The Lord’s day is upon us, and I have been busy in the back yard with a son, 9, who took the blower to our back porch while I ran a mower across large swatches of my mother’s lawn on the hilltop behind our house.
I am waiting for the other son to come home from errands so we can do the French lesson we missed yesterday. He assured me he’d be home soon enough for us to meet in our usual spot, at the dining room table, while it remains daylight. I insist on the lesson during the day, because at night we are tired, and as we are getting ready for the Lord’s day a French lesson might easily be overlooked.
Part of introductory French is the rule about every noun being masculine or feminine. There is no neutral gender in the language spoken in France.
Paris bans use of ‘mother’ in official documents
In this most breautiful tongue everything is either le for male, or la for female. Le garcon is the boy. La fille is the girl. The gender poison creeps into every sentence. With exceptions, adjectives reflect the noun’s gender. Une bouteille verte (f) is a green bottle. Un bureau vert (m) is a green desk. Desk is a masculine noun, so no “e” dangles at the end of the adjective.
In the news today it is reported that the French government plans prohibit public documents from referring to either father or mother. The word parent will cover for both.
This suppression of an important part of reality to fashion an egalitarian society is somewhat like the decree of the French revolutionaries in1793 of a new calendar with a 10-day week, fitting into the decimal system ordained by the goddess Reason. The Republican calendar revealed contempt for the order of creation recorded in Genesis, for God and for the church.
Paris’ elimination in the distinction between mother and father begins by banalizing marriage as “a union of two people, of different or same gender,” to allow homosexuals to obtain that privilege (I argue elsewhere marriage is a right, not a privilege.) The next step is to eliminate mother and father and substitute parents. “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring a child up better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?” The justice minister Christiane Taubira is quoted as saying. Indeed. The matter is entirely up in the air.
Governments build up trivial minuses
The unreality of the egalitarian project is evident in a similar ban across the waves in Rhode Island, where father-daughter dances are being forbidden by the Cranston school district, according to The New American.
While Title 9 of U.S. law gives an exemption for “father-son” and “mother-daughter” events, state law doesn’t. And so Judith Lundsten, superintendent, says “gender-based” events will no longer be permitted. While “many of these events have long traditions, and for many parents these types of gender-based events are not an issue,” she said in a letter to school groups, “this is a public school system and under no circumstances should we be isolating any child from full participation in school activities and events based on gender.” She admonished the groups to be “all-inclusive when planning your events.”
Civilization continues to be subjected to shocks that we can trace to the French revolution. Such developments as these two are part of the disrepute national government and government-run enterprises such as public schools are accruing. Officials are committing to an unreality and insisting everyone in their jurisdiction be subject to it. In their minds, these officials are acting with righteous indignation, beneficence, and good will for the betterment of a minority.
If we lived at the start of a revolutionary age rather than the possible end of one, revolutionaries would seek to stoke these grievances into an explosion. But the revolutionary period is over, and ahead appears to be a growing loss of credit for the nation state itself. Modern states are virtually all overloaded welfare providers. If you follow free market websites such as Lewrockwell.com you have already explored this prospect that James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg detailed in 1997 in Sovereign Individual[;] How to Survive and Thrive during the Collapse of the Welfare State.
The attack on the difference between man and woman I suspect will increase the alienation between the people and their ostensibly representative democratic governments. Moves such as those of Paris and Rhode Island increase the impersonality of the state and its agencies, and during the meltdown will be among the trivialities cited by common people to justify their disregard of — or hatred for — it.
Sources:
The Telegraph
