web analytics

The Teaserguide WordPress Hack

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

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

The teaserguide.com domain is registered in Russia.

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

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


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

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

Below the normal WordPress rewrite rules was this line:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

Gavin who?


The wikipedia entry sums it up nicely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a Republican-appointed judge, mind you.

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

My statements, then, reflect this reality.

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

Direct Link

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Dylann Roof’s Reaction to the Two Minutes of Hate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least, nothing that will actually accomplish anything.

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

Yes, that seems about right.

Wal-Mart issued a statement:

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the three offending pictures.




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



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

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




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

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

Roof had 20+ pics with trees behind him…


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


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

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

Oh, that’s right.  We do.

You can read it here: rtf88

His opening lines:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


You Reap What You “Roe”

A guest submission by Brian Horvath:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

What could possibly go wrong?


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

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

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

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

Identity does matter.  But so does reality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Gay Expectations for the Christian and Gay Marriage

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

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

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

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

But it was all for nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




The Abject Lunacy of Gay Marriage Agitators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MS. BONAUTO:  I believe so, Your Honor.

JUSTICE ALITO:  What would be the reason?

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

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

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

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

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

Oh no she didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they are quite wrong.

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

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

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

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

Hey, a man can hope, right?

For further reading:





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what could anyone prove?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember, Garner was being apprehended for… selling cigarettes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.





The Homosexual Manifesto: Satire BECAUSE WE SAID SO!

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia has this entry:

Gay Revolutionary Article

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

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

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

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

The liberal site first mentioned says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Swift: “Gay Revolutionary”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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.





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.