Contents:
- Introduction
- The Origin of Today’s Moral Uncertainty
- The Missing Structural Necessity of Today’s Child Development
- Necessary Cognitive Development
- Intensive Parenting
- The Origin of Today’s Childrearing Practices
- Self-pity, Escapism, Loneliness and Same-Sex Attraction
- Social Media and Safe Spaces
- Anger, Pride, Envy and Vengeance
- Consumerism
- Stubborn Pride and Ingratitude
- Marriage and Envy and School Shootings
- Entitlement, Disrespect, and the Pride of Self-pity
- Disrespect, Bullying, Sadism, and Feminism
- Is Liberalism to Blame?
- The Breakdown of the Traditional Family
- Natural Laws of Human Flourishing
- Founding Principles for a Healthy Nation
- Political and Cultural Reinforcement of Envy and Entitlement
- Identity Politics
- Is There Any Hope?
- Concluding Thoughts
Introduction
Every age carries its own distinct spirit or zeitgeist. This is inescapable. Moods, attitudes, and belief systems in whatever form influence the emotional, psychological, and spiritual aspects of human nature. We can easily become infected by the spirit of the times, especially at a young age, and it can radically influence our understanding of life and reality, for better or worse.
In this book, I want to argue that a psychological crisis and social contagion have been unwittingly created that is wreaking havoc on the minds of today’s young people and American society from within. As a Christian, I acknowledge that a nonreligious reader may find my understanding of right and wrong somewhat biased, and my values may not necessarily align with theirs. Nevertheless, I ask that you judge the merits of the conclusions based on the shared truths of human behavior and human flourishing.
It may also appear that I am advancing a political agenda by blaming today’s social (or modern) liberalism for the problems this country now faces. This cannot be helped. It is simply not possible to ignore the cultural changes that have taken place over the past fifty-plus years, especially since the sexual revolution, and pretend they have played no role.
While liberals, conservatives, and Christians alike all participate in the present chaos, today’s problems nevertheless find their origin in the political and moral philosophy known as social liberalism. All have been affected by this belief system and its unrestrained and uninhibited approach to life. That said, I believe this problem can be attributed to three primary causes:
1) Psychological Effects of Passive Childrearing: It is well established that today’s passive childrearing practices produce the psychological problems we see today: low self-worth, insecurity, depression, self-doubt, anger, envious resentment, self-loathing, entitlement, vindictive behavior, and same-sex attraction. Kids today are hurting on a deeper level than in recent generations. They are also more unbridled than ever and likely to act upon distorted emotional urges and impulses.
2) Breakdown of the Traditional Family Structure: The breakdown of the traditional family structure produces these same psychological effects only worse. This has been primarily caused by extending sexual permissiveness throughout society, resulting in countless fatherless and dysfunctional homes. The majority of mass shooters and other violent offenders come from these environments.
3) Uncivilized Means of Societal Change: Today’s radical politics is what brings it all together. It is also a product of the first two. The spiritual seekers of the sixties (hippies) that brought us the sexual revolution were predominantly the broken children of neglect (passive parenting). This revolution enabled social liberalism and its oppression relief agenda to rapidly gain influence within political and cultural spheres.
We now live in a politically charged world of endless entitlement and victimization, anything upsetting, unfulfilling, or considered disenfranchising or oppressive is to be laid at the feet of society and the cultures that are produced—everything is society's fault. With an evolutionary understanding of life, retaliation is not only expected it is culturally applauded—society must evolve, people must change. This cultural conditioning has become the necessary catalyst for murder and suicide. It not only sets the expectation but practically grants permission.
This is the message today's young people are taught every day of their lives. It not only explains the source of the psychological problems—lack of meaning, anger, self-loathing, depression, anxiety, lack of purpose, identity, same-sex attraction—but also allows them to assign blame and exact vengeance on society.
Can this situation be reversed, or are we doomed to a path of certain destruction? Although many remain hopeful, it is difficult to see those convinced of their oppression and victimization making the necessary sacrifices. Especially when so many of these incensed personalities would be more than happy to destroy the entire nation in a fit of rage. It’s even harder to see power-hungry politicians relinquishing control over these people. Many are simply exploiting the young people they claim to be helping. As outrages continue to develop, it seems things can only get worse.
The Origin of Today's Moral Uncertainty
Alec Ryrie, in his book, Unbelievers: An Emotional History of Doubt, proposes that the more likely origin of Western society’s unbelief is just before this period, during the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, and for different reasons. During this time, and for the first time in centuries, what had defined life and reality, the Roman Catholic Church, was being called into question by the Protestant reformers. As the reformers began exposing the moral corruption and doctrinal errors of the Church, the chaotic upheaval began to create a spirit of doubt, anxiety, and even anger among the people. As time-honored certainties were continually undermined, people began discovering that their faith was not as rock-solid as once believed. As their doubts and frustrations grew, they inevitably began to look elsewhere for answers:
“The conventional story has it that philosophers attacked religion and people therefore stopped believing. But what if people stopped believing and then found they needed arguments to justify their unbelief?” ‘The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing,’ cautioned Blaise Pascal, the seventeenth century’s shrewdest wrestler with doubt.”
Ryrie goes on to explain that the Christian faith was not opposed on intellectual grounds as commonly assumed, but on moral grounds. He then shows how this opposition consisted of two interwoven emotional stories of unbelief: stories of anger and stories of anxiety. The story of anger involved “grudges nurtured against an all-embracing Christian society, against the Church in particular and often also against the God who oversaw it all.”
The story of anxiety was a different experience. It involved an “unsettling, reluctant inability to keep a firm grip on doctrines that people were convinced, with their conscious minds, were true.” This latter group, “despaired of finding doctrinal certainties, fastened their grip on ethical certainties instead.” Ryrie continues, “When some of them reached the point of wanting to abandon or abolish God, it was not because of their intellectual rationalizations, but because their ethics and even their theology demanded it."
It should also be noted that “liberty of conscience” was central to Enlightenment thinking. One of the prevailing sentiments was that people should be allowed to think and believe what they want. These continued frustrations inevitably unleashed an onslaught of philosophical movements that served to undermine or supplant all religious authority; especially the Christian faith with its reliance on the supernatural. Scripture, at least when taken literally, was rejected by Enlightenment thinkers and regarded as nothing more than unenlightened superstition. The Christian faith was inevitably replaced by modern, desupernaturalized versions, such as deism, fideism, or simply “religion of the heart.”
By the mid-18th century, philosophers began arguing for a society based upon reason and natural law rather than faith and church doctrine. By the nineteenth century, the world of science and philosophical reason, including the first broad theory of evolution, abandoned any kind of rationalism that affirmed universal absolutes and nonmaterial truths that assumed a creator. According to nineteenth-century materialism, only what we can observe throughout the universe as apprehended by our senses, and as studied by the scientific method, is the only reality. Modern man was now seen as too advanced and sophisticated to continue accepting these outmoded religious beliefs. They opted instead for a closed system of evolutionary development.
This subjugation continues in our day, and it continues mostly on moral grounds. The Protestant Reformation may seem like a long time ago, and the structural upheaval long forgotten, but many of the same reasons for the anxiety and anger expressed during this time continue to this day.
Although Christianity has seen periods of upsurge and advancement since the Protestant Reformation, humanistic societies are still being proposed and built. And we still see the same morally-based anger against religious and biblical authority only now expressed through a variety of modern movements and causes (e.g. sexual revolution, political correctness, identity politics, critical race theory, gay rights, environmentalism, social justice, feminism, abortion-on-demand, wokeness, cancel culture and the purposed undermining of nearly all institutional structures).
As the Christian worldview continues to be called into question, and as humanistic ideas continue to gain traction, we are now for the first time seeing the legal adoption and enforcement of progressive moral values in this country: no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, abortion-on-demand, ever-growing entitlement programs, and the increased governmental regulation of nearly every area of public and private life. Again, this worldview is largely evolutionary in its understanding of life and reality: society must evolve—people must change—by legal force and even imprisonment if necessary.
Liberalism as Enforced Religion
Over the past few centuries the term “religion” has taken on new meaning and connotations. It has now come to mean more than just dedication to a supreme person or being; it now includes dedication to abstract principles and ideals. For many, today’s liberalism has become a religion. With its unquestioned faith in science, humanistic reason, and progress, this worldview involves a life-long commitment to the only possible means by which mankind’s highest aspirations can be achieved—and sins against this religion will not be tolerated.
Unlike most other religions, today’s liberalism believes that mankind is basically good—this goodness, they believe, is why human morality exists. In this view, mankind has no fallen predisposition that would incline him toward sinful behavior. Moral shortcomings are looked upon as the product of society and the cultures that are produced—immoral behavior should be seen as expected and not as sinful—after all, we are merely products of our environment. Life is to be understood mostly within deterministic categories—accountability and guilt have little or no place here.
Of course, the Christian faith is seen as a barbaric denial of what should be obvious to everyone, and functions as nothing more than a counterproductive coping mechanism with no basis in reality. Christians are likewise seen as insensitive anal shrews that blatantly contradict their so-called beliefs in demonstrating love and compassion to a hurting world. Most do little else than exacerbate society’s problems with their continual condemnation of those who suffer these problems that ‘they’ mostly created.
Today’s liberalism is also anti-traditional and anti-institutional and seeks to disassociate itself from the past altogether. This radical severing serves to repudiate any authority the past may possess. Liberalism instead emphasizes freedom, equality, opportunity, and legal protections from what it sees as arbitrary authority. These arbitrary authorities can include anything from antiquated religious beliefs—especially the Christian faith—to outmoded humanistic philosophies that are believed to be emotionally and psychologically destructive. Founded upon the natural goodness of human beings, and the autonomy of the individual, liberalism seeks to promote and legislate civil liberties for all citizens.
The Civil Rights Movement
This country saw a radical shift in politics and culture during the Civil Rights Movement of the nineteen sixties. We saw judges overruling the once-protected rights of private companies, schools, and institutions as they forced new legislation upon preexisting laws and protections. Others who sought to bring about changes in society saw the success of this movement as a golden opportunity. Shortly thereafter, we saw the birth of the sexual revolution which sought to eliminate state regulation of sexual behavior.
With the advent of the pill and other effective birth control methods, they believed these outdated societal rules to be no longer necessary. With the new legislation, they sought to normalize premarital sex, extramarital sex, and even pornography. These efforts also included public nudity, homosexuality, and nearly all other alternative forms of sexuality. They saw previously legislated restrictions as not only oppressive but also repressive and even psychologically victimizing—nothing more than the product of antiquated moral and religious taboos. Of course, this resulted in many unfathered love children, along with many divorces from infidelity; and it is not by coincidence did no-fault divorce and legalized abortion follow in the wake of these newfound freedoms—all in the name of freedom, oppression relief, and the pursuit of happiness.
Today’s liberalism continues to employ the civil rights model to pass new legislation on behalf of others considered oppressed and victimized. Civil rights laws now include the right for same-sex couples to marry, as well as discrimination laws for gender identity and sexual orientation. As before, these laws similarly undermine the foundational and protected rights of others. As Christopher Caldwell points out in his book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, this ever-growing expansion of civil rights now rivals the Constitution.
Redefined Freedom
Overall, today’s social liberalism has been instrumental in redefining freedom in this country. Freedom was once defined by concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These protected freedoms could be exercised both in private and in public life. For example, if a county clerk didn’t want to authorize a same-sex marriage license because it violated her religious convictions, she had the ‘freedom’ to opt-out. Likewise, if a business owner didn’t want to purchase insurance for his employees that included abortifacients for the same reason, he wasn’t legally required to do so. The kind of religious and legal tyranny that would violate the conscience in this way is what our forefathers sought to escape. This is the type of freedom this country was founded upon. It involved common-sense restraints from government intrusion. People could peacefully live their lives according to their religious or secular beliefs without constant interference. Our founders saw a united plurality as the means by which to escape the kind of tyranny they once experienced. But this is no longer the case. Today it’s a different story. Freedom is now being forcibly redefined. In the name of equality, oppression relief, and the pursuit of happiness, freedom now means being free from anything that restrains our behavior or will.
Forced Compliance
As a natural consequence, this redefined understanding also requires the enforced compliance of those whose consciences are violated by these new freedoms. This mandated acceptance, we are told, is designed to create a suitable condemnation-free environment for the nonconformist (otherwise they are not truly free). Hence, today’s liberalism actively supports the wholesale destruction, or compulsory reconstruction, of any social, institutional, or religious system that would stand in the way of this redefined understanding of freedom. In other words, the destruction of one kind of freedom (freedom of conscience) in the name of another kind of freedom (freedom from restraint).
We see these efforts played out in courtrooms across the country as the once-protected rights of citizens are continually undermined. Almost daily, liberal politicians, lawyers, and judges attempt to dismantle the primary social system they believe is responsible for this country’s woes, namely, the U.S. Constitution. Again, these attacks are most clearly seen by liberal demands that nonconformist identities and lifestyles not only be legitimized throughout society but also fully accepted by everyone (and even applauded) to create the proper environment. These demands are now becoming legal requirements for all citizens regardless of constitutional protections that guarantee the right to reject such requirements.
(It’s worth noting that with this unrelenting push to undermine the Constitution beyond lawful limits, many are beginning to ask whether this country is witnessing the birth of another civil war. It’s getting to the point where civic responsibilities would require it.)
Cultural Support
These seditious efforts likewise have much support throughout the culture. Every day we see the persistent indoctrination of this worldview by democratic politicians, news organizations, and Big Tech monopolies. For example, it’s not uncommon to hear language from liberal politicians that continually undermines freedom of religious expression. This is presently being accomplished by referring to this protected right as “freedom of worship,” rather than freedom of religion. As many have noted, this is an attempt to restrict free religious expression to the confines of the church walls. In other words, you can believe whatever you want, just don’t exercise it in public. (There is now an effort among leading scholars to remove the right of religious freedom altogether.)
These efforts can also be seen within the liberal press. With constant misrepresentation, fake news, silencing, and political viciousness, conservatives, Christians, and other religious groups are continually villainized. They are frequently made out to be bigots, homophobes, misogynists, backward hate mongers, and even racists for simply exercising their once-protected rights.
What is sad about today’s humanistic attempts to rectify society’s problems is that no matter how irrational, self-defeating, and destructive the solutions become, their proponents have no choice but to turn a blind eye to what is going on all around them, especially with today’s young people. They must do this or forfeit the entire ideology. We are now looking down the barrel (literally) of utter vindictive chaos. This utopian ideology has become an unstoppable monster. Anything and everything is now up for consideration as an oppressor, and everyone is becoming an owed victim of something. This includes the new victims being created by the removal of the oppressive restraints. Some refer to today’s culture as a ‘grievance industry’. We are quickly becoming nothing more than a society of blood-thirsty and polarized combatants.
What is so deceptive about today’s liberalism is that it sounds reasonable to most people. When it comes to LGBTQIA rights, why not grant others the right to march to a different drummer as long as they are not hurting anyone? Under the ‘no harm principle,’ a principle of liberal contrivance, the common good is achieved by enabling the freedom of the individual. Why can’t rights be extended to the nonconformist? What does it matter what people do behind closed doors? Why should sexual behavior be regulated? And why can’t everyone, heterosexual or otherwise, determine the nature of marriage and the structure of one’s family for themselves?
At first glance, the common objections to these proposals may appear to be nothing more than religious propaganda, but there is much more to it than that. The reality is, that it’s simply not true that these newfound freedoms are not hurting anyone. There is much to be said here. As we will see, today’s liberalism is not only facilitating mass shootings but is also destroying the United States from within (increased same-sex attraction, suicidal hopelessness, gender confusion, entitlement mentality, the loneliness epidemic, deaths of despair, violence in society, increased divorce rate, mental health problems, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.). We will see this in the following chapters.
The Missing Structural Necessity of Today’s Child Development
One of the most unintentionally effected areas by modern thinking is childrearing. To understand the psychological effects of today’s parenting methods, including intensive parenting and fatherlessness, it is crucial to grasp the development of self-esteem or self-definition in the life of a child. This development is at the heart of today's challenges. I don’t believe social liberalism would have the influence it does today, without the morbid psychological manifestations that underpin its moral views.
Before you change the channel, please understand that this necessary structural development and the idea of ‘self-esteem’ itself, is seriously misunderstood today. For instance, Jordan Peterson, a popular self-help psychologist and YouTube personality has proclaimed to the world that self-esteem doesn’t exist. He argues it is merely a descriptive word and not an empirical phenomenon. In other words, it contains no workable means by which self-worth can be developed in the life of a child. He is correct, however, when he cites the futility of the public school system's attempts at boosting self-esteem by employing various approaches. Most of these methods amount to little else than patronization (gaslighting), only exacerbating the issue and making things worse.
It is important to understand that this crucial structural development primarily takes place within the home at a very early age. It has been estimated that eighty-five percent of a person’s adult personality is already formed by age six. In its simplest form, self-esteem is the product of what we see reflected in the eyes of others. When children receive love, affection, warmth, and respect from their parents, siblings and peers, they see themselves as possessing value. If instead, they see disinterest, disappointment, and lack of respect they will not. If for years a child is deprived, neglected, and disrespected they will see themselves as possessing little value, even worthless and unwanted. Despair, depression, and false guilt inevitably ensue. This process begins at the earliest stages of development; infants who were never touched or held have been known to die in their infancy—the same principle.
Dr. James Dobson, in his book Hide or Seek? How to Build Self-Esteem in a Child’s Life, references a study by Stanley Coopersmith, which followed 1,738 middle-class boys into young adulthood. After comparing their homes and influences, Coopersmith identified three key characteristics that distinguished boys with high self-esteem from those with low self-esteem: One of the surprising discoveries was the role that discipline, enforced rules, and defined limits played in their development:
“1) The high self-esteem children were clearly more loved and appreciated at home than were the low self-esteem boys. 2) The high self-esteem group came from homes where parents had been significantly more strict in their approach to discipline. By contrast, the parents of the low self-esteem group had created insecurity and dependence by their permissiveness. Their children were more likely to feel that the reason the rules were not enforced was because no one cared enough to get involved. Furthermore, the most successful and independent young men during the latter period of the study were found to have come from homes that demanded the strictest accountability and responsibility. And as could have been predicted, the family ties remained the strongest, not only in the wishy-washy homes, but in the homes where discipline and self-control had been a way of life. 3) The homes of the high self-esteem group were also characterized by democracy and openness. Once the boundaries for behavior were established, there was freedom for individual personalities to grow and develop. The boys could express themselves without fear of ridicule, and the overall atmosphere was marked by acceptance and emotional safety.”
In his book, The Antecedents of Self-Esteem, Coopersmith concludes, “. . . Thus it appears that permissiveness is negatively related to feelings of personal worth or, to state it in reverse, greater strictness is associated with greater self-esteem.” He also notes that the nature and enforcement of the limits and rules must be reasonable, rational, and appropriate to the age of the child. They cannot be arbitrary and inflexible. He also found that parents of those with high self-esteem were more accepting of their children, allowed freedom of individual expression, and were more attentive to their overall development.
Of course, it’s not hard to see how love, acceptance, and freedom of individual expression could produce healthier children, but the real question is why rules and well-defined limits play such a significant role in child development. Why is this so important? The answer becomes clear when you consider that self-esteem is the product of what we see reflected in the eyes of others. A child will see themselves as having value when they see that their parents are attentive to their growth and development. An imposed structure carries love and concern. But when rules are not enforced, and limits are not set, children are left with feelings of insecurity and dependence. Why am I not cared for? Judging from what is reflected in the eyes of others, they see themselves as having little value. This is also related to authority and respect. When open defiance and disrespect toward legitimate authority is overlooked or ignored by parents it carries the same message. Not only does this destroy the authority structure necessary for the development of self-worth but also an ordered society. This is why disrespect and open defiance should always be received with nonacceptance and failure. This includes spankings.
We live in a fallen world and it cannot be denied that much abuse has been perpetrated in the name of corporal punishment. Children should not be punished for simply being children, or so that parents might vent their frustrations. However, spanking, or paddling, is not barbaric or abusive, nor leads to future violence or criminal behavior when done for the right reasons—just the opposite. Parents should understand that spankings become necessary to a child’s overall development when they display open defiance to established rules. Permissive parents who don’t see this necessity don’t understand the importance of this imposed structure and what it communicates. A passive home environment is simply not capable of producing healthy children or even a functioning society. As you can imagine, these enforced rules and defined limits play an important role that extends well beyond the home.
Stanley Coopersmith continues, “In sum, imposition of limits serves to define the expectations of others, the norms of the group, and the point at which deviation from them is likely to evoke positive action; enforcement of limits gives the child a sense that norms are real and significant, contributes to self-definition, and increases the likelihood that the child will believe that a sense of reality is achievable.” Elsewhere he speaks of how “[T]he limits serve to define the social geography by delineating areas of safety and hazards, by indicating means of attaining goals, and by pointing out the landmarks that others use to judge success and failure,” and how this “endows such behavior with a sense of meaning and purpose.”
Young adults who were raised in such an environment begin to develop themselves at an early age. By the time they are ready to leave the nest, they are not only equipped with a healthy inner constitution but are ready to apprehend a meaningful and fulfilling life. Goals appear attainable. They possess self-confidence, ambition, and motivation. They also have the implied understanding that life itself must have objective meaning and purpose because of this imposed structure. In the mind of a child, even if the particulars are never set forth, there must be a grand scheme of things. Otherwise, why would an imposed structure exist at all; and why would conformity to this structure be so important?
This also explains why first-borns are almost always more content and successful in life (however defined) and have a much higher self-esteem than their siblings. Parents are simply more demanding and attentive to their development. Research has shown that parents tend to become more passive after every child thereafter. It’s not by coincidence that nearly all NASA astronauts are first-borns.
When we consider these things, the development of self-esteem, or self-definition, involves much more than just thinking highly of oneself, or self-love. It also encompasses a necessary structural framework that provides not only self-confidence, emotional stability, and a sense of value but also supplies our conscious awareness with meaning and purpose. It likewise informs and affirms our identities as natural products.
An interesting side note about these studies is that the typical reasons most would attribute to low self-worth, such as physical attractiveness, or height, were of no real consequence. In addition, self-esteem was found to be only weakly related to academic performance or social status. Even the weight that most would place upon the relationship between self-worth and material wealth, education, or achievements, although significant, was found to be mostly limited. The strongest relational connection to self-esteem (by far) was to the child’s immediate, effective interpersonal environment.
Necessary Cognitive Development
Think of child development in this way: any meaning or purpose in life that animals and insects are capable of perceiving is derived primarily through their instincts. These instincts provide the imposed structure that defines them. But a human being is much more complex. This is where today’s childrearing goes off the rails. Yes, we have instincts and behaviors that are hardwired, but we are not merely animals, or insects, to be left to our own impulses and devices. We are a completely different kind of creature. Among other things, we have the capacity to contemplate our own existence. This is an advanced intellectual capacity that operates much differently than base instinct. Base instincts exist as inborn inclinations and do not require learning. Although an animal can learn to become a better hunter through experience, the instinct to hunt is inborn and does not require a learning process.
However, the advanced conscious awareness of a human being merits the necessity of an imposed structure that must be applied and apprehended through our cognitive faculties. This formation is brought to bear by parental investment. Without this necessary structure, we become nothing more than needy potted plants and identity mongers. When we contemplate our existence, there is no defining groundwork by which to form ideas about ourselves or even life itself; and our natural inborn instincts (sensus divinitatis, moral law, etc.) won’t carry us much further when suppressed by this absence. When our natural God-given instincts are not consciously reinforced and developed through parental investment, we are effectually stripped of our very humanity.
All told, through the neglect of today’s parenting model, whether through divorce or intentional practice, young people are now convinced that the only meaning life can offer is that which we impose upon it. This reversed order is why so many of today's cultural battles center on identity. Without this vital structure—which also provides a sense of affirmation and belonging in the formation of gender and sexual identity—young people inevitably conclude that personal identity and meaning in life can only be subjectively determined.
Intensive Parenting
At this point, some might argue that helicopter parenting, or snowplow parenting, might be an effective approach to a better outcome. Why not simply be there all the time? But this is far from the case. If you’re unfamiliar with these labels, helicopter parenting refers to controlling, overprotective parents who make all the decisions for their children, giving them no voice. The more recent version, known as snowplow parenting (also called lawn-mowing, or bulldozing) attempts to remove all obstacles from the child’s, or young adult’s path, that might lead to frustration, failure, or lost opportunities (hence, snowplow). The former, helicopter parenting, amounts to little else than a welfare program that destroys all motivation and human dignity. It is dehumanizing and children are left mostly unable to function outside this protective cocoon. When deciding whom to marry, what career path to choose, or even where to live, they are unequipped to make decisions, or overcome obstacles outside the dependent, or interdependent, relationship the parents have created. Although snowplow parenting doesn’t sound quite as bad, neither of these methods allows for the development of independence or self-definition. As far as self-esteem, these developing young people are given no foundational means by which to measure their successes or failures. They develop little or no sense of an achievable reality. Instead, they are led to believe they are incapable of overcoming life’s challenges or thinking for themselves. It is a constant message of incompetence and rejection.
What is ironic about these parenting models is that they attempt to eliminate all hardship and struggle in life by ensuring success. But this is far from what is produced. Instead, most are left just as incapable, insecure, and depressed as their neglected and abused counterparts. This is why an emerging butterfly should never be helped out of its cocoon. It needs the “imposed struggle” to grow strong, or it will die.
All told, whether through purposed passivity or some form of intensive parenting, the problems the new parenting model(s) have produced are undeniable. We are now witnessing an unprecedented wave of teenage anxiety, depression, and suicide. Many see their past and future as being empty and hopeless. Some even require psychotropic medication to compensate for what neglectful and dehumanizing parents never provided. This brings up yet another problem facing today’s young people.
The Origin of Today’s Childrearing Practices
As we have seen, today’s childrearing practices are overly passive and far removed from anything that would produce a healthy outcome. According to modern liberal thinking, past ways of child-rearing should be regarded as outdated, barbaric, and potentially abusive: nothing more than oppressive cultural constructs that need to be eradicated from our thinking. As far as origin is concerned, this shift in parenting philosophy parallels the restraints on behavior that were removed during the sexual revolution. Which also produced many divorces and fatherless homes that worsened the problems created by this new parenting philosophy.
As strange as it may sound, the sexual revolution of the 1960s was viewed as a moral good. Anything considered unnecessarily restrictive was seen as an archaic, psychologically damaging cultural taboo that hindered mankind’s natural evolutionary development. Why should we be mired by ancient religious beliefs, or even outmoded humanistic philosophies, especially when they are so restraining of our natural impulses? Instead, the prevailing idea was that things should be allowed to proceed in their own course of natural development without any imposed structural interference.
This philosophy was similarly applied to childrearing. Children should be free to explore and essentially raise themselves according to whatever comes naturally to them. Structural discipline was perceived as oppressive, counterproductive, and psychologically harmful. James Dobson aptly summarizes this approach, “The advocates of this laissez-faire philosophy would recommend that a child be allowed to fail in school if he chooses—or maintain his bedroom like the proverbial pigpen—or let his puppy go hungry. . .. Children thrive best in an atmosphere of genuine love, undergirded by reasonable, consistent discipline. . .. Permissiveness has not been a failure; it has been a disaster!”
As this ideology of “oppression relief” has made its way into every area of life, what is amazing is the level of denial, particularly within the psychological community, as far as what is happening to today’s young people. The following sections will examine these effects in detail.
Self-pity, Escapism, Loneliness and Same-Sex Attraction
To redirect or numb their discouraging thoughts, one of the more common characteristics among these people is that they must always have something turned on: radio, television, news, video games, sports, fiction novels, Facebook, Twitter, etc., (some cannot even sleep without a television remaining on the entire night). This can also include an overt preoccupation with movie stars and celebrities, even developing obsessions. Of course, if they were to ever meet these people and become part of their lives, the brooding resentments of envy would quickly replace the infatuations.
In addition, and as counterintuitive as it may sound, this escapism can include some of the most impressive go-getters of society. Don’t let a workaholic fool you, or even a straight ‘A’ student—the withdrawal, negligence, and self-pity are merely cloaked by their apparent success and productivity. In the formative years of life, anyone can be made to believe they are ultimately worthless—regardless of how intelligent or beautiful or even how successful they may one day become. Many psychologists also believe this to be responsible for today’s loneliness epidemic. Those with unfulfilled needs of parental involvement feel orphaned throughout most of their lives. Even when surrounded by friends and family, feelings of loneliness and the constant need for social and emotional connectedness persist, leaving them simultaneously alienated and anxious.
Once more, these unfulfilled needs and the lack of affirmation and belonging they carry can also create yearnings for same-sex intimacy (especially when accompanied by other types of abuse). Reported bisexuality, especially among young women (25 and younger) is at an all-time high. Sexual and gender identity for either sex can likewise become elusive within this environment. It has also been reported that this ever-growing problem is becoming a significant factor in the continuing birth rate decline.
Social Media and Safe Spaces
Of course, having constant needs for social and emotional connectedness calls to mind today’s social media platforms, especially Facebook. Recent studies have shown that spending time on social media is not as bad as previously reported. It may be true that its creators are “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology,” as Sean Parker admits, but the occasional dopamine hit through likes and comments isn’t going to destroy anyone’s psyche. In fact, “a social-validation feedback loop” isn’t necessarily a bad thing when you think about it. As we just saw, the development of healthy self-esteem includes such validations from parents and others. It is through an imposed structure do we develop not only a sense of value but also come to understand how goals are achieved and personal happiness is realized. Raised properly, young people who spend a moderate amount of time on social media are developing these capacities in the same way that any other social interaction would provide. However, those who spend an excessive amount of time on these platforms are revealing a serious problem with today’s parenting. Facebook makes a lousy surrogate for neglected, abused, introverted, and lonely kids. Dopamine can also play a strong role in addiction. It encourages repeat behavior and over time has been shown by some scientists to physically change the structure of the brain. This also explains why psychologists are continually finding closer connections between social media and the increase in depression, anxiety, and suicide among teenage girls. That parents are more passive and less demanding of their girls is nothing new. And neither is there a short supply of women throughout society with debilitating self-esteem problems. For many, social media not only becomes addictive but also serves to exacerbate these problems through social isolation and an unrelenting bombardment of social comparisons they cannot possibly compete with (Facebook Theatre). This is to say nothing of the shunning and bullying that now takes place in an ever-growing disrespectful world where it is perfectly acceptable to take your frustrations out on others (the removal of restraints and entitlement).
Whether boys or girls, parents should feel the same sense of failure as if their children grew up to become addicted to drugs or pornography—as many with self-esteem problems presently are (the current opioid epidemic should suffice, the motivation is primarily about self-worth, and the suicide rate among porn stars, and others addicted to this compensating remedy is amazing).
This brings up yet another problem facing today’s young people. Those carrying such negative assessments of themselves not only see themselves as worthless and incapable, but as a natural byproduct are also hypersensitive to all criticism. Everything is hurtful and condemning. This hypersensitivity also produces a distorted sense of empathy toward others and is the reason why those raised in such neglectful environments see spankings and imposed discipline as barbaric and psychologically destructive. Of course, this creates a self-perpetuating psychological monster for generations to come. This is also why we now see college campuses equipped with non-judgmental safe spaces, complete with coloring books, Play-Doh, and even animals to cuddle with. Likewise, schools such as Harvard University are now in the practice of giving students A’s or B’s, when they have earned only C’s and D’s; other schools are trying to eliminate grading altogether. Nearly all have stopped using red ink to grade homework and test papers for fear of hurt feelings. We see this shielding necessity throughout the culture as well. Little leaguers, along with other competitors, are now all given some kind of trophy or ribbon regardless of how well they played. These are just a few of the methods that schools and other organizations are now using to create self-esteem. Again, most of this amounts to little else than patronization (or gaslighting) and only makes a bad situation worse. These practices are also reinforced by the latest pop-psychology that tells parents to never spank their children, or impose any kind of strict accountability on them, for the same reasons. This advice unwittingly creates the very problem it now must remedy—and for generations to come.
In the past, young people could rely on their inward stability to protect and uphold them through their failures, or the attacks of hurtful people (including bullies), or viewpoints they disagreed with (or even a pandemic). But this is no longer the case. This quote from Virginia Woolf says it all, “Without self-confidence, we are as babes in the cradle.”
Anger, Pride, Envy and Vengeance
Low self-esteem also has a very morose and angry side. The most socially destructive components of low self-worth are that of pride and envy. This requires some clarification. Low self-esteem manifestations can be varied and complicated depending on a person’s specific upbringing and life experiences. There are distinctions that psychologists make between stable and unstable forms of self-esteem, with unstable forms eliciting stronger reactions to ego threats. Other distinctions include, “trait self-esteem” (lifelong perception) and “state self-esteem instability” (fluctuating perceptions). Those with low self-worth in either of these categories can produce reactions that are either benign or malicious depending on various factors. Without becoming hopelessly entangled in a thousand qualifications, what I want to cover in this section are the common destructive manifestations of low self-esteem that are likely experienced by those having neglectful and/or abusive upbringings (whether physical or psychological).
Let’s begin with envy. As far as mass shootings are concerned, this has proven to be the prime motivator. Envy is best described as a seething, resentful feeling toward others for possessions, positions, advantages, relationships, or whatever else somebody enjoys that we do not. Envious people are fundamentally angry people who are full of pride, self-pity, and contempt for others. They live in a state of morbid introspection and self-doubt (or self-loathing) as they constantly compare themselves with everyone around them. Through these never-ending comparisons, they can quickly come to despise those considered fortunate or privileged for their possessions, good looks, abilities, status, or overall lack of stress and anxiety. They are easily incensed by those that appear to come from a better place. The emotionally healthy are often perceived as arrogant, assuming, or presumptuously ambitious and needing to be cut down to size. Those who tend to draw attention, in one way or another, are viewed as purposely and vainly creating it for themselves; even deliberately trying to put a spotlight on the hopeless condition of others by besting them. This suspicion of rivalry has a lot to do with why those with self-esteem problems see aggressive behavior, dubiousness, attacking innuendo, and pretentiousness under every rock. They read into the words and behavior of others things that do not exist.
Of course, this paranoia is really nothing more than a malicious struggle with their pride and ego. They seek tooth and nail to recover from what is generally perceived as attacks on their self-respect and dignity; even seeking to exact vengeance from people who have done nothing to them and mean them no ill-will. Likewise, due to the ease by which they are threatened, many can also respond very defensively to people, or be in a constant state of disagreement, even when situations don’t warrant it. There always seems to be a hint of disproportionate sarcasm, accusation, or even scornful advice in every response (invalidation and disrespect). These invalidating defense mechanisms also serve to create justification for envious resentment by assigning a contemptible personality to those they feel threatened by. This maliciously puts others in their rightful place, while at the same time appeasing their insecurities and fearful need for damage control. I like this quote from Arthur Zimmerman: “Incivility is the extreme of pride: it is built on the contempt of mankind.”
Consumerism
Since self-esteem is the product of what we see reflected in the eyes of others, and since this was not favorably developed early in life, those with self-esteem problems frequently pursue the external validation and praise of others. Trying to fill the emptiness they tend to purchase things they believe others will admire. Ohio State University psychology professors Robert Arkin and LinChiat Chang, found that “self-doubters evaluate themselves from the perspective of others . . . So, the pleasure one of them would take from having a possession might not be defined so much by how much they enjoy it, but by how much others covet it.” “. . . those provoked to feel doubt about who they are, or about the meaning of existence in society, will invest themselves more in things, . . .”
This also goes a long way in explaining the copycat phenomenon among school shooters (attention, fame, and power). There’s an old saying in marketing that “people don’t buy products; they buy better versions of themselves.”
Stubborn Pride and Ingratitude
Marriage and Envy and School Shootings
As might be expected, the relationships of many (not all) with self-esteem problems tend to be all take and no give—subservient and dependent or not at all—I don’t need you! You need me!
A lot of psychologists and marriage counselors are also beginning to pay envy a lot more attention as well. They are finding that typical complaints from married couples, such as sexual problems, communication, trust issues, or money problems, are not really where the root of the problem lies. Many of these complaints are merely smoke screens, or likely manifestations, of envious resentment. Some have even reported that nine out of ten marriages counseled that had eventually ended in divorce was primarily due to the envious resentment of one of the partners, and the old adage that it takes two to tango is usually never the case—it just takes one—one to become envious.
As previously noted, envy has also proven to be the prime motivator behind school shootings. In a Psychology Today article by Peter Langman (a known expert on school shooters), entitled, Murderous Envy: What is the role of envy in school shootings? he says, “Many people have assumed that school shooters target peers who have picked on them. This is rarely the case. Few shooters kill anyone who has harassed them. Rather, as noted with the examples cited above, shooters are more likely driven by envy than by revenge.”
He cites these examples: “‘At Columbine High School, Dylan Klebold envied the social successes of the school's athletes. In his journal, he wrote, "I see jocks having fun, friends, women." In another entry, he wrote, "I hated the happiness that they [jocks] have." In contrast, he wrote about himself as being so different from everyone else that he seemed to believe he was not truly human or capable of functioning like a human being.”’
“‘At Virginia Tech, Seung Hui Cho criticized people as stuck-up hedonists. He stated, "Your Mercedes wasn't enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren't enough, you snobs." Despite this hostility, Cho wished he could join them: "Oh the happiness I could have had mingling among you hedonists, being counted as one of you." It seems that his antipathy toward them was driven by his inability to be included among them.”’
Langman cites several others leaving little room for doubt. Of course, I take issue when he separates envy from revenge. School shooters are merely exacting vengeance for different reasons. It’s still revenge whether directed against those envied, the social conventions believed responsible (society), or even the providential inequality of God. Someone must pay!
Entitlement, Disrespect, and the Pride of Self-pity
When a person feels no inherent self-worth—and through constant comparison sees what others enjoy that they do not—it is similar to a child born in abject poverty. Even if they’re far from going hungry, they will still question why they have so little. Why do others seem content, while I am so lonely, restless, and dissatisfied? Why does everyone else have a meaningful life, when I have nothing? They can’t help but feel deprived or even robbed as if their lives demonstrated a great tragedy and injustice. As their frustrations grow, so does their contempt for others who appear to come from a better place.
Inevitably, through this contempt, the pride of self-pity desires not only to be recognized for this pain and suffering but also comes to expect and even insist upon compensating allowances. This entitlement mentality now floods our culture like the plague. Of course, like before, adopting an attitude of owed compensation also serves to justify envious resentments by assigning a contemptible personality to those who should be put in their place. This is yet another reason why so many young people are so unreservedly disrespectful these days. Venomous attacks are simply owed. What is sad is that much of this disrespect goes unchecked throughout society because most have bought into this recriminating idea (blame-shifting). It is fostered through the sentiment that we should be sensitive and sympathetic to the less fortunate. If we would be mature and loving then we should be willing to take the higher road, or be the bigger person, and simply ignore these irate people. In fact, in today’s culture if you protest someone’s disrespectful behavior or speech, somehow “you” are the one with the real problem. “You” are the one that needs straightening out. Why are you so petty? Why can’t you overlook these faults? So what if they hate you for no legitimate reason? So what if their speech and behavior are morally atrocious? After all, doesn’t society as a collective whole share responsibility for their condition?
This idea is also reinforced by the maxim that all limiting restraints are oppressive. Everyone is now free to vent, especially for the sake of their frustrations, seething resentments, and self-invented rivalries. Although no one should take issue with every offense that comes along, this recriminating mandate is one of the most destructive forces in society. It serves not only to encourage more disrespectful speech and behavior but also to undermine the necessary authority structures for a functioning society. In the name of elitism and misplaced sympathy it grants permission for almost anything. Some of the most disrespectful and unconscionable behavior imaginable is now overlooked and considered perfectly acceptable. This includes the open disrespect of children toward their parents and vice-versa. It should go without saying, that young people can only be respectful of others, and understand its structural value when they first learn it from home. When laws must be passed that require children to be respectful of their teachers by using their courtesy titles, we have truly come a long way.
Disrespect, Bullying, Sadism, and Feminism
This disrespect and open contempt for others can also be seen in a variety of other ways throughout society and culture as well; such as sadistically taking pleasure in the misfortunes of others, or publicly exposing, slandering, outing, harassing, shaming, humiliating, or exploiting people. The internet has empowered many vengeful and ruthless people. A recent report revealed that bullying in schools, despite anti-bullying efforts, has not declined much, but has only changed forms. According to these statistics, seventy percent of all teenagers have experienced some form of harassment or cyber-bullying.
This viciousness and desire to humiliate also explains the popularity of exploitive and degrading talk shows such as Jerry Springer, or Howard Stern, along with a thriving market in our culture for pornographic materials that feature amputees and the disfigured (sadism). The same can also be said of many tabloids and reality shows. And for the truly exploitive, Faces of Death-type videos have acquired many satisfied customers (I’ve read where some even masturbate while watching). Likewise, according to a New York Times article, The Internet’s Endless Appetite for Death Video, in 2019 Redditt banned a community called WatchPeopleDie, that had over 400 thousand subscribers.
(As an interesting and totally repulsive side note, I also discovered that this behavior has even come to include the everyday housewife who delays or refuses altogether, to give comfort to their crying babies. The longer they cry, the more sadistically gratifying it is.)
This justified aggression can also be seen by those owning large and dangerous power dogs. Again, and much like the adoption of conceit or arrogance, this compensates for perceived inadequacies and satiates seething desires to exact vengeance. This cultural vandalism also includes tattoos, body piercings, shameless dress, graffiti, shaved heads, hate groups, fight clubs, vicious Rap music, women’s kickboxing, Harley Davidson motorcycles, profane and vulgar bumper stickers, violent video games, dog fights and Hollywood’s obsession with liberal politics and rewriting various histories. Ever wonder how Zombie movies became so popular? Could it be that most of this country has become a society of mindless flesh-eaters? Nothing more than the walking dead, unleashing a sick psychological need for vengeance for reasons we would rather have left unexplained?
Many of these personality types are also likely to take their frustrations out on others with physical violence. This is one of the reasons there have been so many severely beaten homeless people, along with gays and transgendered. Some have even died, having done nothing to their assailants. This can also include cops that shoot the mentally ill (or homeless) (or blacks), or beat them half to death for no legitimate reason. We are all now free to ventilate in whatever way seems just and owed to us.
I have a friend who is homeless and mentally ill. He used to hang out in front of the public library until one day a man got out of his car and took a shot at him. The man was incensed by the homeless man’s very existence. He furiously got out of his car and began yelling obscenities at him, saying things like, “. . . if you were to die right now, no one would give a sh**!” “No one can stand you!” “You are a worthless, good-for-nothing, piece of fu***** garbage!” He then shot at him. Fortunately, he missed, got back in his car, and drove away.
What’s amazing is that neither had ever met. And the homeless man had never given him any reason that would provoke such a response. I later asked him why he thought this guy was so mad. He said he had no idea, he had never even seen him before at the library, and that he sounded like an enraged jealous person. Imagine that.
Today’s feminism (a form or branch of liberalism), and its angered attempts to emasculate every area of society, or put men in their place, can likewise be included in this category. These incensed people consist mostly of neglected or abused women and their sympathizers. Given the vast number of proponents this movement has secured reveals also that young girls are far from being raised properly. As noted earlier, that parents are more passive and less demanding of their girls is nothing new. And neither is there a short supply of women with debilitating self-esteem problems.
Is Liberalism to Blame?
For the reasons outlined in these sections, today’s social (or modern) liberalism should be seen as one of the most dangerous threats to the well-being of this country ever faced. In the centuries-old pursuit of finding meaning, purpose, and identity without a Creator, this worldview has given birth to an unforeseen psychological monster. This humanistic philosophy is much more than just a misguided but well-intentioned means to a better world; it is also an insidious, self-replicating personality type with no end in sight. As today’s neglectful childrearing practices continue to gain traction, and the divorce rate continues to climb (Update: now declining), those reared in this way will only produce more of the same. If the outworkings of this psychological crisis are allowed to continue, liberal causes and outrages will never end—and neither will the anger, vindictiveness, and bloodlust. The compensating demands will only become more irrational and more destructive: nothing more than pathological impulses with no hope of ever satisfying the emptiness within. Inevitably, anything and everything will be seen as oppressive, and everyone will be an owed victim of something. As the vengeance and chaos continue to escalate, this country (and others) will inevitably reach the tipping point for anarchy and self-destruction. Both school shootings and mass shootings will increase exponentially, along with deaths of despair and every other form of violence and hatred throughout society. We are already seeing this now. A zombie apocalypse is becoming more believable by the hour.
The Breakdown of the Traditional Family
As you can imagine, the problems outlined in the previous sections are only further compounded by the current divorce rate (40 to 50 percent). As studies have shown, the majority of mass shooters (and school shooters) are from broken, dysfunctional, or abusive homes. Since the sexual revolution, the number of fatherless homes in this country has become staggering: “More than 20 million children live in a home without the physical presence of a father. Millions more have dads who are physically present, but emotionally absent. If it were classified as a disease, fatherlessness would be an epidemic worthy of attention as a national emergency.” —from thefathers.com website
Some of the most eye-opening statistics concerning this crisis were made public in the 2014 documentary film, Irreplaceable. This documentary sought to answer the questions, “What is family?” and "Does ‘family’ still matter in today's society?” According to their statistics, 71 percent of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes. Likewise, 71 percent of teenage pregnancies, 85 percent of children with behavior disorders, 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children, 63 percent of youth suicides, and 85 percent of all youth in prison, come from fatherless homes. Keep in mind that this was quite a few years ago.
Those reared in these impoverished environments have the problems associated with low self-esteem further intensified and reinforced, especially shame. Many even share the common traits associated with psychopathy and sociopathy. This is why so many shooters are labeled as psychopaths whether they are or not. With the necessary forming structure for self-worth being further aggravated by an absent parent, the incensed morbidity of self-loathing and envious resentment is exacerbated. As a result, they are more likely to experience suicidal thoughts and act upon these feelings with malevolence and vindictive behavior. As might be expected, this condition becomes even more dangerous when accompanied by other negative life circumstances, or traumatic events, such as physical or sexual abuse in the home, peer rejection, parental drug abuse or suicide, romantic rejection, excessive bullying, or conflicts with school teachers. Now you have the makings of a mass shooter. This is especially true in a culture where it has become perfectly acceptable to take your frustrations out on others.
Again, these fatherless and dysfunctional homes are the products of the sexual revolution. This is one of the reasons why extending sexual permissiveness has always led to the breakdown of societies. Institutions such as marriage and family and the fidelity and parental investment required to sustain them, end up taking a back seat to the self-indulgent whims of the individual. What was supposed to bring about liberation and self-fulfillment has brought nothing but isolation, relational brokenness, unfulfilled needs of human intimacy, same-sex attraction, gender/sexual identity problems, and a morally bankrupt society. Some economists are even predicting a progression of economic collapses this country will soon face due to the continuing birth rate decline. One of the lies of the sexual revolution was that “the kids will be fine.” But they are not fine.
Natural Laws of Human Flourishing
In the lost and mostly forgotten sex study of anthropologist J.D. Unwin, some important discoveries were made concerning sexual behavior and how it relates to human flourishing. His findings demonstrated a direct link between monogamy and what Unwin called the "expansive energy" of civilization (i.e. human flourishing). Psychologist and Christian author James Dobson summarizes this important study:
“Anthropologist J.D. Unwin conducted an exhaustive study of the eighty-eight civilizations which have existed in the history of the world. Each culture has reflected a similar life cycle, beginning with a strict code of sexual conduct and ending with the demand for complete “freedom” to express individual passion. Unwin reports that every society which extended sexual permissiveness to its people was soon to perish. There have been no exceptions.”
It’s important to note that Unwin held no Christian convictions and was not merely imposing a Christian interpretation on his findings. Many scholars were shocked by his discoveries, including himself. He found that societies flourished only during times when they valued sexual fidelity. They would subsequently decline as they became more sexually permissive. They would then rise again as they returned to stricter standards. He concluded, “In human records, there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial and post-nuptial continence.” Again, he found no exceptions.
The reasons for this are not difficult to understand when you consider the basic laws of nature. These laws govern the behavior of all things. Whether we are talking about a plant, an animal, or a human being, it will only function at its optimum when obeying these natural laws. When a society begins to adopt lifestyles and behaviors that violate these principles, they often injure themselves beyond repair. Without question, children reared within the traditional family structure are far happier and healthier than those who are not. This makes sense when you consider the necessary conditions and the length of time required for a child to develop and become self-sustaining. When compared to animals or insects, which we should not try to emulate, parental investment is clearly a necessity—and both mother and father supply different and essential needs (this is now supported by scientific evidence; single-parent homes, and gay couple homes, produce unbalanced children). It’s not hard to see how extending sexual permissiveness would have the potential of opening a Pandora’s Box of self-gratifying behavior, including abandonment, that would inevitably destabilize the family structure and destroy a healthy society. When self-fulfillment and the happiness of the individual becomes the only meaningful goal in life, it no longer makes sense that a discontent parent should continue to be oppressed by a worldview, or religious doctrine, that tells them to remain with the family.
The adoption of same-sex marriage carries this same potential. Does anyone really need a Bible to tell them that sodomy is an unnatural act; or that the acceptance of homosexual unions in society would produce more of these same problems? Granting the right to redefine marriage, or self-determine the structure of one’s family, has only served to further erode the legitimacy of traditional marriage and family. What is amazing is that some of these proponents have admitted that this redefining was purposely pursued to destroy these foundational structures. It is also worth noting that since this time we have also seen a rapid increase in pedophilia, child abductions, exhibitionism, and other acts of sexual deviance. These people are simply not as afraid or ashamed to act on their aberrant impulses as they once were.
Founding Principles for a Healthy Nation
As our culture continues to worsen, many are starting to realize it is not necessary to be a religious person, or hold religious views, to see the necessity of obeying the basic laws of nature. This has a lot to do with why this country initially adopted such strict standards regarding marriage and fidelity. Because the biblical model was so well aligned with natural principles of human flourishing, even those who did not fully embrace the Christian faith chose to implement many of its restrictions and guidelines (theistic rationalism).
For example, divorce was considered to be in opposition to public interest, and would not be easily granted without a justifiable reason. To violate the marriage contract was to violate the social contract inherent within it. A legally and publicly recognized marriage carries an obligation to society. At one time, those wanting to start families recognized and accepted the weight of this responsibility. The idea that our civil government should recognize and regulate marriage was understood to be a necessity for a successful and healthy nation. When today’s social liberalism seeks to liberate itself from the oppressive past, it is to the injury of all people if this liberation includes the liberation from the natural laws of human flourishing. Destroying our humanity is not liberating, it is suicidal.
Of course, the original intent of law-makers for extending sexual permissiveness, and then redefining marriage and family accordingly, was never to produce a society of abandonment, perversion, whoredom, and utter chaos. It was designed (at least originally), to provide civil liberties that would make the pursuit of happiness available to all citizens. The nonconformist and the traditionalist could both coexist and define happiness on their own terms. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. You cannot have a united plurality of structural designs when only a strict adherence to one of those designs is capable of producing a healthy society. You can’t have it both ways. For the common good of society, the nonconformist must come to realize there is more to life than personal happiness and self-fulfillment. There is the bigger picture to consider. The futility of these ongoing attempts to restructure society and somehow produce the best of both worlds was also noted in the findings of J.D. Unwin:
“Sometimes a man has been heard to declare that he wishes both to enjoy the advantages of high culture and to abolish compulsory continence. The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.” —Sex and Culture, Oxford University Press, 1934
Political and Cultural Reinforcement of Envy and Entitlement
The eradication of these natural laws is exactly what the sexual revolution brought with it. It is not by coincidence did no-fault divorce and legalized abortion follow in the wake of these newfound freedoms. Again, this has since created countless fatherless children, dysfunctional single-parent homes, and the killing of millions of unborn babies, all for the sake of physical pleasure, self-fulfillment, and oppression relief.
Compared to how it once was, men and women in this country (and others) over the past fifty years have become nothing less than self-gratifying parasites. No discipline, no restraint, no self-control, and little desire to live for anyone other than themselves. The crippling psychological problems their children (and adult children) must now bear to support this so-called happiness is beyond anything this country has ever seen.
How Did We Get Here?
The precursor to most of these radical changes in the United States originated with a set of domestic programs launched during the nineteen sixties. These reforming programs were called The Great Society. Along with civil rights legislation, these initiatives also sought to end poverty. This “War on Poverty” included legislation and reforms that would provide easier access to education, health care, housing, transportation, welfare, etc. While a lot of these efforts can be applauded, they were inevitably pushed too far by liberal politicians and used to advance a socialistic agenda. This helped create the entitlement mentality we see today. As Chuck Colson observed, “The Great Society helped to create an entitlement mentality. Those in unfortunate circumstances are told they are victims of larger forces over which they have no control, so they must look to and rely on the government for aid. The entitlement mentality destroys self-respect, motivation, and civic duty.”
I like this quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, “The order of castes is the dominating law of nature… The first caste comprises those who are obviously superior to the masses intellectually; the second includes those whose existence is chiefly muscular; and the third is made up of the mediocre. The third class, very naturally, is the most numerous, but the first is the most powerful… Whom do I hate most among the men of today? The socialist who undermines the workingman’s healthy instincts, who takes from him his feeling of contentedness with his existence, who makes him envious, who teaches him revenge… There is no wrong in unequal rights: it lies in the vain pretension to equal rights.”
Needless to say, this entitlement mentality is now being used to further justify and fuel the resentments of envy in every way conceivable. The latest victims can easily find a sympathetic audience among liberal politicians who will happily come to the rescue of the oppressed and sidelined. Those not on board with these so-called reforms are made out to be bigots, homophobes, misogynists, backward religious hate mongers, and even racists. This is where the pride of self-pity and the attending resentments of envy can gain public legitimacy through the national attention of politicians and candidates. These people can now buy their way into public office by promising egalitarian/social justice, socialistic wealth redistribution, and unregulated sexual freedom.
These promises have become the opiate of the masses. Liberal politicians have become nothing less than drug dealers; they sell vengeance and sexual promiscuity and keep their constituents comfortably numb by catering to their never-ending outrages. They have also learned there is much to be gained by what social psychologists call the ‘psychology of enemies.’ Having enemies, and creating more enemies, can help fill the empty void. Enemies can provide meaning, purpose, and coherence to an otherwise unsatisfying life. Life is no longer empty and pointless when you have enemies.
Identity Politics
As far as the continued undermining of the traditional family is concerned, which serves to create more of these broken personality types (which secures more and more votes), today’s social liberalism is no longer content with merely granting no-fault divorce, abortion, normalizing premarital and extramarital sex, and redefining marriage, it now seeks to destroy the very concept of manhood itself. According to today’s identity politics, those who maintain the biological differences between males and females are to be looked upon as oppressors. We are now required to reject these differences to create the proper environment for acceptance.
The only problem is that these differences, along with other natural propensities, carry inherent life-giving necessities that extend beyond biological reproduction. When it comes to child-rearing and producing a healthy society, the governing laws of nature call men to lead and women to nurture. These laws call both to monogamy and parental investment. Without this vital structure—which also helps to provide a sense of affirmation and belonging in the formation of gender and sexual identity—young people inevitably assume that personal identity and meaning in life can only be subjectively determined.
Since the sixties, passive parenting has gained much traction, and the breakdown of the traditional family is at an all-time high. As a result, we are now seeing this psychological crisis grow by leaps and bounds. Today’s young people are now convinced that the only meaning life can offer is that which we impose upon it. Life and reality are seen as a state of unrealized potential or limbo. Previous structured understandings from past generations are looked upon as nothing more than relativistic social constructs or oppressive power structures. Today’s culture continually creates and enforces these ideas and narratives.
(As an interesting aside, many also believe this, “cognitive incongruity,” “the inability to integrate the data of the world into a meaningful schemata, whether in terms of a self-concept, or a predictive model of the environment . . .,” (Seymour Epstein) to be primarily responsible for today’s exponential rise in anxiety disorders among teens. This includes eco-anxiety and climate change anxiety.)
As we have seen, when we undermine or completely ignore the governing principles of nature, it creates catastrophic consequences for all of society. We are only further dooming ourselves by rejecting these biological distinctions. It is interesting to note that those who first coined the phrase “The Sexual Revolution,” were committed anarchists. This psychological environment also accounts for the unprecedented speed by which we are witnessing these cultural changes. But what choice do today’s young people really have? With no imposed structural framework, they simply find no place for themselves in the world.
Is There Any Hope?
Naturally, the question now becomes, will the nonconformist be forced to make sacrifices for the common good of society? The answer is yes. It does not mean they must be hated and condemned and sent to the Gulag, but it does mean they must make sacrifices if they care about the world they live in. These newfound sexual and identity freedoms should be seen as a clear violation of the no-harm principle (this principle is a contrivance of social liberalism). Anthropologist J.D. Unwin also found this to be true of women within cultures that wished to return to better conditions for human flourishing: “In no case was sexual opportunity reduced to a minimum unless married women, and usually unmarried women also, were compelled to suffer legal and social disadvantages.”
As noted earlier, the willingness of those convinced of their oppression and victimization to make these sacrifices is difficult to see. It’s even harder to see power-hungry politicians surrendering control over these people. Even as things continue to worsen, we still see liberal causes and oppressed victims increasing by the hour. And we still see liberal politicians and judicial elites continue to undermine the Constitution by persistently forcing new legislation upon existing laws and protections.
In addition to the problems already mentioned, deaths of despair (drug overdose, alcoholic liver disease, and suicide), are also at an all-time high, but no one seems to mind that much. Many believe this country, and others like it will have to be brought to its begging knees before any real change will take place. It is scary to contemplate what kind of body count that will require; especially when you consider that this ongoing restructuring has become a deeply-rooted way of life for so many, particularly young people who have never known anything else.
For nearly a full generation, our future leaders have become culturally conditioned to satiate the contempt they have for others. And with the wealth, prosperity, and class diversity of a country like the United States (where most mass shootings and school shootings occur), there is plenty to be resentfully envious and aggrieved about; more than anywhere else in the world. As noted earlier, “we now live in a politically charged world of endless entitlement and victimization; anything upsetting, unfulfilling, or considered disenfranchising or oppressive is to be laid at the feet of society and the cultures that are produced—everything is society's fault. With an evolutionary understanding of life and reality, retaliation is not only expected it is culturally applauded—society must evolve—people must change. This cultural conditioning has become the necessary catalyst for murder and suicide. It not only sets the expectation but practically grants permission. This is the message today's young people are taught every day of their lives.”
Concluding Thoughts
As we have seen, it is through the imposed structure of a loving home life, where rules and limits are defined and enforced, that we come to believe we are of value and that a sense of reality is achievable. This imposed structure also implies that objective meaning and purpose to life must exist somewhere, even if the particulars are never set forth. But when rules and defined limits are not enforced, children not only feel unloved and worthless but any implied meaning and purpose to their lives this structure would have imparted is lost.
Not to keep beating a dead horse, but what the preponderance of evidence has clearly shown is that a sense of value, identity, meaning, and purpose in life can spring forth as a natural consequence of obeying the laws of nature—especially those of parental investment. This would include recognizing the differing and essential roles of mothers and fathers; along with the sexual restraint of a responsible society. If these laws are observed, and children are reared properly, they can lead a stable and fulfilling life. They can equally possess a resilient psychological constitution that will support them through life’s difficult challenges. Definitive answers concerning the existence of a purposeful, creator God may never be fully addressed, but most will nevertheless believe in some kind of overarching purpose to life, even an afterlife. Past generations have always expressed these sentiments with statements like, “Everything happens for a reason,” with seemingly no philosophical or religious basis for such an assertion, or “I know that something lies beyond, but I’m not sure what that is.”
This sensus divinitatis (sense of the divine), a term that John Calvin used to describe the innate knowledge of God that all human beings possess is significantly suppressed when we fail to acknowledge the natural laws that undergird this intuitive knowledge. People are left groping at the empty void. This could have very well been the cause of the sexual revolution to begin with. The spiritual seekers (hippies) of the sixties were predominantly the children of neglect. I like this quote from Peter Kreeft:
‘“I think a secularist has only one substitute left for God, only one experience in a desacrilized world that still gives him something like the mystical, self-transcending thrill of ecstasy that God designed all souls to have forever, and to long for until they have it. Unless he is a surfer, that experience has to be sex. We’re designed for more than happiness; we’re designed for joy. Aquinas writes, with simple logic, “Man cannot live without joy. That is why one deprived of true spiritual joys must spill over to carnal pleasures.”’
As noted earlier, what prevents these natural laws from being observed is that modern thinking is mostly evolutionary and believes that our adherence to the laws of nature is subject to evolutionary processes as well. Most believe we have evolved beyond nature and are no longer attached in any way. We are now deciding for ourselves what “we” want. This also means that what was once considered immoral in the past, might now be perfectly acceptable if it’s what we now want. As noted earlier, the sexual revolution was once considered morally good. It was adopted to improve the well-being of our fellow humans without destroying the surrounding environment. This can no longer be claimed. How much more proof do we need? How much more misery and chaos (or dead bodies) do we need to see? The numbers are climbing exponentially with no indication of decline. According to Everytown Research, “. . . Between 2009 and 2020, 1,363 people in the United States were killed and 947 more were wounded in 240 mass shootings [where four or more people are shot and killed, excluding the shooter], an average of 20 shootings each year [61 percent occurred entirely in the home]. Among the casualties were at least 362 children and teens killed as well as 21 law enforcement officers killed and 35 wounded. These numbers are staggering, yet they represent just a small portion of the lives forever changed after a mass shooting shakes a community with terror and grief.”
In conclusion, this quote from G.K. Chesterton says it all: “This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.”
If you found this book helpful, please help others to find it by leaving a rating or review.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!