Counterfeit Sex and Counterfeit Family

The counterfeit America that bequeathed to the country a fraudulent concept of citizenship divorced both from the consent of the governed and actual American history also will not allow us to distinguish between men and women. Counterfeit America offers us counterfeit maleness, counterfeit femaleness, counterfeit sexuality, and a counterfeit version of the family. At heart, it comes from a kind of nominalism: pretending we can call fundamentally different things the same thing.

Let us start with men and women: individuals born with a pair of XX or XY chromosomes.

Counterfeit America tells us there is no substantive difference between the two.

Since there is no natural difference between man and woman, likewise there can be no moral difference between them, either.

Instead, we are told that the male virtues: physical strength and endurance, coolness under pressure, inner composure, stoicism, and aggression are not really male virtues at all. The feminine virtues: honesty and fidelity, nurturing and compassion, physical beauty and charm aren’t female virtues either.

Rather, counterfeit America tells us that they are to be melded into whatever each disordered individual wants them to be; that might be the genderless, neutered individual with no sex at all; it might be men “choosing” to call themselves women and taking female names; it might be women “choosing” to call themselves men while taking male names—as if humans can even pretend to have such power. In counterfeit America, rather than receiving his or her sex from God Almighty, each atomized individual “chooses” to make it whatever he wants.

If only each atomized individual could choose to copy and print legal tender in the way they select their sexes these days! For some reason, I don’t imagine that will be happening any time soon.

Still, it’s an interesting thought.

I buy my own copier, print a few thousand fraudulent copies of some Benjamins and demand that the bank or vendor accepts it as legal tender. If they say “no,” I scream “discrimination” and hire the SPLC to sue them. How is that any different from a male who dresses up as a woman and demands that I call “her” by the fraudulent made up female name he has chosen? God only knows.

But the Supreme Court, seemingly controlled by counterfeit America, has nothing to say about the fact that the former (printing my own counterfeit copies of United States dollars) will land me in prison. At the same time, the Court says if I refuse to play along with the latter (going along with the “transgender” charade) I can be fired by my employer for “discrimination.” Strange world indeed. 

This gendered masquerade rests on still more nominalism. Men have always been physically stronger and more aggressive than women. This is why, despite a century of feminism, men still run faster than women in every distance at track and still lift far more weight at the deadlift, the bench press, and the power clean. How big is the difference? Despite the fact that the nominalist tells us there is no real difference between men and women, for example, a woman who is stronger than 99 percent of other women is still weaker than 90 percent of men when it comes to the bench press.

Despite a century of cultural emasculation and conditioning meant to turn them into copies of the fairer sex, American men as a group still commit far more violent crime in the United States than American women: four times more to be precise. On death row, the disparity is even greater: there are over 2,500 men on death row and just over 50 women. That’s 48 men for every 1 female inmate on death row.

Still, counterfeit America tells us to pretend there is no difference, really. And if you say there is, good luck keeping your job or evading a “discrimination” lawsuit for saying the obvious.

Despite these lies, children still recognize the difference.

Despite all the “social constructing” possible, crying infants prefer their mother’s voice to their father’s, and children perform better at new tasks when doing so with their fathers.

Finally, nominalism leads counterfeit America to say that the sacramental marriage between one man and one woman is somehow the equivalent of the “blended family” and fornicators cohabitating; that it is the equivalent of sterile homosexuals who cannot beget children without a test tube; and it demands we pretend that there is no substantive impact on children raised by these counterfeit families which aim to supplant the real, God-ordained family. The fabrication doesn’t hold up under examination. Bastard children reared by cohabitating parents out of wedlock, test-tube children created for homosexual couples or career-minded heterosexual geriatrics, and those adopted by the childless have worse life outcomes across every demographic than do children raised by their biological mothers and fathers.

Counterfeit America wants to shame us for pointing this out.

Yet, look at the results of this blurring of the lines. Since I was born, the American fertility rate hasn’t been above replacement for a single year. All American population growth since has been due to increases in life expectancy among already living Americans or through immigration. If we break down America’s fertility rate by political orientation, we would see that the differences are even greater. The fertility rate of counterfeit America is pitiful: very liberal women have barely more than 1 child per lifetime. And it is dropping. Studies tell us that perhaps 1 in 4 women (and men) among the millennials, will never have children.

Here’s a thought experiment. If we could isolate counterfeit Americans on a large island cut off from mass migration and push them out of the driver’s seat in those cultural institutions which brainwash conservative children to join them (the liberal media, education, entertainment and tech industries), just based on the results of their own worldviews, personal “choices” and resulting fertility rate, what would happen?

They would go extinct.

Why, therefore, should we take any advice from people who—all things being equal—have no future? To use their own scientific parlance, counterfeit America—as a whole—represents a worldview which is little more than an evolutionary dead-end?

Perhaps severing the ties between mother, father, and biological children is deliberate? A child in this situation has no lineage; and with no lineage, one’s connection to one’s heritage is made more tenuous. The atomized individual, with no lineage, no heritage and no rootedness in his past is the perfect clay to mold into the cosmopolitan “citizen of the world,” who sees borders, culture, and tradition as the enemy. Such an individual, sundered from all of these social ties, is the perfect clay for the almighty State to mold into whatever form it wishes.

 

About Hezekiah Kantor

Hezekiah Kantor is a pseudonym for an American high school teacher and coach with a B.A. from an Ivy League University and an M.A. in teaching from a Jesuit college on the West Coast. A teacher of the year in his first school district, he holds a National Board Certificate for Adult and Youth Social Studies. He has an interest in politics, religion, economics, and military history. His 2019 book, Trojan Horse Religion explains in detail the beliefs and practices of the Progressive Liberal religion and describes how Progressive Liberalism aims to be the State Church.

Photo: Getty Images

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

9 responses to “Counterfeit Sex and Counterfeit Family

  • Superb article.
    The whole part of this “counterfeitness” that really bothers me is that these “alternative” lifestyles are presented as superior to the Christian one.
    A good analogy is rust, there is no anti-corrosion treatment in these alternative lifestyles, whereas Christians have an innate resistance and ability to recover from even severe damage.

  • Great article. Wish there was a way to upvote/like an article to show support for it when I don’t have a comment to add other than that I liked it. Same with comments. Would also be nice to be notified when someone replies to a comment

  • Two criticisms and a big thumbs up, in general. First, children are not and cannot be responsible for the circumstances of their birth. Therefore, I don’t understand why the author appears to condemn childless couples, who out of love, want to adopt children? I’m sure you don’t mean to condemn adoption as a far superior result to abandonment or abortion, Mr. Kantor, so why try to come off as Squeers at Dotheboys Hall? Believe it or not, infertility doesn’t just happen to “career-minded” adults. It can happen for many reasons, many of which bear no relate to the spiritual or moral state of the parents. Bit, uncharitable, that.

    I also did not realize that a female “virtue” is physical beauty? How can that be as our looks are not dependent upon anything we do, but upon our parents genetic material? How is that “virtue”? Have you been reading Cosmopolitan or some other Hearst publication that leads you to this conclusion? It’s bad enough living in a society which views women in such a superficial way – and that goes for both the left and the right. I expect people who claim to believe in God and support morality to exhibit more depth of understanding of the feminine virtues. I also view much of the counterfeit sex mania as wholly anti-woman.

    • I understand the sentiment; but exceptions make bad general rules. Societies cannot stand forever when built on exceptions rather than broad rules which have stood the test of centuries.

      Ergo: 1.7 eventual extinction TFA and proliferating of bastards and widespread divorce leading to a solitary death with no family in a Covid infested nursing home..

    • The author did not condemn either adopted children, or the couples that adopt them. He spoke of superior out comes for children raised by their own biological fathers and mothers. “What appears to be,” (the case for you,) certainly spoke differently to me.

      And no doubt you are correct adoption is generally superior to abortion and abandonment. It’s probably better than Dicken’s homeless street urchins and dark prison as well. What I took away from this article was a reputiation of the notion that suddenly our “Woke” realizations assert one thing is just as good as any other. It isn’t. Sometimes it suffices and sometimes it’s the least poor option and sometimes it may be just fine, but on balance traditional arrangements seem to produce overall superior results due to the human nature that traditional societies have organized around for purposes of survival. What we have is what works as proven over millieum of human civilization and acroos hundreds of cultures, come and gone.

  • The women’s “raw” (no wrist straps, weight-lifting suit, etc.) is 457 lbs, set by April Mathis in 2016. The author actually believes 90% of men can do more than that? Most men don’t even DO the exercise, let alone put up more than 400 lbs. And that was the high point of the article’s research and logic.

  • Sorry for the omission, should have read “women’s “raw” bench press record is…”, that’s what I get for posting before a morning caffeine boost.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *