web analytics

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

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

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

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

Black Lives Matter, Abortion, Propaganda, Humanitarian Punishment, and Self-Rule

C.S. Lewis makes a fine point in his essay against a ‘Humanitarian theory of Punishment.’  He argues that unless punishment is tied directly to the objective nature of the crime, extreme abuses are near at hand.  For example, by viewing the crime as a symptom of some kind of disease, the perpetrator is subjected to ‘treatment,’ which can go on forever.  Not too long ago I read of a man released from an institution who had been there for decades, when the penalty for the crime would have entailed just a year or two of incarceration.  Lewis also takes aim at the idea that you should punish someone with an eye towards ‘deterring’ others from committing similar crimes.  He points out that the person you punish need not even be guilty of the crime in order to tell everyone else, “This is what you will do if…”

I have a feeling Lewis had in mind the show trials of the communists, but we are seeing the same kind of propaganda today, and its about time we put an end to it.  As a case in point, when the Rolling Stone article accusing a whole fraternity of gang raping a girl fell apart, the protests continued.  I actually saw it being said, “Well, we know that women are being raped, so even if it wasn’t happening in this case…”  What?  You’ll proceed to destroy the lives of the people accused, even though they weren’t guilty?  Even though the whole thing was entirely fabricated?  Seriously?  Are you nuts? 

I personally think the evidence is good that sexual predation is a real and growing threat, but at the same time, I think it is laughable to think that shaming people–especially innocent ones!–will change this.  Every woman with a 9mm pistol in her purse would be more effective.  But if we are really concerned about reducing the threat, we should be looking at the rampant hyper-sexualization of this society and the distinct effort to separate sex from reproduction.  I’m sorry, but if you plaster naked men and women everywhere you look and have sex acts depicted in vivid, explicit terms, even to children, do you really expect a healthy respect for sexuality to emerge?   Obviously, the insistence by certain people to continue to press for graphically intense sex education classes in schools everywhere, the answer is yes.  I’m using this as an example of a larger pattern: fanning the flames of rage is easy, but actually resolving an issue is hard.  Actually resolving an issue might require facing up to unpleasant realities that fly in the face of what we wish were otherwise.

In the case of sexual predation, that would mean considering such notions like, “maybe there is something to that whole traditional marriage thing…” and it certainly would throw cold water on the sentiment, “What I want most in life is to have sex, as much as I want, in any form that I want, without any consequences whatsoever.  More pleasure please!  Me!  Me!  Me!

If you think people are just beasts who cannot resist humping each other if they are in heat, certain things follow.  You wouldn’t dream of trying to tell people to control themselves, or confine their sexual behaviors to institutions where they are self-regulated.  All you would do is try to minimize the damages of their animalistic instincts.  And you wouldn’t have a problem with shaming innocent people, because you think people need to be conditioned just the way we do with other animals, just like Pavlov’s dog.   If you wish to condition people, you need Conditioners.

Which leads me to the recent case where another black person was killed by a white cop.

What made the killing of Walter Scott different than the killing of Michael Brown?  The video, of course, but not for the reason you think.

In the case of Brown, we quickly had in hand forensic information that was entirely consistent with the testimony of the police officer, Darren Wilson.  Witness accounts largely supported Wilson, too.  Just one person, quickly deemed unreliable by all the folks who were in a position to know, fueled the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” hysteria.  As with the Rolling Stone college rape story, people continued to justify using the slogan on the basis that black people are being oppressed, somewhere. Honest.  Using a hyper-inflated known deception to promote a ‘truth’ makes for great propaganda–and that is what it is–but it suggests that there isn’t much basis in reality to that ‘truth.’  The fact that an innocent man, in this case Darren Wilson, is destroyed and slandered?  Bonus.  He is, after all, white.  If he’s not guilty of this, he’s guilty of something!

An article that I saw today attempts to use the killing of Walter Scott to justify the rage:

Imagine the narrative that might have emerged if the bystander, a man named Feidin Santana, hadn’t happened along. A violent suspect struggled with Officer Slager, wrested control of the officer’s Taser and threatened him with it. Fearful of his own safety and that of the community, Slager had no choice but to fire. The officer regrets the loss of Mr. Scott’s life but did what he had to do.

After Ferguson, such an account might not have been taken at face value — especially, I should note, in South Carolina, which has been much more aggressive in holding police officers accountable for fatal shootings. The most basic forensic examination would have shown that Scott was some distance from Slager — and fleeing — when he was shot. Investigators from the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division likely would have been skeptical of any claim that the officer feared for his life.

But what could anyone prove?

Eugene Robinson here admits explicitly that the “most basic forensic examination would have shown that Scott was some distance from Slager — and fleeing — when he was shot.”  In other words, video or not, Ferguson or not, no such narrative would have sprung up, because the evidence on the scene was flatly in contradiction to what the police officer said.

In point of fact, the video provided by Santana actually does not support the hysteria expressed in the phrase “black lives matter” because the video makes it absolutely clear, even to a Twitter generation, what happened.  There is no way for Sharpton, Jackson, Holder, or Obama to enrage people further than is appropriate in the Scott case.  Even if the forensics had not supported Wilson’s account, but we had a video which proved Wilson had lied, Ferguson would not have been torched.  Why?  Because the video removes the air from the rage-room.   Indeed, with just a few exceptions, if you look carefully, nearly all of the major bouts of social lynching that have occurred did so when no video was present.

In a society that is ill-equipped to allow mere words to shape their conception of reality, the screen becomes Holy Writ.

But if the whole ‘black lives matter’ thing is an expression of propaganda, what is it propaganda for?  Agitator Al Sharpton let the cat out of the bag recently:

“There must be national policy and national law on policing,” Sharpton said. “We intend to come out of this convention [and go] from state to state dealing with the need of having a nationalized, Justice Department-assigned law to deal with how policing is appropriate.”

Ah, yes.  Because when the Feds take charge of something, things finally get shaped up!  I couldn’t help thinking of the recent scandal in Tomah, WI or the case not too long ago where vets died while waiting for care because bureaucrats wanted to spiff up their ‘efficiency’ rates at the VA hospital in Phoenix, AZ.  Honestly, if we cannot properly care for our heroes who put their lives on the line for this country, why does anyone think the rest of us stand a chance?  Yes, that’s just what we need!  More national policies!  (In the above article, Sharpton also advocates for body-cams for police officers.  While I doubt very much that he really want to undermine his own efforts to enrage people, the ability to bring Federal funding into the matter, with all the ways that this allows the Feds to control things it otherwise couldn’t touch, is probably seen as making it worth it.)

The basic upshot of the entire propaganda endeavor in all these cases is to nationalize and Federalize, and ultimately, Internationalize, them.  In this quest, it doesn’t matter if people are punished for things they didn’t commit.  The ends justify the means.  It is a conditioning process implemented by people who view their fellow man as beasts to be managed, trained, and yes, even culled.

When the Ferguson thing first happened, I took issue with all the complaints about their police department not reflecting the racial diversity of their community.  I pointed out that the power to resolve such things was firmly in their hands.  Here is a quote:

That’s what liberalism does:  it puts self-rule as far out of reach of the average person as it can–after all, the average person is not too bright, stupid in fact, and is not able to make decisions for themselves.  Indeed, not only do people not make decisions that are in their own self-interest, but they will resist efforts to help them along.  That’s how stupid people are–according to liberalism.  Which is why liberals constantly ‘kick’ as much up to ever higher levels of government.  Your local town can’t be trusted to manage itself, that’s why the state should be in charge.  The state can’t hack it, that’s why the Feds need to be in charge.  (The Ferguson story seems to embody each of these elements.)  Why do you think so many issues are falling under the purview of the United Nations?  It’s because even nations can’t be trusted to manage their own affairs;  experts are needed.

I was genuinely pleased to see that two black people were recently elected to their town board, because I also argued:

Instead of resorting to jack-booted tactics, the ‘oppressed’ in Ferguson should wise up, grow up, and run for office.  It really is within their power to do so. […]

The guilt or innocence of the officer or the young man slain is totally irrelevant.  If you think one is guilty and the other innocent or vice versa, your solution is the same:  self-governance.  Best get to it, while we still can.

But as Sharpton as revealed, self-governance is the last thing that these people want to see happening.

The Eugene Robinson piece I linked to above is titled, “A misdemeanor becomes a capital offense — again.”  In his quest to fan the racial flames, he insists on using the Scott case as his leaping off point.  That’s the easy thing to do.  The hard thing to do would be to deal with the true underlying problem, which is reflected in the title of piece, but not in the article.  The emergence of a hardened, fortified, ruthless police state that targets everyone is near at hand, which I argue in a post titled, “Eric Garner Protests Will Certainly Miss the Real Issue: Our Impending Enslavement.”  I write:

What about the continuing erosion of all of our freedoms as governments at all levels steadily criminalize even the tiniest behaviors and enforce laws with extreme heavy-handedness? Ladies and gentlemen, this twofold problem concerns every American, not just the black ones.

Remember, Garner was being apprehended for… selling cigarettes.

But why is the police state becoming established, with liberties constantly being stripped away?  Because certain people do not believe that people in general are capable of self-rule.  From vaccination to raw milk, to tobacco use to sexuality, we are seen as a herd to be managed.

These same people tend to think that black people in particular are not capable of self-rule.  That’s why for forty years, instead of empowering black America to manage their own affairs, locally, they have sought to Federalize and nationalize every issue.  Remember, blacks tend to live in areas where they are the vast majority.  The reins of power are near at hand, if only they sought them out.   But this would not help the Democrat party, would it?  The whole idea of self-rule, and by that I don’t just mean in a local society, but also in the sense of having enough self-control to keep your pants on, is Republican in nature.  The idea that you are competent enough to manage your own affairs is basically a conservative one, whereas liberals tend to think that you are helpless, subject to your own animalistic behaviors and at the mercy of circumstances outside your control.  This is why they wish to put even more things outside your control, “for your own good.”

I am frankly out of patience for all this crap about black people (and women) being discriminated against by white, Christian, men.  Black people (and women) are being discriminated against, but it isn’t by white Republicans.  It is by liberals, progressives, and secular humanists, who believe that they are smarter and more capable than everyone else.  It is not a discrimination fueled by hatred, it is a discrimination based on soft bigotry and paternalism.  And it disgusts me.

One of the clearest expressions of this bigotry and the hypocrisy involved, it is in the high abortion rates among black women.  Black lives matter, you say?  Is it really just an accident that in every place you look, black women are getting abortions at a higher proportion than whites?  For example, in Wisconsin, where I live, blacks get a quarter of all the abortions, but they make up only about 6% of the population.  According to the liberal rationale for abortion on demand, abortion is supposed to be a service to those in poverty, allowing them to rise above their circumstances.  In forty years of going out of their way to make sure that blacks have access to abortions, and clear evidence that they are taking advantage of those ‘services’ at a much higher rate than the population, is there any evidence whatsoever that blacks are substantially better off?

It is not conservatives that brought us abortion on demand.  It is not Republicans that are in charge in these areas.  It is not white Christian males calling for tax payer dollars to be used to pay for abortions.  It is not any of these setting up abortion clinics predominantly in urban areas.  Who brought us the destruction of the black family through the welfare state that rendered the black male (ie, the father) irrelevant?  Wasn’t my side.

That’s because white Christian male conservative Republicans believe that people–all people–are made in the image of God and are therefore able and competent to control themselves, control their sexual behaviors, act responsibly, endure the consequences of their own decisions, and build lives for themselves.  We do not believe that people are beasts, or a herd to be managed.

If you really believed that ‘black lives mattered’ you would take a hard look at why black lives are being aborted at disproportionately high numbers.  Instead of Federalizing everything, you would encourage people to take responsibility for their own actions, instead of trying to protect people from various destructive behaviors, ie, distributing condoms instead of strengthening the institution of the family or encouraging people to burn down their own neighborhoods rather than getting elected and hiring more black cops–if you think the race of the cop is the actual source of the problem.   Stop the propaganda, and stop listening to propaganda.  Man up.  Grow up.  Mind your own damn business.

Stop lunging from outrage to outrage, which is easy and requires nothing from you except to feel, and set yourself to the hard matter of finding real solutions.

Why should the vast majority of the population, which is innocent, be made to pay for the crimes of the few, by removing everyone’s freedoms and liberties just so you can feel better?

Share

If Darwin was Right, Disabled People Should be Killed

Or, at least not allowed to procreate!

I have been  studying the interplay between Darwinism and the ‘elimination of defectives’ for almost ten years, ever since my wife and I were counseled to abort our daughter, diagnosed with spina bifida.  We told the doc to go pound sand.  Our daughter is now almost 8, and beautiful.  As you can imagine, I am sensitive to assertions and insinuations that ‘defectives’ shouldn’t be brought into the world, for her sake and ‘our’ sake (where ‘our’ means society).  This latter sentiment is clearly eugenic in nature–not that any of the people who say such things are ever aware of it.

In fact, my research indicates that eugenics is alive and well and very much with us.  No, you don’t find people identifying themselves as eugenicists.  What you find are people advocating for eugenics policies using eugenic rationales without even knowing they are.  Blame it on modern education, if you want.  Or deceit or self-deceit.  Call it what you want, justify it however you like, it is eugenics.  [Read this, and the comments in particular, as an illustration.]

Now, the reason why eugenics continues to return, over and over again, is because eugenics is inspired directly by Darwinian thinking, and insofar as Darwinism accepted, and people think it ought to be applied to society (and shouldn’t science be applied to society?), it will always return.  Consider this quote from a book called Dangerous Diagnostics:

Although the old eugenic generalizations have been cast off, the logic behind them persists, refueled from diagnostic tests and justified in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, and cost.  Thus some geneticists suggest the social importance of improving the “gene pool.”  For example, geneticist Margery Shaw, convinced that every Mendelian genetic trait will eventually be diagnosed prenatally, has asserted that:  “The law must control the spread of genes causing severe deleterious effects, just as disabling pathogenic bacteria and viruses are controlled.”  She argues that parents may be liable for failing to respond to information about potential genetic disorders by controlling their reproduction, and that the police powers of the state could be employed to prevent genetic risks.  Other geneticists assume that families informed of genetic problems will voluntarily eliminate defective fetuses.  References to the “pollution of the gene pool,” “genetically healthy societies,” and “optimal genetic strategies” are beginning to appear in the scientific discourse.”  The language of geneticists reveals their expectations.  They have called the large-scale project to map the human genome a “quest for the Holy Grail” and an effort to create the “book of Man.”  The computer program that generates the genome is called Genesis.

These authors are writing in 1989.  Things haven’t gotten any better, and they won’t.

It is not my purpose here to show or explain how Darwinism inspired eugenics.  I have a book in progress for that.  You can check this for some illustrations.  There is more where that came from, I assure you.  But there is one aspect I wish to draw attention to.

A small fraction of my readers will know that when Darwin published his Origin of the Species, the actual mechanism by which species ‘evolved’ was not yet known.  Mendel had published his work on peas, but it did not become well known or go mainstream until the early 1900s, which left a solid 40 years for various theories to be put forward–the very same years that the ideological roots of eugenics were diving deep into the earth.  The ambiguity related to the mechanism created two basic schools of thought, one ‘soft’ (Lamarckism) and one ‘hard’ (from August Weismann).  If a Lamarckian explanation was correct, then it would be possible to improve the human species by tweaking the environment.  If Weismann was correct, the environment was useless and had no direct impact on the transmission of biological traits, and the only viable option was to cull the herd, as it were.  Or, keep the worst of the herd from breeding.

Weismann won.  Mendelian genetics proved to be the answer.

Before this was established, four decades had passed by where the only thing that was believed to be known definitively, was that all biological life had gradually became exquisitely adapted to its surroundings by the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fittest to reproduce.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is still the accepted, orthodox view.  To question it or challenge it is to bring upon yourself the fires that history reserved for heretics.

According to Darwin’s son, Francis Darwin:

From the first, [Galton] had the support of Charles Darwin who never wavered in his admiration of Galton’s purpose, though he had doubts about the practicality of reform.  His hesitation in regard to eugenic method is expressed with a wise proviso as to future possibilities:  “I have lately been led,” he says, “to reflect a little … on the artificial checks, but doubt greatly whether such would be dangerous to the world at large at present, however it may be in the distant future.”  In the first edition of the Descent of Man, 1874, he distinctly gives his adherence to the eugenic idea by his assertion that many might by selection do something for the moral and physical qualities of the race.

According to Soloway in Demography and Degeneration, Alfred Russel Wallace

reported that “Darwin was gloomy about the prospect of a future in which natural selection had no play and the fittest did not survive.  He talked about ‘the scum’ from whom ‘the stream of life’ is largely renewed, and of the grave danger it entailed in a democratic civilization.

The problem, simply, is that if natural selection be the great creative process that it must be if Darwinism was correct, then there were an awful lot of people who were living and surviving and breeding that would have died in former times.  Now, unfortunately, civilization and scientific and medical advances were keeping these ‘defectives’ alive.  Hundreds of examples of this sentiment could be provided, but prominent eugenicists Karl Pearson puts it all together nicely:

Our social instincts, our common humanity, enforce upon us the conception that each person born has the right to live, yet this right essentially connotes a suspension of the full intensity of natural selection. Darwinism and medical progress are opposed forces, and we shall gain nothing by screening that fact, or, in opposition to ample evidence, asserting that Darwinism has no application to civilized man.

So, there you have it.  Medicine is thwarting natural selection, and it is foolish to think that Darwinism doesn’t have implications to civilized man–‘social instincts’ be damned.  (Those instincts themselves being created by natural selection…)

At the turn of the century, therefore, there was a widespread and enduring concern that the human race was degenerating, in large part because humans had arrested the biological processes that maintained the health of the species.  As genetic knowledge increased, there was also increasing discussion about how to apply that knowledge.  As you can imagine, the elimination of the ‘defectives’ was seen as an obvious, basic, easy place to start.

This sentiment, and the nod to Darwin, is clearly expressed by a prominent popularizer of science, Gordon Rattray Taylor, in his book The Biological Time Bomb (1968).  This book, by the way, was cited approvingly by the majority in Roe vs. Wade.  Taylor says:

Meanwhile, we have eliminated many of the forces which selected the strong from the weak, and we are coasting on the genetic selection of the past.

It is virtually certain that this total failure to face the biological realities created by our own scientific advances will cause such disaster that there will be a sudden reversal of policy.  And once the right to bear children comes under regulation, the use of those powers to improve the genetic stock rather than to degrade it could follow relatively easily. […] In short, it must be concluded that, sooner or later, genetic regulation will be adopted.

I have been compiling similar sentiments and posting them here.

Let us consider the assumptions that are driving these sentiments.  1., Darwin showed that natural selection was sufficient to account for the magnificent adaptation seen in biological life on the planet and 2., in the case of humanity, the natural selection has been stifled by our own progress and 3., this has resulted in a steady degeneration of the human genome so that 4., it is self-evident that if one had the ability and know-how (such that genetics increasingly provides us) to reduce the number of ‘defects’ in the gene pool, one ought to do so.  There is a fifth assumption I won’t dwell on, but which will be seen as relevant in a moment:  5., the earth and the universe have been around for a sufficient time to create these amazing, perfectly adapted organisms and 6., there is such a thing as a genetically perfectly organism.

Now, assumption #6 is not the sort of thing you will hear expressed, and for good reason.  If Darwinism is correct (on the ‘modern synthesis’), then each organism is built on a genetic plan that was itself the result–every single step of the way, right down the the tiniest bit of DNA–of mutations to a previous genetic plan that itself had been sufficient to allow the organism’s parents to survive to reproduce the organism itself.  On this view, there cannot be a genetically perfect organism.  Every organism in existence now or ever is just an ‘instance’ of one particular genetic combination.  There is no ‘standard.’  There cannot be one. There can’t be a point where one could say, “Aha, this genome is pristine and perfect” (like one might do with a piece of computer code, for example) because the genome in question will in every case be the result of chance and time cobbling together something that was able to compete for resources better than some other population of organisms.

The Darwinian reader will chafe at the the invocation of ‘chance’ but it is just a simple fact that the majority of the changes that happen to the genome occur because of a mutation to the genetic code.  You can say that ‘natural selection’ might bring a level of orderliness to the matter, but it is purely a matter of chance and circumstance as to which gene will mutate, when, and how, for natural selection to act upon.  Each piece of every genome is the result of some mutation that has occurred, with no rhyme or reason (if there was, then you are actually an intelligent design advocate), over the eons.  Which means that mutations are the engines by which new evolutionary creations are made.

This being so, we must conclude the opposite of the title of this post.  The idea of ‘degeneration’ must be seen as an entirely fallacious concept, because you cannot think of something as degenerating when it seen as being in perpetual flux in the first place.  Moreover, the very thing seen as the most prominent example of ‘degeneration’, a birth defect that is the result of a ‘flaw’ created by a mutation in the gene pool, should actually be seen as, plausibly, a possible next step in the evolution of our species.  We should be encouraging ‘defective’ people to ‘breed’ in order to speed ‘higher’ levels of evolution!

Even referring to their condition as a ‘defect’ is a contradiction in terms, because it implies a deviation from some standard of perfection.  One speaks of a defect in something that is carefully calibrated, designed, and built, say, a brand new car.  If one finds a pile of scrap metal and sees one rusted piece sticking out dangerously in one direction, one would never think of referring to it as a ‘defect’ even if we injure ourselves on it.

But of course, no one thinks that someone born with a birth ‘defect’ is one of the lucky recipients of a genetic mutation.  In most cases, people born with birth defects need special care and concern, and won’t be able to survive, thrive, and reproduce on their own. This is the antithesis of what Darwinism is supposed to predict.

The purpose of my quotes above was to illustrate that if there is anything that the people with this mindset agree on, it is that the presence of genetic maladies, and our putative ability to end their transmission, is something that we ought to seriously consider.  This is in flat contradiction to how they really ought to conceive of people born with ‘mutations.’

How do we reconcile this?

To be honest, I don’t believe there is a rational way to reconcile this on a Darwinian viewpoint, because if anyone had been concerned about being rational, they wouldn’t have accepted Darwinism in the first place.  It may have been plausible before Mendelian genetics became understood, but the arrival of Mendelian genetics should have brought acceptance of Darwinism to a complete halt.  (Remember, in the ‘modern synthesis, Darwinism moved to agree with genetics, not the other way around!).  What we scientifically know is that the genomes we study bear all the marks of being amazingly sophisticated expressions of biological code, where even the tiniest deviations have the potential to send the organism off kilter.

This is not consistent with a Darwinian outlook.

It is consistent, however, with the belief that life on this planet was specially created by God, and not too long ago.

In fact, I would submit that the only way in which the terms ‘defective’ or ‘degeneration’ have any meaning whatsoever–and they intuitively do, and our actual experience supports these intuitions-is if they are deviations from an originally perfect paradigm.

Or, if I can put it another way, Darwinism putatively believes that genomes started out from sludge and progressively work their way up from there, but special creation posits that genomes were rock solid works of art and engineering that, for some reason, are steadily deteriorating.

In other words, it is really only if Christianity is true (whether from a ‘young earth’ or ‘old earth’ perspective), that it is meaningful to talk about ‘birth defects.’

In saying this, I am not saying that natural selection is not a real phenomena.  It obviously is.  Just as obviously, if natural selection is working on originally perfect genetic specimens rather than cobbled-together ones, there will be profound differences in our expectations and the predictions we make.  Indeed, natural selection was recognized long before Darwin and Wallace saw it.  It had been noticed by the Christian ‘special creationist’ and naturalist Edward Blyth, decades earlier.

The difference is that Blyth saw natural selection as a conserving process, which ‘pruned’ the extremes from the various species, and otherwise preserved the basic phenotype of those species.  Darwin’s innovation was in proposing that natural selection was a creative process.  Sure, it ‘pruned’, but when it did, this resulted in something ‘new.’

The upshot of the Darwinian viewpoint was that death was good; nay, death was essential.  It was necessary that some die in order to see a gradual change from one species to another.   The unspoken reason for why ‘defectives’ continue to be targeted for destruction is because it is through this elimination that a new species will emerge.   Insofar as people wish to maintain the ‘gene pool’ they are not actually thinking of natural selection as Darwin perceived it, but as Blyth perceived it:  as a conserving process.  I say ‘unspoken’ which may imply that eugenicists past and present are aware of this rationale but don’t dare say it, but I don’t think it is as simple as that.  There are people who do in fact have this point of view, but it is not something they can articulate so much as they instinctively feel.  However, it has been articulated in the past, and every now and then you will hear people come pretty close to saying it aloud.  But only the bravest (today) will say it explicitly.

But our knowledge of genetics tell us that this cannot be even close to the real story of how life came to be on this planet and that there is no reasonable hope that a truly new evolutionary species that is ‘healthy and whole’ would, or could, emerge.  Natural selection can ‘prune’ all day long, but it can only work upon existing genetic code.  Natural selection does not cause mutations, the thing that we now know (and Darwin didn’t and couldn’t know) is the basis for the variation ‘selected’ upon.

If I am right, then what I am proposing is actually something we could test by observation.  Indeed, I believe the observations have already been made.  The geneticist John Sanford has made this argument in his book “Genetic Entropy” for example.  (Sanford abandoned his atheism and his Darwinian viewpoint because of his study of the genome.)  The language and conduct of geneticists at work on ‘defects’ is consistent with a Biblical understanding of the genome, whereas it is not consistent with an atheistic understanding of the genome–contrary to their assertions otherwise.  And every now and then, a member of the establishment lets slip the genius built into the genome, and is made to pay the price by his peers, like poor Ewan Birney, who prompted one author to whine, “The creationists are going to love this.”

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Francis Collins, the head of the aforementioned Human Genome Project, who also abandoned his atheism because of the ‘language of God.’  (I don’t really think Collins makes this case very well.  Actually, he makes it pretty poorly.  Personally, I think he is afraid of what the Grand Inquisitors would say and do to him if he explicitly challenged the Guiding Paradigm.  Still, his credentials are impeccable, no?)

The astute reader might now have realized that, if I’m right, there are implications, that I might find reprehensible.  Namely, if the concepts of ‘defects’ or ‘degeneration’ or ‘deterioration’ only have meaning if we’re really talking about a genome in decay, rather than decay turning into a genome, then doesn’t it follow that of all people, Christians should be most concerned with ‘eliminating’ dangerous defects from the human population?  Wouldn’t we want to spare people, and future generations, from all of the likely suffering to come?

Ah, that is not at all the case.

The Darwinian viewpoint is internally convoluted, talking about things ‘degenerating’ as if from a perfected norm when its own paradigm shouldn’t have anything of the sort.  Nonetheless, on their thinking, they think there is good reason to think that by careful and deliberate genetic engineering, we may be overcome the stupefying effect of civilization on the human population, replacing natural selection with conscious selection.   This, by the by, is precisely what eugenics was all about!

But on my view, there is literally nothing we can do to prevent the genome from deteriorating.  As already stated, it is just a scientific fact that mutations happen when mutations happen, and they will happen randomly with random effects today, tomorrow, and the day after.  These will remain, as they have always been observed to be, nearly always deleterious.

In short, every person is a carrier of genetic information that has become corrupted, and these corruptions are going to accumulate.  Apply natural selection to them all you want, you will never get a new species.  Take a billion years, if you want.  It just won’t happen.  The laws of logic, genetics, biology, and physics stand in the way.  If you ‘select’ one particular line of deleterious mutations out of the population, it doesn’t matter, because there are countless other lines, and these lines are going to be added to other lines, and new ones will be introduced over time.

The bottom line is that we are going to see an increasing number of children born with visible birth defects, because as it stands right now, every person is loaded with defects.  The day will come when saying “we should eliminate birth defects” is precisely the same as saying “the human race should be brought to an end.”

One’s entire perspective changes based on whether you think that everything is winding down, versus everything winding up.  The former necessarily implies a particular starting point.  The latter is not even thought of as something possible according to the laws of our universe.

If you think everything is winding down and see no reason to hope that we can turn the clock back, you realize that in our quest to eliminate suffering, our solution cannot be to deprive people of existence.

 

 

 

Share

The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

[Update 3/27/2018: A couple of years after writing this, in a book written by gays about how to promote the gay agenda, this Michael Swift piece is referenced, with no hint that the Swift piece was satire.  If anything, the assumption seems to be that the Swift piece was representative of militant gay activism which does not help the cause.  See my review of the book, “After the Ball” here.  Scroll down to the quote in question which begins, “The above, cited in the Boston Herald (February 25, 1988)” … ]

While doing some research in response to the spineless reaction of Republicans in Indiana, I once again came across what is now known as the “The Homosexual Manifesto.”  I decided this time to delve a little deeper.  As is par for the course, this extremely distressing bit of propaganda is waved away as ‘satire.’  You’ll see why the gay community doesn’t want to be associated with the document when you read it, below.  This document was read into the Congressional record in 1987 after being published in the “Gay Community News” (February 15-21, 1987).

One example of a gay activist who accused the ‘right’ for ‘lying’ about this manifesto is here, where they write:

The trouble is that the version which these homophobes constantly quote always omits, as does the Congressional record, the vital two line preface to this editorial, which sets the essential context for the piece, i.e. it was intended only as sarcasm.

Wikipedia has this entry:

Gay Revolutionary Article

In 1987, Michael Swift published an article in the Gay Community News entitled, “Gay Revolutionary”.[4] The editors at the Gay Community News requested that Swift write an article as satirical proof of the so-called “Gay Agenda” that conservative right wing Christians were establishing. Thirty years after the articles publishing date, conservative religious groups continue to quote “Gay Revolutionary”, but omit the crucial first line of the piece, “This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.” The original article has come to be known as The Homosexual Manifesto.

In my mind, this is another example of rampant dishonesty, illiteracy, and self-deception that is prevalent in our society–especially (but not limited to) the secular humanists.  Here are the first two lines again:

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

The only thing that these two lines establish–if you are honest and literate, at least–is that what follows should not be seen as a ‘manifesto’ or ‘plan of action.’  It does make perfectly clear that what Michael Swift says next is what he really wants to do, and will try to do, and would do, if only he could.

The liberal site first mentioned says:

The piece was designed to poke fun at the outrageous homophobic nightmares that so many Conservatives had about homosexuals, by putting those nightmares into words and publishing them.

This ties in with the Wiki entry above which baldly asserts, that “The editors at the Gay Community News requested that Swift write an article as satirical proof of the so-called “Gay Agenda” that conservative right wing Christians were establishing.” It then also appeals to the first two lines as proof that the piece is satire.

Neither of these sources, nor any others that I have looked at, give any evidence whatsoever that this was the purpose of the ‘request.’  In the full text below, we seem to have the whole scope of the available information about the nature of the ‘request’:  “Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece

It is a sad fact that in contemporary society, what is generally understood as an ‘editorial piece’ will mean entirely different things, based on the post-modernistic relativistic viewpoint the reader brings to it.  Thus, to the Wiki author and the liberal previously mentioned, ‘editorial piece’ can just as easily mean ‘satirical piece.’  Because they say so.

I have not been able to find the original issue of the Gay Community News or any other corroboration about the ‘request.’  As far as I have been able to determine, even the assertion that “Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece” is just that:  an assertion.  I would be happy to see something definitive on this if anyone would like to provide it.  I’m not going to drop my concerns because a bunch of gay activists say something; I don’t consider the gay activist community to be trustworthy, and unlike Pence, I don’t particularly care what any one says about me.  But if you have something concrete, feel free to provide it.  While it would not change the demonstrable fact that there is a ‘gay agenda’ going back some 40  years, it would obviously take this piece out of play.

But that doesn’t mean we would no longer have documentary evidence of the kind of hateful vitriol that gay activists hide in their hearts and fantasies.  After all, if we take Swift at his word, what he is laying in front of us is his dream, once, or if, he is the oppressor.

By the by, I don’t put much stock in the fact that his last name was ‘Swift.’  Remember, ‘Swift’ is a real last name.  Remember?  Jonathan Swift.  That was his real last name.  That Michael has the same last name may just be coincidence.

This is the text, as found on a 2011 Fordham web page that can now only be accessed using the Waybackmachine.  It appears to be what one gay person really believed.  Enjoy!

Michael Swift: “Gay Revolutionary”

From Gay Community News, Feb. 15-21, 1987
(reprinted from The Congressional Record, with preface restored)


In 1987, Michael Swift was asked to contribute an editorial piece to GCN, an important gay community magazine, although well to the left of most American gay and lesbian opinion. A decade later this text, printed in the Congressional Record is repeatedly cited, apparently verbatim, by the religious right as evidence of the “Gay Agenda”. The video Gay Rights, Special Rights, put out by Lou Sheldon’s Traditional Values Coalition cites it with ominous music and picture of children. But when the religious rights cites this text, they always omit, as does the Congressional record, the vital first line, which sets the context for the piece. In other words, every other version of this found on the net is part of the radical right’s great lie about gay people. For a discussion of the whole “Gay vs. Religious Right” phenomenon see Chris Bull and John Gallagher: Perfect Enemies: The Religious Right, the Gay Movement, and the Politics of the 1990s, (New York: Crown, 1996)

This essay is an outré, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too, and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand the depth and feeling, the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators,your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers.

The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence–will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

“We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

“We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

 

Share

The Little Black Book: How to be Gay without Killing Yourself and Others

As I write, Indiana is taking a lot of guff over the passage of a law that would protect religious conscience.  Per the playbook, the activists are out in force with their bullying techniques.  Despite the fact that the people of Indiana have spoken through their elected representatives, using above board legal processes, we can expect that–per the playbook–a handful of judges will be brought to bear on the question, and it will probably be overturned.  The fact that many other states have similar legislation, and the Federal government has had its own version for 20 years (signed by Bill Clinton) will be forgotten.  Such is the hypocrisy of the left.  (It was Clinton that signed DOMA, as you recall).

In the meantime, there is the usual utterances of stupid things.  Take Apple CEO Tim Cook who wrote:  “This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings.”

As if religion and politics don’t very much concern how we treat each other as human beings!  Cook is probably in the camp that doesn’t think ISIS is ‘really’ acting according to its religious beliefs about other human beings when they cut off the heads of men, women, and children.  And of course, Cook does not think that his own views are ‘religious’ in nature.  Clearly he doesn’t see his views as having a political component, even as he publishes an op-ed condemning others acting through the political process, where he himself calls for political action.  Such is the double-mindedness of the left.

I have consistently on this blog taken aim at the tactics of the left regarding homosexuality more than I have the substance of their position.  They will literally burn down the country in their quest to have their way.  I have a real problem with that.  As the Indiana issue illustrates, one of the root factors here is the belief by progressives that people are incapable of self-rule.  States as liberal as California (is there any more liberal?) have fought against gay marriage.  But it will all be burned down to appease the 5%.

I must warn the reader that the beauty of the American system, the real innovation, if you will, is that it represents an agreement to resolve our difficulties through peaceable means by elected representatives acting in a transparent manner that is open to change by other people electing people who reflect their own values.  The alternative, historically, was to have one powerful group actually murder those who disagreed.  We see this with ISIS.  We saw it with the Cult of Reason.  Etc.  If people no longer believe that working through the system really works, you can be sure that we will go back to the ‘old ways.’   There is more at stake here than ‘opposing discrimination.’  Even if I supported the homosexual agenda, I would be very concerned about the means by which it is being implemented.  On the present course, fundamental aspects of the ‘social contract’ are being shredded with abandon.

Anyway, per the playbook, we can expect Republicans to come out and basically apologize for this product of ‘self-governance.’  They should not apologize.  They should stop apologizing.  We have come to a point where the states should tell SCOTUS to pound sand, and the citizens of the various states should be calling on their state representatives to stand up to the Federal government on their behalf.  People in this country have the right to have their values inform the political process.  (The source of those values is irrelevant.)

Cook appeals to the ‘lives and dignity’ of so many people, but as the following subject matter illustrates, it is precisely the ‘lives and dignity’ of people that is radically undercut and undermined by the homosexual agenda.  It is precisely on the question “Just what is a human being?” that there is disagreement.  On the secular progressive viewpoint, people are just animals who act on instinct, thrusting their private parts around when they are in heat.  Arising from this view is a ‘public interest’ component of sparing the mindless sex-engorged the consequences of their behaviors.  Incidentally, the animal kingdom, despite being bound over to their instincts in full, do not have nearly the same problems arising from their sexual behaviors.  In point of fact, I find the hyper-sexual licentiousness of the left to be acutely degrading to human individuals.

One of the main areas where the gay agenda is hard at work is one area that you would think that liberals could agree that parents should have some significant sway:  the school system.  But it is just here that we discover that liberals don’t actually believe in self-governance.  They do not want parents raising their own children the way they see fit.  On their view, the surest sign that someone is a bigot is that they want to raise their children the way they see fit.   Do you really want bigots charting their own course in the local school district?  That’s how they see it.

And I don’t really care.  I’m not going to apologize for the fact that I think this perspective is depraved, and I will resist it to the best of my ability.  Ironically, I think that a great many people, including liberals, and even some gay people, would take issue to that which is being presented to our children.  We might want to start considering the possibility that the reason why we have so many sexually confused people is because we have people in our society deliberately confusing them.  You cannot sexualize a society without there being significant consequences.

lube up, youngsterTake for example this 5th grade curriculum that was actually considered in the Chicago public school system.  Do you think that this will clear things up for young people, or fan certain behaviors that they are obviously not ready to even know about, let alone engage in.  (5th graders are usually around 11 years old.)  WARNING.  GRAPHIC.  NOT SAFE FOR WORK:  Why 5th Graders Should Have Anal Sex and Other Arguments for Abstinence

But how about this document, produced with the help of state public health officials and distributed to middle-schoolers (6th-9th grade) in Massachusetts?

WARNING.  GRAPHIC.  VIEW WITH DISCRETION.  HT

LittleBlackBook-CoverIt is asinine to believe that distributing these kinds of materials will not in fact encourage the very behaviors that lead to the concerns addressed in this pamphlet, titled The Little Black Book – Queer in the 21st Century. Sorry, Mr. Cook.  If anything is an affront to human dignity, it is the reduction of humans to nothing more than sexual creatures.  I find the following positively degrading.

A society that feels it necessary to distribute such information to pre-teens is a society I don’t want to live in, will work to oppose, and have the right to resist.  Enjoy.  [Download the original]

LittleBlackBook-CondomUse

In case your twelve year old was wondering just how safe it was to stick your tongue in another person’s anus:

LittleBlackBook-SafeBehaviors-24-25

Congratulations, kid!  You have the right to have as much sex as you want without any boundaries whatsoever–provided you are safe about it, of course.  You animal, you.  Oh, and by the way, you’re an expert!  In what, we need not wonder…

LittleBlackBook-SEX-SEX-SEX

Not only will the Massachusetts public health department tell you how to safely have as much gay sex as you want (as you are entitled to), it will even tell you where you can go to hook up:

LittleBlackBook-ShowandTell

We would be remiss if we didn’t give credit where credit is due:

LittleBlackBook-THANKS

Now, when word got out–even in liberal Massachusetts–that this was made available to school kids, there was outrage.  As is typical, a page out of the liberal playbook was used, and it was initially denied.  Since our society is primed to be led by the nose (and inflamed into a froth) by initial reports, the tactic worked.  When it was admitted finally that it had actually been available, no one was paying attention any more.  The release was dismissed as accidental and a ‘one off.’  This is a lie.

In point of fact, you can fully expect this and more if you do not stand up and insist that you will absolutely not tolerate the hyper-sexualization of our society… or our children.  That this hyper-sexualization is enormously dangerous to the individuals that engage in these behaviors is tacitly admitted to by all of the programs to counter the STDs, unplanned pregancies, etc, that are funded by tax dollars.  If the behavior is so ‘natural’ why do we have so much trouble with the fallout?  And by behavior I am referring not just to homosexual behavior, but the entire progressive program that encourages promiscuous sexual activities in the spirit of “You have the right to enjoy sex without shame and stigma!” This is irrespective of age or structure of the relationship.

Worst of all, these same programs create the very phenomena they ostensibly are trying to prevent.  We call that ‘job security’ for our public health establishment.

But we don’t have to stand for it.  Do I not have the right to influence how my tax dollars are spent? Is not the public health establishment financed by my tax dollars?   We are back to the days of taxation without representation, my friends, only now it is by our own choice: they can do whatever they please in the name of the ‘common good,’ since they are the experts, and we say nothing.  Don’t want people to think we’re bigots, ya know.  Plus, don’t we want ‘our guys’ to get elected?  HEY.  Are you really ‘our guy’ if you don’t represent our values?

One day you wake up and you realize that a vast number of our fellow citizens simply do not live in the same universe as we do.  They are as beyond our reach as one universe is beyond the reach of another universe in the Multiverse.   You cannot persuade them.  They must be defeated.  They must be out-voted.

They know this.  That’s why they are working so hard to make sure your votes don’t ultimately matter.

Wise up folks.

 

 

 

Share

Choose President based on Principles, not Expertise: In Defense of Scott Walker

I did not watch the CPAC proceedings, but heard on the radio that Scott Walker was ‘rough around the edges.’  The contrast was made between the patently clear ‘gotcha’ game that was played by the media, asking Walker questions about evolution and Obama’s religion, and fact that this was an entirely sympathetic audience.  Conservatives have now weighed in, advising Walker to get himself up to speed ASAP if he wants to remain credible.

There is a premise underlying this kind of talk here that we should not accept.  Indeed, we should reject it. In fact, we should consider ourselves at war with it.  This premise, if accepted and allowed full expression, represents the complete and final death of any notions of self-governance.  That is to say, accepting the premise undermines the whole conservative outlook that views normal, average, Americans as capable of managing their own lives.

Far more important than having the ‘right answers’ and being able to opine on every arcane aspect of public policy, history, philosophy, science, etc, is possessing good judgement.  Having good judgement certainly requires being well-grounded in reality as reality really is, and obviously we want our leaders to be in touch with reality.  But having good judgement also requires having rock-solid guiding principles.   If we had to choose between ‘expertise’ and ‘guiding principles’, I will choose ‘guiding principles’ every time.

And you should, too.

Let’s first tackle the logical side of the question.

First of all, logic is one of those things that every human has the capacity to exercise, and it is by no means guaranteed that someone who is an ‘expert’ in this or that is a logical, rational, person.  He may have mastery of the data and mastery of the ‘literature,’ but he may, in fact, be a dolt.  Indeed, if you ever want to be entertained, when an expert tries to play the “I’m an expert” card, just ask them what they think about the views of Dr. SuchandSuch, who has drawn the exact opposite conclusion.  For every Dr. ImAnExpert there is a Dr.SuchandSuch, and they each think the other is a complete dolt.   Thus, all experts agree that you can be an expert and still be a dolt.

Every person, therefore, is permitted to think carefully about the arguments being presented.   It is possible in many cases to detect an illogical and irrational argument without knowing all the underlying technical mumbo-jumbo, simply by being a critical thinker.

Experience also tells us that not one of us is omniscient.  Experts themselves like to point this out when at war with other experts, for example by declaring that the person is “talking outside their field.”  Despite the fact that none of us is omniscient, and despite the fact that it is not possible to find an expert to speak to every issue we may wrestle with each day, we nonetheless have to find a way to survive.  Amazingly, most of us do survive.   By relying on our experience, common sense, and principles that conform to reality (at least in good approximation), we manage to cook dinner, navigate freeways, put on our socks, or conclude that our local town cannot afford a five trillion dollar public works project.

It is not that we do not avail ourselves of experts here and there along the way, or that we do not educate ourselves.  It is just a simple logistical reality that we cannot know everything before we act, but we must act.

No matter how educated and informed any candidate is, they will still be ignorant of certain, important, possibly relevant factors.  They can rely on experts all day long, and become an expert themselves in all things, and they will still be ignorant of important, possibly relevant factors.  But they will still have to act.  They will still have to make a decision.

Principles will necessarily have to be the bridge.  If someone has bad guiding principles, the consequences are predictably bad.  If someone has good guiding principles, they will make a good decision most of the time.

Therefore, it is more important to have good, core principles, than it is to have knowledge and expertise.

One of good guiding principles is to seek to try to make informed decisions and seek out reliable sources of information, so a person with good guiding principles will do due diligence before they act.   But one does not have to attain ‘expert’ status on an issue before one acts.  The thing cannot even be done.

I have previously warned my conservative readers to be wary of the argument that says, “But our government is so big, so complicated, and so sophisticated, that we need highly sophisticated managers to operate it.  Responsible government needs expertise.”   If the government is so big that average, ordinary, Americans can manage and oversee it, isn’t the right conclusion, from a conservative’s point of view, to radically scale back the scope of government so ordinary Americans can manage and oversee it?

Now lets talk about the ‘ethical’ side of the equation.

I speak in particular of the fact that an expert may have a mastery of the content of his subject area, but it doesn’t follow that he is an expert moral agent.  That is to say, it is generally accepted by just about all thoughtful people that “you cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.'”  For example, if you are an expert on hammers–their constitution, production, and use–it doesn’t follow that you are specially equipped to determine if you should smash someone to death with a hammer.  To put it more bluntly:  an expert can be evil.

Just as everyone is theoretically capable of exercising their logical faculties, so too is everyone theoretically capable of acting morally and ethically.  No special expertise is necessary, or even possible.  Moreover, there is just as much dissension about what constitutes ‘good’ morality as anything else.  One person says it is morally permitted, indeed, obligatory, to take wealth from the rich and distribute it to the poor, and further that to reject this makes you selfish and evil, while another says this is stealing, and stealing is wrong.

Now, it is not necessary, or even possible, to anticipate every way in which the ‘re-distribution of wealth’ may be presented now or in the future before one can formulate a moral judgement on it, in principle.  Once again, educating oneself will greatly aid this process, but eventually a decision will come down to a straight-up moral assessment, which no expert can address conclusively or authoritatively.  The only possible expert here is God, and his existence is much disputed.  That means that the rest of us have to do the best we can.

This being the reality, it then becomes much more critical that someone has a solid moral core than that they have a wealth of knowledge about this or that particular issue.  Or, to put it another way, if you had a choice between an evil expert and a good, average person, the choice is clear.  This, by the by, is true whether or not you are liberal or conservative.  Each paradigm views aspects of the other paradigm as immoral, and the fact that one representative of the paradigm is an ‘expert’ does not change the fact that the expert is considered immoral.

Now, conservatives theoretically understand this, at least philosophically speaking.  That’s why they, theoretically, prefer that people make most decisions for themselves, since, theoretically, they think that most people are able to make moral decisions for themselves.   Yet, more attention is paid to the ‘credentials’ of our candidates than their guiding principles, their moral foundation, and the degree in which the candidates stated principles and moral precepts are consistent with the candidate’s actions.

Scott Walker is not becoming popular among conservatives because of his great knowledge and expertise, but because for the first time in a long time, we have a possible candidate that not only shares our values but actually acts on them.

To say that conservatives have felt let down on this score is an understatement, to say the least.

And let’s just think about where ‘expertise’ has got us, shall we?

What experience did that Harvard genius, Barack Obama, have before getting elected?  Did he have great expertise?  Prove it: What  was his GPA at Harvard and/or Columbia, again?  Anyone have a peek at his dissertation?  I for one would like to see his brilliance with my own eyes!

He won his first election as a state senator by running unopposed–he used technicalities to remove his opponents from the ballot.  He then spent most of his time voting ‘present.’  He probably had his eye on the presidency the entire time, and didn’t want to generate ammunition for his future opponents.  (He did, however, take very chance he had to show he was about as pro-choice as one could be.)  He spent just a year or so as a US senator before running for the president.

He certainly had NO expertise governing, which Scott Walker has in spades.  Obama certainly had expertise in conniving, manipulating, and ruthless activism, along with whatever his academic credentials actually are.

The truth is that regardless of Obama’s expertise or his use of other experts in governing, it is Obama’s guiding principles and his moral foundation that has caused most of the trouble and generated most of the alarm.   Never mind those who have defected from the Obama camp, conservatives at least should recognize that the fact that Obama is smart and intelligent (presumably) does not in anyway redeem Obama’s lawless conduct.  From using executive orders that flatly violate the law to employing sinister and Machiavellian methods to get his health care law passed (eg, highlighted by the admissions of that ‘expert’ Jonathan Gruber), it is clear that it is Obama’s moral code that is having the most impact.  It is Obama’s guiding principles that are doing the damage.  It is Obama’s ethical outlook (Saul Alinksy’s ethical outlook, as it happens) that is undermining the Republic.

This is the reality.

If Scott Walker does not yet have the ‘expertise’ of that Scholar-in-the-White-House, I say great.  And I dare say I hope he never does have that expertise.  It is precisely the fact that Scott Walker has a good head on his shoulders and is not an elitist that is one of his greatest selling points, and probably our greatest hope of saving the country.

We should reject the ‘progressive’ premise that experts should run the asylum and turn the country over to someone with good principles who we have good reason to think will continue to act on those principles.  This means, probably, cutting the size of the Federal government by 90%.  I don’t know if Walker is quite that brave, but compared to someone like Jeb Bush, there is at least a chance.

Walker should say, “Let me research that a little more and get back to you.”  And then do it.  And conservatives should welcome that approach.  We certainly should not be feeding this toxic notion that we should be ruled by technocrats.

 

Share

The Drone Wars: Introduction

Your first inclination when I refer to ‘the drone wars’ is probably to the unmanned (but sometimes armed) aerial vehicles that are clogging air spaces and the public imagination, but in fact this is the title of a new series that I will be working on inspired slightly from the Star Wars episode, The Clone Wars, and inspired more seriously from those first unmanned (but definitely armed) aerial ‘vehicles’ we call bees.   While the ‘drone’ bees do not quite fit the analogy I intend to ultimately draw, the overall social structure of life in the bee hive do, what with its class structure, where certain kinds of bees provide just one function (ie, the drones) in service to a singular entity, the queen.  In our analogy, the ‘queen’ might stand in for the elites within our society.  The analogy directly to drone bees might be apt, since my understanding is that drone bees don’t sting.  As I take it, having an entirely defenseless class of workers that serve the elites, and then die, is a good summary of what the ‘drone wars’ are all about.  And at any rate, “The Drone Wars” has a certain pizzazz to it as a title of a potential, future book.

The reasoning behind this series is this:  It has become increasingly clear to me that there really is a plan afoot to impose certain policies upon the world’s population, with two basic objectives:  1., make it so that humanity serves them and 2., pull it off without there being a bloodbath.   There have been a host of illustrations of this that I have encountered, but I couldn’t very well mention them here without some kind of explanation and documentation.  Indeed, it would take several books to do it justice, because, as I will well concede, the thesis I am proposing is exceedingly far-fetched.  It would be fair to demand significant corroboration for my claims.  However, day after day has gone by, and week after week, and month after month, and now even year after year, and these books have yet to be written.  Indeed, these lines are the first attempt I’ve made to commit them to written form at all.  So, a new plan was hatched.

With this introductory post, I intend to provide the context necessary to understand other posts that will be written.  It will be far more manageable to produce a series of essays than an entire book, and in the end there may be the same result:  the corroboration of my claims and sufficient reason to be very, very, concerned.

This series is the closest I think I will ever come to invoking what we typically understand as a ‘conspiracy theory.’  I have said frequently that for many of the things I have discussed, there is no need to invoke a ‘conspiracy theory.’  Rather, there are certain positions and policies that flow naturally from certain ideological and philosophical commitments.  You don’t need to coordinate the actions of co-ideologues because, by virtue of having a shared world view, people will generally come to similar conclusions and attempt to do similar things.  And yet, I have ascertained that there is good reason for thinking there is ‘out there’ something much bigger and broader, and, yes, sinister.

We have been conditioned in our society to regard anything called ‘a conspiracy theory’ as absurd on its face.  Even if there is evidence for it, if you call it a ‘conspiracy theory,’ you’ve effectively taken it off the table for consideration.   Even if the only plausible explanation for something is a ‘conspiracy,’ you can get people to avert their eyes simply by labeling that explanation ‘a conspiracy theory.’  People don’t want others to think they are the sort that ‘can be taken in.’  On the one hand, they are easily cowed by their concerns about what others will think about them, and on the other hand, they enjoy the flattered feeling they have by being among the ‘sophisticated’ that don’t believe ‘that nonsense.’

Despite this, there are elements within our experience that simply cry out ‘conspiracy.’  There is just no other rational way to perceive these elements.  We may be unable to determine who the actors are or what their motivations ultimately are and we may not be able to produce the kind of evidence we need to take the actions appropriate if it is a genuine conspiracy, but a genuine conspiracy it undoubtedly is.

For now, let me just submit the Bilderbergs as an illustration.  Here you have a secretive group of powerful individuals who have been meeting in seclusion for more than fifty years.  Of late, they have been making public at least some of the attendees, and these include bankers, wealthy CEOs, prominent members of intelligence agencies, and so on.  We are to believe that they have been meeting for more than fifty years without any kind of agenda or guiding principles and that there is never any coordination of policies resulting from these meetings.  Even if the goal is only to help the others make money (and not exert power and influence) it must be seen as, at minimum, the most insidious form of insider trading humanity has ever seen.

It is inconceivable that this is all it is, though.  In the last 4 years they have been giving indications of what they are talking about (and, putatively, a list of participants for each year’s meetings), and examples include:  “World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science” and “Demographic Challenges” and “the Future of Democracy” and “Jobs, entitlement and debt” and “Nationalism and populism” and “US foreign policy” and “Who will pay for the demographics?” and even “Online education: promise and impacts.”  Why on earth would these people single out online education for discussion?

My research has indicated that behind the word ‘demography’ is a whole package of ideas, including overt population control, that can easily relate to ‘world food problems’ and ‘Global Cooling.’  Go to the United Nations web page and you will find these and many others discussed in the context of concerns about ‘over-population.’  But this is the low-hanging fruit.

It has become evident to me that this program (if there is even a ‘program’) goes well beyond the typical fodder for ‘conspiracy theories.’  For example, one of the things listed for discussion by the Bilderbergs was “The future of democracy and the middle class trap.”  From this brief mention, how does one think these two ideas are connected?  The meeting coordinators evidently believe that ‘democracy’ and ‘the middle class’ are connected somehow.  My guess is that 95% of my readers have never even put the two phrases together in the same sentence.  Moreover, my guess is that 95% of my readers will intuitively suppose that the Bilderbergs are hoping somehow that more or better democracy can help the middle class avoid the ‘trap.’  This is a charitable supposition, but it is nonetheless only a supposition.  It could just as easily refer to a feeling that democracy is an ‘out of date’ political system and they wish to dump as many people into the ‘middle class’ as possible, keeping people ‘trapped in it.’  I don’t know which supposition is more accurate (but I have my well-founded suspicions)… and neither do you.  I don’t understand why we should adopt the more charitable one, when no direct evidence exists to point us in either direction (or others we may imagine).

I have mentioned the Bilderbergs only by way of illustrating what seems to me to be prima facie evidence of some kind of coordination by the ‘elite.’  I think there are many more examples that can be raised, but of course to document them all and show that conclusions I am drawing are rational would take up a lot of time, which is precisely why I have begun this series.  I don’t have the time.  But perhaps, over time, in future essays, more examples and corroborating evidence will be made available.  If I waited to do it all in advance, it would never get done.  So dribbling it out is the best I can do for now.

I need to make a few clarifying comments for future reference.

One thing that is clear from my research is that the political ideology driving this ‘conspiracy’ transcends the party labels we are accustomed to working with.  To return again to the Bilderbergs as an illustration, evidently, from the beginning, it invited both ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals.’  According to their site, the meetings were originally conceived because people “were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.”  What, pray tell, are areas of common interest between rich and powerful conservatives and rich and powerful liberals?  And doesn’t the idea of ‘working together’ here naturally suggest some kind of coordination and cooperation among the participants throughout the years?  Too bad we are not privy to the details on what they thought was their ‘common interest’ and the mechanics of how they then proceeded to ‘work together’!

In the course of my essays, I will show how both Republicans and Democrats appear to be involved in these affairs.  I actually think I have a good idea of what the ‘common interest’ they had (and have) in mind is, and some idea of the kind of ‘work’ they have been doing ‘together.’  Moreover, I think I have a good idea of the future ‘work’ they have in mind.  I know less about the main political parties in other countries, but I feel confident in saying that what binds these people together is their great wealth, their intention to gain more wealth, and their overall hope that they can do this without anyone finding out the details (because their heads would end up on stakes) or without making themselves too squeamish.  That is to say, this isn’t their first ‘go’ at this, but earlier efforts resulted in the deaths of millions of people.  That’s not what they had in mind, and they wish to avoid it in the future.  More on this, trust me.

This viewpoint of mine will be an awkward manifestation of that old maxim, “politics makes strange bedfellows.”  It is awkward because I genuinely believe that there are certain ideologies that are profoundly dangerous and malignant.  Liberalism really could get us killed.  Progressives really could enslave us–and themselves.   Moreover, there is no question in my mind that one of the great common ideological components of these ‘elite’ is the statism that liberalism and progressivism itself tends to cultivate.  And yet, individual liberals and individual progressives often make good points and are animated by genuine concerns and genuine problems.  The poor, hapless, “Occupy Wall Street” folks did have legitimate concerns.  The problem is that the solutions that the OWS folks, liberals, and progressives, propose are not only almost always counter-productive, they are misguided and almost certain to exacerbate the problem.  For, if there is anything that the elites like having, it is access even more ‘levers of power.’  And those of this ideological strain almost always see increasing the number of ‘levers of power’ as a solution to their problems.

Conservatives, in America, at least, are not immune to this criticism.   Insofar as they advocate for ‘limited government’ and individual liberties, they are on the right track, but it is only incidentally the case that at present the Republican party aligns with their values.  Remember, if you will, that the first Progressive party in the United States was actually a Republican venture.  It wasn’t necessarily the goals that are objectionable to Republicans, but the methods.

I will advocate for a position that is broadly conceived as ‘conservative’ but I will have to tweak it considerably, because as it stands right now, conservatives (as the term is conceived in America) are as likely to help bring about tyranny as the liberals.

I will, therefore, be finding myself in common cause with some folks that I have virulent disagreement with.  Awkward, as I said.

So, I need to employ some terms to distinguish who I think the actors in view are.  I have used the term ‘elites’ which is helpful, as far as it goes.  It is more than that, though, as I will be attempting to show.  Moreover, there is remains the very real problem that many of the people implementing the views of these ‘elites’ may yet not be privy to the actual goals of these elites.  Without being able to access their brains, or corroborating documentation, their actions are indistinguishable from those of the ‘actors’ themselves.

A case in point would be a certain Jonathan Gruber.  Here is a man who has now been documented as deliberately and willfully engaging in deception of the American people, and even going so far as saying that the only way that they succeeded was by relying on the ignorance of Americans.  Is he ‘in on it’?  Or, is he just a tool like the rest of us?  Deceptive actions such as these are precisely the kinds of things the ‘elites’ engage in, putting forward a policy with one stated rationale behind it, when in fact they are motivated by an entirely different rationale, which, if was widely known, would be deemed reprehensible and cause for rioting in the streets.  I just don’t know how to figure out which category a man like Gruber belongs to.

(Importantly, my thesis speaks to HOW it is that Americans are supposedly ignorant about basic economics in the first place!)

So, here are my proposed categories.

The Central Planners.  Otherwise known as, “The Managers.”  I doubt very much that there really is a central organization, per se.  I think rather that there are a class of people who regard themselves as superior to the rest of society, and believe that this is proved (at least to themselves) by their high station in life.  I may also sometimes call themselves “The Aristocracy,” because it is clear that they believe that they are better-suited to rule.  I think they feel they have a biological basis for this, that natural selection and evolution have worked together to elevate them above the rest.  They do not perceive that they are amoral or immoral, but that there is a morality that applies to the individual and a morality that applies to the ‘state.’  That is to say, the drones are biologically disposed to feel they ‘ought’ to do one thing, but the ‘queen’ has a ‘higher’ importance.  The ‘queen’ must look out for herself, and of course, the entire hive.  The rules that apply to the drones do not apply to her, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t play by the rules.  It is, as I said, preferable that the drones are not able to countermand her; far better if the thought never crosses the drones’ minds.  That is part of the program.

The Delegates.  Otherwise known as, “The Deputies” or “the Uninitiated.”  This might be the category that someone like Gruber is in.  These people carry out and implement the will of the Managers, genuinely believing they are accomplishing one thing for one reason, not knowing that they are really accomplishing something else entirely, for another reason.  As another case in point, I do not find it coincidental that we have more and more people suggesting that we must subvert or get rid of democracy altogether if we are going to ‘save the planet.’  (Lucky for us that the Bilderbergs have been talking about both Climate Change and the Future of Democracy, right? Not linked together, I’m sure…)  The people in this category might be privy to the actual goals and actual motivations of the policy initiatives, but still not a member of the conclave of Managers themselves, and still possibly unaware there even is one.  Again, Gruber comes to mind.

The Dupes.  These are, in the main, the liberals and progressives who serve as foot soldiers advocating strenuously for all the things the Managers (“just happen to”) also want to do, just for different reasons.  It is usually the case that the Dupes don’t have a clue about the malevolent goals and outcomes that the Central Planners have in mind.  In this sense, then, many of us are dupes, and will always remain so, since we are obviously not going to be told the ‘real’ plans.   Indeed, I will be discussing a number of examples where conservatives advocate for policies designed to enslave us all.  The difference, if there is any, is that the conservatives ought to have known better.

The Drones.  Or, “the worker bees.”  This pretty well covers the Dupes, too.  I think there are just two basic classes of people in view here (as these elites perceive it), and these are those of the queen bee and the workers that server her.  The problem is that the Drones are a dangerous lot.  They must be kept pacified.  They must remain content with their station in life.  They need to be ‘trapped.’  One of the best ways to keep them trapped is by debt:  credit card debt, mortgage debt, student loan debt, etc.  There was recently an article about the Federal student loan debt totaling 800 billion dollars.  A few years back, when I first heard that Obama was going to nationalize the student loan business, I knew exactly what was really in view.  The article sums it up succinctly:

This is money that young Americans owe the federal Treasury–and that gives the federal government leverage over their lives.

“Under the DL program, the federal government essentially serves as the banker — it provides the loans to students and their families using federal capital (i.e., funds from the U.S. Treasury), and it owns the loans,” explains the Congressional Research Service.

In fact, the program is a government-funded redistribution of wealth to colleges and universities. The question is: Who will ultimately pay for that wealth transfer?

I don’t suppose any of the Occupy Wall Street people will perceive that the ‘banker’ financing their student loan is in character and net effect just like the ‘bankers’ they protested on Wall Street.  Who will pay for the wealth transfer?  Well, eventually taxes will (theoretically) have to be raised to cover this expense, and this will be extracted from the people who received the loans in the first place.  Not only will they be in hock to the Federal government, which has no competitor anymore on this front (wasn’t there a reason we viewed monopolies as bad?), but they will have to work longer and harder to pay off a larger pile of debt more generally, because the colleges are charging more–since they know students can access more debt.  If you surmised that I looked quite suspiciously at the latest announcement that the Feds want to offer the first two years of college ‘free’, you’d be correct.

I am dwelling on the student loan issue here because it plays directly into the ‘worker bee’ aspect.  Not only is it the case that people have higher debts, but they can’t get decent jobs to pay those debts.  With the increase in ‘hyper-specialization’ and people being underwater on their mortgages, people can’t get jobs even when they are available.  They aren’t qualified for the ones in their local area–unless they go get more schooling!–and they can’t sell their houses in order to get a job they are qualified for, elsewhere.  “The future of democracy and the middle class trap”?

The debt, the schooling, the education, the low wages, the high taxes, so on and so forth… these are all engineered so as to keep the people pacified and defenseless; in this instance, to be able to ‘defend oneself’ speaks to the ability to earn enough wages in order to change one’s circumstances for the better without recourse to charity or government subsidy (both of which have potential to further entrap people).

A recent article about ‘the Vanishing Male Worker‘ lays it out nicely:

“When the legal, entry-level economy isn’t providing a wage that allows someone a convincing and realistic option to become an adult — to go out and get married and form a household — it demoralizes them and shunts them into illegal economies,” said Philippe Bourgois, an anthropologist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the lives of young men in urban areas. “It’s not a choice that has made them happy. They would much rather be adults in a respectful job that pays them and promises them benefits.”

There is also evidence that working has become more expensive. A recent analysis by the Brookings Institution found that prices since 1990 had climbed most quickly for labor-intensive services like child care, health care and education, increasing what might be described as the cost of working: getting a degree, staying healthy, hiring someone to watch the children. Meanwhile, the price of food, clothing, computers and other goods has climbed more slowly.

But the article doesn’t suggest that this situation has been engineered… which is precisely what I believe is the case.   The converse of this story, of course, is that women are obviously making up the difference in the workplace.  Good for women?   Well, did you know that population control advocates have long known that an effective way to curb a society’s population growth is to give the women an education and jobs?  Women in America have been doing gangbusters on this front every since the 70s–which, by the by, is precisely when this connection was most acutely realized.

I will take just a moment to corroborate this, because in my experience, Dupes are also very prone to Knee-Jerk Disease, and are primed to reject what I’m saying anyway.  Now that I’ve said something that sounds heretical, bigoted, and sexist, they’re really going to get up in arms.

In 1969, Bernard Berelson, president of The Population Council, published a paper called “Beyond Family Planning.”  Of course, he’s only ‘discoursing’ and not making proposals!  But it is very interesting to read, anyway.

Download it:

Here is a bit that is potentially relevant:

[As method to reduce population growth]  F., Shifts in Social an Economic Institutions: i.e., broad changes in fundamental institutional arrangements that could have the effect of lowering fertility.  1. […] … through establishment of a domestic “national service” program for all men for the appropriate two-year period in order to develop social services, inculcate modern attitudes including family planning and population control, and at the same time delay age of marriage.

2. Promotion or requirement of female participation in labor force (outside the home) to provide roles and interests for women alternative or supplementary to marriage.

3. “Direct manipulation of family structure itself–planned efforts at deflecting the family’s socializing function, reducing the noneconomic utilities of offspring, or introducing nonfamilial distractions and opportunity costs into people’s lives”; specifically, through employment of women outside the home; “selective restructure of the family in relation to the rest of society.”

4. Promotion of “two types of marriage, one of them childless and readily dissolved, and the other licensed for children and designed to be stable;” the former needs to be from 20-40 per cent of the total in order to allow the remainder to choose family size freely.

5.  Encouragement of long-range social trends leading toward lower fertility, e.g., “improved and universal general education, or new roads facilitating communication, or improved agricultural methods, or a new industry that would increase productivity, or other types of innovation that may break the ‘cake of custom’ and produce social foment” and improved status of women (U.N./ECOSOC)

Entirely coincidentally, I’m sure, but in the 1970s, the employment ‘opportunities’ for women in America exploded.  Was it because of concern for the women themselves, and their rights?  As you can see from Bereleson’s survey, they were even willing to require “female participation in [the] labor force”!  Your knee-jerk reaction here is to think, “What does the man have against women working outside the home?!!?!” but that is not at all what I’m getting at.  The point here was that Bereleson was considering manufacturing the women’s desire to work outside the home, with the aim of exerting population control. These people didn’t care one lick about a woman’s rights or what she wanted.  I would even go so far as to say that I am more concerned about what a woman’s rights are or what she wants–what she wants, really–than the Dupes who think they are the greatest advocates for women.  If a woman wants to work, fine.  But what if she doesn’t?  What if she didn’t all along?  And, might there be other ways of ‘requiring’ someone to work, such as creating economic conditions where a woman has but no choice to work?

Before you answer, consider this recent article talking about the great decline of the institution of marriage in the United States (read it closely! cross reference with #4 above) and this one, declaring that the US birth rate has reached an all-time low.

Coincidence?

It just so happens that in the late 60s and early 70s they were discussing how to re-engineer society so as to control the population size, seriously considering pushing women into the work force, making general education universal (see again Obama’s announcement about 2 years of ‘free community college’), and re-shaping the institution of marriage so as to down play it (note that in the article I cite, marriage rates among blacks are even lower, and “The evidence shows that getting married increases wealth and income”.  Coincidence?) and here we are now, at the end of a “long-range social trend” where fewer people are marrying, more people are going into debt to go to school, more women than men are in the workplace, and… birth rates are lower?  It just so happens?

I will analyze many of these things in more depth later (hence the need for multiple essays) but the reader will naturally say to themselves, “Well, just because they talked about doing all these things that have actually come to pass, it doesn’t follow that they actually did these things, and if they did, that they did them for these reasons.  That’s quite the conspiracy theory!”

A natural question that a dupe and drone is supposed to ask, and then shy away from trying to answer because obviously, if this was engineered, there are engineers, and that requires a ‘conspiracy.’  And we already talked about the aversion that ‘drones’ have to thinking about conspiracies.

Ah, but what if there is documentary evidence?

I mean, besides the fact that we’re actually seeing these things with our own eyes?

I have in my possession such evidence.

And that, my friends, is why I myself have finally risen above my aversion to being regarded as a ‘conspiracy kook.’

It may be that the reader is willing to grant the existence and operation of these Managers, but approves of these developments.  I, for one, am absolutely outraged.  Even if I were seeing things I approved of, if they were deliberately and deceitfully foisted upon us, I would be mortified.  Since I have come to the firm conclusion that these things are engineered, and I find it absolutely despicable that anyone thought themselves high and mighty enough to go ahead and carry out their plans, regardless of the content of those plans, I feel I must do my part to expose them and fight them.

To little effect, I’m afraid.  All the evidence suggests that they’ve already won.

But a man can try.

Share

White Christian Males Gun Down French Journalists that Mocked Jesus: 12 DEAD

The above would have been the headline throughout the universe if, in fact, white Christian males slaughtered French journalists that had mocked Jesus.

Instead, we are faced once again with the utterly bizarre hesitancy of the Obama White House to forthrightly describe what has just happened at Charlie Hebdo ‘terrorism.’   Then the statement is released, and there is no mention of the perpetrators or their purpose and aims.

Many Obama-watchers may be able to produce some plausible explanations for behavior that seems utterly inexplicable in a sane universe.  It may be, for example, that Obama views the Islamic world as downtrodden beneath western civilization with justified anger; he understands their rage, but wishes they would express it constructively.  Or whatever.

I was actually thinking about this issue this morning even before I heard about this event.  I was actually thinking about how it is that many liberals, secular humanists, and pretty much every ‘new atheist’, regards ‘religion’ as dangerous.  The typical move is to raise examples of Islamic madness as evidence that Christianity is dangerous.  One of the finest examples of this is in Dawkins’ Delusion.  In the 90s, when I first became sensitive to this trend, you couldn’t get an atheist to concede that there is something about Islam that makes it distinctly different than Christianity.  To their credit, I have seen more willing to draw that distinction.  To their shame, it took them far longer than it should have, and worse, you can still find them justifying their positions that all religions are dangerous but making their case by citing examples from Islam.

There is one exception to that, and that exception is probably very revealing.  I speak of that great, horrible trend within Christendom of slaughtering abortionists.  I am being sarcastic.  While abortionists have occasionally been murdered over the last four decades, it pales in comparison to what Muslims will do in the next four hours.  And that is not an exaggeration.

If this Wikipedia article is accurate, there have been 8 ‘anti-abortion’ related murders since Roe vs. Wade; that was in 1973.  41 years of vehement protest, and there were less murders than were killed in 5 minutes in Paris.

If you follow the news even slightly, and by ‘follow’ I mean go beyond the mainstream media, there are daily incidents of beheadings, kidnappings, homicide bombings, honor killings, etc, etc.  Daily.  One problem we have in recognizing when they happen is that if they do percolate enough to catch our attention, the perpetrators’ distinctly Islamic intentions are not reported, or distinctly under-stated.

Now, I have some things to say about this.

First of all, I have frequently heard atheists retort that Christians have no room to talk–after all, look at the Crusades.  Or, in response to my leading off this with reference to ‘White Christian Males’ it might be said, with some pity, that I really don’t understand the ‘white privilege’ I enjoy, and that others are justified in their ‘rage.’  But this is not actually the point.

It should theoretically be entirely possible to talk about ‘white privilege’ as a real thing AND possible to deal manly with the threat that Islam poses to the world.  The utterly bizarre thing I wish to call attention to is the astonishing lack of any sense of proportion exhibited when we see, continually, various insults, lies, slanders, etc, about how BAD Christians (and yes, white male Christians in particular) as if they were the ones cutting off heads.

I am calling attention to the lack of proportion.  I am NOT trying to defend Christianity, white people, or men.  THAT IS NOT MY POINT.  We could swap out ‘white Christian male’ with any other group and it wouldn’t change my argument:  a large number of people are unable to deal realistically with a real threat, and talk madly about other things being a threat… that probably aren’t, or are very mild if they are.

This leads directly to the second thing I wanted to say, which offers in part an explanation for this strange phenomena.  I think a large part of it is just simple, straight forward cowardice.  If you speak harshly or mocking about ‘he-who-must-not-be-named’, you know–even if you won’t acknowledge it–that you are a prime candidate for being gunned down like those that just were, or stabbed to death on the street.  On the other hand, you can say whatever in hell you want about Christians, and pretty much nothing will happen to you.  What, you might get boycotted?  Oooooh, the horror.  So, I think what happens is that liberals (especially of the progressive, atheist sort), say to and about Christians what they would like to say to and about Muslims.

But simple cowardice cannot be the only explanation.  Another large measure must flow from a serious, serious, mental malfunction.  Like in our case above with the White House hesitating to call the Paris attack, ‘terrorism,’ and then not calling attention to the nature of the terrorists, but dispatching Eric Holdren to Ferguson, MO to root out racism, this bizarre, distorted outlook of the world cannot be tracked back only to being ‘chicken.’  There must be a rationale to it, and it must somehow be the product of people sick in the head.  But what makes them sick?   That is the mystery.

When I woke up this morning and I was thinking about this, I was going to expound a little bit on just why liberals perceive that Christianity is dangerous.  I think part of it is that when ‘liberals’ perceive of ‘individual freedom’ what they really mean is “having sex–as much as possible with as many people as possible, with no guilt, shame, or consequence.”  Despite the fact that Christianity stands against many things (eg, greed, pride, theft, coveting) that theoretically should allow liberals to find allies among Christians, Christianity maintains that people were made in the image of God and that God has ordained a particular format and structure for sexual activity.  Moreover, what many liberals regards as a ‘consequence’ of sexual activity, the creation of a ‘fetus,’ many Christians regard the same as a person.

Worse than that even, there are liberals who concede that a ‘fetus’ is as much of a ‘person’ as any other, and still would advocate for the right to kill this person–“the world’s greatest abortion.”

Another illustration of the great mental disconnect then occurs, where the liberal thinks that Christians are against sex, or women, when the Christian is really thinking about the 50 frickin million unborn persons being slaughtered in the name of ‘individual freedom.’  Some liberals who have grasped this then say, “But if you really believe that, you’d murder more abortionists.”  Which, I think, just illustrates again that there is some mad mental breakdown here, that cannot see past their desire to have unchecked sexual activity to see what is motivating the Christian.  Hint:  there was that ‘image of God’ thing, plus the whole “Jesus saved the WHOLE world” aspect.

These are themes I’ve talked about before on this blog, and I was going to talk about again, before I saw the news.  The news re-focused me, though, on another concern.  I must emphasize again that it is not at all that I feel marginalized or attacked because I am a white Christian male, or that I feel that I need to defend being white, or defend being a male, or defend being Christian, or defend Christianity.  I am speaking only as a citizen:  your liberal, progressive, atheistic, etc outlook on the world is going to get us killed.

I mean, I’m talking about straight-up survival, here.  You liberals are really going to get us killed.

Liberals almost got us killed at the hands of the communists (still time for this one, I guess), which was the last self-evidently evil system hell-bent on global domination where, because of some strange ideological defect, liberals could not actually perceive what was self-evident to nearly the entire rest of the world.  Now we have another self-evidently evil system hell-bent on global domination.  Their stated goal is Sharia law throughout the globe and they have no compunction against murdering anyone who stands in their way.  They will even murder fellow Muslims.  Children.  Women.  Journalists.  Cartoonists.  They would even murder me for penning this blog post.

Despite the cowardly unwillingness to regard Islam as it really is, and state it plainly, I think it is the case that most people, even liberals, recognize just how deadly dangerous it is.  So deadly dangerous, it is far safer to chase others (like Christians or police officers), then it is to deal directly with the real threat.  You would think that after 9-11, we would not have to argue the case that we’ve got to ‘man up’ and do what is necessary.   Instead, at best  what we can expect are more laws passed to outlaw murder or possession of guns, as if either kinds of laws would have been obeyed by these, or any, terrorists.

And what is necessary?  (I mean, besides rooting ideological sickness from one’s own brain…)

Well, a large number of Muslims have effectively and practically, and even in many cases, explicitly, declared war on non-Muslims.  And by ‘war’ they mean, “you’re gonna die.”

It’s time that we thought hard about how we are going to fight back, and do so without hesitation.  Or moral equivocation.

And to start, I earnestly ask that you abandon whatever ideological commitments that are preventing you from acting on what you KNOW is true, because if you don’t, it is a distinct possibility that you will get us BOTH killed.

Share

If Jeb Bush is the Republican Candidate for President, I’m Out

If Jeb Bush is the Republican candidate for president, I’m out.

And I don’t think I’ll be the only one.  According to reports, and assuming it was a fair election, some 4,000,000 conservatives simply refused to vote for Romney.  Between this and Obama’s use of the IRS to target Tea Party groups (more than one way to steal an election!), Romney had a slim chance of victory in the 2012 election.  For myself, I sucked it up and voted for him, but not because of anything all that redeeming in him, but because the alternative was an unspeakable horror.  Nonetheless, even with a Romney victory, I would have been pessimistic about the ultimate fate of the United States of America.  In spirit, I was with the 4 million conservatives who sat out the presidential election.

This time around, assuming the opposing candidate is your typical political animal (such as Clinton), if Jeb Bush is the candidate representing the GOP, I will not be casting my vote for him.  I’ll be thinking long and hard about whether to vote at all.

News article:

Despite some groaning about a possible Bush-Clinton sequel, there’s plenty of reason to think voters will simply take a breath and size up the primary election candidates on their merits.

“It’s all about alternatives,” Zelizer says. “If that’s the best choice available, people will get over it.”

Not this time.  Not me, anyway.

 

Share

Sony Cancels “Interview” Because Obama Can’t Fight His Way out of a Wet Paper Bag

I saw that Sony has canceled its release of “The Interview” because of the threats issued by the ‘Guardians of Peace’ (aka, the North Koreans) to launch mass casualty events in American theaters and I just had to shake my head.  It really is just astonishing.

A foreign government threatens to slaughter thousands of American movie-goers and the strongest statement that the Obama administration can muster is that there is “no credible threat.”  Despite these very assuring words, Sony has completely surrendered.  Who can blame them?   Not only is the yellow streak down Obama’s back plain for the world to see, but we know from past experience that if someone did wipe out thousands of Americans, Obama is as likely to blame the murdered as he is the murderers… after all, the movie is an American provocation, is it not?

In a recent example where he showed his true character, in response to the slaughter–the literal slaughter–of more than a hundred school children in Pakistan by the Taliban, Obama couldn’t even bring himself to single out the Taliban by name in his statement.

Having now watched Obama get pushed around in Syria and the Ukraine, the North Koreans could not have been too worried about how far Obama would go.  They knew that Obama probably wouldn’t do anything in response to threatening words, and even if North Korea carried out their threat (or, more likely, a lone wolf acting on his own initiative), the extent of Obama’s retaliation would probably be a round of drone strikes on a handful of lowly North Korean soldiers.  Like Clinton and his cruise missiles (that is not a euphemism), Obama just doesn’t have the stomach for dealing with threats in any decisive manner.  Obama would rather watch Iraq burn then do what is necessary with ISIS–which I think we all know desperately needs to be completely annihilated.

Certainly, Sony would know this, too.   Without any confidence that America would protect itself or provide ‘credible’ deterrence, they must have realized that it was up to them to try to analyze the ‘credibility’ of the threat, and act accordingly.  If, however, Obama and the administration had come out and said that there was no ‘credible threat’ (which may, of course, be true) and also said, “But, if any such attack were to be carried out, we’d see to it that your country was a barren wasteland by morn'” Sony could at least have counted on the sponsoring country worrying a bit about its own self-preservation.

I am aware of the fact that any such stern warning would probably be too little too late.  I doubt very much that even now any country would take such a warning seriously.

I can say, at least, that if I learned North Korea made a comment of this sort directed specifically at me, I would operate as though I was completely ON MY OWN.  Indeed, isn’t that precisely the situation every movie-goer finds themselves in?  No wonder Sony surrendered; it would be hard to have an atrocity on their conscience, if it turned out the ‘incredible threat’ turned out to be very real.  It makes me sad that they came to that conclusion, but I totally understand it.

Let us all pray that our next resident of the White House is made of sterner stuff and actually likes the people he’s been elected to govern.

 

 

Share

Infanticide, Euthanasia, and Progressive Spin Doctors: Snopes

I’ve always viewed Snopes.com in much the same way I view Wikipedia–at best, a good place to start your research, and never to be trusted on its face.

More justification for my skepticism was provided to me recently by a friend,  here.    The Snopes article attacks this article here, titled, “TRENDING: More college students support post-birth abortion.”

I wasn’t personally planning on dwelling the TRENDING piece because I have already spent loads of time discussing contemporary trends towards ‘post-birth abortion’ on this site.  However, one of the tactics I’ve observed amongst proponents of abortion on demand is the pooh-poohing of assertions (such as I have made) linking the arguments for abortion on demand to ‘post-birth abortion’ and euthanasia and assisted suicide, etc.  This is precisely what the Snopes piece amounts to: pooh-poohing.

There is so little of merit and substance within the Snopes article to discuss, that in my opinion, the simple truth is that Snopes wanted to put a ‘hit’ on the TRENDING article, and were looking for any pretext to do so.  You are free to draw your own conclusion; in fact, I’m hoping you will.

The problem starts right at the beginning.  The title of the Snopes article is:  “The Old College Sigh:  Claim — A growing number of college students support “post-birth abortions,” extending to children as old as four or five.”  The claim, Snopes says, is FALSE.   The ‘example’ they provide is telling.  It is a ‘tweet’ that reads thusly:

WOW! New study says college students r starting to support POST-BIRTH #abortion until 5 yrs old cuz they don’t have self awareness #justsick

Look at what the Snopes-folk say about this Tweet:

“The claims were quickly picked up on blogs and in the course of their travels and anecdotes morphed into the results of a “study” about a worrisome moral decay on campuses nationwide.”

The TRENDING article itself does not say that it is a study.  The Snopes-folk themselves quote the article’s use of the phrase “anecdotal” and correctly characterizes the TRENDING article as “citing word-of-mouth claims made by anti-abortion activists”, which the TRENDING article actually submits that it is doing!  There is nothing in the article itself to suggest anything more than that, and certainly no hint in the TRENDING article that they carried out a study of any kind.  Is it really the case that the claims “morphed” into a study?  Well, no.  The original tweet does not even give a link to the TRENDING article, which you can see for yourself, here.  Note that as of this writing, there is only one one tweeter characterized the TRENDING article (assuming of course, that’s the article the tweeter had in mind) as being a study, and this tweeter only had 3 re-tweets.  The notion that the TRENDING article represented a “new study” wasn’t exactly a viral sensation.

The TRENDING article itself went viral, but as you can see for yourself, very few others amongst the tens of millions of tweeters out there characterized it as a ‘study.’  See here and here to start.  I can only find one other instance where the TRENDING article was regarded as a “study.”  It seems that these were folks who just didn’t read the TRENDING article carefully, which says in its opening lines,

A trend seen by prolife activists that frequently engage college students on campuses nationwide is the growing acceptance of post-birth abortion, or killing the infant after he or she is born, campus prolife outreach leaders tell The College Fix.

Anecdotal evidence by leaders of prolife groups such as Created Equal and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust said in interviews that not only do they see more college students willing to say they support post-birth abortion, but some students even suggest children up to 4 or 5-years-old can also be killed, because they are not yet “self aware.”

Can you see the sleight of hand?  The Snopes article calls the claim “A growing number of students support ‘post-birth abortion'” false, when in fact it is only this one tweeter that has been shown false, who characterized the TRENDING article as a ‘study.’  The TRENDING article itself cannot be false unless the people The College Fix interviewed were lying about their experiences, or The College Fix misrepresented the ones they interviewed.  People’s assertions about what they’ve experienced may be anecdotal to you and me and not something we can build a position around, but that doesn’t mean people didn’t experience what they say they experienced.

To illustrate the irrationality of this, consider this scenario.

I write a blog post saying that I went to the store and bought lettuce and saw three other people buying lettuce.  Someone references my post in a tweet, saying, “Study shows people buying lettuce!”  Snopes notices this tweet and uses it as an argument against my blog post, headlining their article with:  “Claim:  People are buying lettuce… FALSE.”

The Snopes article proceeds to show how the claim in my blog post is wrong, using the tweeter as an illustration.  But I did not claim that I was carrying out a study, and it is true that I and three other people bought lettuce.  To say that my claim about my experiences is false because someone else characterized it as a study is absurd beyond measure.

If one saw a bit of logic like that, one would question the intelligence of the person employing it.  If that person normally seems intelligent, one may seek other explanations, like perhaps they were looking for a reason to attack the view that some people are buying lettuce.

Alright, so there are about fifteen paragraphs total in the Snopes piece.  The first four are directed towards highlighting and quoting the TRENDING piece’s explicit references to reporting anecdotal accounts.  The last four refer to an entirely unrelated “2013 media kerfuffle” regarding ‘fourth trimester’ abortions, which the TRENDING article makes no mention of.  The implication is that they are connected, but it is a connection entirely of Snope’s making.  Of the remaining 7 paragraphs, three of them are quotations from the TRENDING article (in fact, 7 of the 15 paragraphs are quotations from other material), which leaves just 4 paragraphs of substance for us to address, plus a few sentences here and there:

Immediately, the article veered into “friend of a friend” territory, citing word-of-mouth claims made by anti-abortion activists who frequently demonstrate on campuses.

[…]

The article lacks a number of key credibility markers. Among crucial corroborating information missing is on which campuses purported polling might have occurred, the number of respondents espousing this shocking viewpoint, the number of college students polled, what specifically constitutes “reguarly,” and the most crucially relevant portion: what specific language was used to extract this specific admission from college students asked about their support of abortion or reproductive law?

Harrington himself pointed to a single individual as evidence of this alarming “trend” favoring infanticide, and the claim relied solely on his assertion such a conversation occurred:
[…]

Even if Harrington did speak with one young man at one campus who believed that children up to the age of five were not “persons,” there is no evidence of any large-scale support for similar beliefs. The site also quotes anti-abortion activist Kristina Garza, who similarly claims that “a common [age] going around is 4 years old” in this purported new trend of post-birth abortion support. Garza points to 35 year old literature as the culprit inspiring college kids to embrace the philosophy:

As for the trend, Garza said there’s an explanation for it. For one, the arguments put forth by Peter Singer and other philosophers who support infanticide are given as reading assignments to college students.

Singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons … [therefore] the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Garza did not elaborate on why a philosophy more than three decades old would be suddenly sweeping college campuses.

[…]

No evidence is presented to support the claim that college students favor “post-birth abortions,” and no public opinion polls reflect the increase of such a sentiment.

The article didn’t ‘veer’ into ‘friend of a friend’ territory.  It explicitly said it was going there!  It did not make any mention of “purported polling.”  According to Snopes, if perchance Harrington really did speak with someone with such views, and if, perchance, Garza similarly had such an encounter, Snopes asserts “there is no evidence of any large-scale support for similar beliefs” of “this purported new trend of post-birth abortion support.”   In trying to marginalize an admittedly anecdotal article by insinuating that perhaps Harrington and Garza were lying, Snopes conveniently fails to mention the link to a Youtube experience that Harrington’s group actually recorded and made available, which is actually linked to in the TRENDING article.  “Even if Harrington did speak…” says Snopes, as if the neither Harrington or the TRENDING article offered no illustration or corroboration whatsoever for the ‘trends’ they say they were seeing.

Either the Snopes-folk were themselves careless in their reading of the original TRENDING article or they are guilty of one of the most vile hatchet jobs I’ve ever seen–and there are some doozies out there!

Now we get the snide comment, wondering why a 30 year old philosophy would be ‘suddenly sweeping college campuses.’  Here is another instance of Snopes selectively presenting material that seems arranged to make the TRENDING article seem spurious (like choosing not to mention the corroborating video provided in the original article).  Snopes quotes Garza’s line about Singer making a specific statement in 1979, and then insinuates that people don’t believe philosophies if they are over a certain age.  But in the original TRENDING article, the quote continues:  “He has been saying things like this since the 70s…” [emphasis added]

In other words, setting aside the silly bit of logic that no one takes seriously philosophies that are thirty years old, the person quoting makes it clear that Singer has since said similar things after that.  Indeed, in a book widely used on college campuses today called Practical Ethics, reprinted in 1993 and again in 2011, Singer explicitly argued that if one accepts his arguments for abortion on demand, logic dictates that they should be extended to infanticide and euthanasia and assisted suicide:

In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer – and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. […] I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong.

Possibly, the Snopes-folk don’t know who Singer is.  The enduring academic credentials that Practical Ethics has is attested by the reviews and comments posted at the Amazon page for the 2011 third edition:

“….It is a widely read and widely taught introduction to the philosophical dimensions of practical moral problems…. All of the chapters have been revised and updated, and a chapter has been added on climate change. Singer’s lucid style of exposition and argument are perfect for this sort of introductory text. Every library should have a copy of this book…. Highly recommended….”
–J. H. Spence, Adrian College, CHOICE

“…This third edition keeps the lucid style and provocative arguments of its predecessors, but with a more up to date perspective into current ethical challenges. This makes Practical Ethics not only an ideal text for university courses, but also for anyone who wants to dedicate some serious thinking into how she or he ought to live…. remains a relevant and welcome contribution to ethics.”
–Laura Cabrera, Institute for Biomedical Ethics, Basel University, Metapsychology Online Review

Book Description:
For thirty years, Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics has been the classic introduction to applied ethics. For this third edition, the author has revised and updated all the chapters, and added a new chapter addressing climate change, one of the most important ethical challenges of our generation.

Because I am not very confident in the general literacy skills of many of my possible readers, I have highlighted the phrases that should indicate wide, contemporary, use of Singer’s arguments.

The notion that Singer’s ideas are from a bygone era or that they might only just now be “sweeping college campuses” is positively absurd for anyone who has even a smidgen of exposure to these issues.   Anyone who would like to take a survey of college level ethics courses will find that Singer is well-regarded.  Personally, with the high level of deference to ‘experts’ that the Snopes-folk are inclined to show, I find it highly unlikely that they are unaware of Singer and his modern currency both inside and outside of academia.  I think they deliberately ignored this in an effort to slam the TRENDING article.  That is not the most charitable take on their article, but to me it is hard to believe that a site that makes its money by supposedly sourcing and researching its articles to the max would not be aware of who Singer is.

So, that pretty much dispenses with the precious few paragraphs of substance that the Snopes article provides, leaving us with just one scant line at the end,

No evidence is presented to support the claim that college students favor “post-birth abortions,” and no public opinion polls reflect the increase of such a sentiment.  [Emphasis added]

But in point of fact, the TRENDING article itself is producing evidence–the testimony of people on the front line of this debate on college campuses, which, as already pointed out, was never presented as anything more than testimony.  But what of ‘public opinion polls’?  What evidence does Snopes itself provide for its claim that “no public opinion polls reflect the increase of such a sentiment”?

Answer:  None.

Does Snopes produce a link to a public opinion poll that addresses the question at all?  No.  Does such an opinion poll even exist?  The way Snopes phrases it, we are led to believe there is, but I think it is reasonable to assume that if such a survey exists, they would have actually listed it.  Now, you may find that anecdote is a weak basis upon which to shout “TREND!” in a crowded theater, but Snopes cannot even offer anecdote to support its rebuttal!

As we survey the Snopes article, we are unable to find even a single sentence with redeemable value.  Not one line directed at the TRENDING article is defensible.   Snopes declares the claim “FALSE” but the only thing FALSE is the tweeter’s characterization of the TRENDING article.  Sadly, most people who land on the Snopes page for this article will be ones looking for info on the TRENDING article and will not look further than Snope’s bald assertion.  Perhaps that is precisely what the folks at Snopes are counting on.

You may wish to dig a little deeper about Snopes.  Rumors have abounded that Snopes takes sides–usually the liberal progressive’s side–and I submit that this hit piece is evidence of just that.

————————————————-

The above analysis is centered only on the Snopes treatment of the TRENDING article, a treatment that was, I’m afraid to say, beyond sad and pathetic.   We may as well now take a moment to evaluate the merit of the TRENDING article.

Personally, I disagree with the TRENDING article’s characterization that it is only “more recently that this type of ideology is being promoted on college campuses.”  (Note that the assertion that this trend is “suddenly sweeping college campuses” is Snope’s characterization, not the TRENDING article’s.)  From my own reading and research, this type of ideology has been on college campuses for a long time–longer than 30 years.  If there is a genuine ‘uptick’ in college students with such views, it is because a large number of their professors already have those views, and are transmitting them.  However, I am not in a position, and neither is Snopes, to speak to whether or not the people interviewed for the article are really having these experiences or challenge their statements that they are having more of them.  If only we had a public opinion survey to throw at poor Garza and Harrington we could assure them that their experiences were actually just hallucinations!  Alas, we have no such survey, despite the fact that the always impartial and unbiased Snopes implied it existed.

Indeed, it seems to me that if no one is carrying out such surveys, then the only people who would even know there might be a trend would be pro-life advocates who frequent college campuses.  Why, that seems to be just the case in this instance!

What are we to suppose instead?  That word of acceptance of infanticide should first reach the ears of the local dentist?  Perhaps the cashier at the local department store, as they are well known for engaging in heady debates on deep ethical issues.  Call me crazy, but it seems more reasonable that Garza and Harrington and other pro-lifers would have a better feel for these issues than the used car salesman at the end of the street.

Even so, some people may want to know if this is really a trend or not, and since public opinion surveys do not seem to be forthcoming, they will have to seek other avenues for corroboration.   Not me;  the article didn’t really tell me anything that I didn’t know.  Utilitarian ethics permeate bioethical conversations and have been codified in institutions large and small.  Singer’s book was Practical Ethics, after all.   The relative frequency of college kids having such views is one that doesn’t interest me that much, and so I have no desire or intention to defend that particular assertion.

However, the Snopes article dismissed it as if it was absurd on its face, and offered not a shred of evidence for that dismissal.  We can at least take a minute to establish that it is, at minimum, plausible that the article’s assertion transcends anecdote and reflects a real trend.  (I’m not sure what that would mean to some readers, even if it was a real trend.  Would they be worried about it?  Are they going to do something about it?  Are they going to demand that their universities start teaching something else?  What?)

I already laid some groundwork for such a demonstration, by highlighting the fact that Singer’s book is now in its third edition, favorably reviewed by college professors, and explicitly described as “an ideal text for university courses” and is billed as ” the classic introduction to applied ethics” “for thirty years.”

(Readers will forgive me for using the word ‘explicit’ often.  However, I have a regular reader who does not know what the word means, and does not understand that if you claim that someone believes something, and then provide EXACT statements by that person SAYING they believe that thing [ie, them explicitly saying it], it is not hearsay or conjecture, but rather rock-solid corroboration of my claims.   In this context, I am not spinning fairy tales out of my rear, whimsically characterizing Singer’s book as commonly used at universities when in fact there is ‘no evidence’ for that…  its actually described as that, on its own Amazon page!  For good reason.)

Now, just because the publisher says such things doesn’t mean the book is really used in colleges, but one is surely grasping at straws if they want to take it to that level.  Does the reader really doubt that this is the case?  I personally have run into too many people who exhibit awareness, and acceptance, of Singer’s viewpoints, right up to the contention that if you accept the rationale for abortion on demand, it logically follows that it is logical to “abort” people who are already born.  It strikes me as eminently plausible that they heard these viewpoints in college, so again, I’m not particularly surprised to hear others having similar encounters.

But perhaps Singer is being misrepresented?  Well, he explicitly states this in his textbook:

“In dealing with an objection to the view of abortion presented in Chapter 6, we have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer – and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil. […] I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong.”

Since intelligent and wise people defer to experts, and college students are trained to be wise in this way, upon hearing such an argument from such an esteemed expert, should we really be surprised that whereever such material is read, there will be more people who accept such arguments?  Who are you to take a different line?  Are you an expert?  I think not.

Now, here is the thing.  Anyone who already knows anything about contemporary ethics, knows that Peter Singer has a prominent place in the discussion and well regarded throughout academia.  More broadly, utilitarian ethics as a whole (eg, Bentham and Mill) get wide treatment.  It would be a sad, sad, person who disputed this with me.  The one who needs to see if utilitarianism and Singer in particular is a common staple in college-level ethics courses are the ones who haven’t yet been initiated into these realities.  It is really for this latter group that I invest hours of my time writing and researching and the one for whom the TRENDING article might serve as a wake-up call.  Honestly, whether or not a society fully drinks the utilitarian-tea might have wide ranging life and death implications for the unborn and born.

So, if I was in that latter group and I wanted to corroborate the claims made by the people interviewed in the article, and not prepared to accept this present author’s testimony about what he has experienced,  I might want to look at the course descriptions and required readings and the professors of the ethics courses at universities around the country and the world.  But here’s another thing:  it would practically be academic negligence not to cover utilitarianism in an ethics course, given the fact that every Dr. Tom, Dick and Harry, PhD, out there is well-versed in it and potentially in positions to act on such philosophies.  If I were teaching an ethics course, I would mention utilitarianism too, and certainly would reference Singer and a slew of others.  It would not therefore be enough to evaluate the curriculum for a given ethics course.  One would want to know something of the worldview of the instructor presenting the course:  does he push a utilitarian perspective at the expense of others?  does he even mention other perspectives?  if he mentions other perspectives, is it disparagingly?  does he carry out the disparaging by assigning readings that do the disparaging for him?  And so on.

If you are now thinking to yourself, “Huh.  I don’t really think a ‘public opinion poll’ is really going to be the best measure of the acceptance of ‘after-birth abortion,'” you’ve caught on and can see how silly, even infantile, it is for Snopes to appeal to non-existent surveys of college students to make its rebuttal.   Even if you had that data, what would be the significance?  Surely it says more about the college professors than it does the students!  And most college kids are not going to find their way into positions where even if they had such views, they could implement them.

No, the really useful survey would be of the people in positions of influence and power.  Importantly, in real life, one doesn’t just graduate from college and start whacking born children with birth defects or heading up boards of ethics at the local hospital or chairing the local university’s philosophy department, or taking a position on the Independent Payment Advisory Board.  Its going to take years, if not decades, for someone to rise to those positions of responsibility.    I personally find it difficult to imagine any pollster wishing to take the time necessary to sift this sort of thing out and the much easier poll, of the general population of college students today, would (in my opinion) have limited value.  If anything, what we needed was such a survey done thirty years ago, before the present crop of bioethics administrators came into their positions of influence, and then a correlation of their views of yesteryear with their views at present.

One really ought to drill down further, focusing only on the fields where it is reasonable to expect graduates to eventually attain these positions of influence.

So where does that leave us?

As you have probably gathered, while the TRENDING article may be of interest, if it prompts us to do anything, it is to focus not on the students but on their teachers, and on the teachers of their teachers, and even the teachers of those teachers.  We should be scrutinizing the positions of those on ethics boards, or in charge of designing our system of socialized medicine, or the genetic counselor talking things over with the parent who just found out their unborn child has a birth defect.  And so on.  And what then?  Obviously, a radical overhaul of the education system itself would be required to make any difference, and it would take a generation to see any results.

Singer said, “…if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided [earlier], the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong.”  Ultimately, its the ‘grounds’ that need to be subverted.  The plant has got to come out at its root, and this throughout all of society.  There is no question in my mind that we will never see such a development unless the utilitarian plant is allowed to come to harvest.

It would make me very sad if someone went to the Snopes site and walked away thinking there was nothing to the matter, just because the TRENDING article only invoked anecdotes.  The fact is that the utilitarian ethic pervades all of secular society, and this is easily discovered by anyone who even casually investigates things.  The service that the TRENDING article provides is the drawing of attention to the logic of abortion on demand and its rational applicability to people already born.  If that is news to you, you better get studying.  Your life, and the life of those you love, may very well hang in the balance.

Share