I only learned of Lord Monckton's Law of Opposite Consequences a few months ago. I wrote a post here around the time I became aware of it. I know other people were thinking and talking about other things and that Monckton didn't actually discover this law. It is simply by the act of giving it a name that it gave something that can be spread. Monckton of course is not someone that everyone likes. This is especially true of the Climate Change zealots. He has been popping their fear balloons since the very beginning. As such people of that leaning might immediately dismiss this law and engage their mental spam filters just because of the presence of his name. That is a head in the sand, or hands over the ears saying "I can't hear you" moment.

I have written about this law several times now. Today I wanted to focus on two particular movements that are occurring in society right now. One is the role of the woman, and the other is racism.

Women

Women have fought for generations to increase their opportunity and treatment in society. They have strove for getting equality in voting, and many other areas. I believe most people think the vast majority of this activity has been positive.

There was a time that the women on a stage where a play was performed were actually men in makeup, wigs, and dresses. Women were not allowed to play the role of women on stages. Eventually that was ended and other than very rare reasons a woman was very rarely played by a woman on stage, and a man was very rarely played by a woman on stage. When they were there was usually a very good character reason, or it was for comedy.

Now days there are men without ovaries, without eggs, who dress up like a woman, and may even have themselves castrated so they can say they are a woman. There are men dressed up as woman claiming to be woman who may not go the complete step of being castrated. Yet they will often demand (using the force of law to back them in some cases) to be considered a woman. They will insist they can have periods though they do not possess eggs or ovaries that are being discharged that are the reason for a menstrual cycle. They will insist they can get pregnant. They will take roles in shows for women. They will compete and due to a large portion of their life their body has been bathing in testosterone their bones, muscles, and many other things are developed different. They have very unfair advantage in such events against people that are actually women. In the past, we used to say people taking steroids could not compete in athletic events. Yet now we effectively allow that.

This is an opposite consequence for most people pushing this lunacy. It is likely by design for others. This not only reprises men dressing up as women, but it now allows men to dominate in physical events that have been open only to women simply so the competition was between physically similar competitors. It didn't give an unfair advantage. In this respect the opportunity for women has been set back.

Now just to be clear this lunacy is not a one way street this time. We also have women taking testosterone, cutting off their breasts, often having other grafts added and calling themselves men. They often will still menstruate. It depends upon how far they took it. They will sometimes get pregnant and give births. The lunatics say "See men can get pregnant too." No. They can't. In addition, sometimes these testosterone doping women will try to compete with men in athletics and they tend to be overwhelmed. There is a big difference between having your body deal with testosterone all of your life and suddenly deciding you are going to take it. There is likewise a difference between someone with higher estrogen suddenly deciding they want to take testosterone. It is not the same thing no matter how much your imagination and fantasies want to insist that it is.

This has been a set back for women. It has been a boon for mentally ill men. It has been a boon for men who want to con the system and take advantage of the ADVANTAGES this opportunity presents them.

Now of course they are going for our children. So Tommy happens to be playing with dolls one day with some girls. "Tommy you might be a girl." "Nah, I'm not." "You might be." "So?" "We can fix you." Then they proceed to mutilate and sterilize Tommy. They do the same thing to young girls. They give them irreversible surgery before they are even close to remotely fully developed. They sterilize them. They confuse them. They then craft laws to force how society treats people they molded into this sterile tool.

Is it any wonder that the elite globalists that make claims the world is overpopulated would push for this? If they can sterilize a lot of people using this method that helps with the population problem in the not so distant future. It also might catch some of the people their other approaches might miss.

Racism

I thought that in terms of race the United States had come a long way by the time I was in high school in the 80s. I know there were pockets/neighborhoods of racism around the country, and I knew there always would be because there always have been such places around the globe in every nation. Some people are bullies. Some people are angry. The bully wants to find someone to pick on to elevate themselves. The angry person wants to find someone to blame. They almost always go for the easy path. Look for a difference. Let's face it skin color is a really easy identifier. The bully will use this if they are in an area where the skin color they focus on is in the minority. If they are in a predominantly black neighborhood a black bully will likely target a white person. The opposite is the case in white neighborhoods. In neighborhoods where there is no minority in skin color they will target some other trait. Look what happened in Rwanda with genocide that was black on black. This sadly is human nature. A common example you might see in schools at early ages is the bullies who target other students wearing eyeglasses. "Four eyes" and other attempts at bullying will be used. This sadly is human nature.

I think in the late 80s in the United States skin color as a target was only remaining in a few neighborhoods, and pockets around the country. It did exist but I think it was likely at the lowest it had been in history. It only seemed to get better. No one color being elevated, no need to specially choose someone for their skin color. No need to change roles so you could be sure to include a skin color. Skin color was not a concern unless a role or story required someone of a specific skin color to fit the described character. That is very different from today.

This should be proven by the fact we elected Barak Obama to be the President of the United States. That is our highest office. We did that in 2008. I did that too. Though I didn't vote for him over skin color. He lied to me and I gave him a chance the first time. Everything he said he would do before he was elected that convinced me to vote for him he ended up doing the opposite of what he said he would do. I didn't vote for him over skin color. I voted for him because the person I wanted to vote for dropped out and was no longer possible (Dr. Ron Paul). Of those remaining Obama was the one promising to do many things I thought needed to be done. He lied.

It was only a bonus that it showed how far we had come in terms of racism. We had a black president. Some people may emphasize the fact his mother was white so he was really only "half-black". Yet to most people including most of the black citizens he was a black president.

Other than it backing up what I already believed that racism was at a very low level I didn't care about his skin color.

I did not vote for him his second term after he proceeded to do the opposite on the things he said he would do that convinced me to vote for him. In fact, as far as I was concerned he was Bush 2.0. Just an extension of what was there before he was elected. He continued Bush things, and even extended some of them. Some of the things he extended were things he promised to end.

Then we have the Affordable Healthcare Act which was given the name Obamacare. It turns out this was very similar to what Massachusetts had done under Romney as governor. That was known as Romneycare. When you consider it came down to Obama or Romney being president in 2008 and Obama won if you are paying attention you'll realize that was a very uniparty choice. Skin color was likely truly the only difference between the policy either of those two was likely to push.

Obama is occasionally labeled "The Divider in Chief" these days. I do think he is deserving of that title. He put a lot of emphasis on skin color during his administration. He spent a considerable amount of time talking about that. As a consequence he spent less time talking about policy, and things that mattered to everyone.

He also began the push for things that would lead to the diversity, critical race theory, black lives matter, nonsense we see today. That threw gasoline on the fire of racism that had been smoldering and was mostly gone. In the claim to be fighting racism which was mostly gone they brought race to be of paramount importance.

Now we have race swapped characters purely for the sake of "diversity". We have Black History Month as though a specific identity needs special treatment and a month dedicated to them. How many special treatment things are we going to have to create as the people take advantage of the "bully class" and indicate we need to put emphasis on anything a bully might target? If you normalize a thing the bully will move on.

In reality it has made it so there are large amounts of black people that think you can't be racist if your target is white. They think they need reparations (special treatment) for never being a slave but in the past their ancestors may have been. They need reparations if they happen to be black but come from some place other than Africa. They expect people who never owned slaves to pay them for never being slaves. Special treatment is how you fuel racism.

I'll treat people equal. I will not treat them special unless they need help with something that truly holds them back such as needing a wheelchair or being mentally challenged. Such people do need special treatment. Wheelchair bound need ramps, and accessibility. Mentally challenged need help that differs depending upon their circumstances.

What we don't need is mandated language. Mandated hiring quotas. Visual appearance diversity in every story. Sexual preference diversity in every story.

There is a thing called overcompensating. We are WAY beyond that now. We are going more into the situation where we are cultivating mentally challenged people. We are lifting them up, fertilizing them, and spreading mentally challenged ideology everywhere.

That doesn't help them. If a person is a leper you don't help them by intentionally spreading leprosy. You try to help them treat it.

Yeah... yeah I know I just compared whatever you want to think I am talking about to leprosy. You likely found your escape hatch so you can ignore everything else I said and just focus on that. In reality, if you are such a person you likely found that long ago in this post and never even made it this far.