web analytics

Apr 08

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.





Mar 31

The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

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.



Mar 30

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?


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]


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


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…


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:


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


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.





Mar 04

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.



Jan 09

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.


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.


Jan 07

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.


Dec 24

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.



Dec 17

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.




Dec 15

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.


Dec 04

Eric Garner Protests Will Certainly Miss the Real Issue: Our Impending Enslavement

Has anyone else noticed that between the Garner case and the Ferguson case, the Ferguson case is the one that has generated the most ongoing outrage?  The reason for this, I think, is that the Ferguson case was not caught on video, which allowed race hustlers like Sharpton and Holder to give credibility to the most wildest accusations:  Wilson shot a man with his hands up… Wilson shot a man in the back… Wilson stood over Brown and executed him.  We knew within a week or two the salient facts.  The DA also knew the salient facts, but rather than stand behind them, kicked it off to the grand jury, which told us what reasonable people already knew.  In the Garner case there was video.  It allowed us to witness a tragic scene, but it also precluded baseless accusations about what had happened.  If it had not been on video, we would have heard that the police actually used a garotte on Garner; another witness would have told us that one officer pulled out a chainsaw and attempted to cut off Garner’s head right there on the spot.  Holder and Obama would have lapped this up eagerly.  Liberals would have believed every word of it.

Indeed, the availability of video to set the record straight can only spell doom for agitators and community organizers.  Why, then, would Obama call for cameras to be placed on police officers across the country?  By the end of this essay, you should be able to figure out what I think.

The videos I saw left some points ambiguous as far as the actual headlock goes.  Given only the videos and the coroner’s report, I would have at least indicted the officers (all of them).  However, I believe in a trial it would have been shown that the officers had no intention of actually killing Garner, but, as I said, the video is ambiguous enough (in my estimation) to leave that question open.

To me, the more pressing issue is why Garner was targeted in the first place.  And I don’t mean the fact that he was black.  Here again, the videos are ambiguous.  In one place I hear onlookers saying that Garner had tried to breakup a fight.  In another place, I hear it asserted that Garner is being arrested for selling unlicensed, untaxed, cigarettes.  Both assertions might be true.

A lot of the focus seems to be on the fact that Garner was black, continuing the narrative that there is a nationwide holocaust being perpetually perpetrated on blacks by law enforcement (… by Republicans of course… never mind the fact that both Ferguson and NYC are firmly and thoroughly LIBERAL.  See if you can spot that insinuation in this article, here.)  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.

  • For example, when a SWAT team descended upon an Ohio farm in a quest to stomp down on the nefarious crime of selling… raw milk, the story hardly made the news.   A SWAT team.  I mean, seriously.  For the illegal selling of… milk?   You can be quite certain that if an accident had happened and one of those officers pulled the trigger and someone died (just like Garner seems to have been accidentally killed), folks like Obama and Holder wouldn’t have batted an eye.  After all, raw milk is a public health issue–just like tobacco use.   This isn’t by any means the only time that this sort of thing has happened.  See here and here, for example.
  • Or, how about the (white) man in Minnesota who was thrown in jail for failing to pay a citation issued for not completing the siding on his house?
  • Let us not forget the fate of Jose Guerena, who was gunned down in his own home, apparently waking up to a chaotic situation and seeking to defend his family?  He would be shot some 20 times;  he himself never managed to fire a shot.  As far as I know, Al Sharpton never offered his services to Guerena.  Obama and Holder said nothing.  Was it because Guerena wasn’t black?  Was Guerena, in fact, a ‘white hispanic‘ and therefore did not provide the necessary fodder for generating national rage?
  • In 2011, acting on a ‘tip’ that a house was ‘messy,’ a social worker enlisted the services of the police to enter the residence of a homeschooling family in Missouri, which led to the tasering of the husband and striking the wife.  Because of a tip… that a house was messy.  Give me a break.  This generated no national controversy.
  • Strangely, Miriam Carey was black, and still didn’t catch the attention of the race hustlers.  (Perhaps it was that it was on video, and couldn’t be inflamed more than the video itself justified.)

There are, of course, many instances of heavy-handed police activity.  It is often over the top and often it results in the death of someone.  The incidents often involve minor ‘crimes.’  The actions are carried out by governments at all levels–state, local, and Federal.  By focusing on the race aspect, the more important truth, that the United States is incrementally moving towards being a full-blown police state where every aspect of our lives fall under the scrutiny and micromanaging of the government, is overlooked.

Many people do not understand the dynamics created by involving the government in affairs, especially in contrast to private initiatives.  For example, in a recent blog post, I called attention to the coercive powers of the government as opposed to whatever influence evil rich people like the Koch brothers might have, and the point had no significance whatsoever with one of the commenters.   No matter how powerful folks like Soros or the Koch brothers have, they will never have the ability to send armed men in to legally enforce their will.  They will never be able to confiscate the property of dissenters, either via direct seizure or through the US tax code.

When you involve the government, you necessarily bring to bear the threat of force.  Force, by the way, that can be legally applied, but except in rare circumstances, cannot be legally resisted.

You can be sure that whatever well-meaning intentions were behind the banning of raw milk, no one suspected that it would lead to SWAT raids.  The elected officials in Burnsville, MN likely didn’t anticipate that their “property maintenance issue” could lead to one of its citizen’s incarceration.  The folks in Missouri who passed laws protecting the welfare of children didn’t consider the possibility that the law could be used as a blunt instrument by whispering neighbors and nosy social workers.

The do-gooders who allegedly wish to limit tobacco  use didn’t think of the arresting powers that came along restricting the distribution of it in New York city.  I say ‘allegedly’ because of course in this case at least the problem was in part that it was untaxed tobacco… Tobacco products provide the state of New York with big dollars–$4.35 a pack, and New York City grabs another $1.60 on top of that.  That’s almost $6 in tax revenue, and by the law of unintended consequences, provides a huge incentive for people to sell unregulated cigarettes on the street.  In other words, Garner would probably still be alive today if this huge ‘sin tax’ wasn’t present, and the money involved (from the perspective of the government) wasn’t so significant.   It is precisely because there is so much tax revenue involved that the government itself has an incentive to use force to enforce the tobacco laws.  And all force is potentially lethal force.

In my recent blog post on Ferguson, I hinted at these concerns, calling the police to task for going to these lengths.  It is worth quoting that section in full:

The instances of police brutality seems to be on the rise, and police officers seem to have taken the adage, “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6?” to heart.  Society has given them a pass in many ways because of the dangerous job that they have.  But part of that job is upholding constitutional rights.  That means that there are certain risks and responsibilities that come with being an officer of the law in our country that other countries don’t have to be concerned about.  That is to say, we certainly could better preserve officer safety more concretely if we disarmed every American and allowed the police to have their complete way with the citizenry.  But that’s not the way of freedom.  If a police officer cannot operate as though the civil liberties of the people he serves are as sacrosanct as his own life, he really ought to get out of the job.

The problem is really quite simple:  you cannot multiply laws and regulations endlessly, no matter how minor and relatively insignificant those laws and regulations may be, without bringing to bear the coercive powers of the state.  Indeed, it is precisely because so many of these issues are ‘minor and relatively insignificant’ that the problem is as acute as it is, for it means that a police presence becomes necessary in ever expanding situations–including ones that are minor and relatively insignificant.   And remember–while they are legally allowed to apply force, the citizen is not legally allowed to resist it.  I have heard it said that the average person commits three felonies a day.  Add to this now the wide range of other ‘crimes’ that come from the vast network of codes, regulations, etc, state, local, and Federal, and it becomes clear that incidents of police brutality must increase in frequency because cases of police involvement are increasing in frequency.

It is inevitable.  It is unstoppable.  No additional laws will help.  Indeed, they would only add more places where coercion may be deemed legally warranted, and you would not be legally allowed to resist it.  It is not because the nation’s police force is filled with crooks or bad men.  It is simply a question of the law of averages, compounded by the anti-personnel vehicles provided to local police agencies and the natural desire of police officers to NOT DIE while enforcing the INFINITELY INCREASING number of laws; and, as I said, society tends to give police officers a pass because of this.  We’ll never be able to eliminate tragedies at the hands of law enforcement.  Accidents will always happen.

The solution is straightforward and simple:  vastly reduce the number of laws and regulations that are on the books, state, local, and Federal.  I mean, really slash their number, so that they really only pertain areas of truly legitimate ‘public’ concern.  For example, murder, theft, extortion.  Not milk or tobacco or unfinished siding on a house.  Only by reducing the number of pretexts that conceivably require police powers can we reduce the number of ‘accidents.’

But even as I say this, it is clear that this ‘solution’ itself implies a greater problem:  the very tendency to create endless laws and regulations in the first place.  In my aforementioned Ferguson piece, I argued that the ultimate solution to their police brutality problems (if indeed they were race related) was for the citizens of Ferguson, who are predominantly black, to take over the political reins in their town, and seek to have a police force that consisted of black officers in proportion to the rest of the populace.  Presumably, since all of their police problems in Ferguson are because of white racism inflicted on black people, and always without justification, a predominantly black police department would end all the problems.  And there was nothing the white citizens could do to stop the black citizens, if they wanted to do this.  But the bottom line is that the solution is ultimately political.

The same is true in this case.

Now, the party of intrusive, over-reaching government in America is the Democrat party.  Truly, there is no intimate area of human conduct that a liberal believes the government shouldn’t be involved in.   Worst of all of them are the Progressives, who are on a quest to perfect society of EVERY.  SINGLE.  THING. that ails it.  Because they often fail to implement their goals locally, they are constantly pushing issues up the chain, from local community to the county, from the county, to the state, from the state to the Federal government.  And of course, from the Federal government to the International community, via the United Nations.  Every layer higher it goes, the harder it gets to engage in self-government, and the harder it is to reverse infantile and perverted intrusions into the nooks and crannies of human behavior.  That these are in fact infantile and perverted intrusions is often only discovered after awhile, when it is much harder to reverse.  (Think:  Prohibition.)   The spirit of perfecting society is often well-meaning and well-intentioned, but since liberals cannot convince enough of their fellow men and women to go along voluntarily with their sincerely intended schemes, they feel compelled to legislate as much of it as possible.

Ironically, liberals themselves are often offended by cases of police brutality and other government abuses.  They are oblivious to the fact that they are actively engaged in creating the conditions for these abuses to occur in the first place.

The first practical steps in reversing the situation, then, is twofold:

  • completely repudiate liberalism
  • resist Progressives and progressive thinking with all of your might.

A third practical step can be offered to the good citizens of New York City:

I mean really.  You kind of deserve whatever you get when you do that as far as I’m concerned.

Unfortunately, the spirit of liberalism (or, ‘perfect-society-ism’) is not at all confined to the Democrat party.  It permeates the Republican party, as well, and can even be seen within conservative thought.  It is precisely for this reason that for many years now I have characterized myself as a “Constitutionalist Libertarian.”  If the goal is to secure our freedoms and liberties, it is not enough to keep the properly Federal issues at the Federal level and the state issues at the state level and the local issues at the local level.  Obviously, that is a huge first step;  if the citizens of Burnsville, MN don’t like the idea that their code requirements can actually have the effect of leading to their incarceration, it is far easier to reverse such a thing if it is implemented and enforced locally, rather than Federally.  One also has to be prepared to live in a society with blemishes and ‘untreated’ issues… like, messy houses, or houses without (God forbid)… siding.

I was an elected official in my own town, and I watched for two years as even the ‘Republican’ members of the board passed innumerable rules and regulations, even going so far on occasion to characterize their action as ‘progressive.’  Obviously, the nanny-state advocates on the board could be expected to think that way, but the Republicans?  Alas, it is so, and not, I’m afraid, only in the town I had been living.  Almost certainly, none of them every considered the possibility that their well-intentioned efforts to perfect our small town could lead someday to the incarceration, or even deaths, of some of the citizens.  There was no ‘blemish’ they were not willing to address, and that attitude can be found throughout America, in communities large and small, in groups liberal and conservative.

To take one more example, I live in Wisconsin which is presently controlled by Republicans at every level as far as the state government goes.  Yet, there is no call at all to reduce and cut back on the laws and regulations that are inflicted on the citizenry;  presumably, this is because the citizens want those laws and regulations!  For example, consider this list of licenses required by the state.  Here are some excerpts:

  • Christmas Tree Grower
  • Dating Service
  • Ginseng Grower
  • Grease Processor
  • Honey Processor
  • Maple Sap (for syrup) Processor
  • Seed Labeler
  • Mobile Air Conditioners Repair

Uh, Christmas Tree Grower?  Grease processor?  Really?  If I could summarize this list, and perhaps expand the argument to all the lists in Wisconsin and other states, the bottom line is this:  if all you want to do is sit on your couch and watch TV and draw a paycheck from an employer, the government will pay you hardly any mind.  The minute you want to do anything else, great or small, the government is going to make you go through hoops and monitor you.  No one can imagine that a regulation regarding the growing and sale of Christmas trees could lead to someone being arrested and/or killed in the quest to enforce it, but that is precisely the nature of the “perfecting every nook and cranny of human society” beast.

Until this mindset is completely changed, you can expect even more intrusions into the private affairs of citizens, and ever more tragic incidents such as what we saw happen to Garner.  America was founded on the principle of self-government, and at the beginning this fundamentally referred to individual self-government.  We have lost our way, and the consequences are inevitable.  Assuming we continue down this path, you can pretty well count on a near-complete loss of liberties and freedoms.

Whether or not a citizen is white or black is an irrelevant sideshow.  At present, we are all destined for enslavement… and that, by our own hands, and (always) in the name of the ‘common good.’


Nov 17

Imminent Ferguson Mayhem is the Fault of the Residents of Ferguson.

So, we’re about to find out if the officer in Ferguson is going to be indicted, and the rumors floating about seem to suggest that he won’t.

After making some remarks about the ‘power structure,’ a protester commented, “I also think we’re not going to get change in this society unless white people are just a little bit afraid.”

There is just so much one could say to that.  Personally, I think it is a very childish thing to say.  Indeed, I think the whole Ferguson thing is a mass-manifestation of childish behavior.

Now, in some senses I’m actually sympathetic.  The instances of police brutality seems to be on the rise, and police officers seem to have taken the adage, “better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6” to heart.  Society has given them a pass in many ways because of the dangerous job that they have.  But part of that job is upholding constitutional rights.  That means that there are certain risks and responsibilities that come with being an officer of the law in our country that other countries don’t have to be concerned about.  That is to say, we certainly could better preserve officer safety more concretely if we disarmed every American and allowed the police to have their complete way with the citizenry.  But that’s not the way of freedom.  If a police officer cannot operate as though the civil liberties of the people he serves are as sacrosanct as his own life, he really ought to get out of the job.

Moreover, my research has led me to the conviction that blacks in America have been targeted for oppression, and that this oppression often occurs along the lines that they maintain.  The difference is that this oppression was largely built and maintained by liberal progressives.  To hear people talk today, you’d think that Lincoln had been a Democrat, when in fact he was a Republican.  But even that is too much of a gloss–it is really a product of the elites… but the elites are color-blind.  They can be found on both sides of the aisle and they wish to enslave commoners of all colors.  The failure of the black community to understand the true nature of their oppressors is in fact engineered.  Worst of all, the black community has actually elected the people who would enslave them, and in this way facilitated their own re-enslavement.  But as I alluded to, this is not just true of blacks.

It’s time for the people of Ferguson, MO to grow up, and the rest of this nation with them.

I took a look at the demographic data of Ferguson, and here is what I discovered:

  • As of 2010, 30% of Ferguson’s population was white, while 67% was black.
  • It has 53 police officers, only three of whom are black;  apart from two other minorities, the balance of the officers are white.  The chief of police is white.
  • The Mayor is white.  4 of the councilmen are white, and only one is black.  One of the white councilmen is a woman; I don’t know if that means she is inside the ‘power structure’ or outside it. [Link]

So, we’ve got a population that consists mostly of black people but it has a police force composed mainly of white people, which is under the authority of the council, which is also composed mainly of white people.

We may now ask exactly whose fault it is that the council and police force does not reflect the racial demographics of the town… it can’t be the white people’s fault.  They are out-numbered 2 to 1.  Whose fault is it that Ferguson’s leadership doesn’t reflect the proportions of Ferguson itself?  The blacks.

Here we have all of these protestors out in the street, trying to inspire a ‘little bit of fear’ among the white folk, scaring the white folk into better representing the values and perspectives and needs of the majority of the population.  It’s a temper tantrum of epic proportions, exactly the sort of behavior we’d expect children to engage in.  Bullying, in fact.  Bullying.  [Insert screams of horror at the invocation of the word ‘bullying’]  The adult thing to do is to elect people who will represent your values.  That is the whole point of a republican democracy!  (Whether or not the people you elect who supposedly share your values actually act on them is an entirely different matter altogether, as conservatives have discovered year after year after year, and are poised to discover here again presently.)  Instead of acting like adults and running for office and putting people into positions of power and authority that will do the things you approve of, they wish to strike a little ‘fear’ into the ‘power structure,’ whilst leaving the ‘power structure’ otherwise intact.

In so many ways, the power and reach of the ‘system’ has been so extended that it is not practically possible for the average person to really change the ‘power structure.’  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.

And yet.

And yet, for all of that, it is still possible, at least to a degree, to affect the course of affairs in one’s own town.

I know, because I was an elected official at one time, and I did affect the course of affairs in my time.  I also served on the Law Enforcement Committee and know without a doubt that I had the opportunity there to make sure that the police department reflected my values, or at least was aware of them and sensitive to them.

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.

Regardless of the fact that the elites would much rather have them marching through the streets, prepared to burn down their own neighborhoods “in the name of justice.”

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.


Nov 17

Why 5th Graders Should Have Anal Sex and Other Arguments for Abstinence

Presently making its rounds on social media is an article describing the shock parents had in Chicago to discover instructions on how to have safe anal sex and other sexual activities… designed for fifth graders. According to the article, “CPS says the material was mistakenly put in the presentation and is not intended to be part of the curriculum.”

Since the material is hosted on one of their elementary school websites and plainly described as being for fifth graders, this seems to me to be unlikely.  However, that is an issue for the good citizens of Chicago to explore.  I wish to make some other points.  However, for reference, you may wish to look at the presentation material that was on that website.  In case they remove it (likely) the link was here:  http://www.waterselementary.org/uploads/2/2/0/1/22017434/5_lesson5_abstinence_contraceptives.pdf and I have uploaded it to my site where you can download it here:


As a quick aside, Bill Clinton famously said that he did not “have sex with THAT woman” but according to this material, sex is defined as “Sexual intercourse – Activity where the penis or another sex object is inserted into the vagina (vaginal
intercourse), anus (anal sex), or oral cavity (oral sex).”  Much turns on the definitions of things, as we will discuss more, shortly.  (Does ‘is’ mean ‘is’?)

Let me bottom line this.

If anyone takes the time to understand the progressive liberal mindset, there is not one thing surprising about this.  If you fall into the camp described in the article as, “Many parents said that although they support sex education, the material went too far for elementary school students” you need a reality check, to put it mildly.  The same spirit that drives ‘sex education’ at all embraces teaching kids about all kinds of sexual activity–from birth.  If you want the government to provide sex education at all, you will inevitably find “material” that is “too far” sprinkled throughout society.  The goal is simple:  for one day, society to agree with them that no discussion about sex of any kind be “age inappropriate.”  If you happen to be one of these progressive liberals yourself, and find yourself similarly disgusted at the idea of teaching fifth graders (in this instance) to use condoms, in graphic, explicit detail, then you have REALLY got to get your head on straight.  It’s ‘your team’ that is behind this in the first place!

It is imperative that we realize that much of this push to sexualize our children and, indeed, all of society, is part of an overarching philosophy that goes well beyond the considerations made by local school boards.

Supposedly, ‘everyone’ agrees that this material is not ‘age appropriate.’   Someone involved clearly does, since the lesson plainly describes this as being for Grade 5.  My first impression when looking at this document is that whoever these people are, they figure that since it is generally accepted that fifth graders shouldn’t be having sex (yet…), teaching ‘abstinence’ should be a no-brainer, and certainly well within societal norms. Here are the Lesson Objectives:

  • Students will define abstinence in relation to human reproduction.
  • Students will identify abstinence as developmentally appropriate sexual behavior for 5th graders.
  • Students will identify people who can support their decision to practice abstinence.
  • Students will compare and contrast contraceptive methods, including: abstinence, withdrawal,barrier methods, and hormonal methods.
  • Students will identify places to access reproductive health care.
condoms for both boys and girls

the pink condom is for the transgenders? What is the meaning of this bigotry!

From this, one might expect the presentation to be significantly weighted towards abstinence (that’s great, right!).  However, of the 61 slides, 54 of them are devoted to ‘safe sex.’   There are, literally, only three slides dedicated to abstinence.  Oh.  And a worksheet called “My Goals” with cutesy, age appropriate smiling stars.  Why they didn’t go with erect penises is beyond me.  After all, they already have smiling condoms on the slide on page 25.  I would have gone with that.  — >

Now, I ask you:  in a presentation geared towards ‘abstinence’ with 88% of it devoted explicitly to actually having sex, or what can happen if someone has sex, what is the actual message these fifth graders can be expected to take away?   I mean, seriously.

Before I take some time to corroborate my claim that this is part and parcel of the liberal worldview, I would like to first call attention to some of the elements of blatant deception built into this transparent propaganda piece.

First of all, note the slide on page 35 which covers “Emergency Contraception.”  The Morning After Pill is categorically described as “Not [an] abortion pill.”  Well, yes, if you define pregnancy as only beginning after implantation, then it is not.  But why define it that way?  Be honest, you know exactly why.   Here already in the fifth grade, ten year olds are being given the idea that pregnancy does not begin at conception, so whatever you do before implantation is “no big deal.”

You might say that this kind of nuance is not appropriate for fifth graders.  Right!  Let’s instead go over some female anatomy!  Actual slide below:

vagina-slideMoving on.

We have one deception where an ‘abstinence’ presentation seems actually designed to promote promiscuous behavior.  We have another that plainly plays into laying the groundwork for a treating unborn children as throw away fodder, which is itself a linchpin that holds the entire pro-choice position together.  There is an additional deception (albeit, it may be self-deception on the part of the presentation designers) that you can avoid pregnancy and STDs, even apart from abstinence, by using certain forms of contraception.

Now, the presentation quite correctly states that abstinence is 100% ‘protective’ of both pregnancy and STDs (in the latter case, “however some STIs can spread by genital contact alone.”) but states that condoms “protect[] against STIs and pregnancy, and oh, by the way, are available and “Free at most school based health center or community centers.”  I know if I was a fifth grader striving to be abstinent, I’d be happy to discover that I could still have as much sex as I want without consequence, for free, without my parents even knowing (see slide on page 37), if I use a condom.

This point is made in various ways throughout the presentation.  For example, on the slide on page 40, we learn:  “Just like male condoms, [Female Condoms] help reduce the risk of HIV, STIs, and unintended pregnancy.”


Sorry, I have to digress for a moment.

Some of the other benefits of using the Female Condom, which every 11 year old should know, is that you can insert them “hours before vaginal sex, so you don’t have to interrupt foreplay to be safe.”  Best of all, perhaps, you can use them not just vaginally, but also anally!  AND… wait for it… wait for it… the Female Condom is for “EVERYBODY!”  Women, men, transgender folks, gay, straight and, here’s a great feature, in “Any position.”   They don’t even need an “erect penis.”  And, every fifth grader will be pleased to know, they “adjust to body temperature, so both you and your partner can feel the heat.”  Oh, baby.  Feel the heat.

Now, the average fifth grader might be a little intimidated by the mechanics of using a Female Condom.  Great news:  they offer step by step instruction on how to use it vaginally, and, as an added benefit, anally, too.  Note the male genitalia:

female condom in the anuses of men

Of course, if you use it anally, every pre-teen should remember to use lots of lube, a point cleverly emphasized through age appropriate kid friendly innuendo:

lube up, youngster

Does anyone else think that it is not the sexual behavior of young people that is the public health menace, but rather the…

Alright, digression over.


In a comparison chart at the end of the PDF we get a good look at all of the birth control outcomes.  Abstinence gets the big green check… hurray for logic!   So also the male and female condom.  Everything else gets the big red X… for some reason the STIs get graphics, but the ‘effectiveness at preventing pregnancy’ gives us a percentage.

Now enter the deception.

The slideshow and the comparison chart (which is for the adults?) state, correctly, that condom use is not 100% protective.  The male condom is said to be 84% effective against pregnancy and the female condom is said to be 79% effective.  Both have the green check mark (which relates only to the STIs, not the pregnancies), but the fine print says that condoms only ‘help prevent STIs’ or “Offers protection against STIs.”

What are we to make of this?  It seems to me that both child and adult will come away thinking that there are two good options for them, abstinence and condoms, even though there is still a 16-21% chance of pregnancy and still a possibility of getting STDs.

What shall we call a child–nay, anyone–who has sex a hundred times?  A parent, if these rates are accurate (I’ve actually heard liberal sites promote a much narrower percentage).  This is great news for organizations like Planned Parenthood, that really need the business.

Anyway, I can’t see how kids, and perhaps even adults, won’t come away from this presentation thinking that so long as they properly wear condoms (and instructions ARE given, see page 16) they can have as much sex as they want, anally, orally, whatever, and all will be well.

Now, personally, I have trouble believing that this kind of thing is ignorance or ideological blindness.  It seems to me that the ‘experts’ have got to be aware of this, and not only don’t give a damn, but are actually trying to generate unintended pregnancies and STDs.

I felt I needed to give at least some measure of a critique before talking about the sources.

This is interesting, I think.  The presentation is backed up by links from reputable (in our present society, anyway) sources and sites.  There is of course that bastion of women’s reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood.  If anyone has incentive to reduce the number of pregnancies, its them!   We have a link to Bedsider.org, which is a project of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and has a number of competent people who can be expected to be totally unbiased.  They have another project, where they offer ‘fun and games‘ trying to persuade people to wait, but of course pretty much assume nobody will.  The CDC is linked… who can argue with the CDC.  Those people are brilliant.  And let’s not forget the National Institute for Health.

Indeed, the first line in the document indicates that the goal is to “comply with CPS policy requirements for comprehensive sexual education at the 5th grade level’ as reflected in National Sexuality Education Standards.   These standards, which appear to be part of the Common Core package (I need to verify this) can be found here.   It certainly seems that that this presentation is consistent with those standards.

I go into this because I think that any of us who get bent out of shape about this and direct our ire exclusively towards our local school boards are totally missing the point.  These are not locally driven initiatives.  They are backed by national organizations that are deemed credible and reputable such as the NIH and CDC and Planned Parenthood.   The NIH and CDC, of course, are government organizations.  Take some time to check out the members of the various sources. ‘Experts’ and PhDs, every one of them!   What we have here is a liberal progressive outlook on human sexuality enshrined at the very top levels of policy making.

This is not an aberration.  This is reality.  If you don’t like what is coming down the pike, and you are a liberal, then you need to rethink governmental involvement in these affairs AT ALL and, more than that, you need to rethink your entire ideology.  If you are a conservative and sympathetic to this post, you need to delve deep into the agendas that are driving these things and fight them at their source, and not get distracted by sideshows.

a guy who really likes female condoms

everyone should want to protect their anus. do NOT judge.

Now, what I had not noticed on other blogs about this was the fact that despite the presentation being backed by innumerable reputable sources, it was created by the Chicago Female Condom Campaign and adapted from The Fenway Guide to LGBT Health.  (panel page 60)  It also draws from an organization called The Pleasure Project where we learn that they intentionally use ‘guerrilla tactics’ trying to use pleasure to prevent… badness, I guess.  (I’m afraid to know what I’m looking at in the background image on that page.)

You’ve just got to understand that the liberal ideology is advanced deliberately through lies and deception, and whenever possible, at taxpayer expense and through public institutions.  If you don’t understand this, we’ll never see the end of such things.


If you are a liberal, and this troubles you, its time to do a re-think.   These are your peeps, working within avenues that you helped establish and advocate for and wish to fund (using other people’s money, typically).  But if you are a conservative, it means that we must be vigilant and active at every level, all the time, and in every way, state, local, and Federal.

Gird up your loins.

The folks at the Chicago Female Condom Campaign probably have a slide to show you how to do it, but its probably in their submitted curriculum for third graders.


Nov 14

Jonathan Gruber: The Other White Meat

So everyone is piling on Jonathan Gruber right now.  A third video has now been released where Gruber basically says what conservatives have been saying for a LONG time:  corporations don’t pay taxes; the corporations pass the tax to the consumer.  (I made this point at length, here.) In this way, you can SAY that you’ve stuck it to the big, bad, corporation and that you’ve stood up for the little guy, but, well, actually, you stuck it to the little guy.   (You actually need to look at more of the context than the CNN article alludes to… as if insulting Americans is the sole story here!)

The irony here is that he is talking about taxing so-called ‘Cadillac plans’ which liberal labor unions fought so hard for.

Anyway, we’ve got to remember that Gruber is just one of many, and they all lie.

Anyone who has been paying attention to Obamacare from the beginning knew they were always lying.  About everything really.  If anyone had the audacity to point out that the numbers simply didn’t add up they were subjected to catcalls like, “Experts say such and such… are you an expert?  That’s what I thought… idiot.”  All Gruber has given us is explicit admission, from one such expert, that the skeptics had a point.  However, we didn’t need an expert to validate our assertion that 2+2=4, or, Obamacare is built so that “healthy people pay in and sick people get money.”  And so on.

I’ve had to chuckle listening to some of the Republicans bemoaning the deception by Gruber, as if there was any doubt at any time that deception was part and parcel of Obamacare and the nefarious ways it was foisted upon the United States.

I’m afraid that this is all going to get hung on Gruber’s neck, and the rest of the people who were complicit will escape judgement.  Gruber deserves everything he’s getting, but his share in the deception must be small in comparison to people like Reid, Pelosi, and of course Obama himself.  We’ve been ‘grubered,’ alright, but by far bigger fish than Jonathan Gruber.

I’m sure Bart Stupak might have something to say about such things, but someone is going to have to track him down, first.  He was last seen walking around in a daze, his clothes in tatters, muttering, “But Obama gave me his ironclad word… his word...”

Actually, as I sit here thinking about those Republicans just now realizing that we were intentionally misled (not that some of us actually were misled) it isn’t really funny.  I personally doubt that they really are that surprised, which raises the obvious question about why they didn’t do more to address it, which in turn raises the obvious question about whether or not, even now, they’re going to do anything about, well, anything.

I, for one, don’t expect them to.  And that is a reason for sadness. (Unless you are a liberal progressive, of course.)

Something tells me that Obamacare is the ‘Gruber’ that will be dying hard, rather than the hero, the American public.

In tribute to the chewing out that Gruber is enduring, I put this together.  Share as you wish.



Nov 11

A Case in Point of Alinsky-Style Politics and Governing: Gruber, Transparency, Taxes, and the Mandate

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the latest video making the rounds of a certain Dr. Jonathan Gruber, a man who was involved in crafting and passing Obamacare.  I have mentioned Gruber in the past, when he made remarks that had that distinctive eugenic smell about them.

Transcript (He talked fast in some parts, verify if you excerpt from this):

It’s just, you can’t do it, politically,  You just literally can not do it.  OK, transparent financing, unless that transparent financing–also transparent spending–I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO [Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in–you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money–it would not have passed. OK? Just as–lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. And you know, its a second best argument… Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not. So,  it’s kind of like his reporter story.  You know, yea, there’s things I wish we could change, but I’d rather have this law than not.

There was a time, when I was younger, that I had this view that the two political parties were essentially on the same quest, with equal levels of corruption and sincerity, but following from different principles, and I thought it was a basically tenable position to say that good men could sincerely differ.   As I’ve gotten older, I’ve read more and seen more, and I know now that the problem runs much deeper than this.  Namely, this:  one of the principles that the Dems openly acknowledge as good and virtuous is DECEPTION.

This doesn’t mean that the Republicans don’t lie.  They certainly do–and often.  But when they do it, they know they are engaging in a behavior that would disgust their base, which feels strongly about truthfulness.  To illustrate further, the Republicans have become the party representing certain values regarding sexuality, in particular chastity before marriage and faithfulness after marriage.  The Democrats, however, have a worldview that assumes that everyone is going to “do it like they do it on Discovery Channel” and well, that’s ok;  moreover, only the prudes carry about the private behavior of politicians.  So, if a Democrat is caught having a torrid affair, there is a collective yawn–that sort of thing is just par for the course.  If a Republican is caught having a torrid affair, the media goes on and on about it, and that Republican’s political career is in a precarious state… in large part, because the people that elected him in the first place cannot get over their disgust.

Similar to how the Republican base upholds chastity and faithfulness, they also uphold truth.  If a Republican is caught in a lie, it disgusts the Republican base, and anyone else who thinks that truth is a good thing.  But Democrat ideologues accept the Alinsky formula (as expressed in Rules for Radicals, for example) that the ends always justify the means, and deception and character assassination are not merely acceptable tools for gaining power and exercising it, but preferred methods.

Part of this stems from other elements of the Democrat worldview, which we see implied in the Gruber clip above.  For example, liberals tend to think that their fellow man is incapable of taking care of himself or making decisions for himself that really are in his own best interest.  Thus, it is necessary in some cases to tell people what they want to hear “for their own good” or “for the common good” even if what you tell them is a blatant lie and fabrication.  They really do think that the American voter is stupid, but they have sort of a soft spot for the average imbecile on the street, so they do what they can–despite the fact that in this case, Obamacare, if the American voter had been told the truth, they would have rejected it… would have rejected what was “in their own best interests” but they were too stupid to recognize.

I am not saying that all liberals and Democrats and Progressives similarly embrace a Machiavellian outlook.  Not at all.  As I implied above, there was a day when I myself had liberal and Democrat tendencies.  However, I did think that truth was important for its own sake.  (One turning point for me was the Clinton-Lewinsky affair)  It may be possible still to have and uphold liberal values free from the utilitarian machinations exhibited by the Democrat elites… but we are long past the point where we can entertain any hope that the Democrat Party will be able to promote them honestly and fairly, in the open, publicly, so that all Americans can decide for themselves if they agree with those principles.  The fact that these elites have to hide their views and values at all perhaps tells us all we need to know.

Unfortunately, just because we have ample justification for believing the opposite of whatever a given Democrat politicians says, it doesn’t follow that the Republicans can be trusted.   And that makes me sad, because eventually, when it is absolutely known to everyone that the rule of law no longer exists and absolutely known that our elected officials will not represent the values of those who elect them, attempting to resolve differences via elections will no longer seem viable.  It’s not going to be a pretty, and my fear is that the way things are proceeding, this day draws closer faster and faster.  But time will tell.