Existentialism: It’s All Just Relatively Meaningless

“What I really lack is to be clear in my mind what I am to do, not what I am to know, except in so far as a certain knowledge must precede every action.  The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do: the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die. … I certainly do not deny that I still recognize an imperative of knowledge and that through it one can work upon men, but it must be taken up into my life, and that is what I now recognize as the most important thing.” 

Søren Kierkegaard, Letter to Peter Wilhelm Lund dated August 31, 1835

 

     The existentialist view sees things as meaningless, everything is relative, there is no God and all are simply accountable to their own self.  Since God does not exist for the existentialist, people are responsible to themselves only.  Because God is nonexistent there is no plan for man as Aristotle believed there is.  Man is doomed to wander through life without goals and hope from a higher being of creation that fashioned all for a purpose.  People can rely only on themselves and whatever they do is a reaction.

    Are we all “…alone in the midst of…happy…” people who “…agree with each other [?]”[1]  This particular mindset does not give hope, rather leaves people to wander through life with fears of what will become of them because they disbelieve in a higher being who guides.  Jean-Paul Sartre asked himself that question in Nausea when he glimpsed upon the old man with the tumor: he was alone, dying, ugly to look upon because of the growth: “Is that what awaits me?”[2] Sartre asked himself.  The existentialist view is that of Being and Nothingness.  Nothing awaits man.  There is no faith, no aspiration, and no plan. 

      Is there any reason for us to care what we do to others if the existentialist view is correct?

     The existential personality displays a grave negativism that can have disastrous effects in the realm of politics.  To Sartre, objects were nothing.  They exist simply for use and “nothing more.”[3]  That right there has dangerous political allusions: people are nothing but objects to be used.  And, if people are not real, but simply illusions and essence, then it is not wrong to control those we view as unfit.  If Sartre was correct in his beliefs that God is not real and we are only accountable to ourselves and simply essence formed after birth, than Hitler did nothing wrong in exterminating human beings.  The Jews were then at fault for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and Hitler simply reacted when he massacred Jews.

     Sartre says of himself and his diary that “I admire the way we can lie, putting reason on our side.”[4]  Is that not what takes place politically; men lie with “reason” in order to gain power from those unsure of the world around them?  Lenin and Trotsky lied to the Russian people who blindly followed them.  Many followed all the way to the Gulags as a result.  To this day there are those who do not view communism as wrong and Stalin as evil.  He is now a saint with a glorified statue of him in Russia.  The mass murderer is now an icon who is viewed as saving Russia. 

     Sartre describes himself the way he views all “self-taught” peoples: “I live alone, entirely alone.  I never speak to anyone, never; I receive nothing, I give nothing.”[5]  The political implications of this type is they tend not to be politically involved, not caring what happens to their nation, who leads, viewing all as the same and nothing, not true, not valid, no matter the individual or situation.  The consequences for the rest can be drastic in the worse sense: this uncaring, alone person who refuses to associate with others has no idea how people think and feel or how much power they have in political decisions.  This person considers people’s thoughts to be false, artificial essence. 

     The existentialist does not concern his self with the world.  The world is made-up.  The rest suffer for this flippant view.

    Again, this makes Hitler’s vile actions simply relative and no one should feel outrage over something that was simply a reaction.  Therefore, Hitler was, and is not, responsible for his actions.

     The existentialist tends to overstate and over think, yet believes everything is simply nothingness.  There is lost the love to simply take in life’s beauty and breathe the wonder of everything given us, seeing it as a gift from God: nature, the world around us.  Sartre, like all existentialists over analyzed everything he looked upon and then discarded simple joys as relative.  He saw a crushed paper with writing on it, a story, something from a child’s “school notebook.”[6]  He wanted to pick the paper up to read it, he obviously felt a natural curiosity all have, but then refused.  He said he “…was unable.”[7]  This is false.  He simply refused.  If he truly wanted to read the child’s notebook he could have.  After all, if there is no God, was Sartre not in control of his self? 

     Sartre’s existential ideology held him back through a false permeating fear and bogus belief that nothing he saw or felt was real: “I am no longer free, I can no longer do what I will.  Objects should not touch because they are not alive.”[8] 

    Once again, Hitler was not committing wrong if Jews were not in actuality real.  Mao did nothing wrong, Stalin did nothing wrong.  All those massacred people were simply existences occurring before their essence, which was not created by God, who does not exist, thus they were not meant for anything.  Killing hundreds of thousands of human beings was simply removing a relative extract.  This ideology justifies survival of the fittest theories, giving validation to murdering those viewed as unfit.

     This outlook has serious implications. Politically, it negativity seeps into society.  If others take on the mindset, what is to happen to the political process; who would people choose as a leader?  If people believe nothing is real and all is just relative, anyone with the worse intentions can take control and all follow because they are not sure what they believe.  After all, life is not real; nothing is simply nothing, what we commit does not require or have consequences. 

 

 

 

---

[1] Jean-Paul Sartre, Nausea, (New York: New Directions Paperbook, 2007), 8.

[2] Sartre, Nausea, 9.

[3] Sartre, Nausea, 10.

[4] Sartre, Nausea, 9.

[5] Sartre, Nausea, 6.

[6] Sartre, Nausea, 10.

[7] Sartre, Nausea, 10.

[8] Sartre, Nausea, 10.

Hey Buddy, Can You Spare a Trillion?

 

Money…is the only part of the circulating capital of society, of which the maintenance can occasion any diminution in their neat revenue.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776 

    

     Adam Smith would be appalled by the Federal Reserve’s excessive decrease in interest rates that lead to excessive printing of cheap money.  Smith said that stock (the nation’s supply of goods) is not in de facto revenue, rather, money from the reserve must “…circulate in society…”[1] in order to become revenue.[2]  Smith warned overextending cheap paper on things not yet tangible, because “it resembles money,”[3] is negligent.  Money is the “…means of which the whole revenue (profits) of the society is regularly distributed among different members, which makes itself no part of [the actual proceed, because] …the revenue (income) of society consists altogether in [the] goods [bringing in the returns], and not the [company or bank loan] that circulates them.”[4]   Adam Smith laid the foundation for modern economics, but his theories have been ignored.  The results are what he forewarned: banking collapse.

     The government cannot borrow more than it has in the Federal Reserve.  Without enough capital backing massive loans, banks must find ways to subsidize promissory notes.[5]  “Money… [is] the great wheel of circulation, the great instrument of commerce…of trade…and a very valuable part of the capital…” but it is not the actual “…revenue…” of the nation as a whole.[6]  It is the people, according to Adam Smith, who create wealth.[7]  The banks lend and interest on promissory notes is what must provide actual circulation.[8]  Smith advised that the loan “bearer” is equally responsible to the banking system’s[9] “…demands…”[10] to circulate money properly.  

    Adam Smith believed in the cause and effect theory.  Monetary failure is caused by excessive spending: “Monetary excesses (by banks) were the main cause”[11] of sudden, rapid lending increases that exploded eight years ago.   Smith did not criticize lending, banks are in the business of “advancing money,”[12] he did articulate the need for sufficient credit in order to repay initial investments: “The payment of the bill, when it becomes due, replaces to the bank the value of what had been advanced…”[13]  Lending worthless bills and borrowing against insignificant stock is bad policy: “The sum of bank money for which the receipts are expired must be very considerable.  [Money] must comprehend the whole original capital of the bank…which has been allowed to remain there from the time it was first deposited…But whatever may be the amount of this sum [lent by Wall Street and other lending houses], the proportion which it bears to the whole mass of bank money is supposed to be very small.”[14]  Smith’s key words are “very small.”  He taught that enormous loans meant the borrower must earn more in order to refund interest along with what was originally afforded.[15]  

     America’s prosperity was created by men who understood Adam Smith’s philosophy: when pecuniary management is balanced properly, a nation prospers.  There must also be free trade, freedom to spend; spending necessitates proper management of expenditures.[16]  Smith explained that if a nation’s “consumption”[17] exceeds that which it produces, the nation is left with “excess:”[18] “If the exchangeable value of the annual produce…falls short of the annual consumption…The expense of the society…exceeds its revenue…[and]…must necessarily decay…[along with]…the value of the annual industry.”[19]  In America’s case, industry fell with the banks.  Adam Smith would say “The expense of society…exceed[ed]…its revenue.”[20]  That is because paper money lost dollar value and the original government standard, gold, what Smith called “the balance of trade,”[21] is no longer the official backing of funds, toxic assets are.[22]  Without such criterions as the benchmark commodity to trade, society is more “…limited to a certain quantity…”[23] of imports and trade.[24]

When Is It Proper To Lend?

     Is there a proper time for nations to lend enormous amounts of money?  Smith, as in all questions, had the answer: It is in a time of “…public calamity…,”[25] he said, that banks “…pay out money…”[26] in exorbitant “receipts…[because they can] raise their price to an exorbitant  height…In such emergencies (9/11 and the 2003 Gulf War), the bank…would break…the ordinary rule of making payment only to holders of receipts…who had no bank money…”[27]  Smith noted such emergencies necessitated bank loans:[28] it is  “…universally necessary that the public should maintain those who serve the public in war…”[29]  When then would Smith advise us not to lend?

    “Some nations have given up the whole commerce of their colonies to an exclusive company, of whom the [nation was] obliged to buy…and to sell…as cheap as possible.”

Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations 

     In 2008, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson gave banks $125 billion in bailouts claiming it would prevent a banking collapse.[30]  Instead of fixing the mess, it created more government control with incoming tax hikes.[31]  The banks were not actually collapsing, they were stable.[32]  Adam Smith believed banks must have restrictions on small notes, minor banking and lending.[33]  Restrictions for bailouts were never set in place to prevent failure reaching the public.[34]  The $700 billion[35] lacked federal oversight.[36]  The Treasury Department used bailout money for just about everything other than purchasing troubled assets.”[37]  Adam Smith analyzed reckless spending: “The over-trading of some bold projectors in both parts of the [banking sector—Wall Street and Washington], was the original cause of this [modern-day] excessive circulation of paper money.”[38]  Smith warned never to “advance” more than we could repay or we would be unable to reimburse:[39] “If the paper money which the bank advances never exceeds [the value of credit on that which is borrowed], it can never exceed the value of the [loan].[40].

     Smith was critical of excessive lending, it places everyone under restrictions, impairing the nation that can no longer  “…employ to maintain…productive hands…maintained by revenue…,”[41] [because], how can “productive hands”[42] recreate an economy worth maintaining if the Fed now “…occupies…the land?”[43]  It cannot, therefore, we must “…obey the law…”[44] of fiscal economics.  Reckless banks create worthless money and assets.   Adam Smith was clear: paper does not have the value of gold and silver.[45]  Paper has use, it is easily carried, but paper lacks value to those holding loans.[46]  Smith warned: “Had every particular banking company always understood and attended to its own particular interest (instead of buying and lending to those who cannot repay), the circulation never could have been overstocked in paper money.”[47]  Therefore, the FED should not lend unless disaster incurs.  Adam Smith made these recommendations over two centuries ago, mistakes have proven his analysis correct.  

The Paper Smith Got Jammed 

     The banking debacle goes against The Wealth of Nations monetary rules:

            “…if the current money of two countries (or in the case of lending houses)… [are]      near to the standard of their respective mints (currency), and that one pays foreign           bills in this [American] currency [whose rate dropped considerably]…while the      other pays them in bank money [owned by investors]…the computed exchange may      be in favor of that which pays in bank money… [but] the real exchange… [will] be        in favor of that which pays in current money…better money…nearer its own standard…”[48] 

The best currency is that of the wealthiest nations.[49]  If mass produced notes become plentiful, and recklessness spending develops, banks must repay “regardless of the [money’s] condition.”[50]  We were warned; paper money only “…replaces a very expensive instrument of commerce with one less costly…,” [and the value of the loan remains in the natural state of gold, because interest is actually the gold price], “…requir[ing]]…further explication [to the borrower].”[51] 

     It must be noted that Adam Smith was not against paper currency,[52] he considered it an inexpensive, but equal, form of replacing heavy coins.[53]  Paper money must remain of equal value in order to promote monetary growth.[54]  Money is like a lottery: the chances of wealth are low and risk great, the actual gain, more often, is losing.[55] Smith said the loss was too often undervalued:[56] “How little the fear of misfortune is then capable of balancing the hope of good luck…”[57]  We forgot profits are not equal to wages (dollar value)?[58]  Perhaps we need to seek answers in the book that laid the groundwork: The Wealth Of Nations.

 WWASD: What Would Adam Smith Do? 

     Excessive lending happened and now it must be remedied.  Adam Smith explained how to avoid monetary crisis: do not over extend credit.  He described how America became wealthy: “Bank money,”[59] gold and silver, “true money.”[60]  Today we borrow on the falling dollar.  Smith can only remind us that “The sum of bank money for which receipts (loans or credit) are expired must be very considerable.  It must comprehend the whole original capital of the bank, which…has been allowed to remain there…whatever the amount ($125 Billion), the proportion which it bears to the whole mass of bank money is supposed to be very small.”[61]  Smith would say we exceeded interest without credit,[62] the only way to remedy the problem is to “…attend to the interest of trade…”[63] by not continuing down the same path.  

     Smith would analyze the fiasco as arrogance:  to assume calamity never erupts from reckless behavior is supercilious pride caused by 

            “The over-weening conceit which the greater part of men have of their own abilities, is an ancient evil remarked by the philosophers and moralists of all ages.  Their   bank’s] absurd presumption of their own good fortune…The chance of gain is          naturally over-valued, we may learn from the universal success of lotteries.  The  world neither ever saw, or ever will see, a perfectly fair lottery; or one in which the  whole gain compensated the whole loss; because the undertaker could make nothing by it…The vain hope of gaining some great prizes is the sole cause of demand [for  money]…Adventure upon all the tickets in the lottery, and you lose for certain; and  the greater the number of your tickets the nearer you approach to this certainty.”[64]

     There are hard lessons to learn from “conceit,” but wrongs must be remedied by looking to those who taught us the way to economic growth and prosperity.  Adam Smith valued money and free trade, but knew, in the wrong hands, money is lost.  We need only go back to Smith’s foundation for answers to recover.

 

 

---

[1] Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, (New York: Bantam Classics, 2003), 367.

[2] Adam Smith, 367.

[3] Adam Smith, 376.

[4] Adam Smith, 378.

[5] Dr. Thomas Sowell, “Jolting the Economy: Does our economy need it?  And…will it help?,”  National Review Online, November 25, 2008, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVhZTIyYTk2OGZiMmUyYmYzZTJiMjA4ZGU5M2ZkMWQ=

[6] Adam Smith, 371.

[7] Adam Smith, 371.

[8] Adam Smith, 373.

[9] Adam Smith, 373.

[10] Adam Smith, 373.

[11] John B. Taylor, “Getting Off Track: How the Government Created and Prolonged the Financial Crisis,” Hoover Digest, No. 3, (Summer 2009): 9.

[12] Smith, 381.

[13] Smith, 381.

[14] Smith, 609.

[15] Smith, 609.

[16] Smith, 626.

[17] Smith, 626.

[18] Smith, 626.

[19] Smith, 626.

[20] Smith, 626.

[21] Smith, 693.

[22] Dr. Thomas Sowell, “Sadder But Wiser: For the ‘victims of the foreclosure, an overdue case of live and learn,’” Hoover Digest, No. 3, March 10, (2009), 26.

[23] Smith, 693.

[24] Smith, 693.

[25] Smith, 610.

[26]Smith, 610.

[27] Smith, 610.

[28] Smith, 611.

[29] Smith, 884.

[30] Sean Lengall, “Study: Bernanke, Paulson Misled Public on Bailouts,” The Washington Times, October 5, 2009, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/05/report-bernanke-paulson-misled-onb… 

[31] Lengall

[32]Lengall

[33] Smith, 420-21.

[34] Smith, 420.

[35] Niall Fergusson, “Borrowed Time: People must abandon the mad idea that they can borrow their way back into solvency,” Hoover Institute, No. 3, (2009), February 6, 2009.

[36] John B. Taylor, 12.

[37] “Tarp Bailout: How was The $700 Billion Spent?,” American Banking News, August 21, 2009,                            http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2009/08/21/tarp-bailout-money-how-was-the-700-billion-spent/

[38] Smith, 387.

[39] Smith, 387.

[40] Smith, 387-88.

[41] Smith, 425.

[42] Smith, 426.

[43] Smith, 427.

[44] Smith, 742.

[45] Smith, 33-42, 382-383.

[46] Smith, 383.

[47] Smith, 385.

[48] Smith, 602.

[49] Smith, 602-603.

[50] Smith, 603.

[51] Smith, 372.

[52] Smith, 377.

[53] Smith, 377.

[54] Smith, 372-375, 377-383.

[55] Smith, 149.

[56] Smith, 150.

[57] Smith, 151.

[58] Smith, 154.

[59] Smith, 604.

[60] Smith, 603.

[61] Smith, 609.

[62] Smith, 392.

[63] Smith, 603.

[64] Smith, 149-150.

The Friend of My Enemy is Ron Paul

                                              

As America approaches the tenth anniversary of the worst terror attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, Congressman Ron Paul is hard at work campaigning for the presidency of Iran.

Ron Paul spent last week fiercely defending Iran as the victim of United States and Israeli aggression. During last week’s Republican Presidential debate in Iowa and his appearances at the Iowa State Fair, Paul asserted that Iran lacks the resources it needs to defend itself against America, Israel, and other nuclear nations.  These claims were made despite evidence that Iran already purchases arms from China and nuclear fuel from Russia for the purpose of nuclear capability, which Iran states it intends to use against the world.  Regardless, Paul claims  “The Iranians are a third world nation. They don’t even have an army or a navy of any sorts, they don’t even have intercontinental ballistic missiles…this is all war propaganda.” Paul further asserted that sanctions placed on Iran go against the Founders belief in trade with other nations, therefore, this besieged Iranian victim should be allowed to build nuclear defenses and America must not provoke an Iranian backlash against our presence in the Middle East,

Ron Paul’s radical libertarian concern for the leading sponsor of international terror makes him nothing more than a dedicated ally to Iran.

In the fashion of all anti-war leftists who disregard the Constitution’s requirements that the Congress must provide for our national defense not destroy it, Ron Paul’s foreign policy beliefs demand that America demilitarize and extend the hand of friendship to an armed enemy that in fact does have an army—the politically powerful and violent Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps begun during Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Ten years after 9/11, Ron Paul’s foreign policies and defense of Iran are dangerous because all the signs of Iran’s frantic efforts to create nuclear bombs are most apparent. Yet, Ron Paul is determined to repeat the errors of the leftist 1920’s “peace movement” that promoted the disarmament of America and Great Britain. While America and Great Britain sunk their warships and cut defense spending, Germany and Japan built vast military arsenals that they eventually used to attack a weakened Great Britain and United States.

Ron Paul is advocating the horrendous foreign policies of the past with his insistence that America should befriend and negotiate with a violent enemy.  This call for solidarity with Iran ignores Iran’s 2006 threat to “harm and pain” the United States if we try to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Mahmoud Ahmadinedjad later renewed his threats against America at the 2010 UN General Assembly by promising a war that “would know no boundaries.” Ahmadinedjad futher asserted that war is not necessarily about bombs, but, if Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb it will build one. This is an ominous declaration since Ahmadinedjad stated he will use those nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.

Yet none of these threats worries Ron Paul; rather, he defends the enemy.

In the face of Iran’s worrisome and belligerent threats to attack US Military bases in the Middle East, Ron Paul says Iran should have the right to build nuclear weapons, asking: “wouldn’t it be natural if they might [Iran] want a weapon? Internationally they would be given more respect…Why should we [Americans] write people off;” after all, Paul demands, Ronald Reagan talked with the Soviets during the 1980s, so “why would that be so strange if the Soviets and Chinese have nuclear weapons? We tolerated the Soviets, we didn’t attack them, and they were a much greater danger. They [Soviets] were the greatest danger in our history…”

Ron Paul doesn’t lack historical knowledge or facts, nor is he blindsided with ignorance. Instead, he chooses to ignore the truth about Iran’s enmity toward America, which it refers to as the “Great Satan.”  Paul defends Iran despite historical lessons that teach about the grave consequences of underestimating our enemies.

Yes, the Soviets were a genuine threat, which is why Reagan called them “the evil empire.” It is also the reason Reagan demanded the “Star Wars” defense shield must accompany missile cuts on both sides. This agreement prevented the Soviets from threatening nuclear war and indulging in nuclear blackmail that would hold America hostage to an endless series of negotiations like Jimmy Carter held in 1979 with Iran for the release of the American hostages. Jimmy Carter proved negotiations with a duplicitous enemy only serve to strengthen that enemy. Carter’s fruitless negotiations with Iranian terrorists enabled the Ayatollah to strengthen Iran’s tyranny. Ever since then, an unchastened Iran has continued from time to time to take Americans hostage while threatening America and Israel and committing horrendous human rights violations.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy philosophy shares the weaknesses of Jimmy Carter’s. On the basis of Paul’s desire to make friends with the Middle East chief supporter of terrorism, Paul would give Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons that would enable Iran to threaten all surrounding nations, including Israel. Closing his eyes to the belligerent and venal nature of Iran, Paul fails to see that nuclear capability would enable Iran to become the dominant military force in that region, controlling regional oil wealth vital to the West, not to mention the neutralization of Israel’s defense she depends on to curb the military adventurism of the large Arab military forces surrounding Israel.

Furthermore, Paul discounts Iran’s recent developments in missile technology that enable its nuclear tipped rockets to reach beyond Israel to Europe, and one day soon, to reach American shores. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the US and our allies and Ron Paul wants to make that possible on behalf of his righteous obsession for making a potentially dangerous Iran capable of defending itself against a peaceful America and Israel.

Ignoring reality, Ron Paul further insists this so-called harmless Iran, that prohibits human rights commissions from working inside Iran, poses no threat to others regardless of the lengthy record of human rights violations that include rape, torturing and executing homosexuals, stoning women, floggings, “harsh treatment” of Kurds, coordinated mass murders of thousands by the Iranian Death Commission since 1987, kidnapping foreigners and holding them hostage for political ransom, gunning down Iranians who protest against the government, supplying the Taliban with arms, not to mention the massive terrorist acts of downing civilian airlines, threats to down more flights, and the bombing of Jewish cultural centers abroad.

In the face of massive evidence, as well as Ahmadinedjad’s recent threats, Ron Paul continues to reject any possibility of Iran developing nuclear capability in order to wage war, claiming Iran simply wants to protect itself from the non-existent hostility of America and Israel, nations Iran openly threatens to destroy.

Presidential Candidate Ron Paul should cause concern to all who hold peace dear. He wants to make friends with America and Israel’s enemy Iran and make that terror state nuclear capable so it has the strength to fight America, Israel, and other nations with mass destruction.

A nuclear Iran would place the world in grave danger. The same can be said about the friend of our enemy Ron Paul.

 

Sweden’s Radical Political Agenda to Create Genderless Children

What happens when society’s leftist intellectuals begin to reinforce ideological philosophies intended to undermine civilization as we know it?  More specifically, what will become of our children when the basic norms of childhood development are removed and replaced with radical polices pushed forth by academic storm troopers?  Radical thinkers are determined that children must no longer be allowed to live according to the gender in which children are born, but rather be made to become genderless beings.

Gender equality is cunningly wielded against boys and girls who are too young to make decisions or understand life. Young children have not attained an understanding of their own bodies or evolved the self-esteem that comes with later development and are easily victimized by teachers who believing the child-rearing process should move away from the traditional mother-father home to a life-style invented by radical political proposals suggesting children must be raised genderless.

Some educators have gone so far as to suggest men and women should never gather separately in their own gendered groups, and men should never have higher positions of power in the workforce or other social roles. This reasoning alleges  that male power differentiation causes boys to see themselves as superior to girls, therefore treating girls as weak, a situation deemed so unfair to experts; they believe it needs radical correction.

Adopting these psychological doctrines is the left-leaning Egalia Preschool in the Sodermalm district of Stockholm.  A new curriculum demolishes gender roles by promoting a political agenda preventing children from growing up with conventional male/female gender stereotypes—men are strong and powerful, women feminine and pretty. The remedy entails replacing the pronouns “han” (him) and “hon” (her) when referring to men and women with the genderless term, “hen,” used by Swedish feminists and gays. “Hen” refers to someone as “it.” Although promoted by child rearing experts, from a distant vantage point it can only be described as predatory psychology, applied by prestigious authorities, confusing parents who are told what is best for their children.

Egalia’s director, Lotta Rajalin asserts a genderless mode frees children from society’s preconceived gender notions; allowing children to be individuals without the separation of sexes, claiming that fostering a genderless society will prevent boys from having a detestable “unfair edge” over girls.

Apparently genderless equality is so vital it is worth the radicalism used to reform it.

These methods bizarrely include banning fairytales the Cinderella and Snow White, which depict women as “girlie, nice and pretty” and boys as “manly, rough, and outgoing.” Rajalin purposely chooses books featuring homosexual couples, transgender, and single mothers. One book such book is about two male giraffes that are “sad” they are unable to conceive children together. The two male giraffes adopt an orphaned crocodile egg and parent it together. Such a philosophy by the left is a fabled world that can never be, but is pushed for the fancied leftist reality that challenges nature.

This psychological theory is not new.  It was pushed 30 years-ago in Sandra Bem’s Gender Schema Theory promoting the elimination of heterosexual “sex-typing” in society by removing nature’s gender differentiations, theoretically making children become a “self” without the dimension of gender. Of course, this process of education must be undertaken early since girls and boys learn their sexual differences very young. Thus, girls instinctively will act “girlie,” liking things pretty and nurturing baby dolls; boys instinctively will “roughhouse” and will like cars and trucks. This is of course all normal. Yet, radical thinkers want sex-typing eliminated, or, if not, at least rearranged to define sex roles, using gender equality theories to subliminally create a social vacuum in which realization of sexual differences between girls and boys never emerges.

This is a political agenda with a radical approach that goes beyond mere cultivation of equality: it forces children to learn, from an early age, what radicals consider appropriate, not form nature determined for humans at birth.

Egalia’s curriculum thrusts children into a gender neutral world, placing “special emphasis on fostering an environment tolerant of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.”  How strange. Rajalin goes out of her way to introduce the homosexual life-style to children despite a gross contradiction—homosexuals are gendered, both are male and female divisions.

Further, Rajalin  wants boys to play mothers when the children are playing house: “We suggest two moms or three moms and so on” so that boys feel they too can be mothers, and though some of the dolls the children play with are anatomically correct (so children understand boys and girls have different genitals), children are taught that on the “inside” all are gender identical, underneath there is no dimension of male or female.

What about the inevitable repercussions in preventing children from believing there are differences between men and women?  Those applying the Gender Schema Theory know children learn quickly from an early age and can be taught to believe anything. What happens if an entire generation grows up believing men and women lack gender despite physical and emotional differences?  What adverse consequences will schools like Egalia have on children when they become adults and are confronted with the realities of gender differences after having been shielded from them?

According to Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah, child-rearing in an environment that removes gender and traditional parenting roles causes “severe difficulties in the personal lives of children” as well as inflicting disturbing “societal costs,” such as making adjustments difficult when both sexes are involved jointly in carrying out societal functions. Byrd affirms male and female roles are necessary to childhood development and those lessons are taught through imitating and interacting with persons of both sexes.

For example, “[F]athers’ play is related to the development of socially acceptable forms of behaviors,” enabling children to perceive violence and aggression, because “roughhousing [with fathers teaches children] that biting, kicking and other forms of physical violence are not acceptable.” Similarly for the mother’s role, Byrd’s data reports:

“[N]o reputable psychological theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers in the normal development of children could be found.”

Both mothers and fathers are vital for the rearing and well-being of children, because:

 “[G]ender complementarity affords children the opportunity to thrive in the best possible environment. Other family forms are not equally as helpful or healthful for children. Substantial research demonstrates the negative effects of father hunger. One can only surmise the consequences of mother hunger.”

It is astounding such direct observations concerning rearing healthy children have been reinvented, but, this is all symptomatic of the wayward effect of a half-baked Utopian ideology. It appears to do good by creating a society of equality and justice, but ends up doing great harm, having been misapplied by flawed educational experts, who themselves, appear to be pathologically warped in confronting some of the most evident realities of human life.

If such aspects of social tinkering are left to the imaginations of so-called sociology and psychology experts, one must shudder at the possible outcomes for these children as adults.