web analytics

Preventing the next Holocaust requires Full Freedom of Speech (Rebel Media)

Rebel Media is an organization that I know almost nothing about, except that it is avowedly not politically correct, but by my limited exposure, is nonetheless not in the slightest affiliated with “Nazi” viewpoints.  And yet, it has been shut down, at about as fundamentally as a site can be shut down:  the domain itself has been pulled.

Speaking as someone who knows a bit about web hosting, let me explain how it works.  A person registers a domain with a registrar; the sole purpose of the registrar is to connect the domain name to a web server, via nameservers.  The web server itself has a numerical identifier for itself and the account, but as people can’t remember a series of numbers very well, the Internet is pleased to have the the registrar convert the numerical identifier into the domain name.

A web server is like a piece of real estate while the actual website is like a renter who has a building on it.  The domain name is, strictly speaking, optional: its like being included in a directory of buildings.  If you are removed from that directory, then the only way to find the website is to EXACTLY know the IP address.

The web server itself is usually indifferent to the the activities of the renter, so long as the renter does not cause it too much trouble.  Most people don’t associate the web server with the domain, just like most people do not blame the landlord for the fault of the renters.  Generally speaking, that is for good reason: that would be stupid.   In a sane universe, it is understood that the landlord does not necessarily endorse the views of the renters.  Similarly, no one looks at a website and thinks to themselves, “Oh, this is registered by GoDaddy.  GoDaddy must agree with the contents of the website.”  If anyone did this, we would rightly consider that person an idiot.  But until now, this has hardly ever, if ever, been done.

Mind you, this isn’t even a web server, ie, a landlord of a piece of real estate.  Certainly they have some discretion in what kinds of businesses operate on their land, since the own the land.  But the directories do nothing except to match names to numbers.  There is zero connection to the nature of the content, which of course is why most of the registrars have no compunction whatsoever with hosting heavy porn and all sorts of other vile behavior.  So much for standards, right?

The US Constitution is pretty clear in stating that we have a right to free speech, but it would be argued that private companies such as Cloudflare or GoDaddy need not comply with that.  That would be correct, but it would also be equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite their face.  In the long run, if companies who merely maintain what amounts to match making directories decide that they want to censor content, there will be a huge backlash which will hurt their bottom line.  Naturally, ICAAN will back their play, because the International community is, to be frank, thoroughly proto-fascist, but eventually pressure would build up and even that would break.

But in the meantime, lets consider what would happen if the domain registrars begin taking sites out of their ‘directories.’

This would represent a staggering blow to whomever was using that registrar, but the underlying web server would still be there, serving web pages.  ONLY the people who know the IP addresses of the websites would be able to see the web sites, but after a suitable amount of time, word would eventually spread (there are more ways to communicate than Google, Facebook, and email, after all), and naturally only the people who were most committed to the cause of those sites would once again visit those sites.  This wouldn’t take as long as you think.

Within short order, two things would have been accomplished.  1., only the truest of believers would be associating and 2., no one else would have any clue what they are actually talking about.

In theory, you could go to the website of a dissenter, read what you see there, and either opine directly with them, or if illegal and dangerous behavior was being discussed, you could report them to authorities.  But if you are not privy to the actual IP address, you will never be able to do either of these things.  They could plan a full out revolution and no one would be the wiser.  And, as true believers, feeling (rightly) targeted, they’re not going to be inclined to compromise.

Up until the time that ICAAN finally breaks, and the registrars are brought to heel (they are, after all, supposed to serve the PUBLIC, which includes people we don’t agree with and even often find vile), some seriously bad actors could carry out some seriously bad things.

Not that I’m saying that Rebel Media are these bad actors.  Not at all.  I’m not knowledgeable enough about them to know.   What I’m saying is that what is happening to Rebel Media is a precedent that can only lead to seriously bad things happening, as the principles are extended to even more domains.  The people who frequent those domains will eventually find a way to re-connect.  Even if you get rid of the web servers themselves, a web server can be erected off of any person’s laptop, and at this point, with knowledge of the websites only being passed along by word of mouth, there is literally nothing you could do to stop them from interacting.  And to so say that these people will be P-Oed, perpetually, is an underestimate, to put it mildly.

But that’s not where the potential holocaust lies.

For that, you need government sanction with government powers.  It is inevitable that a government empowered with the ability to blacklist whole populations would extend that to any site that threatens its existence.  We’ve already seen this in various ways in other countries.  See, for example, this, this, and this.

Imagine this kind of viewpoint censoring throughout the globe, and imagine what governments would do with that power.  Yes, even your American, Canadian, or British government.  And even if they did not capitalize on that power, try to ponder the ultimate manifestation of the consequences of private companies who merely manage the world’s public directories taking it upon themselves to censor speech, on their own discretion.  For once, for God’s sake, THINK.

It has been said that the answer to bad speech is more free speech.  This is true.  If you send proponents of flawed ideologies underground, there is no opportunity to reason with them, object to them or–ponder this thought for a moment–consider the possibility that maybe it is YOU with the flawed ideology.  You may deny a ‘racist’ a platform, but you have not eradicated his ‘racism.’  You’ve only forced him to channel his efforts into an direction that is less open to public scrutiny and feedback, and frankly, you deserve exactly what you get.

The revoking of websites at the web server level is reasonable, just as owners of real estate have the discretion about what kinds of things happen on their property.  But stripping people of their domain names is the modern equivalent of pure totalitarianism.  It is stupid.  It is dumb.  It is asinine.  It will be found, in time, to be completely counter-productive.  Do you support such things?  Then you are two things at once:  a wanna-be Hitler, and, insofar as you probably think you are opposed to Hitler, and yet virtually identical to him in your mindset, you are properly included among some of the dumbest persons on the planet.

Sorry to stoop so low in my description, but I fear we are rapidly reaching the point where positions are irrevocably hardened, and it will no longer be possible to sort out differences of opinions by dialog or elections, leaving only sheer violence as the mechanism to resolve such things.

And that, my friend, will be on YOU.

Fortunately, in the Twitter generation, the proto-fascists to whom this most applies to will never read this far (I lost them after the first paragraph) or else I would be next on their list.

Trust me, I’m fully prepared for the eventuality.


Is Boston Antifa Real (Twitter)?

This last week I saw some comments on my Facebook feed about some outrageous tweets put out by Boston Antifa, such as this one:

“No room for capitalists, conservatives, libertarians, “Classical liberals” or supporters of the US constitution in our city. #BostonResist

Eventually, I decided to take a look at the Twitter feed myself, and saw all the things I expected to see out of Antifa.  I did a cursory analysis of whether or not it was real or fake, which you have to do with everything you see on the Internet these days.  It passed the cursory scan, so I documented some of it, and yea, I put it onto my own FB.  Then a friend told me it was fake.  I went and took another look.

The source that is telling us that it is fake, is itself posted anonymously.    The case that link is making seems to be pretty decent, all things considered, but then again it also could be disinformation.  The Boston Antifa Twitter feed also says that people are messing with their credibility.  Which anonymous accusation to believe?  Moreover, the source refers to a Facebook and Youtube account, and not the Twitter account.  Some of the tweets seem to be truly helpful to Antifa and their ilk.  Then, there is the problem that most of the posts are indeed indistinguishable from the things you can find the ‘alt-left’ saying.  For example, this video, posted to the same Twitter account, looks entirely legit.  And this one. Given that leftists really believe this stuff, the Boston Antifa twitter feed actually seems relatively tame, in comparison.

However, after I scrolled back through their feed several months, I came across other ‘tweets’ that seemed to suggest that even the owners of the twitter account couldn’t contain themselves.  They couldn’t keep a straight face.  For example, this video I found absolutely hilarious, and yet Boston Antifa retweeted it without comment.  No comment?  You’d fully expect outrage and indignation as they sought to defend their cause; on the other hand, therein lies the problem, if one would expect this, and someone is trying to spoof you, then they’ll be sure to include it.  So, the reasoning has diminishing returns.  Anyway, there are more than one cases where Antifa is subtly or outright mocked, and the Twitter account seems to be, metaphorically speaking, smirking.

At this point, I’m 80% confident is a fake.  A really well done fake, but a fake nonetheless.  If someone has actual, verifiable evidence one way or the other, feel free to provide it.

I turned up another Antifa thing that seems to be fake.  It is “The Antifa Manual.”  Here again, the problem is that you can go line by line in this manual and find undeniably genuine examples of almost everyone of those sentiments expressed by this or that leftist.  This Antifa manual, posted to the same source above (“Its going down”) that asserted the Boston Antifa site was fake, plainly states:  “In the U.S., most activists are anarchist, although a few are Maoist or anti-state Marxists” which comports pretty well with the ‘fake’ manual, and Antifa as observed in the wild.  However, there were some things that jumped out at me as warning flags.  The left corners seem very suspicious to me, as if the surface behind it was digitally generated, just like the coffee stains and the top right corners.  The crinkles seem oddly uniform.  I don’t trust it.

I’m 90% confident this one is a fake, too, but 50% of that is simply the ‘smell’ test.  If anyone has real evidence on this, I’d appreciate that, too.

The basic problem I face is twofold.  First of all, there are obviously violent thugs out there advocating for anarchism, Maoism, or ‘anti-state Marxism.’  There is no question that we see people in masks destroying things and beating people up–and oh, by the way, they consider me the enemy.  They must be organizing somehow.  Second of all, I prefer whenever possible to work based off of primary source material.  The more insight I can gain into their outlook, the better.

One of the most difficult parts about modern society is obtaining accurate information.  That problem is only going to get worse.  Trust nothing, verify everything–if you plan on acting on that information.  And by everything, I mean everything.





The White Supremacy of Aborting Defectives

More than one friend made sure I saw the recent CBS news story with the headline, “”What kind of society do you want to live in?”: Inside the country where Down syndrome is disappearing.”

My daughter was diagnosed in the womb with spina bifida, and yes, the doctor prompted us to consider aborting her, and yes, like in Iceland, we were shown to the genetic counselor immediately afterwards.  At the time, I knew nothing about genetic counseling or its ideological history, and I did not know that we needed to be on our guard.  Per the article:

Quijano asked Stefansson, “What does the 100 percent termination rate, you think, reflect about Icelandic society?”

“It reflects a relatively heavy-handed genetic counseling,” he said. “And I don’t think that heavy-handed genetic counseling is desirable. … You’re having impact on decisions that are not medical, in a way.”

Ironically, and sadly, even, I saw people responding to this article by saying that *this* is nothing like what the Nazis did, because in this case, the people are making the choice, and not the government.  But this statement belies that notion.  First of all, the genetic counselor has the ability to influence a parent’s decision by selecting what information to share.  Second of all, the counselor appears in the role of “The Expert,” and his advice given disproportionate weight.  Third of all, governments are involved in shaping the outlook of genetic counselors and do so through designing the licensing requirements, and so on.  While the connection is not direct, there are indirect ways in which the government CAN be making the choice for the parents, even if it appears on its face that it is the parents making the choice.

I’ll return to this in a moment.

Several folks highlighted the irony of Americans freaking out over what was going on in Charlottesville, while another aspect of the Nazi ideology enjoys broad currency and raises little fuss.

Indeed.  Sad to say, that speaks volumes about the level of outright ignorance that pervades our society, as well as to how easily it is to lead the masses by the nose.  In other words, killing defectives in the womb is thoroughly consistent with the Nazi ideology, and people literally have no idea that this is the case.

If you are reading that and feel that idea is absurd, then if you have any objective bones in your body, take a moment and allow yourself to be educated.



The ideological grounds for elimination of the unfit was well established before the Nazis arose to power, as, for example, in the findings of Binding and Hoche, two prominent German thinkers who wrote that it was acceptable for people to commit suicide, or if they are incapacitated, to have their family kill them, or if the family is unwilling (due to emotional attachments, for example) then the State should intervene to do the right thing, which the family won’t.  The State is interested in ending suffering of course, but the State also must think of the economic burdens on society posed by allowing such people to live.  You can get Binding and Hoche’s book, which I publish, on Amazon.

That was Germany, in 1920.  The Nazis were not even yet a glint in their father’s eye.  That is, they didn’t exist yet.  In other words, Binding and Hoche were only reflecting mainstream scholarly thinking.  When the Nazis came to power, one of the first things they did was pass the “The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.” (1933.) Only a few years later, the T4 project would begin, whereby German doctors would help identify and destroy countless disabled people–including fellow Germans. They would use the technology they devised for mass killing and disposal of remains in their LATER efforts against the Jews.

It is important to note that when they were directing their attention towards defective people, they were NOT acting outside of the thinking of a great many intellectuals, both inside and outside of Germany.  This is proved in any number of ways, but not least of which is the fact that, AGAIN, they eliminated fellow WHITE, blue-eyed, GERMANS, who were mentally ill or physically defective.  And they did this FIRST, fully expecting, and receiving, support from the ‘experts.’

But it wasn’t only in Germany that such scientists and other ‘experts’ were thinking about dealing defective people.

I have been collecting examples of Americans who had the same idea and putting them on my website, eugenics.us.   There are far more than I have had time to list.  (If anyone would like to fund my research and efforts to publicize my findings, I’d much appreciate it!).  But some samples which I have had time to upload:

Dr. G. Frank Lydston of the University of Illinois proposed using “toxic gas in sealed compartments ‘to kill convicted murders and driveling imbeciles.'”  That appears to have been around 1910.

The Yale, then Wisconsin professor, Leon Cole advances a position that in any other context, devoid of attribution, one would assume was written by the most devout Nazi:

Chatterton-Hill, in a striking simile, has likened the condition of the social organism under these circumstances to that of a biological organism in which catabolism is exceeding anabolism, resulting in autointoxication, the gradual poisoning of the civic body. Death is the normal process of elimination in the social organism, and we might carry the figure a step further and say that in prolonging the lives of defectives we are tampering with the functioning of the social kidneys!

The neurologist Foster Kennedy, writing as a professor at Cornell in 1941, proposed that upon the age of five, every defective child should be “considered under law by a competent medical board” and if it has no hope, “it is a merciful and kindly thing to relieve that defective–often tortured and convulsed, grotesque and absurd, useless and foolish, and entirely undesirable–of the agony of living.”  He writes:

So the place for euthanasia, I believe, is for the completely hopeless defective: nature’s mistake; something we hustle out of sight, which should never have been seen at all. These should be relieved of the burden of living, because for them the burden of living at no time can produce any good thing at all. They can never have the joy of work nor the joy of play and, for many of them–perhaps the defective dystonias–even the placidity of the vegetable world. For us to allow them to continue such a living is sheer sentimentality, and cruel too; we deny them as much solace as we give our stricken horse. Here we may most kindly kill, and have no fear of error.

In England, in 1930, the doctor Richard Berry, defended himself from accusations in an essay called “The Lethal Chamber Proposal” saying,

Until I read your April number I was unaware that even this mild opinion had aroused either support or a ” storm of protest.” Certainly none such appeared in The Times, but in any case I do not share your views as to the ” sanctity of human life ” or ” the almost insuperable legal and practical difficulties ” which a lethal chamber would involve.

He grounds his view on the laws of nature (SCIENCE!):

Every living animal, man included, conforms and must conform, whether he wills it or not, to the two great Laws of Nature-the Law of Self-preservation and the Law of the Reproduction of the Species and Nature takes no risk in her ample provision for both. Sterilization cuts across-in more senses of the word than one-the second of these laws. Segregation appears to interfere with both; whilst a lethal chamber attacks the first of these laws, and incidentally the second as well. If Professor E. W. MacBride be correct-and there can be none familiar with the facts who would differ from him-that unless the birth rate of the mentally defective be restricted, “the British Nation as a virile people, is doomed,” it appears probable that politicians and people will both have to face all three-Sterilization, Segregation, and the Lethal Chamber.

I could go on and on producing examples from AMERICA and from ENGLAND and parts NOT Germany, as they are countless.  (I have posted more, here.  More to come, as I have time and resources.)  But one of the best examples, which shows more clearly the affinity between the Nazi outlook on defectives and American thinking, especially pertaining to the ideological history of genetic counseling, would be the case of CF Dight.

Dight was a leader of the Minnesota Eugenics Society.  Upon his death, he left funds to begin an institute for the training of genetic counselors (at the time, called ‘heredity clinics’ and so on).  Oh, and he saw Hitler as advancing the same idea as he was.  In 1933, Dight sent this letter to Hitler:

The text of the letter:

I inclose [sic] a clipping from the Minneapolis Journal of Minnesota, United States of America, relating to, and praising your plan to stamp out mental inferiority among the German people.

I trust you will accept my sincere wish that your efforst [sic] along that line will be a great success and will advance the eugenics movement in other nations as well as in Germany.

He attached a clipping of his letter to the local newspaper:

The report persistently comes from Berlin that congenital feeble-mindedness, insanity, epilepsy, and some other serious conditions that are inheritable are to be stamped out among the German people.  Adolf Hitler is having broad and scientific plans for this.  If carried out effectively, it will make him the leader in the greatest national movement for human betterment the world has ever seen.  The world’s two great needs are co-operation in industry for social good and biological race betterment through eugenics.

I bolded the ‘scientific plans’ part.  You see, the word ‘Nazi’ has become a weapon used to bludgeon opponents, but few people actually know what the Nazis really believed–or that many of those beliefs are shared in the present day… not by white supremacists.  By you, perhaps.  And you don’t consider yourself a Nazi, do you? You only think you are acting, believing, and advocating, on the basis of science and out of concern for the reduction of suffering.  (What could go wrong?) “Surely there is some overlap here worth reflecting on.”

Now, there is a rest of the story.


After the war, the hordes of American and British ‘experts’ who embraced the eugenic program as science couldn’t very well be out spoken about it anymore, now could they?  The Nazis had soiled a good thing.  How to reclaim it?

There was a need to repackage themselves and re-deploy, as it were.  They did this in a number of different ways, which are all important and worthy of my telling you about, but let me focus on how their retooling was manifested in genetic counseling.

I mentioned Dight, and he is indeed a good place to start.   Not only did he have an institute at a major university which churned out like-minded heredity counselors, he helped pass eugenics legislation that was on the books in Minnesota for decades after that.  But for our purposes, the statement made by his successor, Sheldon Reed, in 1957, helps orient ourselves on how eugenicists were re-framing their efforts:

… there is no important distinction between research in “pure” genetics and the research in “applied” genetics such as eugenics.  Our present day use of the term “human genetics” instead of “eugenics” may be financially and politically expedient but there is no great philosophical difference between them.

Emphasis added.

Not insignificantly, this was in an essay published by the reputable “The American Journal of Human Genetics.”  This journal is still very much in print, and no one considers for a moment that its writers may be advocates of Nazi ideology.  Many of the eugenicists relocated their efforts to organizations such as “The American Society of Human Genetics.” This organization is also alive and well, but people are not at all aware of its origins or current work, and naturally, no one would think of them as advocates for Nazism; no, pure science!   And not, by the by, indifferent to how genetic counselors are licensed.

And yet, the first president of the organization H. J. Muller (Yes, that HJ Muller) in his first address, in 1949, published in the aforementioned AJHG, wrote about “Our Load of Mutations.”  The whole thing is relevant (for reasons the reader may not understand), but gets interesting at the section “The penalty for relaxing natural selection” (pg 34 of the pdf).  Yes, that natural selection. (SCIENCE!) Then comes to a head in the section called “The avoidance of the penalty.” (pg 40 of the pdf)  Muller writes:

In order to fulfill the aim of achieving a form of selection more humane than that resulting from the unalloyed struggle for existence, it would of course be all-important for this purposive control to be carried out, not by means of decrees and orders from authorities, but through the freely exercised volition of the individuals concerned, guided by their recognition of the situation and motivated by their own desire to contribute to human benefit in the ways most effective for them.  This is the only real solution, the only procedure consistent with human happiness, dignity, and security. … But for voluntary adoption by people in general of a course of such wisdom, and so different from that now followed, a deep-seated change in mores would be necessary.  Not least among the requirements for this would be a far more thoroughgoing and widespread education of the public in biological and social essentials.

For Iceland to have reached near 100% elimination of defectives, “a deep-seated change in mores” has surely occurred.  (The article says 67% for America; it is probably much higher, as real records, rather than estimates, are hard to come by.)  But to see the defense of Iceland’s program in American lips, it is evident that the “deep-seated change in mores” has been brought about in America, too.

The purpose of Muller’s work is not to dwell on the actual mechanisms of bringing about that change in mores, but does have an opinion.  He says, for example,

…we must recognize that such far reaching changes in attitudes and practices as are called for in this field will not develop of themselves.  It is the responsibility of those who already have knowledge of the genetic facts to be prime movers in driving home an adequate realization of them among both the lay and medical public, and among all groups concerned with social matters, until appropriate changes are adopted in their daily practices and precepts.

Muller’s purpose is to establish the grave consequences, as he sees it, for not acting.  The third president, University of Michigan geneticist, Lee Dice, spends a bit more time on it in his annual address to the ASHG, in 1951, titled “Heredity Clinics: Their Value for Public Service and for Research.”

The danger of deterioration of the world’s stock of human genes through the accumulation of harmful mutations was forcefully pointed out at the 1949 annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics by our president for that year, H.J. Muller (1950).  The harmful mutations that occur in primitive human populations may be assumed usually to be eliminated in time by natural selection.  In modern societies, however….

You can see where this is going.

One method for preventing the transmission of a harmful trait is to destroy those individuals who exhibit the trait.  This drastic method was in fact employed by the rulers of Nazi Germany, but is utterly repugnant to most persons.

Repugnant then, in 1951, but not so repugnant before the Nazis had done their worst, as suggested by the advocates mentioned in this essay (Berry, Dight, Lydston, etc).  He continues:

Only two practical ways seem to be available for eliminating harmful genes from a modern human population.  Either those persons who carry hereditary defects may be segregated or sterilized by the state, or they may voluntarily refrain from reproduction.

After weighing these options, he settles on the ‘voluntary’ approach. Not to dwell on it too much, because you can read it and investigate for yourself, but he is an example of what I meant when I said that the genetic counselors have the ability to influence a parent’s ‘voluntary’ choice by how the situation is framed:

From my experience in giving advice about heredity to families in all walks of life I can affirm that every parent desires his children to be free from serious handicaps and to be physically and mentally well endowed. If there is known to be high probability of transmitting a serious defect, it would be an abnormal person indeed who would not refrain from having children.

Or aborting the children; remember, in 1951, abortion was only allowed on a state by state basis.  Roe vs. Wade was yet to come.

The strategy by which one convinces a population to implement eugenic principles without knowing they are doing so, and thinking it was one’s own idea all along, was outlined more deliberately by the president of the American Eugenics Society, Frederick Osborn, in 1956:

People will accept the idea of a specific hereditary defect. They will go to a heredity clinic and ask what is the risk of our having a defective child. They balance that risk against the chance of their having a sound child, and they usually come up with a pretty sound decision. But they won’t accept the idea that they are in general second rate. We must rely on other motivation.

Given the right circumstances, people will have children in proportion to their ability to care for them. If they feel financially secure, if they enjoy accepting responsibility, if they have warm affectional responses, if they are physically strong and competent, they are likely to have large families, provided they have a reasonable psychological conditioning to this end. If they are unable to feed the children they have, if they are afraid of responsibility, if their affectional responses are weak, people don’t want many children. If they have effective means of family planning, they won’t have many. Our studies have shown this to be true all over the world. On such a base it is surely possible to build a system of voluntary unconscious selection. But the reasons advanced must be generally acceptable reasons. Let’s stop telling anyone that they have a generally inferior genetic quality, for they will never agree. Let’s base our proposals on the desirability of having children born in homes where they will get affectionate and responsible care, and perhaps our proposals will be accepted.

Let me unpack what he is saying for you:

The more outspoken approach of actually singling out populations as defective in a society like America, coming out of the ashes of Nazi Germany, isn’t going to work.  How best to achieve virtually the same aims, of a genetically ‘perfect’ human race?  You get the parents to think they’ve come up with the idea all on their own: voluntary unconscious selection.  By ‘selection’, yes, that selection, ie, Darwinian selection.  Voluntary–because people are making a choice, unconscious–because they are acting on Darwinian principles without knowing they are doing so.

Osborn understands that this will fly in the face of the sensibilities of his allies:

My own feeling is that if eugenics is to make progress in the foreseeable future, we will not only have to drop the idea of assigning genetic superiorities to social or racial groups, but we will even have to stop trying to designate individuals as superior or inferior.  To many eugenists this would seem a radical step, almost the abandonment of eugenics.  But a little consideration will show that there are means of selection which do not require that we humiliate one half of the individuals who comprise the human race by telling them that they are not as fit as the other half to procreate the next generation.

His solution was to advance eugenics ideas on ‘generally acceptable reasons,’ ie, not by highlighting inferior genetic quality, but by focusing on “reasonable psychological conditioning”, so that they will achieve the same ends.  He, or they, appear to have been right.  But, importantly, the idea of ‘assigning superiorities to social or racial groups’ is not dropped as a matter of substance. Ie, they all still believe that certain races… ahem… such as black people… are racially inferior, or that certain people are genetically inferior (eg, those who will bear defective children) but because tactically, in the present circumstances found in the United States, they will never achieve their aims.  And its the ‘aims’ that matter.

And so, the heredity clinics eventually morphed into the field of genetic counseling, guided by founding principles and individuals who shared 100% the goals of the Nazis, and for often the same reasons, but had to change their tactics if they wanted to achieve the same ends.* [See important caveat at end of this essay.]

They really did have the same goals and aims. They only differed on their assessment on which populations were genetically inferior, and, naturally, were horrified by the Nazi’s mechanisms, especially since many of these German advocates for eugenics, like Franz Kallmann, were Jews themselves.

Kallmann had also called for the destruction of defectives, and even worked with Ernst Rudin the one who helped supply the scientific basis for the aforementioned German law against hereditary diseases. However, as a Jew he was forced to flee Germany when the scientific assessment there was that Jews themselves were defectives.  How is that for gratitude? In America, he joined his fellow eugenicists  by helping to found organizations like the ASHG.  American advocates for eugenics would find many new places to advance their agenda, often doing so under the guise of ‘public health.’

(Another irony: Alfred Hoche, author of the aforementioned “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life,” had one of his own relatives scooped up by Nazis employing the rationale he had himself helped establish as ‘scientific’ and ethical.)

The idea that our contemporary destruction of ‘defective’ children while in the womb is utterly distinct from the Nazi ideology is completely unhistorical, for the simple reason that the Nazis merely borrowed what was already in mainstream circulation by numerous scholars, scientists, and researchers both inside and outside of Germany.

Which brings us, I think, to the question:  “What kind of society do you want to live in?”

If it was one that was devoid of any Nazi heritage, I hate to break it to you, but that’s not the society you live in–and the white supremacists are not the main examples.  These are a small slice of a small slice of America’s population.

In the immortal words of Frederick Osborn, “Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time. If they had been advanced for eugenic reasons it would have retarded or stopped their acceptance.”

But that they were accepted by the general public is a simple historical fact.  That they are accepted still, is likewise a fact.  Don’t like it?  Time to start thinking for yourself, my friend.  Do not any longer let yourself be victims of those seeking ‘voluntary, unconscious’ acceptance of their ideas.

** Caveat: ironically, Roe vs. Wade was decided on the grounds of a woman’s privacy.  This threw a wrench in the plan, and in America at least, genetic counseling became infused with a strong current for ‘non-directive’ genetic counseling.  This has probably spared us a great deal of agony, as if Roe vs. Wade had been decided in favor of abortion, but on the basis of ‘public health,’ who knows what levels of compulsion we might have descended into.  Not that the abortion of some 60 million people is something of no consequence, but in light of the measures being promoted by other advocates of eugenics that had currency in the 1970s (eg, the ‘over-population crisis’, which Roe vs. Wade actually alludes to), we could have seen in America the same horrors that were seen in Germany.  But there are people pushing back against non-directive counseling, even to this day.  For example, the liberal authors of From Chance to Choice: Genetics & Justice seem to think the days of non-directive counseling need to disappear, and this, its worth saying, after they offer a very sober and accurate description of the history of eugenics as it relates to the question. Their approach is typical of progressive-speech:  it is not eugenics, it is genetic justice… 



Unraveling the Universe of Ideas (Part 1 of N)

When I wrote my (yet unpublished) dissertation examining the influence of Darwinism on the founders of eugenics, I found myself faced with trying to tease out just what is meant by ‘influenced.’  Ie, does Darwinism logically entail eugenics? I felt I needed a model for comprehending those connections.  Think, for example, of W. V. Quine’s ‘web of belief,’ which has value, but does not address the phenomena of people having seemingly the same ideas, but for some reason or another, they are not able to continue together upon an ideological train of thought.

This dovetails into my dissatisfaction with the terms ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ and other ideological terms.  Except for very cursory and quick characterizations, the terms seem useless to me.  To take some quick examples, it is an absolute fact that liberals and Ku Klux Klan members rubbed shoulders with relative ease not too long ago in American history.  Woodrow Wilson was the liberal progressive par excellence, but was also one of the most strident advocates for segregation in American history.  Few would object to the notion that ‘liberalism’ belongs on the ‘left’ side of the ideological persuasion, but in today’s climate, racism is viewed as a feature of the ‘right’ side of the ideological persuasion.  (To this, we could add fascism and Nazism.)

Whether or not this characterization of racism being a ‘right wing’ phenomena is correct is not the curious part.  The curious part is that if racism can swing from ‘left’ to ‘right’ in the course of a hundred years, then it is probably not something that actually belongs on a ‘left’/’right’ scale at all.  The ‘left’ vs ‘right’ paradigm does not capture the dynamics involved.

Or, to take another case, in my readings and conversations I am sometimes confronted with the ludicrous claim that Hitler was pro-life.  The reason?  He was opposed to abortion.

When I hear such lines of argument, it is easy to conclude there really is no hope for humanity and despair of there ever being real conversations, but set aside the stupidity of the argument for a moment and focus on the fact that yes, there is a superficial similarity here–at least in one scenario (racially pure, German women)–Hitler opposed abortions.  Of course, Jews, blacks, and gypsies were encouraged to get as many as they liked.  What kind of model can accommodate people arriving at seemingly similar positions, but from such radically different starting points with startling diverse exit points?

Whatever it is, it is not encompassed by ‘left’ or ‘right’ or many of the other terms we commonly use to characterize ideologies.

So, in the process of writing my dissertation, I came up with a model of sorts.  However, it would have required significantly more writing and analysis to flesh it out properly, so I ended up dropping it from the paper.  Since I still think its an important issue and something I’m wrestling with, I want to put it out there as preliminary reading material for those trying to follow along with me as I continue to refine my thinking on how best to characterize ideologies.

Without further ado, here is a deleted portion of that dissertation.  You can download it in PDF, here:

On Worldviews and Logical Implications vs 2

On Worldviews and Logical Implications:  A New Model

[rough draft, copyright Anthony Horvath, 2017.  All rights Reserved]

In consideration of the various ways in which Darwinism was applied during the period explored in this paper that many readers may not expect, it became apparent that some kind of model might be useful to explain how certain people came to certain conclusions while others did not.  When contemplating whether or not a particular belief ought to lead one to consider another belief is especially important for modern day adherents to Darwinism, who should like to continue to embrace the theory consistently but not wind up forced to accept propositions they may find morally reprehensible though they seem to follow logically.

The kind of model one might turn to would be W.V. Quine’s ‘web of belief.’ This model adequately explains how we give weight to some beliefs more than others and how they may ‘tug’ at nearby beliefs, but it does not explain why it is that particular beliefs tend to lead to other particular beliefs.

By way of example, most eugenicists were also materialists of some fashion.  There were, however, some Christian eugenicists.  These tended to be protestant, and not Roman Catholic.  But one strains to find a eugenicist who was one of those much maligned young earth creationists!  There seems to be something in the belief system of young earth creationism that positively precludes them from becoming eugenicists.  Can it simply be because of their rejection of Darwinism?  But the Roman Catholics have historically been willing to accommodate Darwinism, and yet they steadfastly have been opposed to eugenics, as well.  How are such things to be explained?

A model is intended to be an approximation of how the real world works, and to the extent that it is any good, will allow one to make predictions about future observations while making sense out of existing observations.  Models are not complete descriptions, by definition.  They are only useful up until the moment they aren’t.  What follows is a model that may explain the surprising connections that eugenicists made from Darwinism as well as why Darwinists today tend not to make the same connections.

Imagine that a worldview is a massively large building with innumerable rooms within it.  Each room is a proposition, attitude, approach, or preference.  When one enters a room, they draw closer in proximity to other rooms.  Which rooms are closer is not due to individual preference, but rather the way the world really is.  Thus, if one ‘room’ is the proposition “There is a bowl of vanilla ice cream in front of me” a slew of other ‘rooms’ open up adjoining that proposition, such as “I like vanilla ice cream, so I will eat it”, or “I don’t like vanilla ice cream and will eat it, anyway” or “I don’t like vanilla ice cream so I will not eat it” or “I will pick this ice cream up and throw it in my friend’s face.”  These rooms are all immediately adjoining the first room, but there are some rooms reality prevents from existing.  For example, there may be an adjoining room where one says, “I will ride the bowl of ice cream to the moon” but since this is not physically possible, there are very few rooms that are adjacent to that room.  (One of those rooms is the conclusion, “I may be going insane.”)

Similarly, other rooms are precluded from being adjoined or even in the same vicinity because the reality that underlies ideological landscapes do not allow them to be close.  One does not get from “There is a bowl of vanilla ice cream in front of me” to “I am now going to throw six million Jews into concentration camps” through a single step, or even through many, many steps.

In the case of a deductive argument, rather than a preference, there may only be one way in or out of the room.  If one enters the room, they must either continue on through the logical conclusion or they must retreat from the room.  Choosing not to press ahead to the conclusion may in fact constitute retreating from the room, and re-entering a nearly identical room, but with a few more exits.  Or not;  perhaps no exit is available at all, and one must simply follow the original path.

Certain paths open up certain rooms just by the nature of reality and the viewpoints being considered.  If one viewpoint is “humans are just animals” there will be two natural implications ‘adjoining’ that room, “therefore we will treat animals like humans” or “therefore we will treat humans like animals.”  It would be extraordinarily difficult to find a path out of the room “humans are just animals” that nonetheless proceeds to act as though humans are not just animals.  Perhaps such a path can be found by crawling through a ventilation shaft or hacking one’s way through the wall, hoping that that on the other side is a viewpoint that retains human dignity.  It is not impossible, but the path of least resistance suggests a small number of adjoining and easily accessible ‘rooms.’

Once in the “therefore we will treat humans like animals” room, we find ourselves considering the various ways we have treated animals.  We have bred them, culled them, sterilized them, eaten them, experimented on them–dead and alive, or even alive until dead.  Once in this room, it is difficult not to consider these kinds of pathways without first leaving the room the way one has come, and then also leaving the “humans are just animals” room.

Similarly, the “therefore we will treat animals like humans” room will consider the various ways that we have regarded humans, and then treat animals the same way.  For example, ‘human’ rights will be extended to animals.  As a case in point, there have been some, like Cass Sunstein, who believe that animals ought to be able to press their case in court against humans.

Darwinian theory thrusts people into the “humans are just animals” room.  There is no easy way out of this room, because the rear entrance is guarded by a very large man named Scientific Fact.  Most people are not keen to tangle with Scientific Fact, and indeed find his company comforting.  Scientific Fact is often taken to be a reliable guide who is able to shed light on which paths through the building are safe.  However, if Scientific Fact takes you to a room with adjoining rooms that make one uncomfortable, his prominent presence prevents you from making an easy retreat.  Add to that the internal fortitude necessary to stand up to the ridicule that will be heaped on somebody if he chooses to leave behind Scientific Fact.

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, many materialists were thrilled that Scientific Fact had brought them into the Darwinism room, and didn’t see any particular problem with either of the two natural choices set before them.  If anything, they found that those choices were also interconnected in many ways, so that in choosing to emphasize one, this did not necessarily mean completely abandoning the other.  But it was more than that:  Scientific Fact had brought them into the Darwinism room via the “interpret all reality without reference to God” hallway.  Previously, atheists and materialists struggled to make an ally out of Scientific Fact.  Reflecting this deficiency in their worldview, Richard Dawkins has famously said that Darwin was the one who finally made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist.[2]

We might say that Materialism was a guide just as Scientific Fact is a guide, so that in the end, it was inevitable that they would end up in the Darwinism room.

Why doesn’t the Darwinism room lead people today to enter into the rooms where one contemplates sterilizing or even exterminating their fellow man?  As this paper will show, we cannot be so certain that this is not in fact happening.  We recall that Osborn said that “eugenics must follow new policies and state its case anew” in order to achieve Galton’s “high goals.”  But why was this necessary at all?  In a word, the Nazis had so fouled up things that even people who had previously endorsed every other aspect of the Nazi eugenics programs couldn’t bring themselves to continue along the path.  Certainly, others wouldn’t join them.

In short, Scientific Fact and Materialism stands behind people, preventing them from leaving the Darwinism room, but the Holocaust and History stands in front of them, blocking their way into the adjoining rooms.  There were always obstacles into the other rooms, but because of the great power and might of Scientific Fact and Materialism, these obstacles were easily overcome.  Holocaust and History are much more formidable.

David H. Hirsch, in his book The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism after Auschwitz, put it this way:  “Purveyors of postmodern ideologies must consider whether it is possible to diminish human beings in theory, without, at the same time, making individual human lives worthless in the real world.”  (Hirsch, 165)

That is precisely the situation that Darwinists are in at present.  It is now a known fact of history just what can happen if human lives are rendered “worthless in the real world” and very few would like to see such things again.  However, the room they are standing in is very close to that particular room, whether they like it or not.

How, then, can there be Darwinists who are not Materialists?  How can it be that Roman Catholics, for example, could wander around the Darwinist room without also embracing the “humans are just animals” premise?

Well, for one thing, the Roman Catholics do not have Materialism as their guide, so though they may enter the Darwinist room, they do so through a different entrance.[3]  But it is more than that, and it must be more than that, because otherwise once people of completely different viewpoints arrives at the same propositional destination, all of the available outcomes ought to be present before them.  It may be that, being accompanied by Theism, certain routes are not open to them, but I don’t think this adequately models what is happening.

It is perhaps better explained as, in entering the Darwinist room via a different entrance, they also step into it via a raised path or catwalk that passes through the room.  While they may be in the room, they are nonetheless hemmed in by the rails of the catwalk in such a way that while they might be able to look at the “humans are just animals” implications, they cannot possibly immerse themselves in it, without jumping off the catwalk altogether, abandoning their Catholicism.

So it is that you can have people from completely disparate perspectives on occasion arrive at the same ‘locations,’ but not able, as we observe, to consider the same ‘paths’ out of the location they presently find themselves in.  Indeed, there may be adjoining rooms available to our Catholics finding themselves in the Darwinist room that are not available to others, who came in by a different path.

But even this does not completely account for our observations.  It would appear that the width of the walls separating certain rooms can be very thick or very thin, so that in cases where it is undesirable to walk through the door (the path of least resistance) into the logical implication of the room you are in, one may have varying degrees of success in staying out of those undesirable rooms.  Where the rooms have thick walls, no hacking away at them allows escape.  If the rooms have thin walls, the feat can sometimes be done.

Unfortunately, sometimes a wall can be so thin that one falls through them, completely unexpectedly.   This may be the case for abortion on demand proponents who believe they are fighting for ‘reproductive choice’ but end up advancing Osborn’s eugenics causes.

And there is still even one more component that we may need to add to the model:  sometimes, one does not voluntarily enter a particular room.  They are perhaps forced into the room by the ‘guides’ that have brought them that far, but other times it appears that ideological inhabitants of an adjoining room are powerful in their own right, and come unbidden to carry off those who come too close.  This may account for the virulent racism seen in the Nazi brand of eugenics.  Having come as far as they did, they came close to a lair of monsters that hauled them the rest of the way, and in turn, made them also into monsters.

So it might be the case that whatever ‘guide’ we bring into a room with us, and no matter how much we intend to refrain from entering some of the more ‘undesirable’ logical implications, those implications themselves may brutally force themselves upon you.  The sole recourse may be to not draw close in the first place.

[2] God Delusion, find page.
[3] Antony Flew, reflecting on a quote on the implications of “Darwin’s work: ‘Once man himself was accepted as a natural product of the evolutionary process, the rest of the Cartesian compromise could hardly be maintained.’  It was this obvious extension of the Darwinian theory, rather than the actual argument of the Origin, which was the occasion of Bishop Wilberforce’s scurrilous attack at the British Association meeting of 1860.”  See pages 54-55.




That’s how I felt awhile back when I came across the ADL’s (Anti-Defamation League) so-called ‘Pyramid of Hate.’  How could an organization focused on preventing genocide fail to understand how genocides occur, and, with disturbing irony, in particular the genocide against the Jews under the Nazis?  Since they were not ashamed at their ignorance, I was ashamed on their behalf.

The ADL puts ‘hate speech’ at the very bottom of the pyramid (eg, “Belittling Jokes” and “Insensitive Remarks”) and moving up from there we have “Ridicule” and “Slurs” before we get to some of the more serious items, such as terrorism, etc.  This is almost as far from reality as one can get.  It is, in a word, typical liberal/progressive tripe.  Certainly, speech belongs on the ‘pyramid’ but it is not the cause.  It is the symptom.

The closest that the pyramid gets to the capturing the truth is “De-humanization,” which any sane look at the Holocaust and a proper ‘pyramid of hate’ would put at the very bottom layer of the pyramid.  The Holocaust was an outgrowth of an ideology.

The ‘hate speech’ that followed… followed.  It did not lead. The root was the ideology.  One of the first fruits was speech, but it is highly debatable whether or not later fruits were built on speech.  Rather, there was a branch, with many fruits, and ‘speech’ was just one of them.

Fixating on the Nazi’s ‘speech’ as a root cause of the Holocaust is a total swing and a miss.  The focus should be on the underlying ideology.  And that’s where things get really interesting, and really troubling.  The Nazis launched their program for euthanizing the disabled on the basis of an international consensus among scholars that the disabled were harmful to the species, and, at any rate, putting the disabled out of their misery was the humane thing to do.  (Is anything already starting to sound familiar?).  A notable example comes from Karl Binding and Alfred Hoche, two German academic luminaries, writing a couple of years before the Nazi party even existed.  Their little book “Allowing the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life” merely recapitulated a manner of thinking that already had gained broad, international, currency.  When the Nazis launched their T4 program, they were only putting into action the ideology already established as ‘mainstream’ all around the globe.

No surprise, then, that when post-war trials were held at Nuremberg, the accused Germans submitted examples of people having similar beliefs as the Nazis, who, by the way, were not Germans.  (Eg., Madison Grant.)

There was an ideological underpinning to the Nazi extermination of disabled defectives.  There was an ideological underpinning to the Nazi’s anti-semitism.  These ideologies had their critics, no doubt.  But these ideologies were also widely taught in universities across the globe, too.  Even more fundamental than ‘De-humanization’ was the role of the University in cultivating certain attitudes which were presented to young people as facts–indeed, scientific facts.

Hold that thought, and fast forward.

Today, a man attempted to assassinate Republicans.

A couple of months ago, I wrote an essay warning of the coming violence–emerging from the American left–as a result of Trump’s election.  There has been a steady stream of violence emerging from the American left ever since.  On my Facebook, I predicted that there would be Trump supporters dead in the street.  Today, we came very close to seeing that prediction come to pass.

So now we hear all of the same crap that we always hear.  Eg, we need to tone down the rhetoric.  Or, perhaps my favorite, which I heard today, “I wasn’t making an equivalence between left and right wing incitement to violence. I was saying that the right, at present, is worse.”  The right is worse?  HA!

This seemed to be an example of something I’ve heard conservative commentators mention numerous times over the years–that the Left has a habit of accusing the Right of doing the things that in fact are actually done by the Left. (Tucker Carlson talked about it tonight on his show.  It was the segment with the Federalist writer, iirc.  Rush Limbaugh has said it many times)

Or, as it was put on Carlson’s show:  On the ‘right’ we have rhetorical violence… but on the ‘left’ we see literal violence.

But why is this the case?  Why is there a difference?  Why will the difference persist?  I will tell you why.

To hear the pundits and politicians tell it, they will spout out the same line that the ADL did: it all starts with ‘hate speech.’  It’s because of all the invective that is out there, and the hateful remarks, etc.

And don’t get me wrong, I think ‘speech’ is an ingredient.

For example, I think the Democrat’s continued insinuation that Trump has committed actual treason, and the MSM’s continued fanning of those fabricated flames (eg, ‘Russian collusion’) certainly has the power to lead people to reason, “Why, if that’s all true, then by golly, we’ve got to act!”  These ‘low information voters’ don’t understand that the Democrats and the MSM are only using these issues as political bludgeons.  There seems to be no merit to these accusations, but not everyone knows that its merely the same old Alinsky tactics.

But this does not explain the vitriol and violence, the ‘illiberal’ behavior, that has been bursting out at college campuses, etc, supposedly in the name of ‘tolerance’ and in alleged defiance of fascist ‘hate speech.’   This started long before Trump was elected.

What does explain it?

Very simply, all these youngsters were taught to believe these things in the very place that a great deal of history’s greatest atrocities emerged:  the University.  What they learned in the University, the MSM and Hollywood repeated (endlessly).

They learned that certain things were true… were facts… were scientific facts… in their classrooms.  Honestly, it begins even before college.  It starts as early as elementary school and I can give personal examples of this mindset being propagated in high schools.

This is why there is no good reason to think that the American left will cease being violent–education in America is almost completely dominated by leftists, churning out a particular ideology, which, as it happens holds that dissenters are hateful fascists–and what does one do to fascists?  This meme that I saw last year sums it up:

And that’s why the “Right’s” violent rhetoric will probably remain nothing more than rhetoric; ie, it is actually intended as rhetoric, as evidenced by the fact that when you probe the underlying ideology, you will usually discover that most people on the ‘right’ have no desire whatsoever to act violently, because, generally speaking, they genuinely believe that people have intrinsic value–created in the image of God, if you will.  Thus, to actually harm someone flies in the face of one’s actual ideology.

But the Left’s literal violence, will persist, because according to the ideology that people are actually being taught, people who disagree with progressives HAVE IT COMING.  Obviously, there is nothing in any curriculum as direct as that, but just as there are those who don’t understand that the Democrats accusations of ‘treason’ are mere political tactics and, on their own, draw out the implications, so too the professors (etc) don’t need to spell it out, either.  Their students put two and two together all on their own, thank you very much.

So, you can have two people saying exactly the same thing:  “I’m going to kill you!” but one offers it out of exasperation, while the other actually means it.  The only way to know which is which is to look at the underlying ideology.

The rhetoric is a problem, but it is not the problem.  The problem is the ideology.   There is no indication yet that leftists have any inclination to re-think their ideology.

Will today’s assassination [attempt] diminish the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the American left?

Yes, probably.  At least temporarily.

But will today’s assassination attempt cause anyone to evaluate their ideology?

I doubt it.

And since the ideology remains, it is reasonable to expect the behavior to return.


Missing the Point on Bill Nye

Judging from my Facebook home feed, Bill Nye has (once again) said some things monumentally stupid.

As I scanned the episodes in his Netflix series “Bill Nye Saves the World,” I was reminded of Joel Achenbach’s March, 2015, National Geographic article titled, “Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?” Achenbach says something very revealing about liberals:

Americans fall into two basic camps, Kahan says. Those with a more “egalitarian” and “communitarian” mind-set are generally suspicious of industry and apt to think it’s up to something dangerous that calls for government regulation; they’re likely to see the risks of climate change. In contrast, people with a “hierarchical” and “individualistic” mind-set respect leaders of industry and don’t like government interfering in their affairs; they’re apt to reject warnings about climate change, because they know what accepting them could lead to—some kind of tax or regulation to limit emissions.

Elsewhere he says what is probably one of the funniest things I’ve ever read:

Even for scientists, the scientific method is a hard discipline. Like the rest of us, they’re vulnerable to what they call confirmation bias—the tendency to look for and see only evidence that confirms what they already believe. But unlike the rest of us, they submit their ideas to formal peer review before publishing them.

To break it down: liberals are more willing to accept scientific ‘consensus’ because they are happy to contemplate government regulation, whereas conservatives oppose ‘science’ because they don’t want the government involved. But because of Achenbach’s ‘confirmation bias,’ he is unable to see that it is a very real possibility that he himself accepts certain propositions, not because they are true, or rooted in actual science, but because he himself welcomes regulation.  In other words, he is unable to distinguish between liberalism and science.  (And anyone who believes that ‘peer review’ somehow counteracts ‘confirmation bias’ should not be anywhere near any levers of power.)

The same is true for poor Bill Nye.  What he calls ‘science’ is actually liberalism with a heavy dose of elitism.  But here is the thing.  I saw many attacks on Nye’s credentials as a ‘scientist.’  This is not the way to go.  It’s a logical fallacy, in fact.  People with credentials say stupid things every day.  People without credentials can still utter truth.  ‘Credentials’ are an epistemological shortcut which demonstrably has let the human race down countless times when it has relied on them.  The real issue is that Bill Nye is, as near as I can tell, regurgitating, with high fidelity, what even the ‘credentialed’ scientists said, are saying, and likely will say.  In other words, because of his own presuppositions, he cannot distinguish between liberalism and real science–just like thousands of other self-styled ‘scientists.’

So, if we turn our attention to the last episode (admittedly, the only one I watched in full), “Earth’s People Problem,” you are not, in fact, getting the perspective and point of view of an unqualified hack masquerading as a scientist.  No, you are getting a good representation of what ‘real’ scientists have said and are saying about ‘over-population’ and what to do about it.   Where do you think Bill Nye got his information and analysis?  From the ‘experts,’ of course.

So, if you find that the proposals that Bill Nye is willing to contemplate to be extreme and disturbing, what you really need to do is turn your attention away from Mr. Nye to the question, “How did he come upon these viewpoints in the first place?”

The truth is, what Nye is saying represents information and viewpoints which are transmitted every day in the media and in our schools; naturally, since what he is saying is represented as ‘science.’ (Real world example:  my kid once brought home a worksheet from his high school science class which echoed similar themes. I brought it to the attention of the science teacher.  It had never occurred to him that what he was handing out had the goal of cultivating such viewpoints.  But I knew, since I was familiar with the authors’ of the worksheet, the PRB.  The fact that he was unaware of their agenda is kinda the point of this very blog entry.)

People will inevitably come to Nye’s conclusions if they are then predisposed to bringing the government into every nook and cranny of the human experience–which is actually evidence that what is in view is NOT science at all.  As GE Moore famously put it, ‘you cannot get an ought from and is.’  Science is the domain of ‘is.’  ‘Ought’ is the domain of ideology.  The ideology with the hallmark of being unable to tell the difference is liberalism.

The ‘naturalism fallacy’ is on full display in Nye’s panel discussion (“A panel of experts!”), where he says something which seems to have provoked a multitude.  Dr. Travis Rieder has just said, “The average Nigerian emits .1 metric tons of carbon annually.  How many does the average American emit?” and answers his own question with, “Sixteen metric tons!”  (c. 15:00 in the video).

Ok, there is the ‘is.’  Now for the ‘ought.’

Here comes Nye: “So should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?”

Rieder:  “I do think we should at least consider it.”

Nye:  “‘At least consider it’ is, like do it.”

And that, my friends, is how an observation of the world (which may very well be true) enters a brain and is spat out as a statement about what we should do–and what we should do is regarded as science.  One wonders: is a penalty on having children the kind of regulation that Achenbach had in mind?

Really, the funniest thing about the whole exchange is that the relationship between ‘climate change’ and ‘population control’ is presented as if it is novel.  This gets to my point–if you think it is novel, you are badly mistaken.  If you search this blog for search terms like “population control” and “over population” and “compulsory abortion” you will find example after example where ‘mainstream’ individuals link the environment to population control, often saying things that go well beyond what Nye said.   I’ve documented so many at this point that you’re really better off just doing a search of my blog.  You really can’t miss them.

At this point in the panel conversation, things got interesting.  Rieder then goes on to say, “One of the things that we could do that is kind of least policy-ish, is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change…”

Rieder says this, as if it our culture and norms have not already changed.  Does he not know that in the United States, is currently ‘enjoying’ its lowest fertility rate since records have been kept?  ‘Replacement’ is 2.1 kids per family.  As it sits, the United States is said to have a total fertility rate of 1.87.   My friends, one does not get from a TFR of almost 4, 40 years ago, to below replacement, if our ‘culture and our norms’ have not changed.  For the mathematically challenged, what this means is that the US population is actually set to decline in a generation or so, just by letting things ride, as is.  So what else does Rieder and Nye want?

Ok, so that is interesting, but to add further intrigue, it is at this point that Rieder is interrupted.  Up until this point, none of the panelists object to the line of reasoning.  They accept the statements of the situation.  But now that there is talk about what to do about it.  Dr. Rachel Snow interjects (15:45), saying that she ‘takes issue’ with any incentivizing to having more or less children, calling for the magic word, “justice!”  The other panelist, Dr. Nerys Benfield, now jumps in, highlighting the fact (and it is a fact) that the people who have been targeted for depopulation are ‘minorities,’ etc.  Nye’s response, “How are they penalized?” suggests he’s never heard of this before, which is worrisome in its own right.

At this point, the women have spoken, and Rieder is silenced.  You can see it on his face, really, “Here I thought we all agreed at how stark the problem is, and we can talk about real solutions, and you are pulling all this sentimentalist crap out?”

Snow and Benfield are espousing a perspective that represents, possibly, all that is conceivably good about the liberal point of view.  (I do not say that sarcastically.)  But again, Americans are already having fewer children than they ever had.  Blacks in New York City abort more children than they bring to term.   Pardon my french, but what the hell do you think is already happening?

I could explain it all to you, dear reader, but it would make for a lengthy blog post, and I’ve already traced a great deal of it elsewhere on this blog.  (search: “jaffe memo”).  The truth is that since 1945 or so, the ‘experts’ in America have been pursuing the Managed State, and have taken deliberate aim at reducing the world’s population, including here in America.  They studied how to do it, and then they actually did it.  And when they did it, they firmly believed they were acting in the name of science.  (Eg, Harrison Brown, John Holdren, etc.)  And they are still doing it.  Ironically, Snow and Benfield are knee-deep in implementing that vision, apparently oblivious.

‘Bosworth W. Hollingsworth’ at the Federalist writes, “This whole concept and the ease with which [Nye] discusses it is so frightening and evil that I am genuinely appalled at Netflix’s decision to air it.”

I, on the other hand, am happy that Netflix aired it.  Nye only popularized what the ‘experts’ have been saying quietly for decades.  The last time that anyone spoke aloud as brazenly as Nye was in the 1960s and 1970s, but they never really stopped saying the same thing.  Instead, they buried it into the fabric of American culture, in our curriculum, in our media, and so on.  It is now so deep and intimately tied to the American way of life that Nye’s panelists alternatively call for such provisions–as if they are already not in force–or decry them–as if they are already not in force.

Benfield was quite right when she said “we’ve seen this before.”  But she only referenced the tip of the iceberg.  If ever there was a topic where it was imperative that we recognized the difference between an ‘ought’ and an ‘is’, it is this one.  I am not here talking to liberals.  I’m talking to conservatives. Trust me when I tell you that hoping that ‘credentialed’ scientists submitting their work before ‘peer review’ will spare us this evil nonsense, for what you are decrying… is already in force. Where do you think it came from in the first place?

The more people come to understand that, the better our chances that we really will not revisit the horrors of the 20th century, many of which are still on-going.



Facts and the Faith Go Hand in Hand. Even the little Facts Matter

guards at tomb book cover

Anthony Horvath, PhD, is a Christian author, publisher, and apologist who works out of central Wisconsin.  Contact him at director @ athanatosministries.org.

The word for the kind of work I do is ‘apologetics.’  It is from the Greek.  Many joke:  “Does this mean you are in the business of saying you are sorry?” Very funny!  It actually means, “to make a defense.” Christian apologetics is the ‘defense of the Christian faith.’

This defense usually happens along intellectual grounds, and for some Christians that is an insult to the very idea of ‘faith.’  Obviously, it matters how we are defining our words, but suffice it to say, it is indeed possible to dwell too much on facts and arguments, but it still remains that the same God that brings us closer to him through faith in Christ also made our brains.  Moreover, Jesus himself never relied on mere assertions and platitudes.  He backed up his claims by miracles and appeals to the Scriptures.  See, for example, John 14:11.

So, what kind of work is ‘apologetics,’ anyway?  Well, one of the things I spend a lot of time doing is simply correcting misconceptions about the Bible, God, Jesus, and Christianity, and all the rest.  Many times, I am talking with a non-Christian.  Often, however, it is another Christian.  When it is a Christian, they are often surprised to learn that a small detail can matter so much.  However, when you spend as much time talking with people who have fallen away from the faith as Christian apologists tend to do, you learn that it was the small details that added up to fuel a crisis of faith in the first place.

This Easter, I want to call attention to one of those small details.

On this blog, one of the most popular articles I have posted is about the number of guards at the tomb of Jesus.  Presumably, churches are putting on passion plays, and are looking for insight about that part of the play.  (You may have noticed elsewhere in this magazine that my own ministry is doing a passion play this summer, called “The Passion Experience.”)  Now, if you ask a group of Christians how many guards were at Jesus’ tomb, the general response will be that there were two guards.

Where does this idea come from?

It almost certainly tracks back to Christian art over the centuries, which almost always depicts the tomb with only two guards.  This is a ‘fact’ that Christians believe about the resurrection account that is not derived from the Scriptures, but from artistic portrayals.  Even the recent movie, “Risen” only has two guards at the tomb.  I don’t mention this to condemn artistic portrayals.  I am just explaining where this particular view probably arises, although it does naturally speak to the power of art more generally, which is something else my ministry spends a lot of time talking about.

Why does it matter?

Who cares how many guards were at the tomb?

Who cares if they were Roman guards, or temple guards, or both?

Imagine that you were evaluating whether or not it was a true fact of history that Jesus rose from the dead.  If ever as a Christian there was a fact of the faith that one is counting on to be actually true and real, whether or not Jesus was truly resurrected is it!  But many people challenge the historicity of the resurrection on the grounds that there are many other possible explanations for the disappearance of Jesus’ body, and the notion that the guards fell asleep and the body was, pardon the expression, spirited off somehow, is an obvious one to consider.

If there are only two guards, it is easy enough to imagine that they could have fallen asleep and someone snuck by them.  But what if there were sixteen guards?  What if there was even more than that?  What if the penalty for falling asleep while on guard was death?  For Roman guards, that is exactly the consequence for falling asleep.  Things aren’t that much better for the Jewish guards.  For example, in Acts 12, Herod orders the execution of the guards that were put in charge of watching Peter.  If that is the penalty for losing a live person, imagine the penalty for losing a dead body!

Acts 12 also gives us an explicit reference to the number of guards, telling us it was sixteen.

Jesus’ death occurred during the Passover, when Jerusalem swelled from a population of a hundred thousand or so to more than a million (according to Josephus), and many of these were sympathetic to Jesus, and nearly all of them were hostile to the Romans.  It was for this reason that Pilate was in Jerusalem in the first place.  Given this hostility and the great crowds that were present, it is really inconceivable that fewer than sixteen guards would be tasked with watching the tomb, and it is equally incredible that all sixteen would have fallen asleep.

This little fact would have been well known to the Jews in Jerusalem, which is probably why when Jesus’ enemies concocted the story that the guards had fallen asleep… no one believed them.

No one believed them then, and no one should believe it now.

Do not underestimate the power of such little facts to accumulate and strengthen the faith of young Christians when they are taught such things.  Similarly, do not underestimate the weight placed on a young person’s faith when a series of little facts seems to add up to the idea that Christianity is a fraud.  Today more than ever, the little facts matter.


Reflecting on Bitter Sufferings and Death

I’m pulling thoughts together on a pro-life presentation I’ll be giving next week and have settled on ‘suffering’ as my topic, as it is an underlying rationale to much that we call the ‘culture of death,’ but is not usually targeted directly.  By the time this little essay is done, you’ll see how ‘suffering’ and the ‘culture of death’ tend to go hand in hand, but to summarize:  when suffering is the greatest (nay, virtually the sole) unequivocal evil in one’s worldview, then one often concludes its better to die–or to kill–than to live.  This is why arguments for abortions, especially for fetal anomalies, often seem identical with arguments for euthanasia, assisted suicide, etc.

Ironically, Christians are accused of being indifferent to suffering.  It is ironic, because in any objective look at the matter, at Christianity’s core is God’s ultimate answer to suffering.  The reason why Christians are accused of being indifferent to suffering, especially in our day and age, is because they cannot go along with the secular tidal wave which views suffering as so serious a matter that it is frankly better to be dead than to suffer.  To put it differently:  suffering–yes, even the alleviating of suffering–is a very important part of Christianity, but it is not the greatest, or sole, or only evil in the universe.  There are things worse than death.  Life forever apart from God’s presence, commonly called ‘Hell’ for the supreme example.  But also trifles such as murder, even when done in the name of the ‘common good.’

The secular viewpoint on suffering is the one that permeates Western civilization, but it is worth first bringing out the example of Buddhism, which is another ‘religion’ that has ‘suffering’ at its heart.    It has its own solution to ‘suffering’ which must be attractive to people, as it has garnered its own millions of adherents.  In a nutshell, Buddhism’s answer to ‘suffering’ is that it isn’t actually real.  It is an illusion.  It is brought upon one’s self by one’s own search for pleasures and happiness.  Here is the logic: If one does not have expectations, one will not suffer when those expectations are not met.  If one does not love, one will not experience grief when the loved one dies.   But remember, importantly, the suffering itself is also an illusion.

Christianity regards suffering as very real.  In contrast to Buddhism, though, it insists that the pleasures and joys of life are also real.  The things that the ascetic gives ups for the sake of his ‘spiritual’ quest are things that God made for the very purpose that they are enjoyed by humans.  In fact, the idea that these material things are bad is considered a heresy within Christianity.  The name of that heresy?  Gnosticism.

In short, for the Christian, whatever pain and suffering accompanies us in this life, and no matter how wonderful we expect Life eternal to be, it does not change the fact that this life is worthy of living.

In saying that, I am not affirming hedonism.  But in not affirming hedonism, I am not affirming the Buddhist Samudaya, which would have us abstain or ignore or berate any ‘temporal’ affair.  What Christianity brings to the table is a balance of values and virtues, in the right proportion and perspective, so that we can at the same time acknowledge that ‘suffering’ is a serious matter, without letting it become a God to us that demands that we orient our entire lives (and the lives of others) towards alleviating it at the expense of all other values and virtues.  Values that demand their place include affirming the reality of the joy found in relationships.  Pleasures such as sex, beer, and song are affirmed as Good within Christianity–but in proper contexts and in the right proportions.  (A clue as to what those proportions are is whether or not a particular attitude or behavior tends to kill you or others. Does anyone recall the blog entry I wrote on that?)

Before I delve deeper on the Christian’s approach to suffering, let’s talk about the other extreme take on the matter which dominates the West.  This ‘extreme take’ is central to most of the non-Christian ideologies we encounter in the West, whether we’re talking about the secular humanists, the atheists, the nihilists, whatever.  (The main exception are the Muslims).  This view on suffering views it as really the only evil, so serious that even the tiniest amounts of ‘suffering’ justify moving the entire foundations of our life together in order to combat it.  The case in point du jour: microaggressions, ‘safe spaces,’ and ‘trigger warnings.’  Still not quite out of fashion are the ‘participation awards.’

The ‘participation’ awards are a good introduction to the mentality.  From refusing to keep score at kids’ soccer games, or giving out certificates of achievement for ‘graduating’ for first grade, etc, the underlying philosophy is this:  we don’t want the ‘losers’ to feel bad.  Do you want people to feel bad?  YOU INSENSITIVE, EVIL  MAN!  The underlying philosophy to that is that ‘suffering’ in any degree is a horror to be avoided, at virtually all costs.

The giving out of the same awards to both winners and losers is a fad of sorts that seems to me to be in the decline, but it has only been replaced by more toxic expressions, such as the examples du jour I mentioned above.  It is probably not a coincidence that the people most concerned with retreating to their ‘safe spaces’ are the ones who grew up receiving participation awards.  Most likely (this is probably self-delusion on my part), even these trends will eventually be recognized as extreme.  There is a solid chance, though, that these people will not abandon their perspective and will move from participation awards to safe spaces to taking over the reins of power and inflicting huge amounts of suffering on people in the name of, you guessed it, reducing suffering.  (The people made to suffer will be the people that those in power deem indifferent to suffering, and therefore of all people, deserving to suffer.)

To put it directly, moderns are positively drunk on suffering.  They wish to avoid it for themselves… at all costs.  They wish to alleviate it for others… at any price.  All issues are viewed through the prism of suffering as the greatest evil, both at the individual and corporate level.

The reason for this is basic:  Western civilization has jettisoned all moral codes and frameworks as arbitrary or unfounded, or worse, ‘religious.’  There is, literally, no objective basis for declaring that anything is right or wrong.   But nature abhors a vacuum, and as it happens, even atheists are made in the image of God, and they are despite their own ideologies, moral creatures.  What rushes in to fill the vacuum has varied over time but they all share this common thread that with no objective moral basis available, we are free to make our own.  And, being made in the image of God, humans tend to not enjoy suffering and do enjoy alleviating suffering.  The ‘alleviating of suffering’ percolates to the top and becomes the underlying rationale for all kinds of schemes.

One of the earliest expressions of this is still common today: utilitarianism.  Bentham and John Stuart Mill helped systematize this viewpoint, effectively boiling all ‘moral calculus’ to “the most good for the most people.”  (Which obviously implies justification, with complete clean consciences, the inflicting of pain or suffering on some people, if it gives most people the ‘most good.’

Bentham put it this way in 1823:

What else is it that should trace the insuperable line [between humans and animals]? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog, is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? [emphasis added]

A few decades later, Darwin would put his stamp on human history, creating distinct variations on this theme.  For example, ‘the most good for the most people’ obviously meant eliminating the ‘unfit’ as it harmed the species (either by using up finite resources best left for the ‘fittest’) or in future generations.  The eugenics movement embraced this scheme.  So did the Nazis, who before doing practically anything else passed its ‘Sterlization Law’ in 1933… the full title is revealing: Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring.   Think about it.  The Nazis had literally just taken power (also in 1933) and one of the first things they did was target ‘hereditarily diseased offspring.’  Heredity and the species (and the Volk’s) genetic heritage (a la Darwin) combined with the moral justification of reducing suffering (a la utilitarianism) was a driving consideration for the Nazis.

What?  Don’t you care about our genetic heritage?  Don’t you want to reduce suffering?  Aren’t you the evil one!

A little known fact is that before the Nazis tried to eliminate the Jews, they first murdered hundreds of thousands of disabled people (fellow Germans, included), believing they were acting completely ethically in the highest traditions of science, as shown to them by one prominent set of German scholars who were infused with both Darwinism and utilitarianism.

Today, of course, with the Holocaust in the rear view mirror, this particular strand of anti-suffering sentiment is widely rebuked.  Unfortunately, it remains the case that many arguments for euthanasia, abortion, assisted suicide, genetic justice, etc, all sound disturbingly similar to the arguments the Nazis entertained.  The reason for this is because the Nazis merely drew up on rationales that had been spelled out decades before they came in power and the basic moral situation then, say, in 1910, is roughly the same as how it is today, in 2017.  That is to say, there is no objective moral basis, but alleviating suffering seems like a no-brainer, so whatever else we decide about issues, the controlling question ought to be “does it reduce suffering or increase it?”

I have said much about these kinds of issues before and will say more in the future. One purpose I have in revisiting this is to point out that each generation and society will answer that question in its own ways, but since the core assumptions are wrong (ie, there really is an objective moral basis, and the alleviation of suffering while laudable, is not the only moral virtue), we can expect and predict that we will always see extreme applications resulting in unexpected, and more often than not, horrific outcomes.  (Horrific when seen in hindsight, that is.  In the moment, everyone will feel fully justified in their own eyes, as whatever they did was done with ‘good intentions’ for the ‘common good.’)

I do not want to be like C.S. Lewis, who did a great job tackling The Problem of Pain on an abstract level who then endured it and expressed it on a more visceral level in A Grief Observed.  I am not going to try to explain why God is not to blame for our sufferings, or try to reconcile how there can be a Good God in a world drenched in pain and suffering.  What I do want to do is point out that the Bible itself doesn’t do that, while at the very same time, it takes pain and suffering very, very seriously.  What the Bible does do is put pain and suffering in perspective and context.

Take for example the life of Job.  Not many people realize that the book of Job is in actuality probably the oldest book of the Bible, written even before the Moses penned Genesis, Exodus, etc.  Thus, while people are aware that the book of Job is an account of one man’s complaint to God about intense suffering and evil, they are not usually aware that this complaint is, chronologically speaking, primary in the entire Bible.  Now, that is taking suffering and evil seriously!

The answer that Job gets is perplexing, however.  When God comes to answer Job’s charges face to face, God offers no answer or justification or defense for pain and suffering.  God points out one obvious thing–“As the maker of the entire universe from scratch, He is well aware of what His creatures are going through.  Duh.”  But he rams home another important thing: ‘In all things, I am present.‘  Its similar to what happens when someone loses a loved one.  We go to the funeral knowing full well that not only can we not explain why the person died (or why God allowed it in this particular case) but that such an explanation would be an absolute insult, anyway.  What they long for is comfort, and explanations only go so far.  The best comfort we can offer is our presence.

Christianity proclaims that God did not remain above suffering, but entered into it.  He became a man, like us, in order that he can eat and drink, get diarrhea, watch loved ones die, and get tortured and murdered.  His answer to suffering was to suffer himself.

God himself did not offer a grand explanation for why He allows suffering.  His answer was to go beyond even what he offered to Job to participate in humanity’s tragic history with the promise that in doing so, he was setting things right, not in temporary fashion, but with everlasting finality.

As Peter put it in 1 Peter 4:

Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of references to God’s approach to suffering described in the Bible, and the New Testament in particular.  No, God is not indifferent to suffering.  His very purpose for us is to end it, decisively.  However, for as terrible as suffering is, there are things worse.  For example, everlasting existence apart from the presence of God.  In light of that prospect, God has apparently decided He needs to allow both joy and suffering to co-exist for awhile, until He wraps up things in the manner He decides is best.  The Christian has the same attitude in regards to our own suffering, as Christians.  Now to Paul:

Romans 8:35-39

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,

“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”

 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (ESV)

In light of what God has done in Christ, the Christian puts his own suffering into a greater context, such that Paul can declare, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”

But now what to make of the charge that for all this compassion, Christians themselves seem to lack it?

This is a gross misrepresentation, made starker by contrast.  To people for whom pleasure has become God and suffering, Satan, those who insist that both must be put into proper context and proportion will always seem callous, no matter what they do.  Setting aside the obvious fact that individual Christians have always failed to be genuinely compassionate (ie, even within context and proportion), in the main, it has always been Christians who were on the front line of addressing pain and suffering.  From the early Christians’ devotion to feeding the poor which made Julian the Apostate fume, to the monks acting on behalf of the destitute as the Roman Empire fall (Francis of Assisi:  “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.”) to Mother Teresa doing the same in our own era–with the backing of a great apparatus of organized Christians who have given generously year over year over year to causes great and small (100 billion a year in America alone), to the fact that the actual word in English for our most important care facility–the hospital–was in fact derived from a Christian military order of the Middle Ages who–consider the irony in light of the accusation that Christians are militant and unconcerned about people–are not remembered for their military exploits at all, but for their humanitarian ones.  These were the Knights Hospitallers, if you didn’t know.

Speaking of hospitals.  Up until the 1980s, before the well-meaning and well-intentioned Federal law, EMTALA, passed in 1986, forced private, religious, non-profit hospitals effectively out of business, any trip into any town would make it plain just who exactly it was that was putting their money where their mouth was in regards to ‘compassion.’  The names of the hospitals gave it away:  St. Judes, Gundersen Lutheran, St. Lukes, St. Anthony’s, etc, etc.  (Stripped of their ability to operate as non-profits, organizations like Gundersen Lutheran in the Lacrosse area of WI are increasingly dropping their overtly religious rationales, and changing their names to reflect this fact.)

You will look in vain for St. Darwin hospital or St. Dawkins or St. Russell or St. Hume or St. Bentham or St. St. Mill.

I remember once encountering an atheist’s website where he sought to reverse the fact that for all their talk about easing suffering, the atheists were woefully uncharitable when it came to actually donating money, giving them a bad name compared to Christians, who actually were putting their money where their mouth was.  A year or so later I visited again and the website had closed up shop, complaining about the selfishness of his fellow atheists.  Irony, I know.  (In trying to dig up that website again, I found this humorous complaint by an atheist about all the hospitals with religious names.)

Of course, your average secular humanists thinks that he is a very compassionate fellow, typically not because he himself does a lick to help people, but because he supports taxing other people into oblivion, using other people’s money and resources in support of programs that he supports, which he (sincerely) believes alleviates suffering.   Much like today’s Twitter generation thinks they’ve contributed something important merely by issuing a hashtag, your everyday man on the street thinks he virtually saved the world, single-handedly, simply by pulling the lever for a Big Spending Politician.

This is not offered as a justification for the many failings of Christians over the centuries, but let’s keep it real.  Before ‘compassion’ was Federalized under FDR, no one could seriously argue that Christians were callous.  In fact, atheists like Margaret Sanger complained bitterly that the charity of Christians was actually perpetuating great evils!   (She has a whole chapter on the ‘Cruelty of Charity’ in her book, The Pivot of Civilization.)

The current accusations, then, are relatively recent, and boil down to the basic fact that Western civilization has decided that any truly compassionate measure ought to be taken up by the Government, and if you truly considered yourself compassionate, you’d back their efforts.  But Christians generally can’t go along with that scheme, because for as much as we care about people’s bodies, we also care about their souls.  Not surprisingly, the very same people who want us to pour money into secular ‘compassionate’ programs, also insist that we limit ourselves to secular rationales.  The only God they will let you talk about is the God of Government.

Which is no God at all.

And in a society that is hyper-sensitive to Suffering to the extent that it is common to see policies enacted and supported (and personal decisions made) on the basis that it is better that someone die rather than suffer, there is no way that Christians can accept that premise.  The message of Jesus is in direct contradiction to such an extreme and distorted view on Suffering (and conversely, hedonism).

For now it seems that Christians are going to be accused of lacking ’empathy’ until such time that the extreme once again yields its bitter fruit.  In the meantime, let us dispense with this nonsense that Christianity, Christians, or the Church do not, and has not, concerned itself with the poor and suffering.  All of history and the facts refute such talk.  What is really going on is that Christians approach such things on their own terms.  And since they believe they are proceeding based on the world as it really is, they will continue to do so.  When Rome collapses again, it will be the monks, again, supported by the great apparatus of their fellow believers, who step in to pick up the pieces.





So you say you want to replace Obamacare…

No one listens to me.  I get that.  Still, I would like to go on record right now predicting continued dysfunction in America’s health system.  This dysfunction is generated by our collective refusal to come to grips with the real world.   Normally, I’d have to direct my comments towards liberals and progressives, but right now the matter is in the hands of Republicans.  They are in real danger of merely ‘re-configuring the machine,’ when what we really need is to have the machine dismantled.  ASAP.

We have to understand that nearly every kind of government activity is ‘socialist’ in some sense, and ‘socialism’ tends to haves several effects.  1., it never works as intended.  2., it takes perfectly normal brains and melts it into slop with every apparatus for critical thinking reduced to puss. 3., it generally needs deception and self-deception in order to persist.

I am not arguing here for anarchy.  I advocate for a ‘limited government,’ and one of the reasons is that a smaller government is in itself a check and balance on all three effects, above.  One of the chief lies (#3) is that with sufficient tinkering we can progressively iron out the bugs (per #1) an eventually all live happily ever after.  But when you know that such a prospect is 100% unattainable, one does not delude himself with false hopes about what a government could do, if only it were given X and Y, etc.

Let me begin with an illustration of how this insanity unfolds.

I read an article recently with this headline: SF reaches deal for free tuition at City College

This is what I mean about living in fantasy-land and how socialists ideologies tend to turn brains into slop.  People across the country will happily believe that its possible that some ‘progressive’ town is now offering ‘free’ tuition.  After all, the HEADLINE SAYS SO.  But there is no such thing as ‘free.’  The article itself says:

The money will come from a measure that San Francisco voters approved in November, Proposition W, enacting a transfer tax on properties selling for at least $5 million. [emphasis added]

So… not free.

Now, I know what you’re thinking.  No one really thinks its free.  You’re wrong.  They really do.  I have a cherished memory where I argued with a guy about the ‘free’ schooling he was receiving about whether or not it was really ‘free.’  It took fifteen minutes before this ‘highly educated’ young man understood that just because he didn’t pay for his schooling, that didn’t mean that his teachers taught for free, or that the administrators administrated for free, or that the maintenance people maintained for free, or that the builders who built the new buildings did their building for free.  They all received compensation.  They wouldn’t actually do it if they weren’t paid!  Finally, he put two and two together.  (And when he did, he ‘moved the goal posts,’ saying it was ‘ok,’ because it was only the rich who were impacted negatively.)

It was a truly amazing exchange.

Don’t get me wrong.  If the people of San Francisco want to tax themselves into oblivion ‘for the common good’ more power to them.  Just don’t delude yourself into thinking the tuition was ‘free.’

But now behold the law of unintended consequences:

Now, in the real world, how much things are worth, how much people are paid, and so on, are worked out on a ‘market’ system.   A manufacturer would like to make such and such amount from his widget, but a consumer is only willing to pay this or that. A ‘negotiation’ takes place as each person jockeys–in their own best interest–for position.  Eventually, it works itself out so that everyone is fairly content.

For the last 40 years, governments at all levels have been doing what they can to make tuition more ‘affordable’ and ‘accessible.’  The result is that higher education, something that used to be within reach to any normal fellow who wanted to prioritize it, is now completely out of reach to anyone without massive amounts of loans (nationalized by Obama in 2010).   What was actually ‘affordable’ and ‘accessible’ when the ‘market’ worked things out cannot be afforded at all–unless, of course, one wishes to go hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, shackled to the whims of the Federal government, with little reason to think most American jobs can pay off that debt in under 20 years.

We have the same problem with our health care system, where people assume that ‘free’ is free, or that having health insurance means you actually have health care.

The doctors won’t work for free.  The nurses won’t work for free.  The makers of x-ray machines and other modern marvels don’t give away their products.  There is money involved.  It is coming from somewhere.  It always will.  This. Is. Reality.

Look at that chart again. Crazy, right?  Something weird is going on, right? Right?

I will certainly allow that there are a number of factors driving these distortions.  I would maintain, however, that the biggest correlation is that since 1978, the government has become increasingly involved in ‘helping’ people, through all manner of tricks and impositions.

The inflated cost of ‘Shelter’ is the result of the same thing, even if on a percentage basis it isn’t as pronounced.  Everyone was blaming Bush for the housing meltdown of 2008, but such things do not happen overnight.  What one can do in 8 years can compound a problem of that scale, but is unlikely to have been the main cause of it.

You’d have to look at decades of policy, all of which done in the name of helping ‘the little guy’ have the American dream of his own home, a picket fence, etc.  I would submit the most recent, actual cause of the meltdown began, not coincidentally (look at the chart again!), in 1977, when Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act which:

is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.

Way to go, team!  Thanks to your desire to ‘meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities’ and reduce ‘redlining’ you actually made it harder for the little guy to own his own home.  This and various other government attempts to ‘help’ people went well for a time–until reality smacked wishful thinking upside the head–and we had the housing bubble. Here is a headline for you (in 2015): Homeownership rate drops to 63.4%, lowest since 1967

When is it going to get through your thick head?


If you really want to make healthcare affordable and accessible to all, you need to get the government the hell out of it.

The reason why the costs have gone up in healthcare over this time frame is the same reason why costs have gone up for all the other things listed and not, say, for your flat screen TV, or smart phone, laser vision surgery, and so on, is because the ‘negotiation’ between the producer and consumer is much more intimate and direct.  The reasons for why healthcare, housing, college tuition, have become skewed are complicated and strange, a malignant mass of good and bad intentions covered in pustules that pop into unintended consequences, all stemming one way or another from separating the producer from the consumer.

Which means that you need to get the insurance companies the hell out of it, too.

When the government and insurance companies are no longer managing the ‘care’ of millions of people, you will see prices drop dramatically.  What seems to be ‘out of reach’ today will be well within reach to anyone who prioritizes it.

This is fact.  This is reality.  This is the world how it really is.

So we turn now to our Republicans ‘tinkering’ with the system.  The core assumption remains untouched–that the government is the proper tool for dealing with this job.  It essentially is adopting the same premise of the Democrats.

Let me give you one final example.

My daughter has spina bifida.  She occasionally needs certain items in order to maintain her care.  We identified an item that she needed.  It cost a mere $80 on Amazon.  But we have insurance, so why wouldn’t we make use of something we pay for?  We submitted it to insurance.  Months and months later, the local medical supply company showed up at our door and had us sign for the item.   The invoiced amount for the item:  $500.

Based on our own assessment of our needs, we could have had the item from Amazon in just 2 days for $80.  Instead, we had to wait months for a bunch of bureaucrats and government nannies to determine if we ‘really’ needed the item, authorize payment, have it ordered and delivered, etc.

The socialist reader says, “Yes, but in the former case you had to pay $80… and what if you didn’t have $80! and in the second case you got it for FREE!”

Uh. Under current Federal law, we are required to have healthcare insurance–for which we pay thousands and thousands of dollars for, out of pocket.  Trust me, dude.  We did not get the item for FREE.

I know how socialists think (if we can really call it ‘thinking’) so I am well aware of all the hateful responses they are prepared to put in my comment section (provided they even find this post, of course).  The fact that costs for tuition, houses, and healthcare have doubled, tripled, quadrupled, etc-rupled, during the time period governments have tried to ‘help’ us will be completely lost on them.  In fact, they will see these these increases as justification for even more government intervention.

But this post is not directed to the socialists.

It is directed to the Republicans.

It is directed to conservatives.

It is directed to people who really ought to know better, but still think that measures like allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines (but still letting them dictate who needs what, at what price, etc!) or constructs like health savings accounts will solve the problem.

A lot of conservatives might wonder at my problem with the health savings accounts, since “Doesn’t that give the patient the ability to more directly choose how he is going to spend his money?”

Not if the rest of the Big Government/Big Insurance apparatus remains intact.  I see little in the GOP talk that suggests it will be dismantled.

Let’s say they give us $2,000 untaxed HSAs.  Take the example of the medical item for $80 we needed for my daughter.  Would we be able to use the HSA to buy an item off of Amazon for $80, or will we have to work through an elaborate system, ultimately where that same item will cost $500?  If so, we just used 25% of our year’s HSA on a toiletry item!  How stupid would that be?  But you can predict that Republicans are still going to insist that people work through this system, out of various concerns that seem genuine on the face of it–eg, what is to prevent someone using their HSA to buy a flat screen TV on Amazon rather than a toiletry item?  Why, you need a process in place to prevent that sort of thing, don’t you?  One thing leads to another, and we are left right back where we left off with providers charging skewed amounts because the insurance companies and the government are all involved, so that the HSA doesn’t ultimately do jack squat in bringing down costs, or driving competition, etc.

A HSA only ‘works’ if the entire system is dismantled, putting the patients into direct ‘negotiation’ with doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.

That’s not going to happen.

So, get ready for continued dysfunction.  Forever, probably.

But lets not delude ourselves in thinking this dysfunction is the result of ‘Republican’ principles.  No, this dysfunction will be the result of a refusal to jettison ‘Democrat’ principles.  The ‘conservative’ principles will not have been tried, and found wanting.  They won’t even be tried.


Proposal: Every State Should Secede from the United States and…

There has been quite a bit of talk about secession in recent years, notably in Texas, and now, thanks to Trump’s victory, in California.  There are some qualitative differences between the two desires… Texans would like to be left alone by the other 250 million Americans, Californians would like to be able to impose themselves on the other 250 million Americans.  But lets leave that aside, for between the two, we’re talking about some 60,000,000 Americans, or 1/6 of the population of the whole country.  I’d say that when the countries two largest states both have secession on their minds, we may as well throw it out there:  maybe its time for every state of the union to secede.

Hear me out.

Both Californians and Texans alike have cited the vast differences in values and priorities between themselves and the rest of the country, not to mention the fact that the cultures are so unique that they may as well be different countries already.  That the Federal government is so odious to both (it alternates, evidently) is a good sign that the Federal government is odious to all.

Now the casual reader probably thinks that I’m with them in viewing secession as wrong, or bad.  Actually, I’m on the record being in favor of the right to secede, in principle.  I think whenever you have to make something compulsory, its probably because the argument in favor of it is highly controversial. The people arguing for compulsory [fill in the blank] believe their view is self-evidently correct to any good, decent person.  When it isn’t self-evident, it must be because the other person is an evil, wicked person.  As such, one is entirely justified in imposing their will upon them.

After all, who balks at compelling murderers to go to prison?  And if the murderer resists, you shoot them.  Let this thinking play out right to its bottom and one thing leads to another and you have yourself a full out Civil War.

The last 10 years or so have revealed that the fissures between viewpoints run so deeply that one can easily see how getting this U.S. state or another to toe the line may mean ‘boots on the ground’, ‘might makes right.’  The U.S. Civil War saw half a million dead.  The next one could see ten times that.

Well, I’m not inclined to think that the ‘union’ is worth the price of 5 million dead.

California’s recent surge in support of secession is due to their sudden realization that the rest of the country isn’t with them.  They appear to be unaware that much of America has taken the attitude of, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” I think this would be a bloodless secession if ever there was one, but if their arguments are good (and I don’t think they are all that bad), it surely follows that every other state may as well secede as well.

May I propose, therefore, that every state do that.  Each state can effectively become a country in its own right.  A sovereign state, if you will.

Naturally, the moment this happens, people will be concerned about how to get along again.  How will matters of trade between the states be handled, for example?  What about defense?

May I suggest that there is a ready solution to such things.  The several states ought to write up some kind of document which establishes a united federation which is entrusted to deal with issues that are properly best handled at that level.  This ‘federal’ government can be severely limited in its powers, so that the areas where ‘values and priorities’ that presently cause friction between the states are very few, and the scope of the federation’s influence in such matters is quite small.

In fact, I think they ought to include a clause which says, in so many words (I’m just spit balling, here), except for the powers enumerated for the federation, it can do nothing else–indeed, everything else not mentioned would automatically be reserved to the individual states for them to sort out themselves, according to their own values and principles.

I know what you’re thinking.  This would never work.

Well, there is a way for it to work, and its like this:  people would have to resist the urge to load up the federation with powers beyond what is enumerated in their organizing document, no matter scrumptious their pet cause is.  They will have to insist that the entity set up as the final arbiter of such disputes (call it… ‘the Final Court’, or FOTUS, or something), does not go beyond the language of that organizing document or take onto itself authorities that the organizing document itself doesn’t grant it.

You have to do this because if you don’t, eventually there will come a time when the individual states will realize that their values and priorities are starkly different than the values and priorities in other states, and they will resent the imposition.   Not without irony, it will probably be the states that were in the habit of foisting their perspectives on other states that will finally have the tables turned on them, and they will chafe at what has happened to them.

And at that time, they will once again start talking about seceding again.

And I will write another post suggesting that every state may as well secede, and then write up an organizing document with enumerate powers for a federation… which will only work if people come to grips that their views aren’t self-evident enough to impose on the other 300,000,000 citizens…

Ah, well.  Who am I kidding?

You’re right. It will never work.




Did I Give Trump the Idea to put Citizen Bloggers in the White House Press Room?

Listening to the media spin more silliness a few months ago, I vented to then President-elect Donald Trump in a Tweet:

Since then, I saw this news article which included this bit:

Talk radio hosts and bloggers could be given greater access to official White House press briefings once the Trump administration takes office, under a highly irregular proposal being floated that may also remove briefings from the West Wing.

And this morning on Fox News, Newt Gingrich proposed that maybe they ought to allow private citizens to participate, maybe in a manner akin to town halls.

Shooting my idea over to the president a few months ago makes me wonder if I gave Trump this idea, but with all the tweets he receives, it seems unlikely he actually saw mine.  Maybe we’ll just chalk it up to ‘great minds think alike.’

Since a shake-up might be in the works on this score, and on extremely doubtful basis that Trump saw my first Tweet and would be interested in having me flesh out this idea further, I did some more thinking.

The freedom of the press is enshrined in the Constitution for a reason.  Let’s have another look at that language:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, to hear the modern media talk (and secularists and leftists in general), the reason the framers put the freedom of speech and the press in the Constitution is to serve as a check and balance on the government.  We’ve all heard the slogan, “speak truth to power.”  I don’t think they are wrong in this, but I would point out that if this is indeed the basis for the freedom of the press, it is also the basis for the freedom of religion.  Not only is freedom of religion in the first sentence of the first amendment to the constitution, but it is actually listed first in that sentence.  Nonetheless, liberals and leftists have cheered every restriction on religion and chafed at every inconvenience put on the press.

I would submit that the common thread to the entire first amendment, going beyond the idea of providing a ‘check and balance,’ is that the right and power to provide that ‘check and balance’ extends to each individual.  Except for the mention of the ‘press’ in this amendment, there is nothing in it to suggest it refers to any kind of group, community, or corporate entity.  (Bear that in mind when you’re reading the 2nd Amendment, too, my friend. CONTEXT MATTERS.)  In short, the right to serve as a ‘check and balance’ on government power is reserved to every citizen.  So, why should only a select group of individuals have the ability to question and challenge the most powerful people in the land?  Why not every citizen?

I don’t think it is difficult to understand that when a ‘select group’ becomes the prime interrogators of the powerful, this ‘select group’ themselves obtain a power that is limited to them and restricted from the rest of us.  This power is apt to be abused.  If there is anything that I have learned over the last twenty years, it is that the media itself needs a ‘check and balance.’  I am not talking about depriving them of their special status, carved right into the Constitution.  I’m talking about raising everyone else back up to that same special status–carved just as deeply in the Constitution, and in the same sentence!

It is clear to me that the ‘press’ has lost its way.  It cannot be trusted.  They complain about ‘fake news’ even as they dispense it.  Their priorities are not my priorities.  The questions they ask are not the things I want to know more about, but since only they get to ask the questions, they set the agenda.  Their power must be checked, and opening up the government to average citizens as opposed to only allowing ideologues masquerading as ‘objective journalists’ is a good start.

In this mass media environment, flooded with content from virtually every corner, some of it deliberately fake, with other material unsubstantiated (at that point) rumor, it is hard to know what to believe about anything.  However, it is hard to believe the republic can survive if people do not have reliable information that they can trust.  If they do not have actual facts to base their views on, this will inevitably lead to more power being centralized in the hands of the people who do have those facts, putting us at their mercy.  If the election of Donald Trump means anything, it means that millions and millions of people do not wish to be at anyone‘s mercy.  Not the government’s.  And not the media’s.

In principle, I firmly believe giving ordinary citizens direct access to the Trump administration and every Federal bureaucracy in order to interrogate it themselves is the way to go.  ASAP.  Yet, there seem to me to be several pragmatic problems, which I’d like to deal briefly with.

First of all, there is the question of bias.  You can hear the liberals now:  “But the people asking the questions will be biased!”  HYPOCRITES.   The people asking the questions are already biased.  One of the reasons they are a pox on our democracy is because they pretend they have no bias.  If they were honest about their prejudices, we might be able to analyze what they are saying more fairly.  But they are not honest.  So, bringing in private citizens doesn’t change anything on this score.  This problem needs to be addressed, but as it is a real problem in either scenario, it cannot be used for or against either.

Second of all, there is the question of the selection of citizens.  Obviously, you cannot have 100,000,000 shouting questions at a White House briefing.  Even in a perfect universe, this could not happen.  But any narrowing process is going to be vulnerable to the accusation that the process was weighted somehow, which leads to the same toxic doubt we have about the ‘press’ genuinely discharging its duty to serve as a ‘check and balance.’  The only conceivable way to avoid this is to do a lottery.  Citizens interested in asking questions of the government submit their names into a pile, from which, say, 30 names are randomly drawn.   But even this process will be open to the charge that it is ‘rigged.’  Still, I think its the only way.

The number of names can be expanded by allowing people to choose to ‘interrogate’ any Federal agency, and not just the White House.  For example, a person submitting their name for the drawing could list their top 3 choices:  The White House, the Department of Defense, and the Treasury.  Only once the list is filled at each agency do they stop drawing names.   There are probably some agencies out there that some people would prefer to question even over quizzing the DoD, and if they are one of the only 5 people to list them as one of their choices, the drawing would continue until their names were drawn and they were matched to the empty slot in that agency.

Done this way, I would bet you could involve several thousand ordinary citizens in the process of holding our government accountable.  Given the unruly and massive scope of the Federal government right now, maybe it would be tens of thousands.  Maybe some of the agencies that presently operate with hardly any citizen oversight at all will suddenly have a handful of citizens providing the scrutiny needed to keep them honest.

Would the organization charged with administering this process be private or public?  Many of my liberal counterparts believe that if it is public, its going to be fair and honest.  I lean the other way:  if its public, its more likely to be gamed by insiders who know how to milk the system.  Its easier to hold private organizations accountable because if people don’t like their product, you can simply stop buying it.  But we are all forced to continue paying for the ‘public’ system, whether we like it or not, and it takes years and several elections to make progress–if progress is ever made at all.  But, due to how intricately tied this process is to the actual purpose of being involved in some way with the Federal government, it may be that the only way to do it is to organize it through the Federal government.

This is like the fox guarding the hen house.

I don’t really know which would be the best way to go.  I do think, however, that maximum transparency will go a long way to easing concerns.  On the ‘lottery’ proposal, it should not be hard to provide this.  Every citizen’s name and submission, including their preferences, and the available slots at every agency is public record.  It is just a simple drawing after that and an algorithm that matches people in order of preferences with available slots.  Surely it must be possible to find a way to appease us that the drawing itself was random.

There is a third item, which raises even more substantive practical problems.

One of the things that the ‘media’ has that private citizens do not have is access to funds and the wherewithal to really dig into things, research them, and analyze them.  One of the reasons the big news corporations became big and prominent is simply because they had the ability to commit resources to paying journalists, lawyers, investigators, and cameramen to do the job they did.  They had the ability to set up radio and television stations.  They had the ability to pay people to make it their full time job to go find out what was necessary to daily harass our government.

The internet and the ever increasing technical expertise of private citizens has eased some of this, but there is still no substitute for the fact that anyone who is selected is probably not going to have the resources to do the job the way it needs to be done.  This is in part a criticism of the Federal government itself:  if it is so big it cannot be monitored by average citizens, it is too big.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that the people selected are not likely to have the time and resources, almost by definition.  So, if we think this is important, we’re going to have to find a way to ensure that if their names are drawn, they are also given the time and resources.  This is fraught with new problems.  If the government itself gives the stipend, we’re right back at the problem of the fox guarding the hen house.  Here, though, if the citizens were sponsored by fellow citizens, we know darn well that corporations are going to want to ‘sponsor’ their share of folks, and it may be that the citizens are as beholden to their sponsors as Rachel Maddow is to her employer.

Here again, against all my instincts, the only way we might be able to do this is to manage it through the Federal government itself, with the citizen’s salary compensated through tax dollars.  It may be a small price to pay in order to bring the media (and the government itself) to heel, however.

I know what I’m asking.

We’re talking about needing to pay folks thousands of dollars over a three to four month period in order that they are able to execute their task effectively.  (I think they should get a minimum of three months per term, and perhaps four.  Over the course of a presidency, this would be 12 to 16 new sets of citizen-interrogators brought into the mix, itself a check and balance on abuse.)  They’re going to need to be able to eat and sleep and have the spare cash to carry out investigations.  Plus, their jobs back home will need to be protected for the short time they are away.  (Assuming, of course, they choose to go to the White House full time if they are selected… I know I would!)

The general principle is this:  the citizens have as much right to interrogate the government as the press, and the press has shown itself desperately in need of having its own ‘check and balance.’  I would much rather have that ‘check and balance’ provided by the citizens than the government, for obvious reasons.  I have sketched out one way in which I think this could be accomplished.  Perhaps some other great minds can come up with their own ideas, which may be better.



Why I love the Commercialization of Christmas

Every year about this time there are complaints about the commercialization of Christmas.  I think even my hero, C.S. Lewis had some cynical things to say about it.  No doubt, it is ironic and even scandalous that the ‘reason for the season’ is often only a pretext for people and businesses to make a load of money.  And they do make a lot of money.  And certain elements don’t mesh well with the ‘religious’ overtones of the holiday (etymology: ‘holy day‘), to be sure.  Even within Christendom, there is the sense that we are to take a meditative, contemplative, introspective, ‘spiritual’ approach to the whole affair, looking with disdain on the ‘worldly’ celebration… of…. well… what, exactly, is the ‘world’ celebrating?  Celebrating for the sake of celebrating?  The horror.

Try to see it from a wider perspective.

Every year for more than a century, whether one is a Christian or not, all attention is focused on the heart of the Christian account of reality:  God became Man in order to save All Mankind.   For almost two months out of every year, all of Western Civilization orients itself around one of the core proclamations of Christianity.   We get to see the doctrine of the incarnation spilled out extravagantly over entire cultures, and it is lapped up with joy nearly every place it goes–if it is permitted, of course.  More on that, in a moment.

It is typical to hear the devout complain about the commercializing of the celebration, but the complaints themselves often contain a kernel of heresy that orthodox Christianity has been bedeviled with for more than a thousand years.  That heresy is gnosticism.  The complaints suggest that there is merit to the idea that matter is bad and the creation is flawed. Our physical bodies, being material, are intrinsically bad, by virtue of being material.  Only the ‘spiritual’ is good, and the ‘spiritual’ can be tapped into by putting oneself in the right mood.

The spiritual mood can be manufactured through a devotional disdaining of ‘worldly’ things, usually through the same ‘worldly’ techniques that are decried.  For example, where one might turn up their nose at a Christmas carol, they might repeat the chorus of a ‘praise’ song 30 times, or look down on both in preference to hymns.  What many call ‘worship’ is often only a ‘devotional mood’ which is seen as superior to whatever else happens outside of the ‘church’ service, such as the potluck or fellowship hour.

But Christianity insists that matter is not bad and the creation is not flawed, rather, creation is broken.  Our bodies, corrupted.  Our spirits, dead–until brought back to life by God himself.  For a little while, the ‘old heart’ wars against the ‘new heart,’ but when Christ returns again, it is not to take us to heaven as ghostly wisps, but rather to give us entirely new, physical bodies, which are no longer at war with our spirits.  We will not live with God in heaven.  God will live with us on Earth.

And oh, what a Life it will be!  It will not be devoid of ‘earthly’ things, it will be packed full of them.  There will be food, fellowship, and song.  It will be the Feast that every other feast we knew to that point was a mere foretaste.

That a feast stretching six weeks or more has come to be bound up with the Good News that God’s rescue mission is well underway is a good thing, in my opinion.

But I don’t think its an accident, either.  The commercialization that we lament is actually the ‘free market’ realizing that the Christian account of the universe plays.  Everybody loves a party!  And this makes perfect sense in a world created by God, for his pleasure and ours.  It doesn’t make any sense in the Islamicist version of reality.  It is incoherent to the Buddhists.  It is an embarrassment to the atheists, who in their sterile, strictly materialistic conception of the world have literally nothing to put up against the sheer joy that tantalizes young and old alike every December.

From the materialist’s stand point, their Darwinian account of being ‘human’ would reduce our lives to sole purpose of surviving long enough to reproduce–meat machines with delusions of grandeur.  Except for a brief period of human history where ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘nature, red in tooth and claw’ and ‘nasty, brutish, and short’ were acted on as ‘scientific certainties,’ humanity has found such a perspective to be laughably out of line with actual human experience.  Actual human experience revels in the glorious idea that there is more to this world than the ‘stuff’ of it.  For those who are quite sure that this world is all there is and believe it possible to progressively perfect it, the belief that there are realities that transcend the material is a direct threat to their program.  Atheistic regimes of the 20th century understood this well and moved to actively repress such beliefs… and still do, when and if they can get away with it.

But atheists enjoy a good Christmas jingle as much as anyone else.  Even the fascist ‘tolerance’ patrols who insist on saying “Happy Holidays” gravitate towards celebrating Christmas and not, say Ramadan or Hanukkah or Kwanzaa.  Indeed, if you take a good hard look at culture in general, its clear there is a great thirst for the ‘other-worldly.’  For our entertainment we go to movies that feature superheroes with super powers.  There are television shows about the paranormal.  There are books about Big Foot.  Writers attempt to make such things plausible by reference to purely naturalistic explanations such as the multiverse or wormholes but that is far less interesting than the fact that sentient bags of copulating puss and bone have even the remotest interest in such impractical and fabulous story lines.  I, for one, have yet to spot my cat or dog take any interest in any of the Avenger movies.

But it is precisely this ‘thirst’ that Christmas calls attention to, every year, for weeks at a time.  Everything stops for a time, as if God himself grabs the attention of Mankind and says, “Look!”

Is it the full Gospel message?  No, of course not.  But it is good soil for the full Gospel message.  The fact that this part of the story has been commercialized is testimony to its power to surface the intuitive knowledge that just as there is more to the world than we can see, there is more to us than can be crammed into a test tube.  If someone grabs that thread and pulls, they may find themselves thrown headlong into the recognition that here is a story that is grounded in real history.  No one who watches Marvel’s Agents of Shield comes to believe it corresponds to actual reality.  They do not change their life and completely orient themselves to the Marvel universe.   Yet every year, hundreds of thousands of people come to the conviction that Christianity is actually true.  And they do completely re-orient their lives.  Perhaps there is a reason why people accept Christianity but not Marvelanity?

Some say that Christmas cannot be celebrated because it incorporates pagan elements.  Atheists scoff for the same reason.  My attitude is like Paul’s in the book of Philippians:

Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Christmas is the yearly pricking of the Thorn of God in the side of a disbelieving and rebellious world.  Are there pagan elements?  That only illustrates what I’ve been saying: people love a party; they love the feast; they desperately hope that the Numinous is real.  True yesterday, and true today.  What is the best explanation?  I submit that the reason why Christmas is such a central holiday is because deep down most people know that the best explanation is to be found lying in a manger, two thousand years ago.

In that account, God did not dispense with matter, or reject the creation.  He re-affirmed his original design and redeemed creation.  He turned water into wine for a wedding.  He told made it plain that nothing God has made is ‘unclean,’ per se.  The things we enjoy in this world, in the main, we were made to enjoy.  And at Christmas, we enjoy some of those things in a profound way.  These are not the things we should turn our nose up at.  Instead, being innocent as doves and as wise as serpents, see the holiday as an opportunity to have conversations in a society that is increasingly hostile to such conversations, and also perceive in it insight into the nature of the Great Feast to come.

So long as people are making money from the holiday “out of selfish ambition” there is a way to proclaim Christ, in all his glory, and all the glory to come.  What’s not to like about that?

Provided, of course, we seize the opportunity.


The Coming Nightmare of the Trump Presidency

This is one of the least pleasant pieces I have ever sat down to write.  I am forcing myself to do it.   I feel the warning must be issued, although my sense is that those who would heed it, need it least.

Many people are encouraged by the election of Donald J. Trump.  To them, the 2016 election was America’s last chance to settle things according to the ‘rule of law.’  I also was heartened, but I am less hopeful that good times are ahead.

When Obama first passed Obamacare and began implementing his vision for America’s future, these folks were outraged.  They were outraged, but they worked within the system.  They organized.  They delivered a repudiation of Obama’s agenda in three consecutive elections–2010, 2012, and 2014.  The repudiation was virtually complete:  not only was almost every Federal branch of power put into the hands of the opposition, but a vast majority of the governorships, the assemblies, the senates, the judiciaries, and even city councils, went into those hands, too.

But the Republicans did not act as though they had such a position of strength, and the people became disheartened.  Then came Obergefell, which disenfranchised millions and millions of voters, including voters in ‘blue’ states.  The GOP acquiesced without a whimper.  But I think a less appreciated but more significant blow was John Robert’s asinine ruling in favor of Obamacare, wherein he offered a reading that fifth graders could recognize as utterly strained and contrived.  Do the words mean nothing?

Meanwhile, liberals and progressives applauded.  In their minds, the ‘rule of law’ was upheld simply by virtue of the fact that these issues worked their way through the system.

Conservatives had worked through the system in a bid to exercise self-government, and on point after point, issue after issue, they had ended up with the losing end of the stick.  Moreover, being on the ‘losing end of the stick’ effectively meant being called bigots, racists, sexists, and all manner of vile things, with many wondering if anyone they had put into position of power would defend them, stick up for them, act on their principles, etc.

Enter the 2016 election campaign.

That the conservative ‘base’ had lost all faith in the GOP’s willingness to stand and fight is demonstrated vividly as ‘establishment’ candidate after ‘establishment’ candidate were forced out of the race.  In the end, it was only Cruz and Trump, which further illustrates the electorate’s judgement upon the GOPE.  But Cruz had his own establishment ties, and frankly, even he seemed less brave than Donald Trump.

As a sheer act of self-preservation, millions of Americans put their back into throwing the world’s greatest Hail Mary that has ever been seen.  It is perhaps the greatest that will ever be seen.

Miraculously, Trump prevailed.  All the forces and factors that had fueled the massive discontent in the heartland were not able to suppress the ‘force of nature’ that was Trump.   But when we say ‘Trump,’ at the same time, we must see that he is a stand in for the many millions who saw in him one last chance for self-government within the parameters of the rule of law.

Very few people that I interacted with believed that the Republic would survive 4-8 years of Hillary Clinton.

Although I preferred Cruz, and voted for him in the Wisconsin primary, I cast my vote for Trump without reservation.

But not with much hope for the future.

Many appear to be surprised by the vitriolic response to Trump’s election by the ‘left.’  But not me.  Before the election (Nov. 2), on my Facebook page, I wrote:

I keep hearing all this talk about how liberals are concerned that Trump supporters will turn violent if Trump doesn’t win. Oh my, its completely the other way around! If Trump wins, the left is going to turn up its vitriol to levels that will shock a great many. But if it shocks YOU, you should ponder how it is that you didn’t see that coming. You may be missing something important, and it would behoove you to figure it out, fast.

I don’t doubt that there are elements on the ‘right’ that have no qualms with turning to violence. But I think Trump’s support is misunderstood. A lot of these folks are the Tea Party people–and the Tea Party folk were largely ambivalent about politics before Obama politicized nearly everything. They were demonized left and right and of course characterized as being violent, but in fact their defining characteristic was that they still believed it was good and proper to work through the system.

Which they did, with great success, in 2010, 2012, and 2014, delivering huge majorities for the anti-Obama party in every area save the presidency in 2012.

Trump would not be the candidate at all if the GOP had backed their play. That Trump is the candidate reflects two things simultaneously: 1., their belief that the GOP has betrayed them and 2., they still believe it is good and proper to work through the system.

In a demonstrably free and fair election, if Hillary prevails […], they will absolutely act according to their belief represented in #2.

But it is completely the opposite for the political left… which is precisely one of the big problems.

shooting-fascistsSo, here we are.  There have indeed been riots.  The media has gone bonkers.  The progressives have doubled-down on their assertion that the ‘right wing’ are a bunch of racist, fascist pigs.  I have seen countless threats of physical violence made.  My favorite is represented in the meme to the right, which I think sums up the lot of them perfectly.

Or, to put it like one of my Facebook ‘friends’ put it:  “I only hate those who hate”, thereby giving herself complete license to wish for and advocate for actions that far exceed what even the worst KKK member might contemplate doing.

Unlike the great mass of those who put the Republicans in power in four consecutive elections, the first instincts of the liberal progressives will not be to work through the system to obtain the results they desire.


They are already gathering kindling, because they mean to burn the system down.

Now, it may be hard to understand how this all works.  It is not all obvious or intuitive.  But it can be pieced together and has been pieced together by many others.  It goes a little like this.

Your average liberal progressive is a fine fellow who abhors violence, personally.  But he recognizes that there are circumstances where violence is necessary.  He would never shoot a man down, but he recognizes that some men will need to be shot down (*ahem*, men like LaVoy Finicum. Read the comments).  While fully conceding that the State has its flaws and warts, he endorses the liberal platitude that “Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together.”

Can you see it?  There are many things that they would never do, because they are kindly, tolerant folk, but they know need to be done… and for those things, we have the government.

But how does the government know what the people ‘choose’?  Well, that’s actually one of the fundamental divides between the American people.  Many of us believe that you ‘choose’ those things by electing people who reflect your values with the expectation that they will earnestly act on those principles.  Ironically, the GOP has seemed perpetually timid when it comes to acting on their principles, while the Democrats aren’t.  But, critically, Democrats tend to think that opinion polls and surveys are enough to justify their actions.

This is far more important than I have time to address in this post.  But a good illustration is the previously mentioned Obergefell decision.  Despite near complete repudiation of gay marriage throughout the 50 states, liberals felt they were within their rights to overturn numerous state laws and referendums for the simple reason that people’s attitudes had changed in favor of gay marriage since those laws and referendums were passed.  No need to pass new laws reversing the previous ones!

Democrats love this approach because they know how to manipulate public opinion, and, like Edward Bernays, believe that such manipulations are thoroughly democratic in nature.   Of course, in their minds, they are the only ones who are allowed to manipulate public opinion, hence their continued horror with Citizens United.  But they see an important difference:  when they manipulate public opinion, it is through the public channels, and therefore thoroughly ‘evidence based’ and free from bias, backed by the authority of the expert du jour.  But if others do it, it is ‘special interests’ at work.

This is not a trifling point.

You see, liberal progressives have now been deprived of this huge infrastructure.  Under Trump (#NotMyPresident), the government is no longer the name we give to the things we choose to do together.  They do not have the House, or the Senate, or the White House.  Soon, they will not have the Supreme Court, their ultimate bludgeon.

But this will not change who they are and what they believe about the rest of America.  And what they believe about the rest of America is that it has drawn right up to the door of Nazism itself.  There are exceptions, obviously, but this is the prevailing sentiment.

Deprived of the institutional apparatus that they had seen put to great use under Obama and which they eagerly looked for Hillary to expand and extend (and which a vast number of Trump supporters perceived as an existential threat), they will…

Well, I’m not entirely sure what they will do, I’m only sure about what they are inclined to do.  But what I do know is that every option will be on the table.  The more aggressive Trump is in implementing his agenda, the more aggressive they will be in their push back.  And no, they won’t be looking for 2018 to be the liberal equivalent of 2010, in large part because they will discover that this is not a viable path forward for them (eg, all the things they despise will be welcomed in ‘fly over’ country).

The Secret Service, I reckon, is going to be quite busy.

But this isn’t the worst news.

In fact, for liberals, this next part is very good news.

The truth is that the liberal progressives have in fact nearly won the day.  It might be said that Obama pressed the advantage a decade too soon.

As I explained in my post prior to the election, the existence of people with attitudes like Annaliese Nielsen beg an explanation.  They come from somewhere.  Clearly, they exist in large numbers.  How are they made?

Now, this is a question that has preoccupied the left for many years, especially in their bid to figure out why people are opposed to gay marriage or why people are (allegedly) racists, and then devise a way to defuse such attitudes.  Their answer is both hilarious and terrifying, but the point is that they are fixated on thinking about the formation of opinions, because they know that people’s attitudes and beliefs come from somewhere.

These same people are shocked at the excesses of the ‘social justice warriors’ but cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility that they created the SJWs.   But they are not too troubled, because they know that that they can ‘tweak’ the behavior modification programs and perhaps perfect the result.  Or, at least, they ought not be too troubled, because the left still has full control over the mechanism by which this social engineering has been taking place.

I am speaking of the education system.  The elementary schools, the middle schools, the high schools, and the college and universities are all fully in the hands of the liberals.  Despite the fact that it is clear as day that the publicly funded school system is using tax dollars to deliberately undermine the beliefs and values of millions of the tax payers, there is little sign that the Republicans will meddle in such affairs.  It is too risky.  They will certainly be crucified in the press, and, if the liberal response in Wisconsin to Walker’s “Act 10” is any clue (and it most certainly is!), there will again be thousands in the street, some of them quite menacing, chanting “This is what democracy looks like!”

Of course, that’s not what democracy looks like.  That’s a mobocracy.  A democracy handles their problems through elections and the rule of law, and this is even more the case in a republic such as the United States.

But this will mean nothing to them, and their ranks will continue to swell as each new graduating class moves from the petri dish of high school to the formal inoculation center of the university, where students will be drenched in Marxist doctrine, whether it is a Shakespeare class or (more likely), “Guerrilla Altruism: A Mini-Manual of Subversive Activism.”  Because that will help the student get a job and support his family!

Actually, it didn’t help at all, right?  Which is why there was a need for government assistance.  But now if there is no government assistance, this person’s poor course selection will result in him getting hungry.  And he won’t blame himself.  He’ll blame Trump and the Republicans.

And he will lash out.

And they will lash out.

Yet, if they wait another 10-15 years, barring any unpredictable intrusions by the ‘real world’ (eg, a 9-11), they need not worry.  They will have the country.

But, if you know your man, you know he doesn’t have the patience and foresight for that sort of thing.  He has willingly submitted himself to his conditioning.  In his mind, if one is ‘triggered,’ anything he does after that is justified, and the one to blame is, always, the one doing the ‘triggering.’

Which is why, I am afraid to say, the coming years could very well be some of the most chaotic, violent years that America has seen yet (at a domestic level).  And it will all originate from the ‘left.’  (I can see retaliation or over-compensation from the ‘right’, but that’s why I used the word ‘originate.’).

I will offer one caveat of hope.

If Trump survives long enough to implement some of his agenda (only possible, I think, if the GOP decides its safe to show its backbone), and the world doesn’t end, and more importantly, things actually get better, reality may finally break in even for the SJW.  There are reasons to think this could happen (eg, the media has been defanged by Wikileaks, etc).

But I wouldn’t count on this.  Even if the country becomes demonstrably and undeniably better, the left will not see this as a good thing, because it means more time in the wilderness for them.  Even the irrefutable successes will be fought tooth and nail.  You watch.

So what should our response be?  I honestly don’t know.  I’ve thought about it, and I just don’t have it.  When I have some concrete ideas, I’ll share them.  In the meantime, the ball is in Trump’s court and hopefully the GOP will take seriously the threat that the education system, as it currently sits, poses to the Republic.


“After the Ball” Reflections: Actually, homosexuality IS a Choice?!?!?!?

I’ve been spending a fair bit of time acquiring and analyzing books that advocate for manipulating people.  Not, as you might be thinking, so I can manipulate people, but because I find manipulation to be disgusting, vile behavior.  It is prima facie evidence of that the manipulator is a bad actor.  Bad actors should be opposed.  This puts me in opposition to people like Bernays, who believes that manipulation is necessary in a democracy.  Or Alinsky, who reveled in it.  And plenty of others, I am afraid to say.

In modern times, the manipulator (eg., ‘change agent’) is applauded and paid handsomely for applying their skills (eg, Gruber, Cass Sunstein, etc), but I hate them.  And I hate being manipulated.  To resist being manipulated, I need to understand how it is they aim to manipulate me (and everyone else).  So, in that spirit, I picked up Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen’s After the Ball:  How American Will Conquer its Fear & hatred of Gays in the 90’s.

It is an amusing read, to say the least.  They refute their own arguments constantly throughout the book, and sometimes in the same paragraph.  While the broad strokes of their argument can be discerned, the rest is an incoherent mishmash.

On the other hand, it seems like Kirk and Madsen didn’t consider the possibility that a ‘straight’ might read their book.   I love this kind of stuff.  You get to hear what they really think because they are talking to only their own people.  Thus, they will admit and acknowledge things to each other that they will deny bitterly to the end if presented by an opponent.

There is amazing irony in this book.  It begins with a vitriolic and enraged denunciation of those opposed to homosexuality, marking off one criticism after another with derision, contempt, and snark.  Reminds me of a book length version of one of Dan Savage’s screeds.   But I would be willing to bet that anyone who took the time to do so, could find elsewhere in the book explicit statements supporting the critic’s claims.  The last 100 pages represent a denunciation of gay behavior… the very same behaviors denounced by the critics.

So, basically, after reading this book, you will discover that pretty much all the reasons you oppose homosexuality are, in fact, legitimate and valid.

The irony is piled upon irony by their first item in the list of “How Gays Misbehave.”  That item:  Lies, Lies, All Lies!  Evidently, deception and self-deception are a big problem in the gay community.  Don’t get angry with me!  This is Kirk and Madsen’s argument!

But that creates an epistemological problem, does it not?  If the gay community is prone to deception and self-deception, and Kirk and Madsen are part of that very community, how do we not know that they are themselves telling lies?  A conundrum!  This problem appears most dramatically in their attack on the “Big Lie.”  They are insistent that there are far more gays in America than typically believed.  (pgs 13-18).  The number they give range from 10% to 21% of the population (the latter from that other deceiver, Kinsey), which of course amounts to millions and millions of people.

Why is it necessary to have such a big number?  Well, for all their talk about ‘homo hatred’ it turns out that actually, the number one problem (again, according to them!) is that generally speaking, straights don’t actually… wait for it… CARE what consenting adults do.  So, on the one hand, we’re supposed to buy this sob story about how horrible the gay community has it (the book is written in the 90s) when in fact their biggest complaint is that, by and large, to the question of “What Straights Think of Gays” they answer, “They Don’t.”

Well, that’s gotta suck, right?

And it gets worse:  that 10% is itself a fabrication.  It is, at most, 2% (gay and lesbian).

Well, gee.  You can’t possibly justify radically overhauling an entire society’s value systems on the basis of what a scant 2% of the population do, can you?

Well, I don’t know if Kirk and Madsen knew it was a fabrication, but they ought to have, since it isn’t exactly a new discovery that the gay advocates of the 1970s pushed the 10% number for political reasons–the same number that they pushed.  But they do seem to be pretty well read (I was impressed to see Augustine mentioned, and even C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton), so my bet is that they did know that their 10% number was way off.  And they didn’t care.  See above about the epistemological problem relating to the fact that apparently gays are known to lie!

One of the clearest examples of this deliberate deception is on page 184, where they make it abundantly clear that they do not believe people are born gay.   Note, in the same paragraph, they contradict themselves.  No matter, despite understanding the limitations of the claim, for purposes of manipulation, they will recommend that their propaganda insists that gays have no choice in their homosexuality:

Principle 5:  Portray Gays as Victims, Not as Aggressive Challengers

[throughout the book, they criticize gays for being too aggressive in their advocacy!]

In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflect to adopt the role of protector.  […]


In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercial and other public presentations. […]

Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating.  First, the public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay-even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)  to suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choice and sin’ and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with.  Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual:  wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.  And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.  In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds–one in ten–as to who turns out gay, and who straight.  Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.  [italics his, bold mine.]

By ‘straights [being] taught’ they basically mean behavioral modification and conditioning (ie, they are Pavlov, and you are the dog), on the premise that people are just animals that are the product of evolution who are ‘homohaters’ because they were born that way; but, through propaganda, these can be neutralized.  (Chapter 2, The Roots of Homophobia, eg. pg 120-126)

That’s another contradiction, if you didn’t notice.

If someone is born gay, it cannot be a choice.  And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness.  But people are born bigots–it is not a choice.  And since no choice is involved, bigotry can be no more blameworthy than ‘tolerance’.

Like I said, the book is a series of one incoherent contradiction after another.  The only reason it should be taken seriously is because its pretty clear it was taken seriously, and we live today with the consequences of their deception and self-deception, and the results of their–effective–manipulation.


I could probably write a book detailing all the things that fascinated me about this book.  There are three little things that made me chuckle in particular.

1. Rage.  On this blog I have talked several times about how the propagandists try to generate change by generating rage.  They love this idea:

And where, for that matter, is the steam [for generating change] supposed to come from?  Your patriotism and sense of fair play?  Your homophile zeal?  Benevolent love of your gay brothers and sisters?  Agape?

No, few are motivated over the long haul by zeal or saintliness.  Yet sufficient motivation is found in Chapter 1, and all around you:  the sustaining emotional steam that comes not from Love but from Rage.

[…] Well, love is an excellent end in itself, but it isn’t half so compelling as a means.  Over history, love has severed no colonies from their mother countries, nor overthrown any czars, nor obliterated any Nazis, nor produced any civil rights movements.  You may discount what the pious tell you, because it is actually rage, not love, that lay behind all those progressive events.

Like all emotions, rage has its purposes, and its time and place.  When a situation becomes intolerable, an oppression unbearable, when millions do not even dare to cry out beneath the hell of injustice, rage is the appropriate response.  Fury galvanizes.  [italics his, bold mine.  381-382]

Why yes, lets be outraged by the fact that the vast majority of Americans don’t, and did not, care all that much what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms by a scant 2-4% of the population!  Remember, that most of America doesn’t think about gays at all is, in their mind, part of the problem.

But the real problem is that they don’t merely want to be left alone to do what they want.  They want everyone else to express approval.  And they will use totalitarian methods to obtain it.  While denouncing totalitarian methods.  It’s all very confusing.

This is eerily reminiscent of a debate I’m having elsewhere on this blog.  At one point, they say that they don’t want to be judged by their sexual behaviors and taken merely as humans. You know, like MLKjr who dreamed a dream where people didn’t judge people by their skin color.  But I now have fresh evidence that even if they had that, they would not be satiated [see comment section].  That’s because they DEMAND that the rest of us bless their sexual behaviors.  OR ELSE.  (closing pages of the book.)

2.  Bizarrely, they constantly condemn groups like NAMBLA for giving gays a bad name, but after finally sorting out all the reasons that the gay community is dysfunctional (far beyond anything that yours truly could pen!), they conclude that the best ‘family model’ going forward is the ancient Greek one, where adults had… you guessed it… boys as lovers.  Of course, they try to soften it up a bit by pushing the age of the pursued boy to a more mature age of 16, and doing their best to gussy up the pedophilia of the ‘old days’ as pretty good, really, since it was done within socially prescribed parameters.  Kind of reminds me of dear old Caligula, who trained little boys to nibble at his private parts as he swam.  All within the norms of society at the time, so no big deal, right?  After many pages of this (361-372), in the very last paragraph, we get the caveat:

To a dirty mind, nothing is clean.  We go on record, here and now, as stating explicitly that we do not advocate adults having sex with minors under any circumstances whatever.  What we do advocate is adults forming the sexual relationships which they must and should form anyway within a reciprocal framework of age differences that will maximize not sex per se, but all that is good and fine and honorable and decent in human relations, setting a standard higher, and with a much stronger and more logical rationale, than that of the much-praised nuclear family itself. [Italics, them.]

So, did you follow that?  They deplore outfits like NAMBLA (which would like to lower the age of consent) but advocate for older men and younger men “forming [] sexual relationships” but, don’t you worry!  They do not advocate adults having sex with minors!  No word about their opinion on just what age someone ought to be considered a ‘minor’ for purposes of their proposal, but they do speak warmly ancient Greek men taking on lovers of, say, the age of 16 (on page 367).  You know, hypothetically speaking.

See up for their concerns about the gay community having a problem with deception and self-deception.

3.  Speaking of the nuclear family.

This chapter about boy/man love began with a quote:

The family unit–spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished.  The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated.  — Michael Swift, “For the Homoerotic Order,” in Gay Community News.

I recognized this quote, and have referenced it on this very blog, calling attention to the transparent attempt to deflect criticism of the gay agenda in America.  You know, stuff that Kirk and Madsen would say that straights fabricate, but then go on later to call gays out for actually doing.  Anyway, if you want the full context of Swift’s quote, I did reproduce it in that blog entry.

Since propagandists for the gay rights have recently dismissed Swift’s “Homosexual Manifesto” as satire, I was interested to see what these two gay authors thought.  Did they also think it was satire?  It would appear that they take it quite seriously, as something seriously offered.  And they aren’t happy that Swift wrote it, because it undermined their cause.  But there is no hint that they thought it was mere satire.  Coming just 3 years after ‘Swift’ published his article, I thought it would be good to include Kirk and Madsen’s characterization of the article (pg 361):

The above, cited in the Boston Herald (February 25, 1988) by Visigothic columnist Don Feder in an article entitled “AIDS, gay politics and the family,” is a bottled-in-bond example of the gay extremist rap on the evils of The Family.  Luridly overstated as it is, it’s fairly representative of the line taken by the gay media radicals–angry people, perhaps damaged by emotionally sick families and blinded to the family’s good side, who feel compelled to turn their fear and loathing into the sort of social philosophy of absolute individuality.  Unfortunately, they play right into the hands of homohaters–always hungry for ammunition–and allow the entire community to be advertised as emotionally ill.  Feder, taking as his text both Swift’s rabid froth and a set of ill-considered remarks by Boston City Councillor David Scondras, whips up a whole three-ring circus of denunciations of those disgusting homosexuals, who live only for themselves and admit that they’re trying to destroy the American family.  Intones Feder, “Heterosexuals who prattle about gay rights should wake up and smell the wine fermenting for the orgy!”

Must gay pundits really reinforce such idiotic misconceptions? [Italics them, bold, mine]

Ah, yes.  I do love me some ammunition.

Might, perhaps, another ‘idiotic misconception’ be that those who oppose homosexuality are ‘homohaters’?

Might it be possible that, in point of fact, those like myself who oppose homosexuality, do so for reasons that are not only derived from the Bible, but for all the reasons that Kirk and Madsen themselves decry?  And might it be possible that the reason why Kirk and Madsen find such things deplorable is because it is a fact, not an opinion, that there is a God as Christians understand him, and this God did actually make people just as the Bible describes?  And this being so, flaunting that design can be expected to result in unsatisfactory consequences?

That there are unsatisfactory consequences, I will henceforth eschew the Bible, and simply quote Kirk and Madsen, chapter and verse!