Why was Owen Stevens suspended from the State University of New York?
The explanation comes from Breightbart:
State University of New York (SUNY) Genesco has suspended an education student from required teaching programs after he expressed his views on biology in a social media post. In one video, the student says that “a man is a man,” and “a woman is a woman.” The university states that the student’s conservative social media posts call into question his ability to “maintain a classroom environment protecting the mental and emotional well-being of all of [his] students.”
Here is Owen’s Instagram post:
View this post on Instagram
If you examine Owen’s Instagram account, you may note that he is extremely high functioning fit alpha male of very high intelligence and wisdom. It is probably the case that we need more people like him. The only thing that we may question is his wisdom of exposing the truth — particularly the biological scientific truth to a public and Establishment which has gone utterly mad — something like the Proverb about wise men hiding themselves in a time of trouble. We’re grateful though — as James O’Keefe at Project Veritas says, “Be Brave — do something!” Attending SUNY probably seemed sensible at the time for Mr. Stevens to achieve his goals on his life journey. Times have changed.
“With just a few days of instruction, young children quickly learned to deceive and gained immediate cognitive benefits from doing so,” the researchers write in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.
“More generally,” the authors add, “these findings support the idea that even seemingly negative human social behaviors may confer cognitive benefits when such behaviors call for goal pursuing, problem solving, mental state tracking, and perspective taking.”
Lee has been studying how and why kids lie for more than two decades, but he and his co-writers say this article is “the first evidence that learning to deceive causally enhances cognitive skills in young children.”
You either have it by age 5 or you are doomed to be a Prole on the order of George Orwell’s 1984, forever to be lost to the domination of The Establishment without any chance of advancement to the elite globalist ranks — not even close — forever doomed to be Mr. Savage of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a curious relic abandoned by the Cancel Culture.
If you wish, you may read, The Art of Lying in the Scientific American. It talks about MRIs, prefrontal lobes, blood flow in the brain and other such interesting facts from scientific studies.
There is even more studies into this area. On Oxford Academic under “Cerebral Cortex” in the article The Truth About Lying: Inhibition of the Anterior Prefrontal Cortex Improves Deceptive Behavior. Here is a brief excerpt:
Neuroimaging studies on psychopaths, classified as pathological liars, have demonstrated that they have significantly less gray matter in the PFC [Pre Frontal Cortex] (Yang et al. 2005) and that they do not show moral dilemma like healthy subjects (Anderson et al. 1999).
This is important because as this and other studies have shown, deliberate lying destroys brain cells in the prefrontal cortex, which makes it easier to lie. The prefrontal cortex is the center of the will. As a note of interest, the prefrontal cortex remains largely undeveloped in males until the ages of 17 to 25 during which it fully develops. The will is ‘set’ by this time and habits and practices become more difficult to change after this point, while morality, integrity, drive, purpose, ethics is more ‘malleable’ up to this point. Females develop earlier. Lying destroys brain cells. It should be noted from Shadow Syndromes by Dr. John Ratey that no part of the brain is isolated from another. Think of it as a weather system — a hurricane in one part of a weather system will impact another part with rain and wind — just as a neural storm in one part of the brain’s neural network will impact other parts. The character, perceptions and processing of the brain is negatively impacted by lying. We can see the results of such activity in the radical behavior of Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.
People may wonder where the collapse of civilization as we see it now has its origins: After all, we are watching the black hole collapse of the republic of the United States in its primary throes of entropy and progression into chaos. The 2020 riots, burning, looting and murder in various cities across the United States by Antifa and Black Lies Matter was only the smallest glimpse of the harbinger of things to come. Now the corrupt senile President of the United States Cho Xiden along with Cancel Culture Congress are progressing to the ultimate in child abuse by making it mandatory for parents to stand by as children become transgender (and hence sterile) at a time when they do not have fully formed will nor the experience and knowledge to make the decisions for themselves. You can see more about this in Breitbart’s article, Exclusive — Ben Carson: ‘Child Abuse’ to prey on children’s curiosity with transgender ideology. According to the leftists there are officially now 72 genders. Not only is the United States Congress moving to this but they are also going to engage penalties on anyone who has the audacity, as Owen Stevens has, to declare that there are men and women. They say there is no difference (except men, particularly white men are discriminated against) even though the 15 year old boys beat the women’s professional soccer league. Well, at least the women scored 2 points to the boys’ 5. It has something to do with muscle mass and lung capacity of the testosterone equipped males with toxic masculinity [according to the American Psychiatric Society, which means if you need mental health care, you should look elsewhere]. You may note that they say “Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States,” without mentioning what percentage of that are black men and how many from single mother parent homes. A few additional facts could just ruin their hypotheses.
The progressives would like to pin their ideas on Karl Marx. Fair enough. Let’s look a bit at who he was. By the way, he’s dead now, although, like some other heroes we know, there are a lot of people who seem to think he is still alive and relevant.
HIs father, Heinrich Marx was a lawyer with a comfortably upper middle class income and the family owned a number of Moselle vineyards. In October 1835 at the age of 17, Marx travelled to the University of Bonn wishing to study philosophy and literature, but his father insisted on law as a more practical field. Due to a condition referred to as a “weak chest”, Marx was excused from military duty when he turned 18. While at the University at Bonn, Marx joined the Poets’ Club, a group containing political radicals that were monitored by the police. Marx also joined the Trier Tavern Club drinking society where many ideas were discussed and at one point he served as the club’s co-president. Additionally, Marx was involved in certain disputes, some of which became serious: in August 1836 he took part in a duel with a member of the university’s Borussian Korps. Although his grades in the first term were good, they soon deteriorated, leading his father to force a transfer to the more serious and academic University of Berlin.
Let’s see now… already we are seeing someone who had an easy early life with a modicum of prosperity, wanting for nothing, apparent anger issues, a suspicious relationship with alcohol and likely a bit on the lazy side as a privileged entitled man — not a promising beginning for those who want to use his ideas for progressive cult religion type philosophies. If it all comes easy, it doesn’t mean as much and doesn’t have much value. Although Marx had drunk alcohol before he joined the Trier Tavern Club drinking society, after he had joined the club he began to drink more heavily and continued to do so throughout his whole life. There’s nothing like a boozing alcoholic upon which to base your philosophies. Marx and his wife., von Westphalen, had seven children together, but partly owing to the poor conditions in which they lived whilst in London, only three survived to adulthood. Marx was afflicted by poor health (what he himself described as “the wretchedness of existence”). Depression was it then? It’s so good to follow the philosophies of the distorted perceptions of the mentally ill — it sets up a sort of dynamic, nihilist and anarchical in substance. It’s the Build Back Better after everything has been destroyed and nothing left to build with or on. His biographer Werner Blumenberg attributed it to liver and gall problems which Marx had in 1849 and from which he was never afterward free, exacerbated by an unsuitable lifestyle. The attacks often came with headaches, eye inflammation, neuralgia in the head, and rheumatic pains. A serious nervous disorder appeared in 1877 and protracted insomnia was a consequence, which Marx fought with narcotics. The illness was aggravated by excessive nocturnal work and faulty diet. Marx was fond of highly seasoned dishes, smoked fish, caviare, pickled cucumbers, “none of which are good for liver patients”, but he also liked wine and liqueurs and smoked an enormous amount “and since he had no money, it was usually bad-quality cigars”. From 1863, Marx complained a lot about boils: “These are very frequent with liver patients and may be due to the same causes”. The abscesses were so bad that Marx could neither sit nor work upright. According to Blumenberg, Marx’s irritability is often found in liver patients. Just the sort of person everyone would want to emulate as an example both for physical and economic health.
Like so many ‘progressives’ and socialists, it appears that his idea is that everyone should just magically have everything they need — without working for it and certainly without deserving it, while pursuing their own selfish interests and desires. And we can see the results of that everywhere ever since in such places as Venezuela and California, which is now become Venezuela 2.0. And by the way, those forest fires were not from global warming, they were from terrible forest management and could have been prevented if the governor weren’t so busy dining at the French Laundry. Following Marxism these days may be dangerous to grandma’s health.
Not to worry though, Marxism has persisted throughout the world: Just about everyone who has property pays property tax, which means that no one actually owns anything and the government will take it away from you — likely to build a failed strip mall — if you do not pay, so socialism lives: No one is free.
Speaking of taxes, Abraham Lincoln established the first Income Tax in the United States in 1861 to wage war on the Confederates in the South. It was repealed by Congress in 1871. The Income Tax was declared unconstitutional in 1913: Opponents of the new income tax claimed that it was a socialistic confiscation of wealth by the federal government. Barely a year after it was enacted, the Supreme Court declared the tax unconstitutional. Good call, but you can’t keep a good socialist progressive down.
The Revenue Act of 1913, also known as the Underwood Tariff or the Underwood-Simmons Act, re-established a federal income tax in the United States and substantially lowered tariff rates. The act was sponsored by Representative Oscar Underwood, passed by the 63rd United States Congress, and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson and other members of the Democratic Party had long seen high tariffs as equivalent to unfair taxes on consumers, and tariff reduction was President Wilson’s first priority upon taking office. Following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, Democratic leaders agreed to seek passage of a major bill that would dramatically lower tariffs and implement an income tax. Underwood quickly shepherded the revenue bill through the House of Representatives, but the bill won approval in the United States Senate only after extensive lobbying by the Wilson administration. Wilson signed the bill into law on October 3, 1913. Who were the primary beneficiaries of this? Those who paid tariffs. The Revenue Act of 1913 lowered average tariff rates from 40 percent to 26 percent — so the wealthy were the primary beneficiaries in the end [lower tariffs, but keep charging the same to the customers — sweet deal for the corporatists].
The first American corporations were developed in the 1790s, almost instantly becoming key institutions in the young nation’s economy. Although corporations existed in Europe in the early 19th century—particularly in Great Britain and the Netherlands—no country took to corporate development like the United States. Small banking corporations existed in the first years after the American Revolution. However, most historians note that the first important industrial corporation was the Boston Manufacturing Co. in 1813. Its business model was imported from Great Britain, where textile corporations helped spark the first Industrial Revolution some three decades earlier. Small banking corporations existed in the first years after the American Revolution. However, most historians note that the first important industrial corporation was the Boston Manufacturing Co. in 1813. Its business model was imported from Great Britain, where textile corporations helped spark the first Industrial Revolution some three decades earlier. Corporate development was dealt a blow toward the turn of the 20th century with the introduction of antitrust legislation, but it quickly rebounded.
Americans’ opinions of corporations sunk after the Stock Market Crash of 1929. In the public mind, Big Business, especially the financial sector, seemed to be to blame for the onset of the Great Depression. The lawyers of the 1920s realized that they could make a bundle if only corporations could be declared ‘legal persons’ able to own property (including Big Pharma able to own your DNA). Circa 1886, the Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons. U.S. courts have extended certain constitutional protections to corporations under various rationales. An early perspective, variously known as ‘contractual’, ‘associate’, or ‘aggregate’ theory, holds that owners of property have certain constitutional protections, even when the property is held via a corporation rather than directly under the owner’s own name. This boon virtually freed corporate owners from any consequences through a corporation, although, if rarely, corporations could be held liable in lieu of the individual(s) owning it.
The only governmental requirement is that a corporation ‘make a profit’. Nonprofit corporations still make a profit of sorts in spite of semantic difficulties of making that statement. It would be so much better if corporations were to make a profit without damaging the public interest, but no such restrictions have been made so far, sadly. It would be like the FCC’s now dropped requirement that broadcasting companies conduct business ‘in the public interest’.
At this point, corporations have attained more power and wealth than governments. They are multinational and can often snub governments in their regulations as corporatist entities. Entrepreneurialism is a good thing, particularly when it gives a smaller businessman the ability to provide goods and services for a decent market price. Corporatism is different and not at all benign, beginning with freedom of speech. The DVD, The Corporation declares corporations psychopaths (Dr. Robert Hare is still trying to take that back — sorry, once you declare a truth, there’s no take-backs!).
There’s one last piece of history in this drama sparked by Owen Stevens: Generation Zero. Mothers who had lived in poverty and want during the Great Depression of the 1930s by 1945 after World War II was over with, never wanted her dear precious children to ever suffer anything near what she experienced. Therefore, the baby boomers born in 1946 and afterward from the Generation Zero mothers were given everything they wanted and needed instantly. The development of the disposable diaper was an outgrowth of satisfying needs instantly. These boomer children who grew up urban in relatively prosperous middle class did not have to struggle, particularly after the relative peace time (outside of the Korean War) in the 1950s. The boomer development resulted in adults who expected to be able to speak their mind — freedom of speech, albeit, without the follow up of making things happen. They wanted to have their say and go their way and have someone else do the dirty work of running through the mechanics of process to achieve results. It developed a sense of Entitlement which in turn became first the beat generation and then the age of Aquarius and hippies. Not unlike Karl Marx who grew up entitled, they believed that everyone should magically have everything they wanted and needed — and that, without much effort on their part. This, of course, did not strike much of a resonance with either the poor or the rural where realities forged character.
We have different names for those who came after 1960s urban boomers, like Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z and so forth, but in truth, they have the same roots — they are all effectively boomers, no what the name is, with the same entitlement, the same ‘have your say and go your way’ ethic and a demand for ‘stuff’ and ‘freedom’. Such people can become outraged at what they see as unfairness. Their social conscience is paramount, trading self-induced delusions instead of facing realities.
We now come full circle: The Entitled have achieve a measure of power leveraged now by technology, living in virtual echo chambers of daft narratives reinforced by the other mental cases sharing the same delusions. This spirals down into chaos. The ‘boomers’ of all the generations believe that there is an inexhaustible supply of what they want and need and they are demanding that both the corporatists and government deliver.
Unfortunately, entropy.
Resources become less and less available with each iteration. The United States wants to pursue a Green New Deal (at least half of the citizens do) and they do so by going to China to dispose of the refuse, thus moving the locus of planetary destruction off to Asia, while being so very self-righteous about their virtual signaling. The pollution is so bad in China that 30% of the air pollution in San Francisco comes from China crossing the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean (as reported by John Stewart). The cognitive dissonance is blissfully kept at bay with a daft concentration of appearance over substance. You know that your food comes from rural areas, don’t you? Destroy the farmers while you are locked down in your urban centers and you will starve to death. It’s not a battle you want to wage — and besides, the rural folk have most of the guns.
No, by lying over half the people have destroyed their own brains. They are delusional. They become angry if they are opposed in any way. This mental malfunction also manifests in other ways, such as violence, assaults, looting, arson and even murder — which, by the way, have become OK some how. Those who oppose this madness are to be eliminated. They will not be tolerated.
Finally, let us examine the stages of suppressing dissent in creating the INNOVATION CULTURE: Leveraging Visionaries, Dissenters and Other Useful Troublemakers in Your Organization by Frances Horibe:
- Arguing
- Listening but not hearing
- Laughing it off
- Ignoring
- Making invisible
- Forbidding
- Getting rid of the dissenter
As Owen Stevens learned, sometimes they go through all seven steps in one email.
Tucker Carlson was right: We all need to stop lying. More important, we all need to stop living the lie because you can’t fight biology: You will ultimately lose.
