Essays and Theories




Special note: This "essay" was written as a video presentation script. Hence, you will immediately notice that there are some sections of sentences written in capital letters [as a note to myself to EMPHASIZE that part of the script], and you will see appearances of parenthesized script notes to insert this or this into the video. It was finished in May of 2005 with filming intended to start soon after. But, because of various reasons, mostly personal, I have put off the video production. But, I felt that it was doing no good to leave the wisdom idle on my hard-drive, and hence, this presentation here in this form]


In this essay on UNDERSTANDING THE UNDERLYING MECHANISMS BENEATH MORAL CONSERVATIVE VALUES, WE WILL BE TAKING a voyage together in this PRESENTATION that HAS BEEN primarily designed to be viewed by elected progressive officials and pundits alike. It was created because I believe THAT IN 2005, my Democratic Party, is momentarily wandering in the desert seeking direction, and I'm hoping that this presentation will help lay a foundation of understanding our opponent's deep-rooted BEHAVIOR, WHICH, in turn, will better prepare us for our return to political prominence.

[button chart?}

While I will explain broad conservative behavior from a group perspective, I also will touch upon conservative values and concepts concerning human sexuality…in particular the separation of human from animal in the story of the creation vs. evolution debate, and the real reason that sex between humans was created.

In this essay, I am going to use one Conservative source, and only one, because I believe it represents one of the purist forms of American religious fundamentalist thought that I have ever uncovered. This one source, comes from a book published in 2001 entitled, Moses was a Right-Wing Conservative. If this were a lecture on physics, we would be discussing the molecular structure of our subject at its lowest level.

But, along the way, we will visit, what I consider to be, a most important theory on human behavior that deals exclusively with inter-group behavior. And although my primary studies revolve around the evolutionary core of human behaviors, I must strongly admonish you that WE humans are social creatures --where culture involving group-living, --not genes, dictates the majority of our behaviors. If you want more depth into the biological and innateness of human behavior, seek out my web site.

[[[[Pause] ok to stop film and restart]]]]
Originally, I was intrigued by the title of this source; Moses was a Right-Wing Conservative, thinking that using the name of a major religious figure in its title would strike a spiritual tone, because we are entering a period in our American political history where religion will merge more with our political landscape….And since WE progressives are truly more spiritual and open to diversity then ALL Religious Fundamentalists, I personally welcome the call to more spirituality.

But almost immediately, I realized that the Moses Book was really all about stirring up visceral HATE, both-- culturally and politically -- and then hiding behind that hate by citing biblical quotations and religious "morality" as a shield to justify that hate. But if you are a student of human global cultures, you know that elsewhere on the planet, similar behavior mechanisms are being used by religious fundamentalists to spout THEIR own brand of hate and using THEIR religious morality to justify their actions. This then, leads social and evolutionary psychologists to strong evidence that there are universal human behaviors at work and that organized religions are only part of the story behind these behaviors.

Secondly, I believe what made me dig deeply into the book was that fact that the author of the source appears to be my mirror image - in terms of education achieved, enlisted military service; the concentrated level of study, and the degree of commitment - But all of it devoted IN THE OPPOSITE direction where WHERE I was HEADED POLITICALLY. I want to go forward into the future and evolve into a higher realm of cooperative world relations, while this conservative wants us to remain mired in the pit of religious theology that works so well for him and his associates.

[picture of book cover]
Of course, the book's title, Moses was a Right-Wing Conservative, does give us a clue as to the theme of the book -- Instantly, the title tells us that the book will take us into the time, cultures, and laws of the Old Testament.
[picture of author]
The author, a one, John L. Plough, is a relatively unknown source. If you Goggle his name, you get about 25 entries, including my book review of his book done in September of 2001.

The goggle replies that we do get back are very short book reviews or give several links as to where to purchase the book.
[Picture of-Pyramid Financial logo]
There is one reference to a Pyramid Financial, with the exact First, Middle, and
Surname attached, located in Long Beach, California. The company profiles itself as a loan company for start-up companies seeking funds. I did not call the telephone number to verify if the John L. Plough listed with the company is our conservative friend.
[picture of Plough]
From the back cover we get the following quote: "John L. Plough is a Biblical Conservative, award winning orator, co-host of a local L.A. cable show and author of several books".

Once again, there are no Goggle references to any cable show in LA he may be associated with; no references to oratory awards that he may have received, and there are no other books listed with either Barnes and Noble, nor

[Picture of iUniverse web site]
The book is published by, and if you go to their web site, we will find that it is a vanity publication web site.
[Pic of Plough again]
Reading the book, one finds that he relates tales of duty as an enlisted man in the Navy, and he does not mention any colleges that he may have attended.

There are no citations in the book other than quotes from the King James Version of the Old Testament, and, there is no index in the rear of the book. [pic of book cover again].

As for a timeline, there are references to President Clinton troubles over Monica Lewisnsky, and Al Gore's "invention" of the internet. Both, references were cited as proof of "liberals" who lie --This then gives us a clue that the book was most likely written in the summer of 2000, with a publication date of March 15, 2001.

[pic of Plough again]
So, we can safely establish that Mr. Plough is most likely a SELF-APPOINTED expert on Biblical, social, and cultural matters. The only surprise that I had was that he made no references to having God communicate with him directly, as liken to similar, un-credentialed sources. In my personal opinion, this leads me to believe that he wanted to pass as some sort of litmus test for advancing his religious standing amongst his superiors.

Before we enter the biblical world of conservative sexuality, I want to bear out a few non-religious quotes from the book to help set the tone of this man's mental state on American culture. The book is littered with homilies of his own strong beliefs.

I have no doubts that our author is a genuine fundamentalist foot-soldier; not a captain, nor an educated elitist in some conservative think tank. I also have no doubts that he is truly committed to his beliefs, and is so strongly set in his ways of thinking that there would BE LITTLE HOPE of lifting him up from the de-evolved mental state in which he dwells.
[picture of Plough again]

This is a young male, who most likely learned his religion on his daddy's knee and at the dinner-table, then had those beliefs re-enforced within his local church group at his particular longitude and latitude.

One of the most important views expressed is the insistence that what he is writing about is the TRUTH. We all know of course, that conservatives consider the BIBLE the literal truth, and in Mr. Plough's case, this is no exception. On Page 10, he writes [picture of text on screen] "…we are conservative; we base opinions on fact, not our own forgone conclusions."

But, if we read the back cover, he writes: "Moses Was a Right Wing Conservative" seeks to demonstrate by analysis of the first five books of the bible WHAT VIEWS Moses MIGHT have held on the topics that divide us today. "Let me emphasis the part that says : 'WHAT VIEWS MOSES MIGHT HAVE HELD…'I don't know about you, but that sounds like a "FORGONE conclusion" to me - and this gives a clue as to what is coming.

[pictues of book cover, then Polugh in quick succession]

Ok, the next quote: "Moral Conservatism stems from the Bible, which has always proved scientifically correct. The errors that conservatives make only happen when they ignore Biblical teaching and cow-tow [sic] to the Satanic-PHILOSOPH-IED liberals."p, 14 Here you see the establishment of the Bible as the absolute truth FIRST, and then the creating a connection between Satan and liberals as secondary. We ALSO see a grammatical framing process of establishing the human thought process of weighing correct information versus wrong information. [Truth vs. Falsehoods] Here our friend confirms the basic human behavior of connecting Truth (correct information) with Good, thus the bible and God are correct information, and pushing any opposing views into a simplified corner of Falsehood equating Evil with Liberals.

Hence, ANYONE opposed to views expressed in the Bible seeks to reverse the SCINTIFIC TRUTH, and thus becomes evil….It doesn't have to be a liberal --- it could be a Muslin, Buddhist, or whatever non-Christian religion that is available. It's just that Liberals are the main opponents in American Politics when Mr. Plough published his book.

****[pause…break in essay…new shirt?}
Now this is important because this is how our brains evolved from our evolutionary past. We humans used (and still do today) correct information in order to move forward safely (your next step could be a fatal one if you step on a poisonous snake, so it would be of great value if you had that truthful information regarding what was on your path before you ventured out for the day).Now, in our complex world, we depend on people in a position of trust as a method of telling us the truth to keep us safe -(the TV newsperson, the weather-person, the financial advisor, religious leaders, and of course, our politicians) This is good, but, this also makes us more vulnerable to false information being handed to us if the person we trust decides to give us false information.

[Picture of book cover and plough again]
In this next quote, Mr. Plough comes out of the closet and firmly links liberals with the devil. " "Liberalism will always bring you away from GOD and closer to Satan. This is not to say that Liberals are as bad as Hitler (though Hitler was a liberal), the simple fact is that in order to be separated from GOD all one has to do is, ignore truth…All Satan needs to do is have you embrace liberalism, thereby exchanging the truth of GOD for lies." P. 56.

The process that our friend is reaching for, in this quote, is to raise the classical call for fighting in a war that upholds GOOD vs. Evil. In this elementary framing process - the passages are all visceral - calls to evoke emotions of HATE. It is designed to prepare one's own group for a PHYSICAL battle [NOT ONE OF WORDS] that can only conclude in victory or death.

Make no mistake my progressive friends - the modern American conservative movement in 2005 IS CONSTANTLY ESTABLISHING RETORIC ON A WAR FOOTING BASED ON DESTROYING EVIL. [hmmm…does that sound like a "war on terrorism?"]

Now if we step back and look at what is transpiring from an overview perspective of human behavior, --- is that not only is MORAL JUSTIFICATION being established INTERNALLY by Mr. Plough to his own group, but it is also being then TELEGRAPHED to other groups not aligned with his principles, but within the acting group's perimeter of physical reach. IN OTHER WORDS LINGUISTLY, GROUP COMMUNITCATION IS BEING ATTEMPTED to other groups "within ear-shot."

In an evolutionary example coming straight from the jungle floor of making known their future intentions, one group of primates is telegraphing its intentions to other groups that they are about ready to do something physical - A sort of, an alarm. - "watch out….we're coming through whether you like it or not." What Mr. Plough is doing is stirring up his troops and getting them ready for action, and he hopes that those that follow him will shout loud enough in unison that any opposing group can hear them.

In the modern world in which we have evolved, groups that identify themselves as Christian fundamentals have developed a core principle that THAT THEIR RELIGION "CALLS" THEM TO BE "INSTRUMENTS" OF THEIR GOD'S Righteousness IN HUMAN SOCIETY. Take note of the word "instrument" because if forms a fundamental belief in supporting any action that this group may take.

But something happens along the way…..While moving forward in their march as "instruments of God's work - they somehow manage to OVERLOOK their own laws of moral behavior, but don't stop to punish any of their flock for CROSSING THE LINE --- What quickly comes to mind is Jimmy Swagert's visits to prostitutes, or Newt Gingrich's adultery while his wife lay in a hospital bed, or Tom Delay's great concern for Terri Schivo's life while FEEDING at the public trough of foreign junkets..

But, wait a minute….Haven't other religious groups and leaders around the planet and at different times in history been just as guilty as American Christian fundamentalist groups are today when they spout religion? So why is it that all these religious groups have a similar behavior of shouting at the top of the lungs about moral behavior, and then do behavior that goes against their own moral laws?

[long pause]….because religion and the call for moral behavior from one group is only partly what is occurring - there is something deeper.

YOU as an audience have arrived at a critical point in our lecture because it his here that I want to introduce briefly the Social Dominance Theory of Jim SIDANIUS and FELICIA PRATTO….[show picture of book cover and head shots of authors if possible] We will not cover this theory in depth in this lecture, but I want you to remember this theory because, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, it is THE most important theory dealing with human GROUP behavior IN the 21st Century.

It is important because it ALSO fits perfectly into the human BEHAVIOR realm of evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY which deals with the INDIVIDUAL behaviors - NOT GROUP BEHAVIOR -- in how humans solve the problem of passing their genes into the next generation. But it is most important because GROUP LIVING and THE INTERACTIONS that groups have with each other is the PRIMARY mechanism in which we modern humans base our behaviors upon.

We are social creatures, and group living has evolved as the best method WE HAVE FOUND AS A SPECIES FOR SURVIVAL.

The Social Dominance theory, in a nut-shell, is the argument that there is a predisposition amongst humans to form groups along hierarchical lines and that these groups tend to fall into two categories, -- DOMINATE & SUBORDINATE. The authors argue that there is "A GRAMMAR OF SOCIAL POWER" shared by all groups, ill-regardless of social standing and that this "grammar of social power" manifests itself by creating three types of stratifications, categorizations, or "discriminations." In other words, even though THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS, EACH GROUP GOES THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS OF identifying its own members and "identifying" those members into three distinct stratifications: This grouping OF THE THREE STRATIFICATIONS is called THE TRIMORPHIC STRUCTURE OF GROUP-BASED SOCIAL HIERARCHY.

The first classification is AGE--- where adults and middle-aged people have disproportionate social power over children and younger adults. [You can't drive a car at age seven - you can't run for political office, drink alcohol or run off and join the Army untill you are.18?, etc.
" A gender system - in which males have disproportionate social and political power compared with females. [patriarchy]
" Arbitrary-set system - [decisions based on individual preference or convenience that is not restrained in anyway] This is the most important stratification method in terms of understanding of how groups protect their own interests while excluding others in order to maintain and increase power.
To quote Sidanius and Pratto: [text box] The arbitrary-set system is filled with socially constructed and highly salient groups based on characteristics such as clan, ethnicity, estate, nation, race, caste, social class, religious sect, regional grouping, or any other socially relevant group distinction that the human imagination is capable of constructing. In such systems, one group is materially and/or politically dominant over the other. P. 33.

It is within this last human group classification system in which we find the greatest degree of viciousness found in human history. It is here that we find outward signs of violence done primarily by males of the dominant group against male members of the subordinate group.
[pause and emphasize]
Think of Blacks being lynched in the American South up till the 1960s
Think of Rodney King being beaten by LA policemen
Think of Driving While Black or Brown

But I think that Michael Moore summed up it up best in his 2001 book, Stupid White Men with the following quote: [Picture of book cover, then Micheal Moore, and then go to text block]]
"...when I turn on the news each night, what do I see again and again? Black men alleged to be killing, raping, mugging, stabbing, gangbanging, looting, rioting, selling drugs, pimping, ho-ing, having too many babies, dropping babies from tenement windows, fatherless, motherless, Godless, penniless..(If you're a political junkie, think of Willie Horton) no matter what city I'm in, the news is always the same, the suspect always is always the same unidentified black male. I'm in Atlanta tonight, and I swear the police sketch of the black male suspect on TV looks just like the black male suspect I saw on the news last night in Denver and the night before in L. A." p. 59.

Sidanius and Pratto have a distinctive name for this male discrimination: they call the male being targeted as the SUBORDINATE TARGET MALE. They theorize THAT the subordinate male is a target for violence because males think other males as the most dangerous of the subordinate group and therefore need harsher punishments. Perhaps a quick way to check that theory is to count the number of subordinate males in our prison system considered to be subordinate compared to those considered part of the dominate society as a whole.,

In a broader sense, a whole group of subordinates can be considered as targets;
Think of the Jews in Nazi Germany
Think of the Hutu's massacring the Tuti's in Rwanda
Think of the Serbs against the Muslins in Bosnia
Think of Protestants and Catholics clashing in Northern Ireland
[If you're a political and social junkie who loves history trivia, think about the "Zoot Suit Riots" between Mexican-Americans and Whites in Santa Monica California in 1947].

You are getting a better understanding of this Arbitrary-SET system of classification? In each case, it is a group that identifies itself as the dominant group attacking a group that they consider subordinate - But it's not just physical violence. In more subtle forms it evolves as job exclusions, housing exclusions, or verbal abuse. If the mechanism is non-violent, the primary purpose is excluding in some way the subordinate group from acquiring resources that the dominate group considers to be exclusively theirs. This obviously is an advantage to the dominate group while being a disadvantage for the subordinate group. Think of a competitive sport, and the "feel good" chemistry of "beating your opponent."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that being in the dominate group is better than being the subordinate, but social scientists would like you to understand the full reason.

The reason the dominate group wants to maintain their dominant position and the subordinate GROUP wants to rise up IN THEIR SOCIAL RANKING is BECAUSE BEING HIGHER IN the SOCIAL RANKING or class HAS MORE BENEFITS available to you and your family THAN BEING LOWER IN RANK. And the more available resources available to you and your family, the greater chance to pass your gene's into the next generation. "It's the Economy, STUPIDS." This is what evolutionary psychology and life is all about --- SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF PASSING ONE'S GENES INTO THE NEXT GENERATION WITH WHAT IS AVAILABLE BEFORE YOU….and if you have more opportunity and resources before you, the better chance your children have for survival.

Sidnadius and Pratto have labeled the benefits of being in the dominate group as "POSITIVE SOCIAL VALUE
There are:
" Political authority and power,,
" Good and plentiful food
" Splendid homes,
" the best available health care,
" Wealth, and of course,
" High social status.

I don't think that I have to mention the obvious opposite listing for Negative Social VALUE AND IT BECOMES APPARENT THAT ONE CAN UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN DESIRE TO HAVE MORE POSITIVE SOCIAL VALUES in their LIVES.
It also makes it easier to understand why even poor people sometimes don't even want to associate with their own ENTHIC roots if there is a more prosperous grouping that it feels they may elevate themselves up to and also share in their prosperity. Some call this envy, but we in the evolution community know that it's biological because it benefits their children if they can succeed. [Social scientists in the past have called this desire to move up in social class as ASSIMILATION.]

From a political standpoint, it also helps to clear up the question, "why do people vote against their own self-interests? [Like voting for Republicans who don't raise the minimum wage, for example] Well, the answer is, it's because the dominate group has convinced, through various group communication methods, that this is the way to achieve positive social value. And the subordinates believe that they are really not voting against their own self interests - at least until they realize that they have been sold snake oil for their ailments. If you think of political votes as an equation, then the winning political party has better at convincing more people that their path is the right one over the opposing party. Ok? Think of the echo chamber effect, Fox TV News, Conservative Talk Radio, etc.

Now within this ebb and flow of "Social Power" BETWEEN each social grouping, SIDANIUS and PRATTO have identified two mechanisms that the Dominants and Subordinates use in order to either maintain or increase their ranking -- in the case of the Dominate group, or attempt to align themselves with --or rise up in ranking into --Positive Value territory --if they belong to the subordinate group.

[aside]---No one consciously makes a decision to lower themselves into a Negative Social Value position, unless of course, you are attempting to follow in the footsteps of Mother Thersea. She made a conscious decision not to have children, and children in our lives have enormous influence on our lives.

[text block for Enhancing and Attenuating]
Sidanius and Pratto have labeled this mechanism of increasing or maintaining Hierarchical ranking by the Dominants as HEIRARCHY ENHANCING behavior.

And The mechanism by which Subordinates attempt to elevate their Hierarchical ranking and enjoy the benefits of Positive Social Value is called HEIRARCHY ATTENUATING BEHAVIOR.

Since this video has a political audience, let's call our dominate group, the Republicans and our Subordinate group the Democrats…A QUICK example of this behavior could be corporate executives, whom most likely are republicans, passing more and more of the cost of health care onto their employees, and thus increasing their share of the positive social value taking positive social value share of the subordinates. This also increases the inequality between the two groups, thus giving rise to the popular phrase….the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

In the case of the Democrats, --- who pride themselves on the party of equality and distribution of wealth; we want to fight for universal health care for all, thus making the system more UNIVERSAL AND EQUAL. That is called HEIRARCHY ATTENUATING BEHAVIOR.

In a brilliant piece of journalism found in The September 2004 issue of Harper's Magazine, Lewis H. Lapham wrote a detailed article about the Republican Propaganda mill Titled: THE TENTACLES OF RAGE [P.31] I won't go into detail about the various methods of how the republicans disseminate their propaganda, but Mr. Lapham summed up his study of over 2,000 conservative papers and studies and came to a conclusion that fits our Social Dominance Theory.
[text quote box]
To quote Mr. Landum:

"During the course of the 1990s I did my best to keep up with the various lines of grievance developing within the several sects of the conservative remonstrance, but although I probably read as many as 2,000 presumably holy texts,…I never learned how to make sense of the weird and too numerous inward contradictions. [Remember that] How does one reconcile the demand for small government with the desire for an imperial army, apply the phrases "personal initiative" and "self-reliance" to corporation presidents utterly dependent on the federal subsidies to the banking, communications, and weapons industries, square the talk of "civility" with the strong-arm methods of Kenneth Starr and Tom Delay, match the warmhearted currencies of "conservative compassion" with the cold cruelty of the "unfettered free market," know that human life must be saved from abortionists in Boston but not from cruise missiles in Baghdad? In the glut of paper I could find no unifying or fundamental principle except a certain belief that money was good for rich people and bad for poor people. It was the only point on which all the authorities agreed, and no matter where the words were coming from…the authors invariably found the same abiding lesson in the tale - money ennobles rich people, making them strong as well as wise; money corrupts the poor people, making them stupid as well as weak." [pp. 40 & 41 (underline empasis mine)]

Those are really profound words aren't they? Does the Social Dominance theory begin to make a bit more sense now? Can you see the Hierarchy enhancement being done by the republicans taking shape in your minds? Do you see the Conservative movement merely attempting to suck up more wealth up into their hierarchies, while at the same time excluding others below them? Are the conservatives doing everything in their power to eliminate taxes on themselves while removing all safety nets from the poor? Are we in the middle of a class war in which the rich corporate interests intend to destroy the middle class and make people so desperate for jobs and opportunity that the only way to succeed is to bow down and kiss the feet of the Republican Father figures????

Now, at the core of this conservative movement TODAY, you find the Religious-Right making the loudest noises about culture and morality. It is this group that is having their message repeated in the Echo Chambers of Hate amongst corporate broadcasters today.
But what is important to progressive politicians, is that this group is the one having the greatest influence our political landscape today. So, can we safely ask that if want your progressive group to win elections, then would you merely have to have your message repeated the most times and in the loudest way possible? Perhaps. But, it also important to understand how to frame your messages.

So with the Social Dominance theory explained to you and the primary incentives explained why humans do the things they do in respect to identifying and reacting to other groups, let's return to Moses and Mr. Plough.

So, in getting back to Moses and Mr. Plough, what really is transpiring is that by quoting scriptures, Mr plough is merely providing us with the justification for his for group's actions [which is the death of liberals and "evil" people] And what religious conservatives really seek is the Hierarchical Enhancement mechanism of Domination and Control that I mentioned in The Social Dominance theory,. And along the way they are willing to overlook any violations of their own deeds while in the process of going forward. Remember, Mr. Lapham's quote a few minuets ago saying that he "never learned how to make sense of the weird and too numerous inward contradictions" that he found?

Now in a perfect example Mr. Plough's "INWARD CONTRADTICTION" and twisting sleight of hand, Mr. Plough tells us the tale of Moses coming back from Mt. Sinai AFTER RECEIVING THE Ten Commandants personally from God, and finding before him that his people were praying, idolizing, and dancing naked before a golden calf.

Now, instantly this sets really upsets Moses because it breaks the First Commandant:…Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" and, according to Mr. Plough, "Moses first admonition to the people was for their falling away from conservatism and cavorting around like Democrats a LA fund-raiser. Moses knowing that a people left without moral leadership will fall into liberalism turns his anger to Aaron."p. 50.

Mr. Plough then quotes Exodus 32, verses 26-28 in which Moses asks "who is on the Lord's Side?" and all the sons of Levi gathered around Moses; then the final verse, 28 "And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men".p. 51

So, we see the first example in history of this INWARD CONTRADTICTION that I quoted from Mr. Lapdham a few moments ago. The contradiction being that it was OK for Moses to kill 3000 people that day, despite the fact that the SIXTH COMMANDMENT says: Thou Shaft Not Kill. WE can cite many examples of Religious Rule-breaking throughout history----another perfect example is the phrase "justified war."

And to bring back Sidanius and Pratto's Social Dominance theory of HEIRARCY ENANCMENT for one brief moment, Mr. Plough attempts to explain away this mass murder contradiction by stating the following:

"Though these actions seem harsh by today's liberal standards, there are still many places in society where this type of leadership is still enforced. Any time absolute obedience is required for the good of the people, as a whole, we cherish this type of moral leadership." Pp. 51 & 52.

So, without giving a micro-second's thought to the 6th commandant, our conservative friend tells us that the killing of 3000 people is justified in order to maintain "obedience" FOR "THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE."

Is it safe for us to say now, that what Mr. Plough and other conservatives really admire is, Domination and Control -- with the end result being "unquestioned obedience"??? And if the first attempt at obedience is not met with words, is the threat of physical violence, and perhaps Death implied or stated as the next alternative? So, the knuckle-crawling conservatives unveil their true nature: "If you don't do what I want, then I will beat you until you do."

Now, what Mr. Plough and other conservatives don't mention is that if you have absolute un-questioned obedience from your subordinates, does this not give you absolute control all any resources your subordinates might possess, create, or produce? Does this absolute position of Dominance and Control also cement your own power and position in the hierarchical standing?

[pause, and re-start]
{picture of Plough and then text box]
Ok, let's move on to another non-religious quote that helps us to understand our conservative friend and Fundamentalists behave in general.

Here he takes a swipe at Social Security and the welfare state in general. And before I quote this, I want you to recall Mr. Lapham's line about money being good for rich people and bad for poor people:…
[text box]

"Liberals take from the workers and give to the idle not because the idle can't work, but because they refuse to. The programs of the 'New Deal' though effective in giving a boost, in a time when the boost was needed, have served to create a class of people who [sic] only to suck off the labors of those who do produce." p. 38

In our next non-religious quote, he gives us a clue as to WHOM THOSE persons are THAT PRODUCE and are being VICTIMIZED by the LOWLY class of people who only suck on the nipple of those who produce..
"…the liberal press endoreses [SIC] the HomoFagSuAl 'life choice,' while at the same time attacking everything that makes a man a man, namely contact sports, guns, hunting, the military, and gas guzzling SUVs." P. 5&6.

In my humble opinion, This is perhaps the most important quote in the book and leads us to the first principle of Evolutionary Feminism which I hold to be dear: Which States:
[text box]

Now, we must quickly recall THE TRIMORPHIC STRUCTURE OF GROUP-BASED SOCIAL HIERARCHY THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE….REMEMBER, THE THREE LAYERS - AGE - GENDER-AND ARBITRARY-SET SYSTEM? OK This is the second layer which dictates that males have a disproportionate social and political power compared with females WHICH WE CALL (Pa-tri-arch-y) that Mr. Plough wants us to revel in --- He's telling us it's a Man's world Primarily because of the Christian conservative belief THAT GOD IS A MALE, AND HE GAVE THE LAWS TO MOSES, WHO WAS A MALE, AND ALL THE scriptures tell us that since man must submit to God, therefore, the female must submit to the male rule.

I am not going to go into length in this ESSAY regarding Patriarchy AND MYSGOGY, BUT IN FUTURE ESSAYS, I would insert citations concerning the fact that the GOSPELS and ancient Greek and Roman histories were all written by males. Also, in
future essays I WOULD strongly emphasis the Roman concept of "Patria Potestas" from the Latin "The Fatherly Power." This will give you a clue as to why conservative males are so in love with this Roman concept OF FATHERLY POWER because in ANCIENT ROME, the male head of the household could kill any member of his family, rape or kill his slaves -- and beat his wife on a regular basis -And here's the best part -- the government could not intervene -- (unfettered Capitalism anyone?). As western culture spread and the British Victorian Empire studied, admired, and elevated the Greeks and Romans as noble societies with their "democracies" and justice system, so too, did the subordination and submission of women and the rule of the male as the final authority within the household gain a shining place over the hearth of the emerging wealthy aristocracy.…By the way, the word Aristocracy comes from the Latin "AR-IS-TOS" MEANING "BEST," HENCE "RULED BY THE BEST"

When you recall the Social Dominance Theory, It all fits nicely, doesn't it?

Now that was the good news about evolutionary feminism….

[PIC OF MS. Coulter]
And now, here's the bad news.

Domination and Control by males in our society occurs with the support of the MAJORITY of the female population, people,….The system is propped up by women who think that being supported by males in child-rearing assistance is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

If you are a political junkie, it takes on political substance when we recall the 2004 general election, when the so-called "soccer moms" evolved into "security moms" by believing the Republican campaign as the party that could best protect them from the evil that lurked in the forest. It evolutionary terms, it still comes down to the female asking innately: "who is the best male to protect my future progeny?"

It still comes down to how the female perceives what is best for the future of her progeny. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH SUPPORT SYSTEMS TO CHANGE THE MECHANISM THE WAY IT IS TODAY….SO, IF YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE PATRIARCHY, create a substitute support system that ALLOWS women to raise children without the need of aggressive males. Until that happens, Patriarchy will remain with us. When push comes to shove, the female that wants to reproduce, will pick the path with the most recourses available for her children.

Now, this is the part where feminists throw rotten tomatoes at me when I suggest that the reason there is so much violence in the world is because the females consistently pick aggressive males with the most resources to help in child assistance. Unfortunately, one of the ways males accumulate wealth is by starting wars that create enormous wealth for a small segment of society.

Ok, now we get to the good stuff…here our conservative friend quotes from Genesis in the Bible…GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. P.65.

OK, since all of you are biblical scholars, then you know that the gospels were written in Greek and translated into Latin - and please take note of the word "dominion" in this genesis quote: which translates from the Latin word DO-MIN-I meaning "MASTER." …Once again, our friend is prompting us TOWARD the holy grail of "male as masters" model as the secondary guiding principle of conservative policy making after the Social Dominance theory overall. It's not just his group as the Dominants, but the MALES OF HIS GROUP WHOM are the Dominants -[with of course, help from the "sliced-bread auxiliary"]]]

[[[PART TWO]]] Now let's get into man vs. animal.

Now, one of the most important elements of conservative religious belief is that man is separate from the animal world because God created man….End of Story. Period, there is nothing more that a Christian Child need to know.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS BELIEVE THAT MAN WAS CREATED TO BE IN GOD'S IMAGE TO SUBDUE THE CREATION AND CARE FOR IT AS GOD CARES FOR HIM. OK, the important framing words here are "SUBDUE THE CREATION." The dictionary tells us that subdue means: to conquer and bring into subjection; or to vanquish. THEIR THEY GO AGAIN! WITH that CONQUER IN WAR metaphor! Here's the bottom-line -- What MANLY, MALE CONSERVATIVES WOULD LOVE TO DO IS put THEIR foot on THEIR opponent's neck and grind THEIR face into the ground and shout THE IMORTAL QUESTION, "Who's your DADDY?" The behavioral mechanism comes straight from the jungle floor.

[Breif pause -- change of clothes?]
Here is a classical religious quote:

"The Liberals will say 'animals are people too.''Can you name one animal that possesses intellect, will and emotion? Even the great apes, which do show some intellect and emotion, still lack "Will." Anything beyond the simple function of life they cannot or will not aspire to. As of this date, there are no great ape cities, or artworks. Apes don't even posses language. Man must be separate from the rest of creation, based on this factor alone. If "animals were people too" wouldn't we find some evidence of their peopleness IN ANIMALS." p.66.

Of course, it's pretty clear our conservative friend has never opened a science book other than the bible - but if he possessed a curious mind he would find an enormous list of books describing the intelligence, manipulations, and communicative abilities of many in the animal world. Advances being done in animal studies are finding that many mammal species have coalition formation and maintenance, intra-sexual competition for status, competition for resources, competition for mates, kinship relations, and social exchanges.

As for animal language, of course our friend has never read the 1999 book, Kanzi: The Ape at the Brink of the Human Mind, by Sue Savage-Rumbaugh. [Though he cannot physically speak, Kanzi, the Bonobo Chimpanzee, understands an impressive amount of spoken English and communicates by punching symbols on a special keyboard. He has a "human" vocabulary of about 1500 words.

Ok, perhaps a science book would be too difficult for our conservative friend, How about a magazine written in simple language???. The April, 2005 edition of Scientific American contains a recent article from ESTEEMED PRIMATOLIGIST Frans de Waal, on p. 73, he has a most interesting article titled: "How Animals Do Business." The secondary line: "Humans and other animals share a heritage of economic tendencies -- including cooperation, repayment of favors and resentment at being shortchanged." That sounds like evidence of "people-ness" in animals to me.

Now that was Kanzi---Another famous ape of the Gorilla sub-species is our lady friend KOKO, who resides at the Gorilla Foundation in San Francisco. She has a vocabulary of over 2000 words which she communicates with over 1,000 sign language gestures.

And of course, if that is still too hard for him to understand, perhaps our friend can just go to the movies and watch "March of the Penguins"; a brilliant short documentary film that is the rave here in the summer of 2005 about mating, love, devotion, hardship, and family. In fact, I would say that the penguins had more redeeming social values then the republicans had at their last political convention in 2004.

Now, although our conservative friend did not ask this next question, I feel that it is very important that we enter this realm because it answers his question about "will."

[Picture of chimps in trees]
The most repeated question that conservatives raise in the creation vs. evolution debate is: "If man evolved from the jungle apes, why are there still apes in the jungle….The reason is my dear friend is that our ancestor's could not make the ape football team. If you're a male viewing this video, I want you to pick out your favorite professional football team and imagine yourself trying out for the team. I think that the overwhelming majority of you already know the outcome…You got cut before you even put on a uniform and were pushed to the sidelines.

When we begin to compare the human male with the male chimpanzee, the upper body strength of the chimpanzee is phenomenal…If a chimpanzee adult male were so inclined to, he could bench press one thousand five-hundred pounds. [[[pic of weight-lifter]]]They have enormous upper-body strength because they can scurry up to the top of a tall tree in a several seconds.

That's where they go several times a day to eat, view the comings and goings of their fellow group, and every night, they return to the tree tops and prepare of bed of tree branches and leaves as a mattress. Chimpanzee's possess razor sharp canine teeth that are used to shred those tree branches into a comfortable mattress, and to give them the ability to nibble on a midnight snack. I don't know about you, but I don't think I could win a fair & balanced argument with someone that had razor sharp teeth that could tear the flesh off of my bones with one bite and could shove me through a wall.

So, to rephrase our evolutionary question, we need to ask: What did our human ancestors do after they were banished from the paradise of their first home? (and let's make no mistake my friends, it was a paradise - lush tropical climate with all the fruit that you could eat --- No snow or ice storms or traffic jams to contend with - No polluted air to breath, nor polluted water to drink. There were no new technologies to learn, and NO irritating political television ads every fourth year. And I know this will appeal to our conservative friends - No taxes to pay. [Humor - maybe language evolved because conservatives needed more excuses on how to get out of paying for their fair share!!!]

Well, anyways, to answer to our question : When they were pushed to the outer circle, they were met by other male and females who were also pushed aside, and there they all shared the same common fate of non-combatives -- they had to develop and evolve the use of their higher brain functions- not brute force - in order to survive. They found that if they helped each other they could better survive if they did not compete and beat the crap out of each other for the limited resources that were left. Because buried deep within our collective brain is the capacity to remember when someone helps us consistently AND TO REMEMBER THOSE WHO DO NOT. The act of RECIPROCATION occurs when we remember this MENTAL tally sheet in our heads.

It was here that our ancestors developed the "will" to survive. Cut off from bountiful fruit in the trees and the protective cover from the forest, our primal ancestors became scavengers and lived off of the carcasses of fallen prey. Most likely they learned to scare off vultures with loud shouts or by throwing stones thereby allowing themselves to what little meat was left on the bones. They also found that bones cut open by the teeth of the predator had bone marrow inside that was nutritious that further helped them survive. In my on-line book, Man in the Mist, I referred to this as our ancestor's, "Bone-Marrow-Sucking-Determination to Survive."

That my conservative friend is where we humans evolved our capacity for "WILL." You see, in the jungle WHERE THE APE STILL LIVES there is little need for cooperation AS THERE IS IN THE HUMAN WORLD because being the Alpha male IN THEIR WORLD still depends on being the Biggest, the Baddest, Most Selfish Asshole on the Hill. [picture book cover for "chimp politics" [insert picture of Dodson, founder of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs] Yes, Mr. Dodson, it is a tough, cruel world out there --- but - It would NOT be so cruel if we did not have Assholes like you refusing to see that we are all GOD's children

Now as for the development of language, our apes don't need a complicated language system because their entire world still revolves around their one location in their old paradise….There was no need to develop a COMPLEX language. But there is reason and need to develop a complex language if you plan to deceive your fellow species about the reason for attacking your own kind on the other side of the valley if you think they are READY to develop Weapons of mass destruction…..

And while we are on the subject of weapons of mass destruction, do you know of any animal species that can destroy the planet WE LIVE ON in less than 30 minutes?


AND TO TOUCH BREIFLY ON MORALS, Mr. Conservative, do you know of any animal species that crawls into your bedroom and tells you whom you can sleep with or how to raise YOUR family?

Perhaps we should PAUSE AND ponder the question of what species is the more highly evolved BASED SOLELY ON WHAT SPECIES PAVES OVER PARDISE TO PUT UP PARKING LOTS and parks SUVs on them?.
[[[[end of first DVD????}}}} Move to sex….last?

[[[[[[["Sex is one of God's greatest gifts to mankind - it is said by some that within the confines of a committed marital relationship, sex is the closest one can get to God." P. 77

"In that moment, at the point of creation man can be closer to God than any other time."p.77

Well, for once, I am almost in agreement with our conservative friend. Yes, Sex with a loving, committed partner is heavenly. But that is not the reason God created sex, Mr. Plough.

Let's face it; SEX IS, at the same time, very simple, and complex. It is simple because it's like static electricity building and building until it forces us to seek out ways in which to release that energy and to spread our genes. It is strictly biological and requires no instruction manual to read or decider - God put these mechanisms in place to ensure that even his simplest and most uneducated child continues as a species. Every living person affects the outcome of our planet and is part of God's master plan.

But there is another reason God required that two people come together and that is the protection against parasites. -- Microscopic organisms that could prove fatal to our bodies. Within every human, we carry an immune system that helps to defeat these parasites that breed deadly diseases. When we mate and produce a child, both parents contribute their immune system to the child's new immune system. But the miracle occurs when the child combines the two immune systems within its own body, and it creates a third and completely new immune system. The reason for this IS THAT AS WE are evolving as a species, so too, are those pathogens inside our bodies. The creation of the new immune system gives the baby a better chance at survival.

Now I think that it is very important at this point that give you this following citation because it adds strength to my arguments. It is a bit lengthy, so bear with me and try to follow along on the screen. [text box]
The quote comes from Dr. Robert Winston, Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College, University of London, from his book, Human Instinct: How Our Primeval Impulses Shape Our Modern Lives:
"In 1976, a group of researchers in New York began investigating the genetics of mating, and they started by looking at laboratory mice. They concentrated on an important group of genes called the
[ MHC genes]
, or the
[MAJOR HISTOCOMPATIBILITY COMPLEX]. These genes are present in nearly all the cells of mammals and they play a major role in the immune system. The MHC genes produce proteins which spend their whole lives trying to define 'us' (in immunological terms, that is). By being able to recognize us and our cells, they can then recognize foreign bodies or pathogens such as invading microorganisms which could potentially cause disease then send out the signal to mobilize the body's biochemical defences. They are critical in transplantation and are responsible for the rejection of 'foreign' organs…MHC genes vary considerably, which is why so few of us - except, identical twins - have identical tissue types. It is this phenomenon which makes it so difficult to find compatible bone marrow donors for the treatment of such diseases as leukemia, and why we need, almost invariably to suppress the immune system with drugs after a kidney transplant, even at the risk of causing cancer, diabetes or high blood pressure.

If two mice from an average colony mate, some of these genes will be similar while others will not. But remarkably, the US researches found that mice were more likely to mate with partners who had dissimilar MHCs. The experiment was repeated for other mice who were genetically more diverse and had been raised in an outdoor environment, which allowed them much more of a choice of mate. The results were the same. They all seemed to prefer mates with dissimilar MHC genes; opposites really did attract. These mice appeared to have evolved a mechanism to 'sniff out' a certain type of biological mate." p. 107.
Now, obviously at this point, our conservative friend is no doubt thinking that a mouse is not a human --- very good Mr. Plough.
But because of its insatiable desire to learn more, science wants us to move forward, unlike those who want us to stop looking for the true God of Truth, so it was just a matter of time before science studied humans.
The following quote comes from Discover Magazine, February 1996, pp. 26 & 28.

"The MHC smell experiments then were repeated with a team of zoologists trying to determine how certain fish choose their mates. But since fish don't talk and humans do, Claus Wedekind, a zoologist at Bern University in Switzerland, in the mid-1990s decided to use humans. Wedekind gathered a group of 49 women and 44 men who were tested to have a wide range of MHC genes. Wedekind decided to have the men wear a T-shirt continuously for two days and nights and were given odor-free soap and aftershave and were asked to remain as "odor-free" as possible. After the allotted time, the T-shirts were placed in a plastic-lined cardboard box with a sniffing hole on top. The women in the experiment were then brought in to smell the T-shirts when they were at mid-point in their menstrual cycles, the time when female smell sensitivity is considered to be the keenest. The women were then instructed to smell the T-shirts and determine which were pleasant or unpleasant. [this is not rocket science at work here, people]. "Overall, says Wedekind, the women he tested were more likely to prefer the scent of men with dissimilar MHC. This is the first indication that the MHC still plays a role in mate choice today." "Scent of a Man," Discover Magazine, February 1996, p. 26.
Wedekind's study also confirmed another aspect of the mice study: that female mice, when pregnant, prefer the familiar odor of MHC-similar males. It seems, biologically, that the female desires to be in the presence of relatives when pregnant in order to receive help in nursing, nurturing, and protection against marauding males. The confirmation of this find was reinforced in Wedekind's experiments when it found that the females who were taking the pill to prevent conception (it raises estrogen levels that fools the female body into thinking that it is pregnant) had a strong preference for the scent of males with similar MHC genes. So, summing up the two studies, we are left with three obvious benefits when choosing mates with dissimilar MHC complex genes:
1. increased fertility
2. producing hardier offspring
3. reducing the risk of genetic disease [Ilib., p. 28]
So, Mr. Plough, God did not create sex to conform to your grand schema of procreation between a male and a female, with, of course, the male as Captain of the family's ship who rules with unquestioned authority --- No, Sir…..God created the MHC complex in our genes to make sure that future Children will have the best possible defense against evil that lurks in the form of deadly parasites. God is a lot smarter than you.
I think that the most important lesson found here for our conservative friend is that GOD WANTS US TO MATE WITH PERSONS WITH THE MOST DIS-SIMILAR MHC GENE COMPLEX.


[Sexual selection]
Now, that was the simple part --- laughter ---Remember we said that SEX was also complex AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WAS SIMPLE? Well it gets complex because of something called sexual selection. Now I know that sounds difficult, but it really isn't. What it means in evolutionary terms is THOSE FEATURES THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY for SURVIVAL, but is attractive to the other mate that leads to the sex act. A perfect example is a preference for blue eyes over brown….the color of the eyes has nothing to do with the survival of the species.

Some other examples might be one's creative ability to sing a song or draw images on a cave or canvass.

Some other examples could be a women's ability to handle four tasks at once, and none show a man's PREDOMIANT PREFERENCE FOR engineering or physics. But, in our modern world, these non-physical abilities have become MORE important in choosing our mates BECAUSE IT COULD RELATE TO HIGHER INCOMES, WHICH, IN TURN TRANSLATES INTO HIGHER SOCIAL VALUE AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION.

But the overall attraction drawing two people together IS THAT these make the journey taken together to create progeny that more pleasant than just raw, physical power.

Well, Mr. Spriggs, some viewers might ask, …I mean, sure those non-physical abilities are important in all, but isn't physical attraction at work here as well??

Of course….[go to male picture…then female - 3 each]]
If you are a female, HERE's a few photos of young males in peak physical condition. What do you see here? Is that is attractive physically? In this first photo it clearly shows this young male's muscular mid-section -- or in this photo perhaps some of you prefer the strong features of his face. And in this last photo, some females may find the broad shoulders attractive, or perhaps the muscular back, and finally perhaps some females prefer the glutaumous maximus area?

If you a male, then in this first photo of the female I have selected to show you, perhaps you are drawn to notice the young female's breast area first. And in this photo, which has two photos in combination, perhaps the first area of her body that you notice is her glut area, and even though you might not be aware of this, your male brain is also taking note of her WHR [text] which stands for WAIST TO HIP RATIO giving clues to her FECUNDITY..[ASISE-the maximum ratio for fecundity has been determined to be 0.07 %] In this last picture, perhaps you are taking in the whole structure of the female including her eyes and face -- , and if you're into the Maddona /whore complex as a sexual attraction package --- then I'm sure this female is your perfect mate. [picture shown is a Victoria's Secret model with "angel wings."

In all the examples that I have shown and mentioned -- from the blue eyes down to the angel wings are examples that are being offered to us as mating possibilities.
But it still comes down to us making a CHOICE. Now what make it all COMPLEX and fascinating is tracking the combination of sexual selection and natural selection at work on universal levels across all cultures.



As you recall, at the evolutionary beginnings of our species, we were forced to live a new life excluded from the inner circle of our animal ancestors and the instincts of their ways. We needed a new way to survive, and this new reality forced us to try new methods of survival or else we faced extinction. That included leaving our usual habitats behind and migrating in search of new sources of foods.

But more importantly, this also changed how we had found mates and had sex.

In our past, all a male had to do was prove that he was the toughest, strongest, and cleverest guy in the group to have his way with any woman; force himself upon her, and plant his seed. You see, Mr. Conservative, part of YOUR desire to require a woman to keep HER mouth's shut and to OBEDIENTLY keep HER legs open HAS A LONG LEGACY.

IT ALSO SPILLS OVER IN YOUR DESIRE TO HAVE your complete unchallenged way with your employees, AND, of course, win any political or religious argument that you start -- because deep inside your brain's architecture, you think YOU know you are right and everyone else is wrong - That's the good news for you.

Now, the bad news…..This desire is in EVERYONE's genes - MALES AND FEMALES.. But the majority of our society has evolved to higher plane and NO LONGER lives IN THIS MENTAL JUNGLE STATE because we know that co-operation and that all of us PULLING TOGETHER is the best way to live in our modern world.

And here's the part you really love -

You really believe that you are the Alpha Male and everyone else who does not follow you must be against you.

And, it's also true about you being a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. You want to drag everyone back to the jungle so that you can demonstrate how powerful you really are. Well, buddy, I'm not having any part of it, and neither are the rest of US progressives.

As I mentioned earlier, our female ancestor's were having no part of this business as usual when they left the inner jungle.

Since our human ancestors were "losers" in the competition for the primate FIRST team, we males could not use physical violence as much as we did in the past as a method of getting everything we desired.

Because our female ancestors, saw this, and understood this, they also realized that they could negotiate a change to no longer being raped.
Negotiate -- .that's an interesting word here, but the simple truth merely means THAT the female REFUSED to allow sexual access to the degree they did in the past - she said no --- and meant it.

the development of MENTAL negotiations from the PHYSICAL had to "GIVE the women more in terms of committed time, or RESOURCES in helping HER RAISE the child that she MOST LIKELY knew she had to bear.

And the now, physically weaker male GAVE IT A TRY AND DECIDED that the new arrangement was not all that bad because he did not have to engage other males in physical competition to the degree that he once did.

This new arrangement involved less risk. Less risk means increased possibility of greater survival.

These forms of mental sexual negotiations continue today between every human male and female before they mate.

If you think about the progress that the female has made from being a reproductive piece of property to today's modern woman, the journey has been remarkable.
In the conservative fantasy world, a man has to go out there and prove that he is worthy enough to support a woman for the rest of her life while she stays at home, raises the kids, and make sure that there is a new batch of cookies awaiting the arrival of her HERO every night.
And that is why sex has become so complex in today's modern world. It has to do with struggle to be physically attractive; having the best education possible; living with the best possible group that one can find, and etc., and etc..
We are social animals, and it's this group living and the social rules and behaviors that one must learn to NAVIGATE that makes us human.

Once again, to my feminist friends in the audience, I must point out this fact that the majority of voting women In America TODAY still think THAT A WOMAN STAYING HOME AND RAISING HER CHILDREN WITH ASSISTANCE FROM A MALE WHO GOES FORTH INTO THE CRUEL WORLD TO BRING BACK RESOURCES FOR HER CHILDREN is still the greatest arrangement since the creation of sliced bread. If they did not think so, then they would find alternatives, correct?

Until FEMALES build a support system that completely bypasses this male-dependent system into one that rivals the GOOD OL' BOY NETWORK, in terms of making sure that the ALL THE RESOURCES GO TO THE CHILDREN FIRST --[I'm talking about free health care -- -- dental care, and of course, FREE DAY CARE--not to mention possible help with housing assistance] Until this all comes to pass, we will not see gender equality in our time.

Before I leave, let me leave you with one final quote from our conservative friend.
"Conservatives need to know that if we give a liberal an inch, society will fall a mile. "Never an inch, Never a Compromise." We need to fight the liberals tooth and nail, at every point. God never makes mistakes and never apologizes, because God, as creator, is right. Conservatives need to stick by God's ideals and keep them in the forefront of the battle." P.74.

In conclusion, let me say to my progressive, political friends that since our opponents choose to dwell within the bible as their safe harbor for justification to do evil - then it is only logical that in order for us to defeat this falsehood, WE MUST TAKE THE BATTLE TO THEIR TERRITORY..So do not be afraid to use the word of God or scriptures to fight them tooth and nail as well.

I hope that I have provided you with some valuable TRUTHS IN TERMS OF SOCIAL AND EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE, SO UNTIL WE MEET AGAIN….

THIS IS WILLIAM ANTHONY SPRIGGS, SAYING See you down the road and enjoy the voyage.

[fade out with theme music]

Copyright, Evolution's Voyage, 1995 - 2011