child’s donor by her bedside.

Note: In this connection, please read the book Life On Meltdown, particularly the following chapters that are closely linked to this topic.

• Chapter 4: Free Radical: The Corrupter 0f Nature’s Codebook           143
• Chapter 9:………………. The Big Crunch: Man is Shrinking     302
• Chapter 13: Rape of Mind and the Role of Organized Religions           399
• Chapter 18:……………………………. Sustainable Democracy     549 

 

 

Why you should buy this book:  A note from the Publisher

http://www.humanfirst.in/discussions/why-you-should-buy-this-book-a-note-from-the-publisher/