web analytics

Nov 11

The Logic of God and Creation and the Ignorance of Atheists

By calling some atheists ignorant, I don’t mean to be rude.   You are not a bad person just because you don’t know something.  However, when you offer an opinion about something, it is usually best to be informed, and, unless you are a propagandist at heart, you should seek to react to the actual view of something rather than a false view.  Or worse, a strawman.

To illustrate where this is going, consider Richard Dawkin’s epic, sustained, logical failure exhibited in his Delusion, where he writes, “I am not attacking the particular qualities of Yahweh, or Jesus, or Allah, or any other specific god such as Baal, Zeus or Watan.”  and earlier, “[The God Hypothesis is that] there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it, including us.”

I attacked the stupidity of this at length, here.  It would seem that the very dim Richard Dawkins is so intellectually immature that he is thrown off by the mere fact that one word, ‘god’, has been used historically to cover any number of different concepts, many of which are incompatible or even contradictory.

It would be as if he opened the telephone book to the entry for “Smith, John” and, seeing the 500 mentions, assumed they all referred to the same person, just because the name was the same.  Or, in a somewhat more sophisticated example (I don’t want to strain Dawkins’ brain too much), it would be as if one heard the word “set”, without any other context, and assumed that there was no qualitative difference between its use in the phrases, “television set” and “set of numbers” and “set the table.”

The problem here is not high philosophy, but basic literacy.  I take that back;  presumably, Dawkins wouldn’t have a problem grasping that every instance of “Smith, John” refers to a different person. That the word ‘god’ flummoxes him suggests something else going on… something not of the intellect.

Dawkins says that he is not going to take into account the “particular qualities” of Yahweh, versus, say, Zeus, but wishes to test “The God Hypothesis”, which includes (and this is his phraseology, remember) the clause, “who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it, including us.”

Now, according to his own phrasing, the entity in question “created the universe and anything in it”, and pardon the redundancy, “including us.”  (italics mine).  And this, at least, can be said to legitimately fit within the definition of God as Christians describe God.  Yet, Dawkins will say elsewhere in his book, “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. God’s existence or non-existence is a scientific fact about the universe, discoverable in principle if not in practice.”

No, it is not a scientific hypothesis.

By definition, agreed to tacitly by Dawkins himself, God is an uncreated entity that transcends the universe and is non-contingent. The universe conversely is, by definition, contingent.   The very hypothesis he means to test says that the universe is created.  In its entirety.  Including us.  (Pardon the redundancy.)

Now, just how exactly do folks like us, who are, by the definition of the hypothesis being tested, part of the created order and thoroughly enmeshed in it, escape that framework in order to scientifically detect God?

Obviously, this whole idea is absolute nonsense, unless there is an awful lot of baggage in the definition of ‘scientifically’ that is not being spelled out.

We will talk about that baggage shortly.  However, it is so important to really understand what the Christian is referring to when he argues for the existence of God, we need to spell it out a bit more. I’ll try to keep it simple.*

Let U (the universe) refer to the set of items, [A, B, C, P, Z].

Atheists assert that U exhausts the set of every item that is real, whereas Christians assert that U is a creation of G(od).

Now, Dawkins would like us to believe that Z(eus) is the same sort of thing as what Christians mean by G(od).  If Dawkins were right in his characterization, U would = [A, B, C, G, P, Z].  How it is that this is consistent with his assertion that G = “who deliberately designed and created the universe and anything in it”?  Does he really think that it is reasonable to suppose that something within the universe also created the universe, including HIMSELF?  (“and anything in it”)  God planned out his existence even before he existed?  Seriously?

Honestly, if you think that is plausible, you’ll believe anything.

But the Christian is not at all arguing that G is the sort of thing that could belong to the set, [A, B, C, P, Z].  No.  NoNo.  G is defined as an uncreated entity that is the cause and creator of U.  This is the definition of the thing they are arguing exists.  Since, by definition, G is outside of U, and P(eople) are thoroughly locked inside of U, unable to get outside of it themselves, it follows that P could never, in principle, directly detect G.  They may be able to directly detect Z, because Z is an entity within U, just as all P’s are.  But not G.

Note, I am not here arguing that we cannot determine that G really exists.  I wouldn’t be penning this post if that were the case.  But if you could directly detect G, then it would not, by definition, be G that you are detecting.

Now, you may have to read the above closely, but it is really pretty simple to understand.  So, read it a few times if you need to.

I have gone after Dawkins here because he is a bully and the father of bullies, and like all bullies, needs to be put in his place, lest they hurt someone.  However, the fundamental inability to comprehend and take into account what Christians mean by God leads to all sorts of completely fallacious viewpoints and beliefs and pervades atheistic ‘thought.’

I encountered this massive logical lapse in a recent conversation on Facebook, where the gentlemen asserted that there was no “logic at all to espousing creationism.”

To which I asked (paraphrasing), “Are you saying that it is fundamentally illogical about the idea of God–that is, anything illogical about the idea that there is a Creator?”  To which he said, “Not at all. There could be a God.”

Now, not every atheist would concede this, but this one did.  So, I was obviously perplexed.  How could someone seriously say that there was no logic “at all” to talking about creationism but allow that it was logical to talk about a Creator?  Surely if one accepts, even for the sake of argument, that there is a Creator, then at some level, some description of the universe as created must be rational.

I therefore asked, “If you agree that there could be a God–and that THAT at least is not illogical, then from that proposition it follows–logically speaking–the belief in some form of creationism. Would it not?”

The gentleman decided to give up this line, saying, “Ok. sure. I concede on the semantics.”

But this isn’t a matter of semantics.  It was clear that there was a fundamental misunderstanding about what was actually being disputed, so I pressed the point further.  Finally, he bowed out, saying, “IF God created something, we have yet to find out what that is. Teaching that God created something that he did not create is to simply lie. Lying about God does no one any good.”  And, “Not saying a God could not be a Creator.”

Notice that we are allowing for the sake of argument that God exists–and God as the Christians understand him:  an entity outside of the universe, who created it “and anything in it.” On this view, it is completely nonsensical to say “IF God created something” and struggle to find an example of something that is created by God, because everything in the universe, by definition is created by God.

Teaching that God created something that he did not create, on the Christian view of God, is to say something that is completely contradictory, like saying, “The Artist painted all of these paintings in this room.  If the Artist painted them, we have yet to find out which ones.  Teaching that the Artist painted them when he did not paint them is to simply to lie.”

Or, to put it in a somewhat more formal way:

Let it be accepted that, A.,  “The Artist (G) painted everything in the room (U).”

Now, given A., is there anything in the room the artist did not paint?

Given A., isn’t the only thing you could do is teach that the Artist painted everything in the room?

It is not a matter of inductively detecting creation.  That it is created is deduced.  It is part of the definition, just as in proposition A, the Artist is defined as the painter of everything in the room.

When testing the ‘God Hypothesis’ then, this aspect of the situation must be taken into account, or else you really aren’t proceeding fairly.  But the problem is compounded if you, yourself, are one of the paintings.  If you, yourself, are locked into the universe.

By definition, the Painter/God are qualitatively and substantially different in nature then the thing painted/created.  Precisely because of this fact, if you define “scientifically” as that exploration of reality that is expressly limited to testing it through processes themselves constrained to detecting only that which is within the Universe, then, obviously, you can never scientifically detect God.

But, since Dawkins, and this gentlemen, and most atheists, somehow think that God can be empirically detected as if he was an empirically existing entity like the atheists themselves, it cannot be science that they are appealing to.

To try to get to the bottom of this gentleman’s confusion, I asked, “I am assuming that you believe science should proceed on the basis of ‘methodological naturalism.’ Am I right in this assumption?

He never replied.

However, I think I am probably safe in believing that this is precisely what he thinks, as many atheists, and even many theists, think precisely this.

The term ‘methodological naturalism’ has some utility, but since it arises usually only in conversations like this one, most of the time it should be seen as nothing more than a fig leaf for ‘philosophical naturalism.’

In ‘methodological naturalism’, theoretically, inquiry proceeds without reference to or unwarranted invocation of an entity that exists outside of the universe.  But here again, if this was a guiding feature of what constitutes ‘science’, then, by definition, there is nothing–for, or against–that could be said, scientifically, about the putative existence of an entity said to exist outside the universe.

Nonetheless, the phrase ‘unwarranted invocation’ is what separates this perspective from ‘philosophical naturalism’, because it would still allow for at least the possibility that things may arise in our investigation into reality that would warrant an ‘invocation.’  But it would be an inference from observations.  It could not possibly be a direct observation, as if went out to check our traps in the woods and were amazed to have caught God, attempting to chew his leg off to get through the chains (because God transcends the universe, does not have legs, and created, controls, and sustains each and every atom in the chains).

So why then could this Facebook gentleman constantly appeal to science as ‘debunking’ creationism?

Because, in actuality, his actual outlook goes far beyond ‘methodological naturalism.’  The fig leaf is easily blown away, and we find that actually he does not have a reasoned argument against the existence of God.  He has assumed it.  His ‘method’ does not actually allow for even the possibility that the best explanation for the universe or some phenomena within it is an entity that is simultaneously transcendent and immanent to the universe.

The argument looks like this:

A.  There is no God.
B.  Whatever we observe, we always interpret as if there is no God, because, duh, see point A.
C.  There is no evidence for the existence of God.
D. You believe in God, therefore you are an idiot.

Because who believes in things that there is no evidence for?

Don’t laugh.  This is the actual form that most atheistic arguments from ‘science’ take.

In fact, I’ve seen the above even acknowledged and defended.  Seriously.  If you think that argument is reasonable, there really is no hope for you.  For our own safety, we may hope that at least you do not operate heavy machinery.

2,000 words in, I don’t really want to overwhelm the PZ-bots too much more, but it is very relevant (especially in regards to the other statements the Facebook gentleman made) to note that the ‘big’ things offered as ‘proof positive’ that Creation is ‘scientifically’ repudiated (even though that is nonsensical, in principle, as argued), are things that quite explicitly set out to explain aspects of reality on the basis of A., There is no God.

Darwin, for example, had the explicit goal to interpret the biosphere on the assumption that there was no God.  Likewise, Lyell, whose philosophical predilections demanded that he interpret the geological structures of the world without reference to even the possibility that something (ie, God) may have reached into the universe and done something extraordinary.

When co-discoverer of Darwinism, Alfred Russell Wallace, concluded, from the evidence, that the biosphere could not be cogently accounted for on naturalistic principles only, Darwin expressed concern, saying to him that he hopes “you have not murdered too completely your own & my child.”

So, is Darwinism actually true and supported by the evidence?  Or is it only the ‘only game in town’ when one cannot bear even the possibility that there may be a God?

I’m pretty sure it is the latter, which is why stating that creationist theories are ‘debunked’ by theories like Darwin’s, which begin with the premise that there is no God, have absolutely no weight whatsoever for anyone who really cares about logic… or even science, itself.

* So even PZ Myers can understand.  Between blog posts subsidized by tax payer dollars, he likes to Google himself.  He and his PZ-Bots are sure to come quickly, now.

 

 

 

 

Share

Oct 29

China Lifts One-Child Policy; Few Know It was Instigated and Applauded by Western Liberals

A bit of fascinating news, today:  China has lifted its ‘one-child’ policy and will now, in its divine benevolence, allow its citizens to have two children.

In its own way, this move is an acknowledgement of one of the greatest government-perpetrated ideological blunders of the 20th century, right up there with the mass famines resulting from the Soviet ‘scientific’ policies such as those advocated by Lysenko.  The Nazi T-4 project also comes to mind.  That program led to the elimination of tens of thousands of disabled and mentally ill people “for their own good” and “in the name of public health” and culminated in the Holocaust itself (the technology perfected in the T4 project for mass extermination was used in the concentration camps).

All of these instances and many more serve as case studies into how well-intentioned government bureaucrats can, merely by paper-shuffling and attending international conferences, inflict untold harm on millions and millions of people.  They should give us pause when contemplating the war our contemporary governments are gearing up for–the war on ‘climate change.’  When bureaucrats think they have ‘settled science’ on their side, there really are no lengths they are unwilling to go.

Which raises another important observation:  without fail, and with few exceptions, these horrors were instigated by Western liberals and progressives, and applauded right up until that moment when it was no longer politically expedient to do so.

The story of China’s one-child policy amazingly hasn’t even yet risen to that level!  Liberals still merely avert their eyes, rather than issue denunciations, even though it is a history of government thugs holding down women and forcibly aborting their unborn children, bulldozing homes of families who denied the policy, and so on, not to mention the cultural conditioning of the populace that led to hundreds of millions of abortions.   Add to this the demographic nightmare that China inflicted upon itself, with there being a huge disproportion between males and females in the country, and the creation of ‘dying rooms‘ for the discreet elimination of unwanted children, and it becomes clear that a huge ‘mistake’ was made.

The irony is that China is now acknowledging this, if only by their actions, but Western liberals still handle the issue with kid gloves, or even go so far as to advocate for the same type of policy implemented on the entire world, rather than just China.

For example, VP Biden saying to the Chinese:  “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”

China’s ‘one child’ policy can be traced back most directly to Malthus, who, in the early part of the 1800s argued that the world’s troubles were the result of competition for finite, scarce resources.  This principle inspired Darwin, who in turn inspired countless more to begin thinking in terms of populations ‘improving’ or ‘deteriorating’, with the general conclusion being that degenerate and defective humans who would normally have died off due to natural selection were now ‘weighing down’ society.  This bred the eugenics movement, which flourished in England and America and elsewhere.  It fell out of favor due to the Nazi expression of eugenics, but since the ‘science’ was settled, only the application flawed, the eugenicists refashioned their enterprise in terms of ‘population control.’

The people who held these positions understood them to be pretty much interchangeable terms speaking to the same goals.  (see this and this, for examples, and since many of my readers will object to the Darwinian reference, look at this).

Almost to a man, people who advocated for such measures were liberals, progressives, and/or secular humanists.  They had and have an unshakeable faith in ‘Science’ and mankind’s capacity, through big government interventions, to apply ‘Science’ effectively and efficiently.

How does this all tie into the one child policy?

Well, in the late 1960s and 1970s, ‘population control’ transitioned from a mostly privately sponsored endeavor to a publicly financed one.  Rather than only running parallel within individual countries, internationalists became involved.  The United Nations, the IPPF, UNFPA, the World Bank, and so on, began throwing huge dollars at the ‘problem.’

One offshoot of these internationalists called themselves (and still call themselves) the Club of Rome.  Their “Limits of Growth” document of 1972 was the most direct incipient cause of China’s one child policy.

The account of how that happened, and the various government agencies, both nationally and internationally, that were and are ‘working’ on that problem, pouring billions and billions of dollars into the effort, is told in this article by Robert Zubrin.  You should read every word of that article, not just the section on China, because many of the charges I’ve made in this post and others on this blog are corroborated and illuminated by it. Zubrin’s Merchants of Despair is one of the finest discussions I know of that recounts the whole history of the population control movement more or less how I myself would tell it.

Here is an excerpt, though:

In June 1978, Song Jian, a top-level manager in charge of developing control systems for the Chinese guided-missile program, traveled to Helsinki for an international conference on control system theory and design. While in Finland, he picked up copies of The Limits to Growth and Blueprint for Survival — publications of the Club of Rome, a major source of Malthusian propaganda — and made the acquaintance of several Europeans who were promoting the reports’ method of using computerized “systems analysis” to predict and design the human future.

Fascinated by the possibilities, Song returned to China and republished the Club’s analysis under his own name (without attribution), establishing his reputation for brilliant and original thinking. Indeed, while Club of Rome computer projections of impending resource shortages, graphs showing the shortening of population-increase times, and discussions of “carrying capacities,” “natural limits,” mass extinctions, and the isolated “spaceship Earth” were all clichés in the West by 1978, in China they were fresh and striking ideas. In no time at all, Song became a scientific superstar. Seizing the moment to grasp for greater power and importance, he pulled together an elite group of mathematicians from within his department, and with the help of a powerful computer to provide the necessary special effects, issued the profoundly calculated judgment that China’s “correct” population size was 650 to 700 million people — which is to say some 280 to 330 million less than its actual 1978 population. Song’s analysis quickly found favor at top levels of the Chinese Communist Party because it purported to prove that the reason for China’s continued poverty was not thirty years of disastrous misrule, but the very existence of the Chinese people. (To make the utter falsity of Song’s argument clear, it is sufficient to note that in 1980, neighboring South Korea, with four times China’s population density, had a per capita gross national product seven times greater.) Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping and his fellows in the Central Committee were also very impressed by the pseudo-scientific computer babble Song used to dress up his theory — which, unlike its Club of Rome source documents in the West, ran unopposed in the state-controlled Chinese technical and popular media.

Song proposed that China’s rulers set a limit of one child per family, effective immediately.

Zubrin’s book also treats National Security Study Memorandum 200, which is a little known document generated at Nixon’s direction and produced by Henry Kissinger.  Gerald Ford ordered that the memo be made national policy.  Carter probably followed suit.  The memo remained secret until about 1989, when it was flushed out into the open.  Stunningly, this US policy effectively called for the depopulation of the earth… beginning with thirteen countries… and stating plainly that we should advocate for nothing around the globe that America is not willing to do to itself.

(I have begun compiling my research on NSSM-200 and posting it on this webpage: http://nssm200.com/)  The Nixon-Ford endorsement of these plans represent some of the few exceptions to the rule that liberals and progressives are the ones that spearhead such things.  But then, Nixon and Ford alike seemed to have the same ‘affinity’ for ‘big government’ solutions.  That is to say, they may have been Republicans, but they were hardly ‘limited government’ advocates!

The bottom line here is that the failure of China’s one child policy is really representative of the failure of countless ideologues whose guiding principles, ethical viewpoints, and ‘scientific’ conclusions fueled China’s policy in the first place. These ideologues also set the direction for public policy in countless other countries, and of course internationally as well.

While many of these ideologues have died and cannot see their failures, many of them are alive and well, and still very much in power.  (eg., John Holdren)

I led off with the examples of the T4 project and the starvation of millions of people in the Soviet bloc in connection to China’s failed ‘family planning’ program because there are some other things they have in common that are instructive.

It is a historical fact that the Nazis and Communists borrowed heavily for ‘progressive’ viewpoints that circulated in the West.  Indeed, American progressives at the time were jealous of the Germans and Russians.  They all had the same ideas, you see, but only in those countries could they actually be implemented.

For example, in 1934, a prominent American public official named Joseph Dejarnette, lamented, “The Germans are beating us at our own game.”

And famed geneticist and fervent eugenicist (pardon the redundancy) H.J. Muller believed that the ‘nature vs nurture’ element confounded all attempts to implement eugenics proposals, because unless everyone was in the same environment, one could never tell if it was ‘nature’ that was really winning out; only in Soviet Russia did he perceive that there was a chance that a level playing field could be established–so to Soviet Russia he went.  And from which he would flee for his life, after he fell out of favor.  He landed in the United States, the only place safe from the effects of his own proposals.

Many would consider it an accident of history that these ideas happened to manifest so horribly in Germany, Russia, and ChinaThe reason things went so poorly in those places, they might say, was due to cultural realities on the ground, there.  Certainly, cultural components shaped how these policies unfolded, but this ignores the most important truth of all:  it was only in these countries that the governments had free rein to implement the policies.

To put it differently, liberals often behave as though they could really perfect society, if only the reactionaries, religionists, and traditionalists would get out of the way.  But in each of these three cases, there was nothing to stand in the way of their policies being implemented.  Not only was it the case that a perfect society was NOT created, but the exact opposite occurred.

Blood was spilled on an epic scale, people were subjective to horrific abuses, and they never did solve the problem(s) they set out to solve!  They always made matters worse!

As we ponder the end of China’s ‘one child’ policy, we would do well to remember that it is rooted in certain principles and policy ideas that were common in the past, and common today, too, even here in the West.  But we should also bear in mind that the ‘one child’ policy was a real world test of liberal policies, free of the obstacles raised by grumpy white Christian males vying for inclusion on the Southern Poverty Law’s domestic terrorism list.  Like all other real world tests of liberal policies that proceeded unhindered by such opposition, the one child policy failed, and failed miserably.

Keep this in mind as liberals in the West patiently strip away every meaningful check and balance.  Like a dog that returns to its vomit, they will not be able to resist trying out their ideas yet again.  It will be ‘for our own good’ and ‘in the name of public health’ but it would be madness to believe, really, that the actual effect will be at all different than their previous attempts.

Climate change is the area where this is most likely to be explored in the near future.  The first and second amendments our latter-day HJ Mullers’ salvation.

Share

Oct 14

The Gospel According to Gun Control

On the face of it, liberal arguments for gun control are utterly irrational, with no redeeming value whatsoever, except, perhaps, the good intentions that we charitably allow are genuine.   The internal inconsistencies of the arguments, and the complete detachment from reality that they represent, leave one baffled.  The position can be understood, however, if you lay hold of the central guiding principle that drives all the rest of it.

Let’s consider some of the strange things that are often said in favor of gun control.  The first one is one that will gain new significance by the end of this essay.  It goes basically like this:  we need gun control laws to prevent gun-related crime.   The argument is plainly incoherent–a person who is prepared to commit a gun-related crime is already prepared to circumvent any additional laws.   The actual effect of any gun control laws must always be the disarmament of law-abiding individuals (the only ones who would obey such laws) and rendering them defenseless against those who, by definition, could not care less about gun control laws.

Another argument invokes ‘public health.’  It certainly is true that in regions with a disarmed citizenry, gun-related homicides drop.  But other crime rates increase, such as assault and battery, rape, and so on.  It’s not that the numbers of violent criminals decrease.  If anything, more criminals are emboldened to use violence, because they have less to fear from their victims.

But the public health argument rings especially hollow when we look in vain for the kind of outrage at car accidents, drownings, stabbings, etc, that we see with gun incidents.  In the face of such disproportionate reactions, I find this CDC database a good reality check.

And finally, the vapid inconsistency of the pro-gun control position is laid bare when we ask them how it is they plan on enforcing such laws, or preventing terrorism, or standing up to hostile foreign states, when all three categories are chock full of “gun totin'” ‘bitter clingers.’  And then we find out that the liberals aren’t opposed to guns so much as they are opposed to guns in private hands.  The Government can have as many as they like.

There is a big problem with this.  The ‘Government’ is still composed of humans, and humans, whether in the government or not, are just as fallible as any other human.   The idea that the Government (read:  humans) could become emboldened to murder, assault, or rape the citizenry should it be disarmed is deemed laughable by liberals, despite the clear testimony of history that this is more the rule than the exception.  And by history I include, like, as recently as last week.

The greatest public health threat involving lethal force is not the school shooter, or the mobster, or the thug.  Go ahead and do the math if you like.  Add up all ‘private’ homicides that you can document and compare it to ‘murder by government’.  The latter far surpasses the former in every century of human history.  Despite this verifiable fact of history, there is still cackling when it is proposed that such a thing could ever happen in the so-called ‘civilized’ countries, such as the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and so on.  But there are reasons why these countries are ‘civilized,’ and it has a lot to do with checks and balances–nearly all of which have been stripped away, or are being stripped away, in every country named.  The values that made these countries ‘free’ have in many ways been outright repudiated by moderns.  ‘Murder by Government’ may happen overnight, but the conditions that make it possible in the first place sometimes stew for decades.

So, how is it that liberals have no objection to an armed government but pull their hair out if private individuals want to be able to defend themselves and their families?    Why can’t they accept very simple, virtually self-evident logical truisms, such as ‘law breakers won’t obey gun laws’?  Let me explain.

The reason why they contort themselves so violently to avoid obvious truths is because there is one Obvious Truth that they fear most of all.

To concede that the force of law is inadequate to check human violence is to concede that there is something very sick about the human race.  Liberals tend to view humans as just another kind of animal, a herd, if you will, that can be managed by careful conditioning.  Think Pavlov and his dog.  If you just pass a law, they think, they can, through indoctrination and public health campaigns, end crime, increase happiness, and so on.  Humans don’t actually function this way, and never will, but to acknowledge this is to acknowledge certain facts about what it means to be human that undercut their entire worldview.

Their allowance that the government will have to be armed represents a pragmatic concession to reality that simultaneously reflects their hope in Progress.  The reality is that the world is filled with tyrants, dictators, corrupt generals, roaming militia armies, terrorists, and the like, and not even the silliest liberal believes that these people will lay down their weapons just because someone wags their finger at them.  Thus, they reluctantly allow that the government must be armed for the same reason that gun rights people believe that they need to be armed:  despite whatever we wish were the case, there are bad people out there that can only be stopped by violence, or the threat of violence, that is equal to that which the bad people would themselves like to inflict.

Liberals allow for an armed government because they know that regimes like North Korea will not be deterred by a posted sign, “Do not invade.”  Just like a “No gun” sign will not deter an active shooter.

The difference in all this is that the liberal cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there really is a bad person.

If they did, then they would allow for the very real possibility that a person in government could also be bad.  They would recognize that it is not just possible–but a continual occurrence in history–for groups of bad people to take the reins of power in their city, region, or country, and then do very bad things.

But to acknowledge that there are bad people and that there are genuinely bad things is to bring one face to face with the existence of a objective standard, and the patently obvious fact that humanity collectively falls short of that standard at every turn.  In short, it would mean acknowledging not only that there are bad people, but that they themselves are a bad person, indeed, that we are all bad–everyone of us.

Here, then, is the reason why there isn’t outrage over ‘public health’ tragedies that have injuries and fatalities that often far exceed gun-related homicides.  A crashed up automobile does not challenge one’s conception of a human.  Nor do pool drownings.  It is often said in retort that the difference is that guns intrinsically have only one purpose–to kill.   (That is not true; most people with guns have good reason to believe that the mere presence of the gun makes the use of the gun unnecessary.)    Guns certainly do have an intrinsic element to them that do not exist in regards to car crashes and drownings:  their mere existence calls attention to the fact that there are bad people who cannot be stopped any other way than to kill them.

The liberals hope, without good reason, that by taking away the guns, they will obscure the real truth about human nature.

All this talk about there being ‘bad’ people puts the liberal right at the edge of a dangerous implication.  (Dangerous to their worldview, that is.)

Long before liberals resisted the plain logical rebuttals to their gun control laws, they resisted the plain logical fact that it is nonsensical to talk about anything being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ if there isn’t some kind of objective standard.  No one, not even a liberal, actually lives as though there isn’t a real good, because even they understand that it would be a demented person indeed who thought that “I think vanilla ice cream is bad” and “I think murdering humans is bad” is substantially the same kind of statement.

But to acknowledge this is to recognize immediately that we have all fallen short of a standard that must transcend humans themselves.

The Obvious Truth lurks behind every turn:  there is a God, and we are not Him.  God made us Good, but everyone of us has Fallen.  We are in desperate need of a Savior.

The liberal senses the need of a Savior as much as anyone else, but since acknowledging the Obvious Truth is intolerable to them,* they flail about in search of another one.  Thus, in the end, they come to  believe that the Government can be that Savior, history be damned.

I see the above reasoning working in reverse in my own life.  One of my most ‘liberal’ perspectives that I had growing up was that we should have more gun control.  At the same time I was digging deep into my study of history, and in particular the rise of Nazism, Communism, and Fascism, I was confronted with G.K. Chesterton’s assertion that original sin “is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.”

Proved empirically, mind you.  And not just in the world ‘out there,’ but in my own heart.

As my conviction grew that humans were by nature fallen (which necessarily implies a high station from which to fall from!), my conviction grew that no human–whether in the Government or out of it–should be allowed unchecked access to power.

Theoretically, someone could come to this conclusion without also endorsing genuinely liberal gun laws, but we are far from having such a conversation.  Where we stand now is a host of people living in abject defiance of reality as it really is:  denying the nature of criminals, the nature of humanity, the real history of Government, the existence of an objective moral law–which we have all fallen short of, and the plain implication that if there is an objective moral law there is an objective moral law giver:  the Obvious Truth.

And finally, the real fact that we need a Savior, and no legislation or policy initiative or health department program will ever, by virtue of being human (read: corrupted), will be able to do the job.  Thus, Gun Control laws represent one aspect of the secular equivalent of the Gospel, except devoid of Reason.  Once Reason is brought to bear, we inexorably arrive at a point where we need real good news, a real Gospel.

And there is only one Contender.

* usually because they feel it would stifle their sex lives, but sometimes also because they desperately want to rob from the rich with a clean conscience.

 

Share

Sep 21

The Rise and Fall of Scott Walker’s Presidential Fortunes

So word is dribbling out that Gov. Scott Walker is withdrawing from the 2016 presidential race.  As a staunch Christian-constitutionalist-libertarian-republican-conservative, I think the move is a good one.  However, it is only ‘good’ if the right lessons are learned, and already I’m hearing a bunch of junk that just isn’t true.

I say that as someone who lives in the state that Walker is presently the governor of and who has better than average insight into what Walker’s supporters… or shall I say, former supporters… are really thinking.  True, my anecdotal impressions can’t uncritically be applied to the whole ‘conservative base,’ but I think that the meteoric rise of Donald Trump is a powerful piece of evidence that what I’ve witnessed locally and regionally is what is at play nationally.

Walker should listen up.  More importantly, the GOP should listen up.  This is important.

The wrong lessons were hinted to in this article, reporting that Walker was withdrawing:

Mr. Walker’s intended withdrawal is a humiliating climb down for a Republican governor once seen as all but politically invincible. He started the year at the top of the polls but has seen his position gradually deteriorate, amid the rise of Donald J. Trump’s populist campaign and repeated missteps by Mr. Walker himself.

In the most recent CNN survey, Mr. Walker drew support nationally from less than one-half of one percent of Republican primary voters. He faced growing pressure to shake up his campaign staff, a step he was loath to take, according to Republicans briefed on his deliberations.

What, pray tell, were those missteps?  Not shaking up his campaign staff?  Ridiculous.  And why should his position decrease as Trump’s increase?  Is it because, as I heard Ed Rollins just say on Fox News, that Walker was collateral damage due to the massive anti-establishment fervor that has pumped up Trump?  Nonsense.   The reason why Walker was doing so well, even before he formally entered the race, was because the ‘base’ was under the impression (and for good reason) that Walker was not an establishment candidate.   Walker’s ‘missteps’ largely consisted of not backing Trump’s play regarding illegal immigration and other ‘over the top’ positions that Trump took.   Walker tried to present himself as the mature but genuine conservative candidate (in contrast to Trump) but it instead looked like capitulation to all the same crap that rank and file Republicans are in rebellion against.

The above linked article says:

But Mr. Trump’s surge as a political outsider galvanized grass-roots Republicans who are angry at all conventional politicians, and he drew support more from Mr. Walker than from anyone else.

Why was it more from Mr. Walker than anyone else?  If it was the ‘political outsider’ aspect, then Mr. Walker would have never had the numbers that could justify a characterization such as “politically invincible.”

No.

It was a question of courage and conviction and the willingness to stick it to the Left the way the Left has been sticking it to the Right, from like, forever.  The base believed that Walker was going to be willing to do that, but whenever there was any kind of media backlash against what were genuinely and sincerely (if expressed passionately and clumsily) stated conservative convictions, Walker became mute.  If anything, it seemed like he was trying to avoid the ire of the media.   The most gracious interpretation of that behavior was that he was trying to appeal to independents and ‘Reagan Democrats.’  Instead, it came across as cowardice… and isn’t it clear by now that along with beating on liberals, what we want out of a leader is someone who will pummel the media relentlessly and unapologetically?

The grass roots don’t care what the media says.  We don’t trust them.  They lie.  We despise them.  And in this, we are only returning the favor–the media is just the propaganda arm for the Democrat party.

But there was weakness on the home front, too.  Walker took credit for making Wisconsin a right-to-work state, but the strong rumor here in Wisconsin is that he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into that fight.  The aforementioned article says:

Mr. Walker moved to the right, taking hawkish positions on immigration, signing an anti-union bill in Wisconsin and asking the state Legislature to send him a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks. [emphasis added]

Asking the legislature to send him a bill banning abortions after 20 weeks?  This must be the “Pain Capable” bill.  The conservatives I know–in particular the pro-life ones, since that is my own area of effort–weren’t exactly impressed by this because this is all that Mr. Walker has done.  There are, as we speak, at least 3 stridently pro-life bills working their way through the legislature and, as of this writing, I have not heard a peep from Walker’s office that he will sign those into law.   And I have called his office twice to demand an explanation.   A ban on abortion after 20 weeks is a good step in the right direction, but will not have nearly the impact that defunding Planned Parenthood or telling the ‘researchers’ at the University of Madison to pound sand if they want to trade in fetal baby parts.

The way it looks from here, Walker didn’t want to cause too much more controversy than he already had, with the result that, frankly, a lot of Republicans who had went out on a limb for conservative values (and for him) were being left high and dry.

You have to understand, in Wisconsin, the Republicans have majorities in the House, in the Senate, and in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  And the governorship.   You cannot get a better signal from Wisconsin citizens that they want to see Republican values implemented throughout the state, and yet since Walker’s re-election, only modest steps in that direction have been taken, and largely at the instigation of other Republicans in the state.  Over the last nine months or so, I have seen conservative support for Walker grow increasingly lukewarm, and I’m sure this is why:  Many wonder if Walker’s presidential aspirations had taken priority over Walker’s conservative principles.

With his own support in Wisconsin growing tepid, you can well understand how the chill wind might put a damper on his national numbers, too.  The reason why Trump sucked up support from Walker, primarily, is because people became less convinced that Walker was going to act on his convictions, and absolutely convinced that Trump would.

In my opinion, Walker has not lost the trust and confidence of the rank and file who elected him.  I think he will make an excellent candidate for 2020, but only if he implements Republican values with the same audacity that Democrats agitate for their own.

And this is a lesson to the rest of the GOP… the candidates and the ‘establishment.’  You are a stench in our nose.  If we wanted liberal policies implemented in the Federal government, we’d vote for a liberal.  We don’t want a Big Government.  STOP MAKING IT BIGGER AND APOLOGIZING FOR ANY HINT OR SUGGESTION OF MAKING IT THE TEENSIEST BIT SMALLER.  If you keep promoting liberal policies, why would we keep voting for you? It makes no sense at all.   Go big, or go home.  Go home, because we have no use for you.

You’ll never persuade people that conservative values are superior to liberal ones, if you never implement them and you seem afraid to even mention them, let alone criticize the liberal ones!

Good luck, Scott Walker.  I look forward to seeing the warrior emerge from you again.

Share

Sep 11

The REAL “Jaffe Memo”

Jaffe Memo - Horvath - image - featured imageI have been referencing the “Jaffe Memo” for some time in presentations and Jaffe on this blog.  It is a chilling look at the values and motivations of the ‘movers and shakers’ in the pro-abortion community, especially several decades ago, when they were working like mad to get abortion on demand legalized throughout the United States.  Far from being a matter of a “woman’s choice”, and with no regard whatsoever for a “woman’s health”, the primary concern had to do with the number and quality of the people on the earth.  The underlying ideology of ‘family planning’ was distinctly eugenic in nature, and had morphed into the ‘population control’ movement of the 1960s and 1970s.  Whether or not these values and beliefs drive organizations such as Planned Parenthood to this day is precisely the concern that people have–and the “Jaffe Memo” is the most succinct display of those values in action, from their own mouths, that I am aware of.  Hence, the reason I use it so much.  (Better than asking people to read fifty books!)

The silence of the pro-abortionists on the “Jaffe Memo” seemed to suggest that it was an incontrovertible piece of evidence, but still, I had never tracked down the original just to make sure that what I had matched what Jaffe actually produced.  Never, until recently, that is.

In the main, the reproduction that is in wide circulation is pretty good.  However, in comparing the two, it became clear that there were some areas where even better accuracy would have given even better insight.  For example, on the old one, the words “Chronic Depression” are bolded, implying that it is some kind of sub-category.  But in the original memo, if you can believe it, it is actually just one more idea they had for controlling the population!  Yikes!

A more significant insight is gained by looking at the top left on the old one, where you see the two headings:  “Universal Impact” and “Selective Impact Depending on Socio-Economic Status.”  They kind of just float out there, and didn’t line up with anything.  In my mind, I sort of lumped them in with the other ‘bolded’ items, as being categories of some sort.  But, in the original, as interpreted by reading the full memo, it becomes more clear that what Jaffe is getting at is that some of the measures are only going to work on those with a lower ‘socio-economic status.’  That is–those things will be most effective when employed against black people.

The racial overtones are undeniable when one reads Jaffe’s full memo (although he does not write as one endorsing the elimination of the black race) and made emphatic when one sees, on the original memo, stated that he is deriving some of his ideas from William Shockley (a eugenicist), who undeniably saw such things in racial terms.  These attributions are not present on the version of the memo that is widely being circulated right now.

We do need to put one thing to rest, though.  People who have defended Planned Parenthood have done so by protesting that Jaffe was ‘merely’ tabulating some of the ideas that were ‘out there.’  As a case in point, here is what the archivist with the Rockefellers had to say:

jaffe memo note - croppedIt is not at all a coincidence that the Rockefellers would lie like this.  They are as complicit in this as anyone.  But that’s another blog post.

The deception is revealed merely by looking at the materials which they provided.  Assuming someone is just barely literate, they can quickly determine that the full memorandum, as well as the “Review of the Literature” by Elliott, et. al, are internal documents that have the explicit purpose of helping Planned Parenthood determine the shape of their actions.  No, the documents do not in themselves recommend any particular course of action… that’s true.. but neither do they condemn any particular course of action, and, worst of all, are perfectly willing to consider any of them, should they be convinced that they are viable and/or necessary!

Which is the whole point being made by people who use the “Jaffe Memo” to illustrate the evil that we’re maintaining is entrenched in the Planned Parenthood organization and mindset!

I dare say that if any Christian pro-lifer laid down a list of ideas on how to achieve their aims, and included on it something like, “forbid women from working”, the fact that no one picked that up and thought to implement it would make no difference.  If that person said, “I was just reviewing the literature!’ there would still be no mercy.   The hypocrisy from the pro-choice side is stomach-turning.

That the documents had the purpose that I have stated is, as I said, explicitly described:

Purpose of Jaffe Memo ReviewI added the yellow line, because I am not certain that Supreme Court justice John Roberts has the basic literacy skills enough to see the connection.  Hint:  “as a basis for discussion of and action on […] by the Planned Parenthood national organization.”

From Jaffe’s own memorandum, we also see how his purpose was to generate ideas that they could seriously consider implementing.  Because he then goes on to reference the racial component to their considerations, I let the quote go on a little further, and underlined that part.

Purpose of Jaffe Memo by JaffeSo, we can dispense with this ridiculous idea that “Jaffe was merely cataloging various proposals for population control advocated by others, not Planned Parenthood” and learning about the “sources of the proposals” actually supports the opposite view, that these are sick, twisted people.

The obvious question is this:  so just what did Planned Parenthood decide?  I think that if you take this memo as your starting point, and are guided by the principle “by their fruits you will know them,” you will be able to come up with some pretty good ideas.  Whether or not we ever find the same kind of documentation to prove it, is an entirely different story.

Without further ado, here is the corrected “Jaffe Memo” which you can also download as a PDF:  Jaffe_Memo__--_Horvath.pdf (211.5 KiB, 800 hits)

Jaffe Memo - Horvath - image

For your reference, here is the absolutely original memo… you can see why it has been reproduced… it is a bit hard to read:

Jaffe Memo TableAs for the full memo, you can download and review it, here:  Original Jaffe Memo — Horvath Compilation

And for the Elliot ‘review of literature’ it can be read, here:  FPP-US-PopGrowthLitReview — Horvath

For real fun, track down the ‘sources’ for Jaffe’s brainstorming listed at the bottom of his memo!  Good stuff!

HT Dave Jaffe, Frederick Jaffe’s own son!

Share

Sep 07

The Teaserguide WordPress Hack

This problem surfaced for me on some of my WordPress sites beginning in August.  A Google search shows many compromised sites, but not a lot of people talking about it.  I will talk about my solution to the problem and hope that someone figures out a permanent fix.

This hack displays itself by redirecting the users to some other sites.  The sites have changed each time, and so has the path the redirects have taken.  In one case, the redirect started with something to ‘teaserguide.com’ and then went through four or five different websites before finally landing on one.  The intermediate sites appear to be for the purpose of padding traffic statistics.  You can watch this progression by looking at the pages loading in the bottom left of your browser (for me, Firefox).

The teaserguide.com domain is registered in Russia.

Here is what I discovered when trying to resolve this issue.

First of all, there were two or more lines of script added to the header.php file in one or more of my themes.  These lines had to be deleted.  The way they appear displayed on the website is like this:

teaser-guide-script-3

You can see from the element inspector that the nefarious script creates an iframe.  You can see the row of black squares at the top left.  You can stop the page from redirecting without removing these lines, and you can remove them and still have the page redirect, because this is only part of the problem.

Along with the change to the header.php file, a change was made to the .htaccess file.

Below the normal WordPress rewrite rules was this line:

RewriteRule ^oe/(.*)$ /openx-adm.php?$1 [L]

Deleting this line in the .htaccess file pretty much ended the redirects.  But it also revealed the fact that they had inserted some other files on the server.  I was able to find them using Clam virus scanner and manually, by inspecting the directories.

I didn’t bother to try to figure out what the connection was between all of of these modifications, because it seems to me that all they would need to do is make the change to the .htaccess file to get everything they needed.   But there presumably is some relationships.

It was the change to the .htaccess file that has me most concerned.  I had the most up to date WordPress and my plugins and themes were updated, too.  The passwords were changed and were solid.  Nonetheless, they still managed to get in and change the htaccess file and modify the headers.

Finally, I went through and played with the permissions of the files and directories.  I found one or two that seemed to be borderline to lax, and that was enough for me to go through and reset them all.  It took a while to find the right permission scheme for the files and directories to get the site to work the way it was supposed to, but now that I’ve done that, at least as of this writing, I have not been hacked again on that particular domain.

I am beginning to suspect that the way they are getting ‘in’ is not through a compromised password, but through a WordPress file with a default permission that is not secure enough.  I just don’t know how they are getting ‘in.’

On one of my domains that was compromised, the whole install is password protected by Cpanel.  You can’t even get to the domain without going through the directory privacy feature.  Out of millions of WordPress users, I’m probably one of only a handful that has that level of protection on their installation, but they still got ‘in.’  So, while the above may be an effective way to restore your site, please don’t think that this is the solution for keeping them ‘out’ in the first place.  I don’t know they are getting in.

If this has been helpful to you, buy one of my books

 

Share

Sep 04

Kim Davis vs Gavin Newsom, Liberalism vs the Rule of Law

One of the reasons why Republicans have associated their party with the elephant is because the elephant is known to have a long memory.  These days, when the public’s attention spanned has dropped below that of a goldfish… literally… what counts as a ‘long memory’ means being able to recollect what happened a couple of days ago, or, at best, a few months ago.  So, it is not surprising that in all rapturous joy that gay marriage advocates fell into when Kim Davis was sent to jail for refusing to issue marriage licenses, surrounded by self-righteous chest-thumping indignation about ‘upholding the law’, most people will have forgotten the case of Gavin Newsom.

Gavin who?

Right.

The wikipedia entry sums it up nicely:

In 2004, Newsom gained national attention when he directed the San Francisco city–county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, in violation of the then-current state law. In August 2004, the Supreme Court of California annulled the marriages that Newsom had authorized, as they conflicted with state law at that time. Still, Newsom’s unexpected move brought national attention to the issues of gay marriage, solidifying political support for Newsom in San Francisco and in the gay community.

Kim Davis has been marched off to jail in the midst of taunts and jeers, but Newsom was hailed as a hero, even though he did basically the exactly the same thing, except from the other side of the issue.  The licenses were later voided, but neither he nor the clerk faced any jail time that I am aware of.

Did you hear any liberals complaining about Newsom acting in defiance of the rule of law?  Of course not.  This is because progressives don’t care about the rule of law.  Oh, they may say they do as it suits them, but, in the grand tradition of Saul Alinksy, they will say anything in order to get what they want.  In fact, the ‘rule of law’ is really the antithesis of progressivism, because, progressivism is guided by gut instincts and emotion, both of which can, and historically have, changed in a split second.  The slow, methodological machinations of law-making cannot keep up with the changing appetites of those who are ‘slaves’ to their stomachs.

It is important to note that, as far as the rule of law goes, Kim Davis is an elected official, and per Kentucky law, can only be removed from her position by impeachment.   The ‘rule of law’ avenue for taking action against politicians who have fallen out of favor is not usually jail time, but that old, tried and true mechanism of electing someone else in their place.  Whoa, what a concept.  For the truly egregious, there is of course impeachment, as already said.  Otherwise, while it is surely a nice big mess Davis is making, it is not substantially different than the mess that Newsom made, or liberals make whenever they decide to violate the ‘rule of law.’  Indeed, most of the liberals I know will confess quickly that they would rather uphold their conscience than obey an unjust law.  But this only applies to their conscience, you see.  They couldn’t give a skubala about the conscience of those who disagree with them (eg, pharmacists who don’t want to distribute abortifacients).

It is not really necessary to point out the depraved hypocrisy of liberals.  I think anyone who is paying attention can think of a thousand illustrations without my help, and of course there is no helping the liberals at all.  As the saying goes, a conservative is a liberal who was mugged; in other words, most liberals are a lost cause.  There is no reasoning with them.  Reason has nothing to do with their position and action.  Most of the time, a liberal is awakened to reality because reality has beaten them to a pulp, and they had no choice (eg, so-called ‘9-11 Republicans’).  Yes, sad to say, people usually do have to die somewhere along the way before a liberal changes their heart and mind.  (This is because defying reality is a deadly business;  you can stand in front of a bus going 75 mph and wish that it won’t kill you on impact, but the reality is otherwise.  Sorry to report.)

With that in mind, I’m actually more concerned about the Republicans and ‘conservatives’ that have decried Davis, and even border-line supported her incarceration, on the view that it is a defiance of the ‘rule of law.’

If there is anything that has been illustrated vividly in the last 15 years or so, and in particular in the gay marriage debate–best illustrated by SCOTUS’ summer decisions on the matter–the rule of law is effectively dead in the United States.  It is a fantasy.  It is not real.

You may even share this viewpoint:  obeying a judge, and especially the Supreme Court justices, is a plain, straight-forward practical example of ‘obeying the rule of law.’  Obeying the rule of law is something that conservatives, and conservative Christians in particular, feel very strongly about.  But this presumes that the law is actually in view.  In two separate decisions, one with John Roberts once again defying basic literacy skills in upholding Obamacare, and in another inventing yet another way that the 14th amendment abolishes states’ rights re: gay marriage, we have vividly seen that it is not the law that is controlling, at all.

For something to be ‘law’ it has to be some kind of codified language, which must in turn (by definition) be subject to basic principles of literary interpretation.  If I write, “This is a cat” but then everyone runs around characterizing what I wrote as though I had actually referenced a dog, that is not in line with basic reading skills… and this does not change if you are a Supreme Court justice.

Indeed, what we are seeing in our judiciary has nothing to do with the ‘rule of law.’  Rather, it is the exact same kind of phenomena that the early Brits were trying to curtail with the Magna Carta:  the ‘law’ was turning out to ‘mean’ whatever the king wanted it to mean, vis et voluntas.   So, too, we have discovered that our ‘laws’ only mean what our oligarchs in the judiciary want it to mean.  When our judges, in reality, abandon the plain sense of the words on the paper, we are not obeying them in deference to the ‘rule of law’ but because of ‘force and will.’  Progressives have traditionally been good with this (see, Roe vs. Wade), only clamoring for adherence to the ‘rule of law’ as dictated by the royals as suits their pleasure (see, for example, how quickly they change their attitude if you’re talking about Citizen’s United!), but that is something that Constitutional conservatives, what with their long memories and all, should ever condone.

The judge that ruled against Davis put his finger on the real issue, in my opinion.  According to this article,

“Her good faith belief is simply not a viable defense,” Bunning said, noting that allowing an individual’s beliefs to supersede the court’s authority would set a dangerous precedent.

This is a Republican-appointed judge, mind you.

But, Bunning is of course correct about one thing:  “allowing an individual’s beliefs to supersede the court’s authority would set a dangerous precedent.”

It is precisely why, for thousands of years now, Christians have been considered a threat to the governing powers, who cannot countenance even the idea that there might be an authority that is higher than them.  The Romans, for example, did not batter the Christians to death because the Christians actually did anything in violation of Roman law.  The problem was that Christians merely had the belief that there was a law higher than Roman law.

The idea that a person’s beliefs actually do supersede the government’s authority is one of the pillars of America’s constitutional system, as vividly stated in plain, easy to understand, words in the First Amendment.  The whole point is that there are things the government cannot do because, as the Declaration of Independence also plainly states, “that [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Now, for liberals, who are in the main secular humanists who do not believe that there is a Creator at all, then there cannot even in theory be anything ‘higher’ than ‘vis et voluntas’ because all authority is co-identical with the government.  There is nothing higher than the ‘social contract’ because there is nothing higher than ‘society.’  America’s conservatives should never have this outlook.

According to the law, the Supreme Court is completely and utterly in the wrong regarding the gay marriage issue.  They are only ‘right’ in the ‘might makes right’ sense.  According to the law, Bunning is wrong to incarcerate Davis.  According to the law, if people do not like what she has done, they can elect someone else, or the legislature can progress through the prescribed process for removing her (ie, impeachment).  One’s conscience “superseding the court’s authority” is certainly a dangerous precedent… dangerous to the principle of vis et volunas, that is… but it is the foundation for liberty.  For Christians, for atheists, for liberals, libertarians, Jews, Muslims, whatever.

If you are a conservative, I will only allow you to disagree with me if you can produce for me evidence that when Gavin Newsom acted in defiance of the law in accordance to his conscience, you believed he, too, should have been incarcerated.

 

 

Share

Sep 04

Anthony Horvath Public Testimony: Principles of self-government, rather than ‘pro-life’ principles, are controlling regarding Planned Parenthood

On September 2nd, 2015, I had the opportunity to give testimony for the Wisconsin state assembly’s committee on health concerning AB 310, a bill that would compel the state of Wisconsin to compete for Title X Federal dollars, which presently go exclusively to Planned Parenthood.  By the time I had my chance to speak, many people had said a lot of the things that I would have wanted to say, so I decided to focus on the ‘secular’ principle of the matter:  tax payers have the right to make demands about how their taxes are administered.  In our republican system, competing demands withhorvath-testimony-ab310in the voting population about the administration of its government is essentially determined periodically in elections, at which point they choose the people who are most likely to represent their values and priorities.  Then, the elected representatives have every right to try to implement their point of view.  The details of that point of view are irrelevant.

From this perspective, much of the debate that I witnessed was irrelevant.  The minority on the committee, the Democrats, commanded the lion’s share of the conversation, and worse, behaved as though the authors of AB 310, and its supporters, had to justify themselves to them.  Nonsense.  The debate is indeed an important one, but it was already had in a series of election cycles, all of which Wisconsin state Democrats lost.  Resoundingly.  Wisconsin state Republicans won.  Overwhelmingly.  Not just once.  Not only twice.  Three times, since 2010.

My statements, then, reflect this reality.

If anyone is interested in watching more in the hearing, they can do so through this link.  The person who gave testimony that most closely aligned with the other things I would have wanted to say was Julaine Appling of Wisconsin Family Action.   One of the most pathetic testimonies I heard in defense of Planned Parenthood was from the young woman who spoke just before me, who credited Planned Parenthood with allowing her to be sexually active while completing law school.  That apparently constitutes ‘health care’ in the eyes of liberals.  Sad.  Just sad. Very reminiscent of Sandra Fluke.  My remarks, I believe, are around the 3:46 mark.

Direct Link

I had plenty of other things I was prepared to talk about.  I wrote the following piece in anticipation of the event, as a way to organize my thoughts.  I did not submit it as written testimony.  It draws a starker contrast between the warring value systems that are in play on the abortion issue and why, consequently, the principle of self-government is so important.

——————-

Lawrence Lader was a contemporary of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.  He was an enthusiastic supporter of Sanger and the mission of Planned Parenthood.  He wrote a biography of Sanger, as well as other works on the abortion issue.   One of his books was cited approvingly eight times by the majority in Roe vs. Wade.  That should give you an idea of the kind of clout that Lader had on this issue.

He was also the author of the book Breeding Ourselves to Death.  The book, written in 1971, details the woeful funding for ‘family planning’ in the 1960s and laments that nearly all of it came through private donations.  They are all convinced that the job is so large that only a massive government effort could do it.  Judging from the title of the book, you may be able to guess at the ‘job’ they thought needed to be done.

But Lader is hopeful.  As he is writing, Richard Nixon has just then signed into law the “Title X Family Planning Program.”   The $218 million that Lader gleefully reports has been spent by the Federal government on family planning in just that one year dwarfs the tens of millions that had been donated by individuals and corporations in the 1960s.

I use the example of Lader as my entry point in discussing the issue of Title X spending to illustrate the fact that this legislation was born of values and principles that many of us would find reprehensible.  On his telling, Americans are like a ‘herd’ to be managed.  That is a far cry from a view which sees our fellow citizens as having intrinsic value and dignity, and implies a special class of ‘managers’ to tend to the herd.  And isn’t it sometimes necessary to ‘cull the herd’?  The idea that abortion might be a kind of ‘culling’ is abhorrent to most people, but listen to this statement by the Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a 2009 New York Times interview:

 Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

 Ginsburg, naturally, insists that she does not align herself with this viewpoint, but my point here is that during that time period when Title X was being passed and funded and Roe became ‘law,’ Ginsburg herself acknowledges that many people saw abortion on demand as a way to reduce ‘undesirable’ populations.

What we have here is a clash of first principles.   There are warring value systems at play here, which are in many respects irreconcilable.  Those of us who believe that humans at all stages of development have intrinsic worth must be careful not to accept premises that are incompatible with that belief.  So, while we could perhaps go into the weeds on the different ways these Title X dollars might be spent appropriately, to my mind, the most pertinent issue at present is this:  anyone that has explored the ideological foundations of Planned Parenthood knows that its founder, its champions, and its advocates can in no ways be trusted to administer tax-payer dollars in a way that reflects values compatible with a ‘culture of life.’  We know that much, at least.

Planned Parenthood presents itself as a charitable organization serving the common good by providing a ‘public health’ service.  Let us suppose, for a moment, that they mean that sincerely.  Even so, I dare say that their definition of ‘health’ is one that many people would object to.  I know I do.  I know that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of my fellow Wisconsin citizens would beg to differ with Planned Parenthood’s views, as indicated by the consistent election, since 2010, of elected majorities that also reject Planned Parenthood’s views.

 In my opinion, this is about more than the abortion issue.  The bottom line is that Wisconsin tax-payers should have the right to determine how their money is spent and how Federal dollars allocated to Wisconsin are stewarded.  It’s really as simple as that.  We want to see our values and principles reflected in our government.  In this particular case, the thing that we want is Planned Parenthood–completely defunded–now.

I support this bill and strongly encourage its passing, and call upon Governor Walker to also support this bill by making it clear that if it gets to his desk, he will sign it.

Share

Jun 29

Dylann Roof’s Reaction to the Two Minutes of Hate

So, this whole Confederate flag issue is still out there, percolating.   It is the most recent example of Orwell’s “Two Minutes of Hate” out of many.

Let’s see, there was the infantile, self-righteous outrage against all those who opposed compulsory vaccination–inspired by an ‘outbreak’ of a measly 150 cases.    Do you know the etymology of the word ‘measly‘?  It’s a bit telling, in this case.  We had the whole Baltimore thing, and the Ferguson thing.  Oh yea, and the hapless rural pizza place that ended up on the business end of a societal pile-on to end all pile-ons.  One of the few instances that gloriously backfired.  Coincidentally(?), pretty much every Outrage Du Jour you can think of feeds into the liberal, progressive mindset, that is so desperate for hate-mongering fodder to make hay with, that they find themselves scouring the globe for ‘micro-aggressions.’

The ‘outrage’ regarding the pizza place that wouldn’t do gay weddings was scary in a lot of ways, but it wasn’t all that surprising.  One surprise was the case where the death threat was issues, and the person who issued the threat was fired.  I expected that person to get an award.  The intolerance and bigotry of the pro-gay marriage activists in this case, and their quick inclination to begin turning over violent options in their minds, gives us a hint as to the kind of danger civilization is threatened with, once the powers-that-be turn to manufacturing outrage as a means of furthering policy.

But the Confederate flag thing… I find it just embarrassing.  Not for my own sake, mind you, but for the hordes of mealy-mouth, politically correct mobs that rose up to take issue with something that had absolutely nothing to do with the underlying crime it was being associated with.  I am embarrassed for them, since they do not have the capacity to be embarrassed themselves.  I presently find myself ashamed to be part of the human race, again, in large part because the ones who should be ashamed of themselves, aren’t at all.

Evidently, it really is the case that the masses can be conditioned, like Pavlov’s dog, to react as desired, on cue.  All that is needed is the right bone to be thrown in front of them, and that’s all it takes for the mob to do its work.  In fact, the situation is so bad that people are salivating even before they see the bone.  They want to hate, you see.   Every person on the planet wishes that they could do some good with their lives.  In the old days, they started orphanages, fed the poor, and stood up for the defenseless.  Today, they just get pissed off for a few weeks.  Hate is a substitute for actual effort.  They’ve done their part–they hated with a vengeance.

So it is that the people who supposedly are the most opposed to hatred, those most opposed to prejudice, bigotry, violence, and bullying have actually become worse than the ones they thought they were opposed to.  They’ve become the bigot.  They are the bully.  But it is alright, you see, because the vitriol is being unleashed upon a person or persons who deserve it.

The dynamics of all this was well understood a long time ago.  It is all there in Jacques Ellul’s Propaganda.

I do not speak to the ones who have become fully immersed in this vicious, self-serving cycle.  They’ve been reduced to children, whether of their own volition or external forces, I don’t entirely know.  At any rate, one of the things I learned a long time ago is that you can never win an argument with a child.  I speak instead to those who have begun to wake up from the daze, who sense that their past behavior was the result of manipulations.  They want to grow up, now.  They want to be genuine free-thinkers.  They want to be Men and Women.  Previously, they pushed people around, and justified it, but now they can see that they were complicit.  They’re compromised, and they know it.

A recent article I saw highlights the outright foolishness of this era.  A Wal-Mart refused to make a Confederate flag birthday cake, but happily made an ISIS battle flag.   This is apropos on so many levels; similarly, while ISIS is beheading people left and right, mainly Christians (who deserve it, right?) but many others, the United States government and the world is doing… Nothing.

At least, nothing that will actually accomplish anything.

Conversely, a nutjob kills a bunch of people in a black church, and there is massive outrage directed at something that will actually accomplish… Nothing.

Yes, that seems about right.

Wal-Mart issued a statement:

“An associate in a local store did not know what the design meant and made a mistake. The cake should not have been made and we apologize”

In a sad, sad way, this tells the whole story.  The Adults do know what the design ‘means.’  The Children only recognize what the Conditioners tell them to be Outraged about.

The Hate-Meme seems to have been oriented around three photos found on Dylann Roof’s web page, thelastrhodesian.com.

The Children have never heard of Rhodesia  It wasn’t mentioned in the Common Core curriculum.  Now that they have encountered it, they are confused.  Is that what Georgia was called at first, when the country was founded back in the early 1900s?

For the Adults, it is the first clue that it wasn’t the American south, circa 1860, that fired Roof’s imagination.  The Confederate ‘flag’ was not Roof’s flag.  The Rhodesian one, was.

Here are the three offending pictures.

100_2042-dylan-roof-confederate-flag-2

100_2089-dylann-roof-confederate-flag-3

100_2118-dylan-roof-confederate-flag-1

But there were other pictures, too.  Did you know that?  There were these two, for example:

dylann-roof-american-flag100_2115

dylann-roof-american-flag-100_2130

I bet you anything that in many, many, places, where the Confederate flag flies, the US flag does as well.  Dylann Roof seems to have a different perspective on this whole flag business than your average southerner, no?

One might get the impression that he was all about flags, but actually, of the 60 images or so, these are the only ones with flags in them at all.  Here is a sampling of some of the others:

dylann-roof-harley-davidson-100_1681

dylann-roof-trees-103600296_18

dylann-roof-crosses-100_1704

No faux-outrage against Harley-Davidson derived from this incident, that I am aware of.   No treatises on how the symbolic racism embodied in the Harley-Davidson name.

Look!  Dylann Roof next to crosses!  Time to purge all of America of Christians!  (Ooops.  Too soon to let that objective out of the bag.  Best stick to the low-hanging fruit the Confederate flag represents.)

Roof had 20+ pics with trees behind him…

BURN THE FORESTS DOWN, them FESTERING PITS OF BIGOTRY!

Then there was this picture. Did anyone see this one?  I doubt it very much.  It didn’t feed the narrative.

Dylann-roof-dead-white-guy-vlcsnap-2015-02-08-21h39m51s23

For a time, this was on his front page.  Perhaps it was important to him in some way that the Confederate flag was not?

If only we had his manifesto so we could know what he really thought!

Oh, that’s right.  We do.

You can read it here: rtf88

His opening lines:

“I was not raised in a racist home or environment. Living in the South, almost every White person has a small amount of racial awareness, simply beause of the numbers of negroes in this part of the country. But it is a superficial awareness.”

So much for the idea that Roof was racist because he imbibed the racism from his Confederate surroundings!

If it wasn’t his upbringing or constant exposures to the Confederate flag that changed him, what was it?  He actually tells us:

The event that truly awakened me was the Trayvon Martin case. I kept hearing and seeing his name, and eventually I decided to look him up. I read the Wikipedia article and right away I was unable to understand what the big deal was. It was obvious that Zimmerman was in the right. But more importantly this prompted me to type in the words “black on White crime” into Google, and I have never been the same since that day. The first website I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?

In other words, Roof noticed something that very few, sadly, have noticed.  While the media and the masses literally ruined people over one manufactured crisis after another, Roof saw that other, more serious issues were never being mentioned.

You know, just like how Wal-Mart wouldn’t bake a cake with the Confederate flag on it, which hasn’t had blood on it for more than a hundred years, but it blissfully made one with the ISIS battle flag on it–ISIS, the ones mowing down hundreds and hundreds of people at a go and sticking their heads on stakes.  This, after raping the women and children.  This, while presently promising to do the same in England, in the US, in France, well, everywhere.  And they will do it, too.  But the Confederate flag, the horror!

It was not the Confederate flag that killed those Christians in the black church.  If anything, it was the war against ‘micro-aggressions’ that did.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the Confederate flag in his manifesto at all, or anything directly about the Civil War, at all.  There is this about the American flag, though:

I hate the sight of the American flag. Modern American patriotism is an absolute joke. People pretending like they have something to be proud while White people are being murdered daily in the streets. Many veterans believe we owe them something for “protecting our way of life” or “protecting our freedom”. But im not sure what way of life they are talking about. How about we protect the White race and stop fighting for the jews. I will say this though, I myself would have rather lived in 1940’s American than Nazi Germany, and no this is not ignorance speaking, it is just my opinion. So I dont blame the veterans of any wars up until after Vietnam, because at least they had an American to be proud of and fight for.

But hey!  You all just keep associating the Confederate flag with Dylann Roof!  I mean, if you want to have absolutely no connection to the real world.

As you can see, I actually took the time to research this issue before forming an opinion on it.  The thing that really caught my attention as I reflected on it though, was how Roof had noticed how the Two Minutes of Hate obscured deeper problems in American society.   He drew the wrong lesson, though.  He thought he was witnessing some kind of battle between the races, when really what he was witnessing was a political maneuver that liberals have been using in America to advance its agenda–successfully.

We came close to seeing the Moment of Outrage tactic descend into violence with the pizza place in Indiana, but in Charleston it actually transpired.  Not, ironically, by someone who was drunk on red meat, but someone who saw others getting drunk on red meat and was disgusted.  He spotted the Rage and found it incomprehensible.  In trying to understand it, he came to certain conclusions. But his conclusions were wrong: It’s not the blacks that are the problem, but liberalism.  The solution is not to shoot anyone, but to resist being manipulated.  In short, to GROW UP before more people get hurt.

It is just common sense that Moments of Hate are going to inspire crazies to do things that we really wished they hadn’t done.  But when I worry about more people getting hurt, I’m not talking about the loners.  I worry far more about the mob, and the violence it can inflict.  The French Revolution comes to mind.  And the Bolsheviks.

Share

Jun 23

You Reap What You “Roe”

A guest submission by Brian Horvath:

In 1973 Roe vs. Wade legalized a woman’s right to abort a human being. The science involved in abortion is unchallenged: A woman who aborts is aborting a human being. We know that humans produce humans, not elephants, dogs, cats, etc. Additionally, we know that being which is within the woman is alive. Why else seek an abortion if that which is within you is not alive? A pretense behind the legalization of abortion was that not only is it the woman’s body to do with what she pleases, but also that by providing places to legally have abortion would keep the woman more safe if she were to have a “back alley” abortion. Back alley abortions were dirty and more dangerous to a woman’s health. Therefore, legalize abortion which would allow the woman to exercise her “right to do what she wants,” while at the same time being safe. Who would want a woman to be unsafe, after all?! Transition…

Karl Rove is recently quoted saying, “So, we have come a long way. Now, maybe there’s some magic law that will keep us from having more of these. I mean, basically, the only way to guarantee that we would dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to basically remove guns from society, and until somebody gets enough oomph to repeal the Second Amendment, that’s not going to happen.” Of course, he does not think that is going to happen. Anyone with working mental capacity can see that’s what many people want though.  

Consider the consequences if the 2nd Amendment as it is practiced today were to be repealed, if removing guns from society was legitimately on the table. Whatever guns you own would have to be removed from you. Yes, I know, “over your dead body.” Careful what you ask for.  If citizens cannot have guns or access to guns that leaves the government in possession and control of them. A quick look at the news and we can see what people think about the supposed oppression and abuse of power by the government. Imagine how much more oppressive and abusive the government would be if the people had no way to defend themselves.

But worst yet, if law abiding citizens have no access to guns, how will they protect themselves from criminals who have illegally ascertained weaponry? Are we really to fight the bad guys off with a knife? Within the year I sent out two emails, one to Fridays and the other to Moms Demand Action. Only TGI Friday responded (October 8 th, 2014).

“We want to be sure that we can provide not only a fun environment, but a safe one as well. It is a corporate policy that we do not allow firearms of any caliber into our stores unless carried by a police officer on duty, for the protection of our many valued guests.”

TGI Friday missed the memo that criminals are called such because they violate the law. Nevermind the fact that each table is provided a knife and a fork, all which can easily be used as a weapon by anyone at any time. So much for a fun and safe environment.  Either way, if a disgruntled worker comes in shooting, or a bitter ex comes seeking revenge, how am I supposed to protect my family and keep them safe. Apparently, I’m a valued guest, but not valued enough to be able to protect my family.  But none of this is even the main point.

As we know, there are multiple stories online about legal gun owners preventing murders and robberies because they had the right to bear arms. They were able to keep themselves and others safe. No surprise, those stories rarely find their way onto CNN and other MSM outlets. But I’m not done…

What’s worse than preventing me from protecting my family? If the 2nd Amendment is repealed, law abiding citizens will be at the mercy of the government and of the criminals (see above). But because there will be such tight restrictions on who can and cannot have a gun, criminals will find illegal methods to continue growing their supply of weapons and ammo. Law abiding citizens, you and me, who will follow the law, will literally be at the mercy of the criminal and the government.  Bust down my door, break my window out and climb in…I dare you…my butter knife will destroy your 9mm any day of the week.

More…

Not only will the criminals find illegal methods of finding guns and ammo, but eventually they will find illegal methods to manufacture their own guns (prohibition anyone?). As it is now, guns have serial numbers and can be traced relatively easily to an owner/purchaser/company, etc. Once criminals manufacture their own weapons, any ability to trace anything will be severely limited-which is just how they would want it (no need to file off a serial number now).

It gets worse than not being able to protect your family, untraceable weapons, and criminals manufacturing their own guns…

No one in their right mind would willingly give up their right to protect their family. Once we repeal the 2nd Amendment it’s open season on anyone, anywhere.

In order to protect our families, we will be forced to “back alley” purchasing of guns. If we made abortion illegal, we would be “forcing” women into unsafe “back alley” abortions-or so goes the argument. I mean, we want to keep them safe right? Protect their rights?

It won’t be any different if you take away the 2nd Amendment as practiced today. The guns will continue to fall into the hands of the criminal. And right thinking individuals who actually care about the safety of their family and the rights afforded to them, will be forced into dark alleys to purchase protection from criminals, who may or may not be honest.

What could possibly go wrong?

Share

Jun 16

Identity, Self-Identity, Self-Delusion: Rachel Dolezal and More

When I was in high school one of my religion teachers had us memorize this statement:  “I am a unique child of God, full of potential.”  When I became a religion teacher, I modified it slightly to, “I am a unique child of God, full of potential, and my life is hidden in Christ. (From Col. 3).”

I kept this going (and still use it) because, over the years, the sentiment expressed has enduring impact.  The question of identity resonates at our core.  Nonetheless, for many of us–nay, I would say all of us–there are times when we find “Who we are” to be a puzzle and a mystery.  This statement does not emphasis Who we are, but Whose we are.  We are part of God’s family; it is hard to fathom, but then we are told that our life is hidden.  This comports with my experience of reality.  One of the promises of Christianity is that when Christ is revealed, we will finally be revealed, too.  Until then, it will always be mysterious.  To others, and to ourselves. Always.

The cases of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who ‘self-identifies’ as a black woman and Bruce Jenner, a man who ‘self-identifies’ as a woman, are only the latest manifestations of a war on our identity.  Politically speaking, ‘identity’ has become an instrument of war.  Dolezal and Jenner are casualties in that war, but then, so are the rest of us.  We live in a society that tells us that identity matters so much that you can burn down all of reality in one’s quest to establish an ‘identity’ that gives one inner peace, but this permission was granted so that others could make political hay out of it, not out of concern for the confused individuals about on their quest.

Identity does matter.  But so does reality.

The philosophies and ideologies which sponge off the question of ‘identity’ have no answer to the question because they are not grounded in reality.  People flail about in search of who they are, and the best the identity-peddlers can give them are wisps and phantasms.   After all, the identity-peddlers have no room in their inn for a God who bought and paid for humanity through his own death on a cross.  What else can the peddlers offer?  Genitalia. Skin color. Ethnicity.  Union membership.  And so on.

None of these satisfactorily answers the question of ‘who we are’ because humans are not penises.  They are not vaginas.  They are not skin.  They are not descent.  They are not brains.  Humans are much, much more than this.  You cannot inflame a tiny part of our human existence into the whole interpretative framework for our being and not expect mass confusion, delusion, and despair.  But even an attempt to be more holistic (ie, taking into account both genitalia and skin color) would fail, because humans are more than our material parts.  We are spiritual beings, built for greater things in a higher family.  This is reality.  And it is the very thing the identity-peddlers will never allow.

The identity-peddlers have a problem.  They have done everything they can to fracture and split people from reality, and the result is a lot of broken people.  They aim to fix the problem by telling the broken people that “they are alright just the way they are” or “they were born that way” and then they seek to silence, in increasingly tyrannical tones, anyone who calls attention to the brokenness.  The idea is that if people don’t hear contrary viewpoints, they will rest serenely in their identity.

The identity-peddlers claim to have a high view of man, but in fact its the lowest view. They think that humans are mere animals, and like Pavlov’s dog, can be conditioned to have responses–including happy and content responses.  Identity is a toy, or a component that can be tweaked by the conditioners at will.   On this view, all is well so long as no one threatens to break the spell.

It is better to have people broken then to be honest with them about the true nature of reality.  But reality always breaks in.  People do not rest serenely in their identity, because their conception of it is a mere shadow of their true identity.  My mere saying this risks waking up the restless sleepers:  therefore, I must be destroyed.

There is no room in the Managed Society for people like myself, who tell other people that their identity, while important, will always be a mystery, and this itself testifies to the fact that they are more than their reproductive parts, or more than their skin color.   This threatens the whole program.

People have historically drawn their identity through, first of all, their family.  History is chock full of sad stories of people scarred dramatically because of their family–but this is not an argument against the family, it is an argument for striving to cultivate healthy families, so that the children will grow up healthy and whole.  But you can’t re-engineer society when people are drawing their identity from their family, so the first thing to be targeted for destruction was the family.

Divorce on demand, for example,  made it easier to dissolve marriages, and the children were left to have their interests protected by the State.  Contrary to the insistence of the identity-peddlers, it was under their system that children became chattel.  Instead of being ‘owned’ by the parents, they became ‘owned’ by the State.  But Big Brother and Big Mother are wholly inadequate to the task of answering the big questions of life.  Oh, they offer answers, but the answers offer no sustenance, and breed more questions and more unhappiness.

It’s like offering a Twinkie to a hungry man instead of a steak.  You fed them.  They may have even walked away feeling full.  But they did not receive something that could truly sustain them in the long run.  A person who lives on Twinkies alone will eventually get very sick.  It is in the interest of the identity-peddlers to deny that the sickness has anything to do with the exclusive diet of Twinkies, because it is not only the case that all they have to offer are Twinkies, they own the Twinkie factory.

As society continues to be more fractured as people become increasingly separated from reality, in large part thanks to the peddlers, we’re going to see more and more strained ‘self-identifications.’  We will see more attempts to silence dissenters, in increasingly violent ways.  For, there is a lot at stake.  It is a throw-down between the World-that-Is versus the World-we-Want.  The World-that-Is will win; it always does.  But there are many people who are thoroughly invested in the World-we-Want, and they are less interested in the pain they are causing their fellow-man then they let on.

Changing the world or saving the earth is an end that can justify nearly any means, you see.

But for those who come across this post, I hope you’ll consider a different possibility.  Your identity crisis is real and genuine.  It is common to mankind.  But maybe it is precisely because who you are is a mystery that maybe you should stop looking to the World for who you are, and instead ask another question:  Whose are you?

 

 

Share

Jun 15

Gay Expectations for the Christian and Gay Marriage

Well, honestly I’m about gay-ed out, but with SCOTUS about to rule on the constitutionality of a half dozen state constitutional amendments, etc, and almost certainly against them and in favor of gay ‘marriage’, I wanted to take just one minute to consider the implications and draw some lessons… for the Christian.

On the off chance that SCOTUS rules in favor of the states, let me submit that if it does not do so based strictly on the fact that its none of their business in the first place, it is a hollow, and temporary, victory.  What I have to say here still stands, because the people advocating for gay ‘marriage’ are of a particular sort:  they will pursue their agenda forever and ever, at any cost, at any price; they really would see the village burned in order to ‘save’ it; a scorched earth policy is just fine by them; they are not above actual violence, coercion and subversive behavior, and truly have no qualms against going around parents to co-opt the children–this will be intensified.  Since they’ve already had success with this strategy, its hard to see them changing course.  They will be back, and bitter.  (For a good glimpse into their modus operandi, check out this article.)

So let us first draw a lesson, here.  Unlike our opponents, Christians endeavor to play by the rules.  They are slow to act (too slow, usually) but when they put their backs to it, they gathered up the votes, in state after state, and managed to pass state laws, pass voter-initiated propositions, and even state constitutional amendments.  Insofar as ‘gay marriage’ is concerned, much more was accomplished–nay, much more was attempted–than was ever tried with abortion on demand.   55 million unborn humans dead, and to this day the best we can do is tiptoe around the issue in our state legislatures, considering it a victory if we pass something as modest as ‘pain capable’ bills which, while I certainly support, will only save a few thousand each year, while hundreds of thousands will still perish.  In fairness, this is due in part to the fact that there was a broader base of support for ‘traditional’ marriage.  Even liberals backed ‘traditional’ marriage.  Even states dominated by liberals, such as California, passed amendments to state constitutions in support of ‘traditional’ marriage.  (That’s because ‘traditional marriage’ is intuitively self-evident, for reasons I’ll mention below.)

As I document on this page, a vast majority of the states, and a vast majority of this country’s population, opposed gay marriage and put its money where its mouth was.  This was done because the writing was on the wall and you only had to be modestly astute to recognize that if gay marriage were going to be stopped in this country (or in a given state), the highest fortifications would have to be built.  State constitutional amendments would be required.

But it was all for nothing.

Playing by the rules did not work, because the other side does not play by the rules.  The other side is happy to re-write them on the fly, according to the necessities of the situation.  They call this ‘progress.’

Does this mean, then, that Christians should stop playing by the rules?  Nope.

It is a stark reminder, I believe, of the nature of reality.  We are in enemy controlled territory.  This world is not our home.  This world will all be consumed in fire; only that which can survive the flames will last.  The laws of this country (if we can even call them laws, anymore) will not survive the furnace-blast.  Our church buildings will melt along with the government buildings.  Only that which was meant for immortality will last… the people.

It was understandable, but ultimately wrong-headed to expect worldly people to follow a plan that has as its source, the other-worldly.  In fact, my study of the question shows that every institution set up by the Christians in the 1800s has in fact been turned against us.  Giving the government the keys to manage the family was like giving a robber a stick to beat you with.  The Christian founders of Harvard and Yale died and were replaced, steadily, by people who did not care about the original vision for those institutions.  Similarly, the intentions and necessities that prompted governmental involvement in the family did not survive the generations–how could they?  Government-work tends to attract those who view this world as the eternal thing, rather than the people.  I am happy to concede that many of these are very sincere and even genuinely benevolent, but they still insist on ‘perfecting’ the Titanic; a ship destined for a watery grave.

The traditional family is important.  It should be fought for, no doubt.  Broken families breed broken people, and insofar as it is within our power to prevent it, we do not wish to see more broken people. People were made by God in His image whether they like it or not.  They scoff at this at their own risk.  But every person will answer for their own deeds.  It is not our job to establish the institution of the family, because the institution of the family is part of the created order.  It is not our plan, but God’s plan.  It is our job to live according to that plan, to the best of our ability.

A common sentiment I hear from non-believers is that if Christians cared about traditional marriage, they wouldn’t avail themselves so much of divorce.

Divorce is something that God hates–he says so in the book of Malachi.  Jesus himself repudiates it.  Moses allowed it, but only because fallen humanity made it an unavoidable evil.  I think Christians today feel this same tension themselves:  if we won’t take a stand, ourselves, and resist divorce, who are we to judge vis a vis ‘gay marriage’, etc.  And of course, since many Christians are divorced, it can be very convicting to talk about such things.

GoldenRuleCoverSmallBut let’s be frank and honest.  Set aside the guilt you may feel as you read this if you got a divorce and ask yourself this, instead:  was the dissolution of your marriage painless or painful?  Was it easy or hard?  Did it create loads of angst, or did it not?  Were your children shaken by the experience, or did it have no impact on them whatsoever?  I myself grew up in a divorced household, and I can answer these questions personally by saying it was a pretty crappy experience, as a child.

So, now I ask you, setting guilt aside, as a matter of policy do you think we (as Christians) should be promoting healthy, intact families, or not?  We may have failed in the attempt, but did that make the attempt any less wise?  Perhaps we may wish to further reflect on how we go about finding our partners in the first place, and raising our families, and so on.  Why do we turn to the world for relationship advice? It was, in fact, progressives that brought us divorce-on-demand, not Christians, and has this been for the better?  I dare say no!

But falling in with this scheme has compromised our witness, compromised our own spiritual and emotional health (and sometimes physical health, STDs, etc), and hurt our children.  Let the worldly take care of their own children as they see fit–we have different marching orders.  But, when people cannot tell the difference between God’s plan and the world’s plan, to what light will those in the world look to, as it drops further into darkness?

Losing the battle on ‘gay marriage’ should be a stark reminder that this world is not our world.  The worldly fight for the world tooth and nail because it, literally, is all they’ve got.  We cannot fight their fights in the same way that they fight them.  We can, however, fight tooth and nail for the health and well-being of our own families, minding our own business, and seeing to it that as the Titanic goes down, our own children, at least, are on the lifeboats.

If anyone is interested, I published an essay explaining why Christians can’t support gay marriage, despite Jesus allegedly not addressing it, in my recently released book, “The Golden Rule Of Epistemology.”

 

 

Share

May 01

The Abject Lunacy of Gay Marriage Agitators

I had really thought I had said all I wanted to say about gay marriage, but then a commenter said something that has made it so that I cannot repress this further.  You can see my reply there, but the gist of it is that I feel that what we are seeing in the “gay ‘marriage'” agenda is the final fruition of a completely a-rational manifestation of an entirely feelings-based movement.  I say ‘a-rational’ rather than irrational, because even though the arguments are irrational, that only matters insofar as there is actually an attempt to have an argument–in the logical sense of the word.  If someone is acting based on feelings or instinct, reason and rationality has nothing to do with it.

In a vain attempt that is almost certainly a waste of my time, let me take a moment to illustrate the utter depths of idiocy that we have been driven to regarding gay marriage.  The goal here is not to belittle anyone or beat them, just like the goal of the mother in Baltimore didn’t want to beat her teenage son so much as save him from his own actions.  Likewise, in describing what follows as idiocy, my hope is to fan into flames any tiny sparks of reason that may be left–while it still matters… if it still matters–because what is transpiring is, in any sane universe, most appropriately called idiocy and lunacy.  It is not an insult if it is true, and that is the case here:  we’re just talking about some really, truly, stupid things.  I don’t like using such language, but I do like using accurate language.  I am in the unfortunate position of finding that what I am seeking to describe, if described accurately, requires this brutal description.

I refer, of course to the arguments made by Mary Bonauto to SCOTUS in the recent gay marriage case, Obergefell vs. Hodges.  I’m probably even going to take the unprecedented step of sending this blog entry to Bonauto, in the baseless hope that some flicker of reasoning might go off and we can all be spared later monstrosities from appearing in oral arguments.

Justice Alito:  “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?”

Now, this is the question that has been asked of gay marriage proponents from the very beginning.  You see, there are self-evident grounds for defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.  I hate to be crass, but we are faced here with a strange thing:  the people who tend to be the sort to back gay marriage are also the kind who think sex education–early and often–is a good idea, and yet these same seem to be unaware of the fact that boys have penises and girls have vaginas;  only one penis will fit in a vagina at a time, and when this happens, the sperm that is ejaculated  from the man will meet and have a merry time with egg provided by the woman, and–get this!–an entirely new human will be created.  These new humans we call children, or babies (if wanted; otherwise we call them fetuses, and we destroy them for any damned reason we wish).  Up until recent technological advances, there was no other way for new humans to be made.

Forgive me for making this as clear as it can be made, but it seems to me that propriety and politeness has obscured certain facts:  a penis inserted inside an anus will not create a new human.  Two vaginas in close, physical proximity will not create a new human.

Thus, there is something entirely non-arbitrary and objective about the male-female sexual relation, having nothing to do with love (see:  children conceived in rape), and everything to do with simple, basic, biological facts.  When progeny is produced and brought to term, it must be cared for, else it will DIE.  It has likewise been a true fact of human nature that the two individuals deemed most obviously suited to raise particular children are the two particulars that created those particular children in the first place.  We call them parents, and this new kind of relation, the Family.  Again, this is thoroughly grounded in reality.

I am not being mean, or unsympathetic, or uncaring, or, well, Republican, by pointing out these basic truths about REALITY.  I have ‘religious’ views on this, but what I am describing is not in the least bit ‘religious.’  There is nothing arbitrary about this framework.  The framework spontaneously emerges whenever a man and a woman have sex and a child is created.  A child is never created when a man has sex with another man or a woman has sex with another woman.

Forgive me for belaboring this point, but we evidently live in a society where NO ONE UNDERSTANDS THIS.

Now we ask ourselves, given these non-arbitrary REALITIES, on what possible basis could the state justify imposing itself on such a framework?  I mean, this kind of thing is going to happen whether the government gets involved or not.  Individual men are going to identify individual women, and lifelong monogamous relationships will form in which it will often be the case that new humans will be created, whether the state likes it or not.  That’s because we’re talking about a reality that belongs to the order of creation.  Marriage is not an institution so much as the word we use to describe a phenomena we observe, just like gravity is not an institution, but instead the word we use to describe what happens when an apple falls onto Newton’s head.   You can re-define ‘gravity’ to mean “what happens when water boils” but there will still be the original phenomena, but without its own word to describe it.  Gays may eventually be given the legal right to ‘marry’ but whatever that means, it will have NOTHING to do with the original phenomena, which will still exist and will always exist; a new word will have to be invented to describe it (which liberals will naturally seek to co-opt ASAP, out of a visceral urge to fight any kind of ‘discrimination’), when we had a perfectly good word for it all along, but a ‘rose by any other name is still a rose.’  All this being the case, we ask again, what on earth does the state have to do with any of this?

It is purely pragmatic:  sometimes, the man or the woman or both will die, leaving their offspring to fend for itself–that is, it will DIE.  Who will take care of this orphan?  Obviously the extended family is the natural place to look, and this works out to a degree, provided members of the extended family can be identified, and so on.  In the real world, a community may discover that there are children for whom no caregiver can be discovered, and not wanting to just snuff the orphan out (ie, the ‘new human’ described above), has to do something.  Similarly, it is sometimes the case that the man or the woman will die, and there will be the matter of their belongings.  What shall be done with them?  Well, again, since everybody dies (at least once), here again is a phenomena that is going to happen whether there is a community (read: the state) or not.  There are going to be belongings left over when people die.  Again, naturally the extended family is going to be looked at, with the immediate descendents being the most obvious first place to begin: but these may not yet be old enough to manage the inherited estate.

These are all entirely pragmatic concerns.  You can call me mean, or mean-spirited, or say that I lack empathy, or whatever else you want, and all it would mean is that YOU ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY.  The problem is all YOU.  I’m not being mean or callous in the slightest by pointing out the non-arbitrary, objective (that is, realities that exist apart from whatever I feel about them) aspects of REALITY.  And you can re-define things or call them whatever you want, but these realities are not going to disappear.  Do you know why not?  Because they are realities.

Now, these pragmatic concerns have historically been precisely the reason why the state has gotten involved in marriage and the family in the first place.  Going back centuries, now, there was common law that arose that reflected how various communities dealt with these issues, and eventually (eg, under Blackstone) these were codified.  I am not here saying that this was a good idea, or that in fact it was proper for the state to get involved.  In fact, hindsight being 20/20, I think it was probably a bad idea.  At most, I think, these concerns should never have been allowed to be codified at a level beyond say, the county.  But I understand why it moved to the state level and then the Federal level.  The point, though, is that it was because of disputed and/or abandoned and/or orphaned children and property that was the basis for government involvement in this question.

But what if we were talking about relationships where no new defenseless humans are created?  What might be the basis for state interest then?  What possible parameters could conceivably be needed to handle the property that, say, corporate law or what not couldn’t cover?  More to the point, are the people who will have to deal with the fallout from broken families be allowed to govern themselves?  Or are they just going to be MADE to PAY, MADE to COMPLY, MADE to AFFIRM, whatever some Federal court or bureaucrat dictates?  If it is the latter (and it has been the latter for some time), the Republic is a Republic in Name Only.

So, now Bonauto steps up to the plate to take a swing at Alito’s pitch:

MS. BONAUTO:  I believe so, Your Honor.

JUSTICE ALITO:  What would be the reason?

MS. BONAUTO:  There’d be two.  One is whether the State would even say that that is such a thing as a marriage, but then beyond that, there are definitely going to be concerns about coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships when you start talking about multiple persons.

Bless Scalia, who replies, “Well, I didn’t understand your answer.”  The answer is practically incomprehensible; it should make us nervous if anyone did understand it.  Where on earth does ‘coercion and consent and disrupting family relationships’ play into this, given what they are proposing to do?  Nonetheless, she is clearly appealing to the fact that it would be practically unworkable for the state to manage such a thing.  Kind of like how it is already unworkable to decide who should take care of a child when it was carried to term by a surrogate mother paid for by two gay men* who then go on to get divorced; and what if neither of the men provided the necessary sperm in the first place (perhaps due to fertility problems) so that neither of them have a non-arbitrary connection to that child?  How does all this get sorted out in any sane, rational basis?  Oh, wait a minute.  I’m a bigot, I guess, just for asking the question.

At any rate, her argument reflects precisely the same concerns that my argument does.  Except maybe the “coercion and consent” thing.  That was just weird.

So, Scalia and Alito press her, and finally she says:

MS. BONAUTO:  Number one, I assume the States would rush in and say that when you’re talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we’ve had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.

Oh no she didn’t.

So, lets get this straight.  Bonauto is party to a lawsuit that has the specific purpose of overturning the results from the last time “the States” ‘rushed in’ says that the results won’t get any crazier because… “the States would rush in”!

Are people flippin’ nuts?  I mean, are you KIDDING ME?  We’re not talking about some wayward reactionary response by some county government or an isolated state.  The laws and amendments that Bonauto are hoping will be reversed were the result of the efforts of tens of millions of Americans, working their way through the tedious processes required in order to pass actual amendments to their state constitutions, etc.  These very same people, she says, will–properly–preserve the ‘traditional’ understanding of “marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people.”

Please.  Please stop me.  I am currently slamming my head against the wall, and cannot type through the blood spurts.  The abject stupidity of this argument, given what they are trying to do in their case, is mind-blowing.

The very thing that she wishes to overthrow is the thing she says will prevent increasingly creative relationships!

I wish that Alito or Scalia would have called attention to this lunacy.  I mean, at that point, there is nothing left to say.  End the hearing and go home:  “The people have the right to govern themselves; which they did, and you expect that they will quite properly do again.  You just would have them govern differently–well, then how about YOU try to get your own legislation passed, instead of getting a handful of men and women (say, NINE) to do your dirty work in overthrowing what MILLIONS have presently concluded.”

Because basically what we learn here is that her whole argument really amounts to, “We just don’t feel like those kinds of relationships are legitimate whereas we feel these ones are, so we’ll support government limitations on the former rather than the latter.”  There is no principled reason for placing limitations on the former.  Some further Bonauto can be expected to make this very point; indeed, with this kind of cognitive dissonance in play, we can practically expect Bonauto herself to be the one to make that argument some day.

Do we really have to take this seriously?  Are we really going to utterly transform society and completely obliterate the legislative wills of millions of Americans on the basis of such specious reasoning?

Alas, it appears that this is precisely going to be the case.

And let me just say that in a contest between reality and what we wish is true about reality, reality wins every time.  A society that has decided to live in fantasy-land is not a society that will be along for very long.

You hear arguments that no harm will come to the rest of us if gays are married.  I think this is wrong for a number of demonstrable reasons that have already come to light (ie, people being put out of business), but it is wrong for another reason:  a nation that is governed on feelings or fantasy is one that will be governed right into the ground.  And I, and my family, will have to pay the price for that incompetence just like everyone else will.

It’s time to grow up, friends.  If you think you have an argument to make, then make it.  Get your laws passed.  Persuade your fellow man in your local community.  Don’t think you can change reality by calling the realists bigots.  It won’t work, because reality is reality for a reason:  it’s reality.

* Just as a reminder for our liberal sex-education enthusiasts:  gay men cannot conceive children solely through the use of their own ‘equipment.’

 

Share

Apr 27

Enter the Gay Inquisition, and the next phase in the death of the Republic

Not many atheists were killed and tortured in the Spanish Inquisition.  Loads of heretics were, however.

I had the pleasure of returning this weekend from a conference where we talked about human rights to discovering that Baltimore is on the way to getting the Ferguson treatment and the news that yet another establishment is getting taken to task on the issue of homosexuality.  But this last has a twist.  Instead of it being a case where an opponent of gay marriage refused to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, it was an advocate for gay marriage being berated for providing services to an opponent of gay marriage.  I really didn’t want to write any further on the utter and complete hypocrisy of the gay agenda, but this was just too rich to overlook.

Before I get to the part that I thought was most interesting and telling about this incident, let me first address the most glaring aspect of the hypocrisy.  So, these two gay men hosted a gathering for Ted Cruz, and for this, the gay community is livid.  Here is their Boycott Facebook page.  Now, it is perfectly obvious that if it is discrimination to not serve a gay person because he is gay, it would be discrimination to not serve an (allegedly) anti-gay person because he is (allegedly) anti-gay.  I’m talking from the viewpoint of the Constitution and the law. But in the minds of the gay advocates, their discrimination is warranted and therefore justified.  From the Facebook page:  “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.’ Therein lies your logical misstep.

The writer is referring more to the gay couple that owned the hotel than to Ted Cruz, by the way.

If cogent argumentation mattered, we could from this comment dispense with this idea that all discrimination is bad, and not only that, but some discrimination is good:  eg., if someone is treating another person as less than human.  Their grounds for ‘discrimination’:  good.  My grounds for ‘discrimination’:  bad.  Fine; but that is not how the propaganda is framed.  The propaganda is framed as “All discrimination is bad!”  But, of course, logic really has nothing to do with this.  The double-talk has been noted by many others already.  But is anyone going to mention the obvious:  Ted Cruz openly associating with gay people and availing himself of his services is prima facie evidence that he is not against gay people, in as much as they are gay.

A KKK grand dragon would not step inside a black person’s establishment (except to burn it down).  There is a genuine distinction to be found here, but it is doubtful that any gay activist would comprehend it, so I shan’t dwell on it.  Instead, let me say this–and this is directed specifically to those who are against gay marriage–

We are not dealing with rational people.  They literally will burn down the country to get what they want, and they will sincerely believe that this is entirely justified.  We are quickly coming to the point where it will be necessary to act purely in the interests of self-defense.  In short, war is on the horizon.  To prevent the worst manifestations of war–that is, to keep it a cold war rather than a hot war–it is time to start considering bolder measures.  If the gays are literally torturing their own (by the liberal’s definition of torture), we’ve reached a new low, a plateau, if you will, but inversely.  Now that this plateau has been reached, society is primed so that a gay-owned establishment will be loathe to serve someone who is known to be against gay marriage.  When this happens, it will be necessary to be ready.  We need to fight fire with fire:  sue the establishment for refusing to provide the service.  Sue their friends, sue their mother, sue their attorneys, sue their consultants.  Make gay advocates pay a high price for their hypocrisy.  Right now, they are living in the land of make believe where they have society’s good will, but society has not yet been confronted with the implications of what it means to live in a society governed by the Gay Inquisitors.

The purpose of such an effort would not be to exact revenge, but to move beyond the ‘logical’ to the ’empirical’, and this in the hopes that they’ll wake up to the dangers of acting the way they act.    They are hypocrites, but they don’t know it.  Their actions are tyrannical, but they are oblivious.   They believe they are acting in the spirit of democracy, but in fact it is anti-human and borderline fascist.  They are just the latest manifestation of Liberal philosophies and policies, which is at every point just one degree closer to slavery.  I don’t use the word ‘slavery’ as a metaphor.  I mean actual, literal, outright slavery.

This whole story reminds me of a warning I penned, here:

Obviously, actual prosecution and incarceration have become incrementally closer.  Probably, people other than Christians will ultimately be made to suffer, and probably,  gays themselves will someday find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, and be made to suffer similarly, on account of precedent that they helped establish.

It is not because liberals aren’t sincere.  It is precisely because they are sincere that they will not stop.  They are bound only by their own intentions, which they deem always to be saintly–like the Inquisitors.  The only thing that keeps them in check are the checks and balances provided by powerful instruments like the Constitution, some fading memories of past atrocities, and their own consciences, steadily undermined by a thoroughly relativistic age.  Of all of these, it is the decimation of the Constitution that poses the most serious and immediate threat.

The Constitution represents a new way in human history of living together.  It transcended ‘might makes right’ and established not just a system of checks and balances, but an attitude whereby people would seek to make changes through legal measures such as legislation by their elected representatives rather than–and this is important–sneaking into their opponents village and slaying them while they sleep.  People have been willing to put up with a lot of things that they consider to be CRAP, which in past times people literally would have murdered each other over, on the understanding that society is better off if we settle our problems through civil institutions.  That way, you don’t have to worry about being murdered in your sleep.

But it is precisely this arrangement that is under fire.  Moreover, gay advocates themselves cannot even see what they are doing.  It is not even so much that they are willing to burn down the Republic to get what they want, but that they will do so, without even knowing they are doing so.

People have to be able to live with the fact that there are people in society who have viewpoints that they find detestable; this is real tolerance.  This was the miracle that the Constitution wrought:  people with strong, and contradictory opinions not murdering each other in the sleep, even as they knew the other person had strong, contradictory opinions.  The liberal mindset believes (without being able to put it into words) that ‘tolerance’ is everyone having the same, orthodox viewpoint: theirs.  The mere existence of disagreement constitutes intolerance, in their viewpoint, thus in the name of tolerance, all must believe as they do.

That’s why the this gay couple must be made to pay–by the gay community.  It is why Christians suffered at the hands of Christian inquisitors in Spain many hundreds of years ago.  It is why the atheists of the French Revolution murdered Christians and other dissenters.  It is why ISIS is cutting off the heads of men, women, and children.  It is all of a piece, and what they all have in common are rock bottom realities about human nature–things that are true about humans, whether one likes it or not.  You see, most of the horrors perpetuated by men on men over the centuries were carried out by good, well meaning individuals who thought they were acting on noble principles.  You know, like, “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.'”

It is precisely because of this clear, present and enduring danger that the first people to make for the New World were Christians fleeing Christians.  And it was not accidental, either, that these same sought to break the cycle by establishing a system in which real tolerance was allowed to flourish.  The gay community itself is now getting its first taste of their own medicine, their first glimpse into what will happen to them, by their own,  if they win their cause by burning down the Republic.

Personally, I believe that we will see many more such travesties carried out on gays by gays, of an increasingly serious sort, before they come to grips with what they have done.  It is not inevitable that, if this point is reached, that our Republic is salvageable.  It is just as likely that things will be so far gone by that point that there will only be gulags and barbed wire.

People really don’t think that this sort of thing can happen, just like people really didn’t think that anything evil could come from eugenics.   They live as though the purges of Pol Pot and the ovens of Auschwitz and the beheadings of ISIS all happened centuries ago, back when they used to do inquisitions.  They live as though progress is inevitable and irreversible.  They live as though Progress is an infallible doctrine, for which it is perfectly justifiable to unleash oppression to enforce.  But none of that is true.

It is not the bad men we need to be most afraid of, but the good men.  It was to keep the good men in check that the Constitution was created.  Indeed, it was good men that wrote the Constitution, knowing very well that it was the good men that we need to be most concerned about.  The reason why liberals have progressively undermined the Constitution and the Republic is because they have forgotten, or do not agree with, or aren’t even aware of the possibility that good men–like themselves–could commit literal, real, atrocities.

And they are quite wrong.

A point that sane and sensible gay people will now become alert to thanks to the fate of Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass.  But we are quickly approaching a time where such a realization will come too late to matter.  Mr. Reisner and Weiderpass should not back down.  They should stand up to their Inquisitors, while they still can.

I mentioned above that those against gay marriage need to start thinking in terms of ‘self-defense’ but I am not hopeful that that or anything will have any good effect.  Just as it was Christians who recoiled at horrors inflicted by other Christians who established parameters for facilitating genuine liberty in the U.S. Constitution, it may very well have to be liberal heretics who will have to pay the price, perhaps even in blood, who then call for a return to those same principles.

Perhaps we have now come to a point where we can say that the next Republic, if there is to be one, will be built by gay advocates.

We may hope this is not only because the statists will have gunned down everyone else.

Hey, a man can hope, right?

For further reading:

http://sntjohnny.com/front/the-death-of-the-republic-and-gay-marriage/2422.html

http://sntjohnny.com/front/progressives-will-be-the-death-of-the-republic-democracy-and-freedom/2167.html

 

Share