top of page

Hatred ? So, What is Love ? - An open appeal to intellect.

Greenwich Free Press recently published an article by Nerlyn Pierson of "Indivisible" what she is described as an act of "hate" citing the recent deployment of "groomer" signs in front of the Greenwich Town Hall that recently hoisted a "pride" flag commemorating not just a single day but an entire month dedicated to what many have described as a cultural imposition (more on this later). Ms. Pierson, and the recently defeated RTM Chair Dan Quigley and their ilk espouse a faux, erroneous or misplaced virtue (of sorts) and Ms. Piersons article suspiciously looks like another formulaic response perhaps drafted by ChapGPT injected with some relevant overtones.

Proponents of LGBTQ often speak of "hatred" when there is disagreement. Disagreeing (with them) is indeed perceived as hatred. Why is it important to understand the use of this particular word? It's because no one wants to be seen or perceived as being "hateful" and so, this is the psychological mind game that is played in order to get people (and even legislators) to capitulate to their whims or to just give up. The other reason this word is used it projects a (faux) moral authority from the wielder of the word. That is the reason this particular word was selected. It is for this reason you see it on their signs in their articles and in their memes. Hate of course being the opposite of love.

When (or if) we chastise children for misbehaving, being rebellious or being uncooperative they may kick and scream and throw a tantrum, storm off, slam the bedroom door and (to them) it could very well be they may perceive this as a form of "hate". When parents say "no" this is the stop-gap boundary or a wall, of sorts, that has been put up as a guide. The purpose is not to deprive a child of freedom or happiness but rather to give them a roadmap on how to navigate the human experience. Scolding, reprimand or punishment for transgression is a form or Love. This is how it has been done for Millenia.

Activists are more interested in "sparing the rod and spoiling the child". Allowing children to do what ever they want without consequence is not conducive to teaching a child that there needs to be limitations on certain human behaviors. It's where we derive the fundamentals of respect, honor, love, empathy and even wisdom.

Words (and language tactics) that leftist often enjoy using are little more than a re-imagined demagoguery. Leftists and those who support the recent proliferation of their "pride" ideology do not seem to be able to defend their positions on the merits of either a moral or an intellectual argument and instead resort to ad hominem, gaslighting and marginalizing coupled with a plethora of straw man arguments, such as using Donald Trump as a scapegoat for all that currently ails society. Why do they do this ? Because it's so much easier to appeal to peoples emotions and make someone an object of that emotion rather than actually making salient intellectual arguments that can stand on their own merit. And lets face it most people these days seem to lack the mental horsepower with which to make intelligible arguments to defend their positions but this has been somewhat intentional.

The 1st definition of "Pride" under the third heading according to Merriam Webster is antedating the LGBTQ amendments :

  • Exaggerated self-esteem : CONCEIT

  • showy or pretentious

  • ostentatious or showy display

  • To indulge ones self.

In a general sense none of these definitions would fall under the qualities an honorable person would aspire to. And an interesting footnote is many people that perhaps came from unloving and/or single parent homes tend to be among the demographic of individuals that gravitate towards the LGBTQ cultural phenomenon because it appeals to an individuals sense of belonging or being recognized. Something that perhaps was absent in the persons upbringing.

In Pauls Epistle/Address to the Hebrews (Jews who became Christian) was in essence a recapitulation of Moses address to the Israelites prompting them to not give into apostasy or turn their backs on what had brought them joy freedom and prosperity; and to remain faithful.

Was Jesus being hateful when he prompted the adulterous women to: "Go and sin no more" ? John 8:11

Was Jesus being hateful when storming the temple and overthrowing the tables of the money changers? Matt. 21:12

Was Jesus being hateful (to Peter) when he said: "get thee behind me Satan for thou savorist not the things that be of God". Matt. 16:23.

These where all responses / rebukes to human behavior that threatened to pose impositions on others. What the left is calling "hate" is a refusal to allow unbridled, unconventional lifestyles that pose a direct threat to our civilization. And where can we find historical caveats that substantiate this truth claim ?

Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin studied 86 societies and civilizations to see if there was a relationship between sexual morality and human flourishing.

Unwin defined four categories of cultures. Each is differentiated in its pursuit of art, engineering, literature, agriculture, etc.

1. Dead - these cultures are only focused on the day-to-day needs of life. They don't care about higher questions and so do not progress.

2. Superstitious - these cultures develop beliefs that help them explain the natural world. This can be represented in the special treatment of the dead.

3. Deistic - characterized by belief in gods or a god. This requires more imagination and higher-order thinking.

4. Rationalistic - characterized by rational thinking. This was the category with the most human flourishing.

Next, Unwin defined sexual ethics and restraint into two categories:

- Prenuptial - this was measured on a scale from complete sexual freedom to "remain a virgin until married."

- Postnuptial - how easy is it to get a divorce? How many wives can a man have? How faithful are the women expected to be?

What did he find?

The single most influential factor: prenuptial chastity.

If people were expected to remain virgins until they were married, the culture was more likely to have all of the markers of human flourishing.

They were more likely to be an "advanced" civilization.

The best combination, resulting in a culture that exceeds other cultures? You probably won't be surprised. Prenuptial chastity combined with absolute monogamy. Absolute monogamy means one spouse for life.

Why was prenuptial chastity the most important? In cultures where virginity was no longer expected, within three generations the following disappeared:

- absolute monogamy

- deism

- rational thinking

The reasons Unwins analysis bares a look is because he is addressing the very moral conundrum and the facets of the "Free Love" paradigm that proliferated in our society today.

If Nerlyn Pierson was intellectually honest she would know the war on our culture ensued long before Donald Trump was a blip on anyones radar. The "free love movement" which surfaced in the 1920's but didn't really gain traction until the 1960's and was for all intents and purposes the beginning of the "middle finger" to the traditional and conventional familial structure.

According to Wendy McElroy: Free love is a social movement that accepts all forms of love. The movement's initial goal was to separate the state from sexual and romantic matters such as marriage, birth control, and adultery. It stated that such issues were the concern of the people involved and no one else. But now the State seems to have become integral in pushing the ideology by fomenting the LGBTQ's agenda. Groups such as Indivisible, American Foundation for Equal Rights, Gay Rights National Lobby and scores of others are aggressively lobbying Federal and state legislators to "move the ball"

Since when do representatives or legislators and activist groups like "Indivisible" get to decide what's best for children and to the point, from lawmakers who have no children ? Perhaps it's because many of them have accepted the concepts of John Money, a notable sexologist and researcher, who argued that once pedophilia is considered an acceptable form of behavior contingent on breaking down the boundaries between the sexes and arousing the possibility for a new liberation of non-heterosexual behavior. Money also believed that the acceptance of LGBT identities would eventually lead to the acceptance of sex between adults and children, or pedophilia. This is the modus operandi of the left, to get you to "accept" something not on a meritorious approach but a manipulative one. And what exactly are they manipulating ? The language i.e. "hate", "acceptance" "inclusivity", "diversity"etc.

Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, and people of good moral character have been colored with a broad brush; "Nazis" "Right Wingers" "Racists" "Fascists" et. al. And the reason Leftists use these words (much like the word "Hate") is tantamount to character assassination. So is it any wonder the Left finds itself in a culture war ? They are remanded to using these terms because they cannot win an argument simply on the fundamentals of reason logic, and any morally sound argument.

And this begs a series of other questions like; Why is the Greenwich Board of Education always silent when parents voice their concerns about hyper-sexualized content within the curriculum ? Or, why is a Town which claims to purportedly be concerned for the safety and well being of children and the community promoting an agenda which is clearly and unequivocally aimed at the sexualization of children ? And, why are there so many parents that are ok with this ? If the Board and other proponents of LGBTQ activist have adopted John Money's thesis on transforming the culture through corrupting the children then it might be instructive for 1st Selectman Fred Camillo and others to re-familiarize themselves with Connecticut General Statutes § 53-21,

  1. C.G.S. §53-21(a)(1) - ... willfully or unlawfully causes or allows any child under 16 years old to be placed in a situation where the. ...

    1. Section 3 The morals of the child are likely to be impaired.

  2. C.G.S. §53-21(a)(1) - .... any act likely to impair the health of morals of a child under the age of 16.

The problem is try finding a Prosecutor in a predominantly Leftist/Marxist state like Connecticut to get the charges to stick. Or a Judge that would allow charges to be filed. Remember what happened, or rather didn't happen to Assistant Principal Jermey Boland from Cob Cob Elementary who openly admitted / confessed on hidden camera to discriminatory hiring practices ? He was rewarded by getting put on a paid leave and the town ended up letting him resign with his full pension. Some kind of reprimand eh? No criminal charges were ever brought to bare. And not a single State Representative (including Senator Fazio who was at Cos Cob school during the presser) came forward and condemened the outcome. Not one.




bottom of page