Wednesday, November 13, 2024

Shaving Your Head and Saying 'No Sex With Men'? A Strategy to Let Democrat Socialists Self-Destruct Without Civil War

Shaving Your Head and Saying 'No Sex With Men'? A Strategy to Let Democrat Socialists Self-Destruct Without Civil War

By Bobby Darvish, Iranian-American Ex-Muslim, Former Vegan, Former Democrat, Former Socialist, Former CAIR-Columbus Executive Director, Former Muslim Forum of Utah President, Christian Conservative LDS


In today’s political landscape, the tensions between conservative values and leftist ideologies are palpable, with each side expressing deep, often incompatible views on the future of America. As someone who has walked the path from socialist ideals to conservative convictions, I’ve come to recognize that some of the most destructive forces we see today are not imposed from without but are choices consciously embraced from within. Ideas like rejecting traditional family structures, discouraging procreation, or even adopting practices like radical celibacy or restrictive lifestyle choices have led some segments of society to slowly erode their own foundations.

One way to address this ideological divide without escalating to open conflict is not through suppression or enforcement but by simply letting these self-destructive patterns play out in certain political groups. By permitting—if not encouraging—Democrat socialists to pursue policies and lifestyles that inhibit reproduction and dismantle their own demographic strength, we allow them to choose their own trajectory without force or civil strife. Ironically, this strategy of “breeding out the enemy” could serve as a peaceful solution to the nation’s political conflict.

The Trend of Self-Destructive Ideologies on the Left

Today, we see a pronounced trend in leftist circles embracing behaviors that naturally limit their sustainability over generations. Movements like radical feminism, voluntary celibacy, and even “child-free by choice” advocacy discourage reproduction and family-building, which are essential for any community’s continuity. For example, recent social media trends involve encouraging women to embrace celibacy as a means of empowerment or to avoid relationships with men altogether as a stance against perceived patriarchal structures. Although many of these movements claim to offer liberation and independence, they ultimately discourage family creation, a bedrock of any thriving society.

Even seemingly benign lifestyle choices, such as strict veganism or rejecting personal self-care standards, often correlate with lower birth rates and, in some cases, reduced physical health, which further limits the long-term viability of certain ideological groups. Ironically, this self-selection may serve conservative interests without any need for external enforcement or intervention. Left-leaning individuals are increasingly adopting these behaviors as expressions of defiance or identity, but they also inadvertently affect their demographic future.

A Legal Framework to Encourage Self-Selection

Without any coercive measures, we can support legislative frameworks that indirectly enable this self-selected path to continue. For instance, tax incentives could be strategically structured to reward families who choose to have children and commit to raising them within stable, two-parent households. Other policies could give priority to families who engage in community-building, civic-minded activities, while simply letting those uninterested in procreation live out their choices without additional encouragement.

A series of policies to reduce funding for programs promoting extreme individualism over traditional values would also be effective. Instead of banning or restricting people from engaging in certain ideologies or lifestyles, conservative policymakers can ensure that resources are not funneled toward self-destructive ideologies under the guise of “social progress.” Ultimately, the choice to reject the values that sustain civilization becomes a personal one, with no institutional reinforcement or taxpayer support.

The Benefits of Passive Allowance Over Active Suppression

A passive allowance of self-destructive tendencies in leftist circles provides multiple advantages over active suppression. First, it avoids the pitfalls of conflict and forced imposition, creating a de facto separation based on natural consequences rather than legislative compulsion. Second, it keeps freedom of choice at the forefront of America’s values. Those who choose a path of celibacy, radical rejection of traditional roles, or lifestyle restrictions are free to do so—without the conservative taxpayer underwriting their decisions.

This strategy also relieves conservatives from engaging in combative culture wars that, by their nature, are costly, divisive, and ultimately exhausting. By stepping back and allowing Democrat socialists to pursue these lifestyles, conservatives can focus on reinforcing values that build strong families and communities without interfering in the choices of others. In fact, this approach allows leftists to reveal the consequences of their own ideologies over time, while conservatives continue to strengthen their communities and their numbers through traditional values and family structures.

Conclusion

As someone who has lived on both sides of the political spectrum, I know the allure of self-righteous ideology that promises liberation at the cost of one’s roots and future. I know what it’s like to believe in dismantling traditional values as an act of rebellion, only to see that what truly sustains a community is the time-honored commitment to family, faith, and responsibility. This strategy of allowing Democrat socialists to follow their own self-destructive paths is not only morally sound but ultimately more effective than any forced cultural confrontation.

The answer lies not in authoritarian laws or divisive conflict but in allowing freedom to take its course. As they say, the tree that bears no fruit is eventually uprooted. Let Democrat socialists choose their own path—even if it leads to extinction—while conservatives focus on building the future, one family at a time.


Citations

  1. Firestone, S. (1970). The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: William Morrow and Company.
  2. Parker, P. S., & Ogilvie, D. T. (1996). "Gender, culture, and female competition: A study of attitudes toward the achievement of others in the workplace." Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 599-617.
  3. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. New York: Atria Books.
  4. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). "Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study." BMJ, 337. 

No comments: