You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2013.
For an excellent article on the Barilla affair, see this one (in Spanish):
Pasta Barilla y la nueva Inquisición civil by CARLOS ESTEBAN
He says: “The gay ‘lobby’ does not want gay tolerance and respect: it demands submission and loves the auto-da-fé of the heretic.”
An auto-da-fé, if you will recall, was the ritual of public penance of condemned heretics and apostates that took place when the Spanish Inquisition or the Portuguese Inquisition had decided their punishment, followed by the execution by the civil authorities of the sentences imposed. The term means “act of faith.”
This is so on target. This whole spectacle smacks of the tactics used by the Inquisition when it used public humiliation to control not only individuals, but most importantly, society. Heresy must be punished at all costs. And we can just see the glee that homosexual agenda proponents take in their rabid humiliation and submission of anyone who questions their agenda. It is palpable.
El ‘lobby’ gay no quiere tolerancia y respeto: exige sumisión y adora los autos de fe del hereje.
“Los intereses económicos de una clase dominante nunca van desnudos. Se encuentran envueltos en la bandera, fortificados por la ley, protegidos por la policía, nutridos por los medios, enseñados mediante las escuelas y bendecidos por la Iglesia”.
Amén a esta frase de Michael Parenti, intelectual del único reducto donde aún abundan los comunistas de corte soviético, Estados Unidos. El hombre ya no cumple ochenta años, con lo que habrá que perdonarle no advertir que su tajante dictum se aplica con extraordinaria fidelidad a lo contrario que pretende. Lea despacio, sustituyendo “Iglesia” por lo que ahora hace las veces de fuente del dogma secular, y verán lo que quiero decirles: ¿qué conceptos están envueltos en la bandera, fortificados por la ley y, sobre todo, nutridos por los medios? O, dicho de otro modo: si quiere saber quién manda de verdad, pregúntese qué no puede decirse en público.
Read the whole thing.
Y, ahora, parémonos un instante a considerar lo que significa todo esto. ¿En qué momento pasó a ser obligatorio para las empresas sacar parejas homosexuales en sus anuncios? El matrimonio gay, que hasta ayer era un concepto que no se le ocurría a nadie, ¿es ya un dogma ante el cual dudar conlleva pena de infamia pública?
Yours was by far the best article I saw in the media so far regarding the Barilla affair. Excellent analysis and writing. You did your profession proud.
The priority goal of the homosexual agenda is to destroy anyone who says that homosexuality is dysfunctional. The major type of destruction used for this means is first, symbolic, the public tarring and feathering of any such person, conceptualizing them as bad, evil, backwards, unscientific, or ignorant, followed by their marginalization in all spheres of society: schools, government, workplace, research, and last but certainly not least, spiritual.
Once a person starts using such vocabulary as “gay,” and thinking that “gay” is normal and “just like heterosexuality,” it doesn’t matter anymore whether the debate about homosexuality regards marriage or sex outside marriage, sex with one person or multiple partners, etc. They have already misunderstood the very problem with homosexuality: Homosexuality is dysfunctional and disordered. Society can make rules and laws to pretend that it only accepts a version of homosexuality that is more bourgeois (like their farcical marriage), but it is already, in the air, tumbling in a pit of incoherence.
Modern society hates to confront the degree to which it is dysfunctional and perverted regarding sexuality. Our society wants to be free of accountability, standards, and all culpability in order to do as much harm in the sphere of sexuality and relationships as it wants – with total impunity and with a semblance of legitimacy. The normalization of homosexuality is nothing more the destruction of the mechanisms of accountability and ethics related to sexuality. And it is the destruction of the idea that we should demand that people take responsibility for their sexual problems and resolve them. Instead of solving their problems, society wants to pretend that everything is normal.
Upon reflection, I also came to realize something else. Esteban tells us of something he did, which was a big mistake: he says when he first read in Infovaticana that the homosexual lobby was harassing Barilla, his first impulse was to apply the “Francis Protocol” (his own term, and great coinage, by the way), and “ignore the matter.” This was not a question of simply sticking his head in the sand in the most simplistic way, as he explains, but still he decided to shrug his shoulders precisely because this was yet another recent case among countless others involving ideological pressure from the gay lobby and corporate cowardice on the other side, and so he looked asunder:
Quiero decir, el papel de un lobby es protestar y hacer un mundo de una pequeñez, nada nuevo aquí, y Barilla es una empresa fabricante de fideos, no una iglesia o un Estado. Así que leí en diagonal, me alcé de hombros ante el enésimo caso de presión ideológica y cobardía empresarial y lo consigné al desván de la memoria.
Pero si el Papa nos ha advertido contra el impulso de obsesionarnos por estos asuntos, se ve que el consejo no se lo aplican quienes más lo han celebrado y aplaudido, porque encuentro en SModa de El País un artículo, “Del pollo homófobo al macarrón antigay”, dedicado al asunto. Se ve que obsesionarse por esta cuestión solo es malo cuando no se le hace la ola al lobby.
However, it is precisely because many conservatives shy away from confronting head-on the attacks made to social conservatives in the culture wars that we have come to have such culturally barbaric auto-da-fés. Moreover, such public humiliation events will only increase the more conservatives like Esteban adopt what he labeled as the “Francis Protocol.” (Independently if his interpretation of Francis’ recent public statements is correct or not, I would agree this is the interpretation that has stuck with the larger public: you’re out of line if you don’t hush and look the other way). While Esteban made some great points, he is certainly in no position to criticize Mr. Barilla for “corporate cowardice,” because he was all too willing to adopt an even more cowardly position himself, keeping silent and passive, and very content in shrugging his shoulders in face of yet another liberal auto-da-fé spectacle.
First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist and I was too gleeful telling myself I was following the good instructions from the Pope…
Lastly, led by Esteban’s mention of Michael Parenti, I went to look him up on wikipedia, and then wound up on the entry for “cultural hegemony.” It is always good to highlight that what we are witnessing in the culture wars is a fight for cultural hegemony:
“Cultural Hegemony describes the domination of a culturally diverse society by the ruling class, who manipulates the culture of the society — the beliefs, explanations, perceptions, values, and mores — so that their ruling-class Weltanschauung becomes the worldview that is imposed and accepted as the cultural norm; as the universally valid dominant ideology that justifies the social, political, and economic status quo as natural and inevitable, perpetual and beneficial for everyone, rather than as artificial social constructs that benefit only the ruling class.”
What happens with sexuality, however, is in one respect different. This is because there is more than one axis of domination and it is not merely a domination of the ruling class.
Concerning the interests of the ruling class (in its liberal inception), it certainly has powerful economic interests in this dominance, such as when it props up Madonna, Lady Gaga, or Miley Cyrus, along with their messages, because of the enormous profits this will bring. Secondly, the liberal ruling class simply wants to impose its sexuality Weltanschauung for the same reason it wants to impose all of its ideology; it is, evidently, what they believe in.
However, with sexuality, similar to gender, we then have this “cultural hegemony” played out in mini-structures in the interpersonal spheres throughout society, so we can no longer talk about a domination of the ruling class only, such as an elite. This other, much larger “ruling class” is simply everyone in society who adopts the dominant liberal Weltansschauung and uses it to do harm to others in the limited sphere of their personal lives or to endorse harm against others beyond their own sphere of experience. The result is a dual form of domination (and harm) that encompasses both the liberal portion of the ruling class and their willing followers throughout society.
On a recent McCain thread (Miley Cyrus: Insult to Injury), a commenter (Joe) asked:
What in Alexandra’s estimation is a “wholesome sexuality”? If it hurt’s someone it’s immoral if it doesn’t then who cares if people want to have anal sex, engage in S&M, cross dress, worship feet, have threesomes, etc. It’s no one’s business. I’m sure most people here agree with that. if not, then what is wholesome sexuality? Sex done only for pro-creation in the missionary position with the lights off?
I have to say this question lies at the heart of what is wrong with liberal ideology. It’s very important and the answer doesn’t fit in a short comment space. But here is a first attempt at a short reply.
We can look at sexuality in many ways. One is to examine what happens inside the mind of an individual. If their sexual thoughts or desires are the result of deformed and dysfunctional attitudes, emotions, and ideologies, then this is harmful to the individual alone, without even getting into the social and transactional sphere.
However, once we do move from the perimeter of the individual to the transactional, we find that sexuality is always inscribed in social relations of power, emotions, and psychological dynamics. There again, you have all kinds of detrimental attitudes and behaviors which affect not only the individual but also whoever they are interacting with. And that impacts society as a whole.
For example, imagine a society where only pedophiles exist – but these are pedophiles who do not act out towards children. Joe would say: where is the harm? The harm is that you have an entire society of adults who are incapable of a healthy sexual relationship with each other. That’s the harm right there. Sexuality is everybody’s business because it forms part of the fundamental cornerstone of society.
Continuing with our example, in the real world, matters are worse, and no such hypothetical could exist, because many of these pedophiles would actually act out their deformed minds about pedophilia and do harm not only to themselves, but to others.
That’s the society we have today: a violent sexual sewer, yet one where people run around claiming to be wanting only consensual, non-harmful sex. There’s an abyss between the narrative and reality.
The majority of cases of sexual harassment, molestation, and abuse are perpetrated by people who also have consensual sexual behaviors. It’s the people who claim “they just want to love each other” (LGBTs) or who claim “I just want to have consensual sex” who do a lot of the harm and violence in the sphere of sexuality today. Once a person believes they should pursue any sexual kick that pops up in their minds – because they have labeled everything “normal” – it doesn’t matter to them if they are doing harm, because they no longer care about how deformed and harmful their minds are. They believe any sexual attitude and behavior is legitimate and normal, and this takes precedence over everything else, including the rights of others not to be harmed.
What Joe wants is no accountability, no boundaries, and no guilt – no matter how much harm and violence Joe or others do in the sphere of sexuality. And that again is everybody’s business.
On a related note, for this reason also, I disagree with the Catholic Church, since it’s clear to me that having a perverted mind is a sin.
On dehumanizing sex:
So “wholesome” encompasses all the underlying emotions and attitudes that underpin any sexual behavior, aside from the actual emotions tied to any sexual act. “Wholesome” refers to both what is happening internally within the individual, at a psychological level, as well as externally, as it impacts other individuals and society as a whole.
In other words, you cannot separate “wholesome” from ethics. And you cannot ignore the ethical issues engendered by the type of relationship where the sexual interaction takes place, or its consequences.
“Healthy” has never been a synonym to just anything that gives pleasure. The more deformed the mind of a human being, the more they will get pleasure out of depravity and violence. This is the main error with the claim that if someone gets pleasure out of a particular sexual kick, this makes both the desire and any action carried out in pursuit of that desire legitimate. This is the sophism inherent in claims that affirming any type of sex is being “sex-positive,” since any “sex” obligatorily encompasses every type of harm and violence in the area of relationships and sexuality. People who claim to be “sex-positive” are usually “sex-harmful,” “sex-irresponsible,” “sex-unhealthy,” and “sex-degrading.” Likewise for the people who normalize homosexuality and other deformed sexualities like S&M, bestiality, etc.
“Wholesome” is also in opposition to that which is perverse and perverted regarding sexuality. That which perverts what is natural and healthy cannot be wholesome. Homosexuality is perverted. But heterosexuals can also be perverted. As in the case of a sexually sleazy look – it is perverted. Not because it is sexual, but the nature of the sexual has been perverted. As for “perverse,” I employ it more in reference to the emotional sphere. Someone who takes pleasure in tormenting others is perverse. If you apply this to sexuality then, people can be both perverted and perverse in the sexual sphere. So both “perverted” and “perverse” would be included in a much larger set of emotional and psychological problems that transform human sexual experience. It is also important to underscore that no human is born either perverse or perverted regarding sexuality, nor are they born with a pedophilia or a homosexuality problem. These are all problems developed after a person is born.
Added on Sept. 28, 2013
Related to the topic above, I have just come across this excellent article on Ethika Politika.
Such an interesting question to raise about another fraudulent notion of liberal ideology on sexuality. As she so well points out, what liberals insist on calling “safe sex” is often unsafe and downright harmful in so many profound ways.
Olson begins by stating that: One of the words thrown around frequently in discussions about our culture’s current set of sexual mores is “safe.” We emphasize that all sexually active individuals should be having “safe sex,” a message carried out by many different forums including Planned Parenthood, sex ed classes, HBO’s Girls, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
As she develops in her essay, “safety” in this context refers only to a protection from diseases, and not from perverted, perverse, and dysfunctional attitudes, emotions, and practices imbued in and surrounding the sexual activity.
A very interesting point about how unsafe so-called “safe sex” is in many contexts, including for very young people.
This was a comment I posted on TheOtherMcCain – Obligatory ‘Miley Cyrus Topless’ Post –
where it was quoted:
In her Rolling Stone interview, Miley says:
The 20-year-old says she’s well aware of how ridiculous she looks twerking, but guess what? She couldn’t care less.
“People are like, ‘Miley thinks she’s a black girl, but she’s got the flattest ass ever,’” she says. “I’m like, I’m 108 pounds! I know! Now people expect me to come out and twerk with my tongue out all the time. I’ll probably never do that s*** again.”
As for comments being thrown around that she’s trying to be “black”, the self-aware singer says: “I’m from one of the wealthiest counties in America … I know what I am. But I also know what I like to listen to. Look at any 20-year-old white girl right now — that’s what they’re listening to at the club.”
She had a few choice words for the haters of her VMAs dance with theBlurred Lines singer also: “No one is talking about the man behind the ass. It was a lot of ‘Miley twerks on Robin Thicke,’ but never, ‘Robin Thicke grinds up on Miley.’ They’re only talking about the one that bent over. So obviously there’s a double standard.”
How can anyone be more retarded, vulgar, and completely miss the forest for the trees? How crazy is it to complain of a “double-standard” in crude sexuality sewer land? Who wants to read “views” on “asses,” on “sh*t,” or “the man behind the ass?” How can anyone think in a more crude way about women, men, bodies, and sexuality? How is it possible to drag the cultural and moral level down further into the sewer? It’s like chalk screeching on the blackboard and all these millions of retarded liberals thinking the sound is normal.
What few people have analyzed is how much liberals have normalized the worst of sexism in the name of liberation (sexual or for women). It’s exactly analogous to their claim that they are “liberating” homosexuals when the only thing they are doing is normalizing perverted and dysfunctional people in terms of sexuality.
There was a great comment made in reply to an Aussie article that protested how awful it was that people were criticizing Miley for being too thin derrière:
***Oh god, not another feminist article calling on the “sisterhood” to band together because some little twit flashed her bits in latex underwear.
She set the whole gender back, regardless of the size of her derriere. We aren’t calling for her head because she had a [saggy, flat, small] behind, but because she was parading it around for all to see in two sizes too small underwear. All she showed (besides some cheek) was that
women need to be highly [sexualised, whoreish, in-your-face] to get any kind of attention.***
To get any attention from liberals, that is. And who have become the worse in terms of sexism and in degrading sexuality. This article is the apex of how warped liberals are in their value hierarchy – the stupidity, the vapidness, the sexism:
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/enter…
It is particularly bizarre that 1st and perhaps 2nd wave feminists fought hard against everything this trash of “feminism” is now promoting as liberation. When “feminists” are sexist and completely degrade sexuality, we can see that the label has lost a lot of its meaning.
There was a time when Miley’s behavior would have been both frowned upon as being whorish and vulgar, because such attitudes and behaviors degrade women and sexuality, and so they were not acceptable, at the same time that many men would want to exploit her behavior for their own gratification (they were given permission to enjoy it as long as she wasn’t their wife/mother/daughter and it was some “other woman”). That was patriarchy during a good deal of the 20th century. Then came feminism and criticized the sexual objectification of women, their exploitation, etc. And afterwards, as liberals pushed more and more to degrade women and sexuality, in a move that increasingly included women as protagonists, there wasn’t much of anyone in the liberal camp left to criticize this war on women (and sexuality), since the more liberals degrade, the more they claim they are normal and legitimate – all in the name of liberation. (Nothing like adding insult to injury!)
Basically the only people to call for respect of women and a wholesome sexuality today are social conservatives. Unfortunately, if taken as a whole, this is a group which has a serious public communication skills deficit.
It is particularly disheartening to see so many people in the entertainment biz with a lot of power who are actively driving the race to the bottom in terms of American culture regarding sexuality. Behind Miley there is a very powerful industry and millions of fans – all with no ethics – and who are not going to be stopped unless other people stand up to them.
McCain followed up the post above with:
I will quibble with Alessandra’s criticism of the “public communications skills” of social conservatives. The real problem, as I see it, is two-fold:
1) Social conservatives have allied themselves with the Republican Party in a way that makes them largely dependent on the GOP, which has shown itself willing to exploit social conservatives (when this is deemed beneficial to Republican political fortunes) or conversely to scapegoat social conservatives (when the GOP needs someone to blame for its defeats).
2) Because academia, the news media and the entertainment industry are so dominated by liberals, it is very difficult for social conservatives to combat the Left’s harmful stereotypes about uptight puritanical right-wing “christofascists.” Furthermore, it is difficult even for social conservatives to locate their own natural leaders and spokesmen, when the liberal media focus their attention on the most idiotic kooks among social conservatives, and when various charlatans and hucksters are simply scamming for dollars, Elmer Gantry-style.
There are sane, intelligent and articulate social conservatives, but you’re never going to see them on the nightly network news, nor on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post or New York Times. But we must accept these disadvantages as inherent to the guerrilla struggle of the culture war, and find ways to overcome them.
This was my reply to him:
Totally agree on #1.
And on #2, we also agree completely on: Because academia, the news media and the entertainment industry are so dominated by liberals, it is very difficult for social conservatives to combat the Left’s harmful stereotypes about uptight puritanical right-wing “christofascists.”
I agree this liberal domination is the problem. In academia, it will be very hard to change, because they have a stronghold on hiring. But I find it hard to understand that the same should happen for the media and the entertainment biz’s, because with adequate funding, socons could do a lot more. And it’s not only liberals who have money in this country! For example, a TV series for adults, that presents socon views and values in an engaging way. Is there no channel where this could air? Is there no one to write and produce one? And even the news media, we find a lot more news analysis and coverage online, with news outlets and magazines, and sites and bloggers, than on the air. (not counting radio). It seems odd to me, for example, that many of the issues you or I address are not addressed on TV. There are hundreds of channels and opportunities… Is it exclusively a question of liberal domination, or do we lack more people with a variety of excellent communication skills?
Concerning the communication skills deficit, I think most socons I know of are religious and they mostly know how to talk about their views using a religious framework.This drives away people who are not religious, but who we need to and can reach. These are people who would be very amenable to the wholesomeness of the socon view of society, if it were presented in a non-religious context. And this could serve to diminish antagonism related to religious people. Socons have a major public rebranding challenge facing them, because liberals have succeeded, as you well note, in branding socons as awful AND backwards, and branding their own junk of ideology as “progress.”
“There are sane, intelligent and articulate social conservatives,”
Of course there are, I didn’t mean there weren’t, but in a media and academic space dominated by liberals, the visibility of these socons is so limited for the public at large. While the potential of the Net is enormous and wonderful, in part because it is so accessible, and there are no geographic boundaries, I still think that TV is the medium for shaping hearts and minds of large swaths of the public. Then again, there’s a lot that can be done on the Internet.
An example of what I think we need more of is this German movie: Big Girls Don’t Cry. It does exactly what I was talking about above. Dramatizes conflicting ideologies through the characters and exposes how harmful a liberal ideology is. Mind you, this is a movie for young people, not adults. You never see stories like this on TV or in the US, where the poor Catholic girl is the one who shows character and the rich, hip liberal character turns out to be a piece of junk.
On the lighter side, we also had Gilmore Girls. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I don’t know if you have watched “Scandal” – all the hypocrites and adulterers are Republicans and “social conservatives,” and all the supposedly “cool” characters are liberals. And of course, it’s homosexual agenda down your throats…
Actually I was kind of playing with the title of this post, because what I really found wonderful is this BBC production of one of Cicero’s legal performances. It’s “Murder in Rome,” about the Roscius trial, and you can watch it on youtube. I loved the actors, the acting, the production, the script, everything.
The grandstanding, the power, the setting, the drama! It’s all so theatrical and so un-modern. And although I knew that Cicero wouldn’t be killed, I still had that pit in my stomach with the suspense of how things would turn out and who would prevail. So exciting!
It’s clear I sure wouldn’t want to have lived in Rome at the time, such Barbarians. But as I have been thinking for a quite some, le plus ça change…
Other little remarks: What a handsome Cicero! And it’s nice that the audience seems to be mostly composed of North African-looking people (i.e., non-lilly white Brits), and lots of people with that “rabble” look, teeth missing, etc., but it’s a bit overdone – it’s supposed to be Rome! And I don’t see Italian-looking people. It should have been more mixed with some Italian movie extras thrown in there.
And all the main actors are British – OK, so it’s a BBC production, but again the two guys who got the farms look like they had just stepped out of a Robin Hood movie to me! That’s all I could think – they are Prince John’s hatchets, wrong movie set! Maybe it’s because they’re speaking this British English – more than their looks. It’s true that they could pass for Italians, and I’m not saying Rome wasn’t a huge ethnic melting pot, I just missed more of that Roman/Italian character, the faces, etc. And as nice as this Cicero actor was, it would have been nicer if they had cast someone around 27, so that we could get that prodigy feeling, more realism regarding how young he was…
I tried to imagine them speaking in Latin, but it wasn’t all that easy… It would be so nice to see a Latin production one day – with Italian actors for the accent! 😉
I’ve just published a new article on my other blog:
“Rod Dreher at The American Conservative teaches by example how to be a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech”
I only found this op-ed because on Sept. 13, 2013, Rod Dreher (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/campus-feminist-vs-first-amendment/) gave a nice display of his glaring hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech and his often camouflaged aversion to the market place of ideas. Why?
In a recent article (“Campus Feminist Vs. First Amendment”), Dreher decided to launch an attack on a female LSU student, Jana King, portraying her as some rabid anti-freedom of speech nitwit, and himself as her very opposite, an enlightened defender of free speech. Now, that takes hypocrisy, given that Dreher is not in any way different than Jana King when it comes to being averse to freedom of speech.
As someone who was banned from commenting on Dreher’s blog, because he was bothered by my comments, I can only say that Dreher teaches by example how to be a hypocrite regarding freedom of speech.
Stacy McCain, in his wonderful journalism work highlighting cases and problems related to child exploitation and abuse, recently had a post on the horrible Jonathan Adleta case, where the latter adamantly demanded the cooperation of his girlfriends in sexually abusing their daughters.
I just wanted to copy here my most important comment:
One thing that I find increasingly frustrating is realizing that while many people react with healthy horror and repugnance at these cases of vile torture of children, many of these same people never give a little of their time or money to help this very cause. It’s always worthwhile to remind people that such collective actions is what will a) aid in prevention, and b) facilitate justice and aid victims.
Have you considered volunteering or donating to an organization that works to prevent or remedy child abuse?
If you have some time to give, one thing that you can do is to ask who are the lawyers working pro-bono on child abuse cases in your city. They will probably be able to recommend organizations/programs. The same for therapists. Many of the big organizations (YMCA/YWCA, CASA or Court-Appointed Special Advocates, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ECPAT, UNICEF, SOS Children’s Villages International, etc.) have local programs or ways to help. I think it’s always best to be inside an organization to get a sense of how they operate and to see if you consider them worthwhile. Obviously volunteering is not always possible, but then asking around for information about the work these organizations are doing and giving some money to the more reputable ones is doing something!
There are also several organizations targeting child porn and trafficking.
Another category of organizations are the ones which help troubled parents to better parent or to get parenting mentors. Others relate to adoption and foster care.
Another type of action is to monitor the media and write letters to the editors requesting a coverage follow-up on various cases initially covered. This helps raise awareness and aids in the justice process.
Remember, if you don’t like one organization, try another!
A couple more of my comments on this case:
This is another fine example of the fact that only the world’s most horrible people claim that “sexuality is nobody’s business.” Only slime of people want society to stick its head in the sand and not pay attention to all the deformed human beings out there regarding sexuality.
Sexuality is society’s business.
I also have to say kudos to the FBI. In so many other countries, the corrupt or inept police would have done nothing to save the child, especially if it was poor.
And I wonder how much of a good job the FBI as a whole actually does concerning sexual abuse of children. I mean, we often a news headline that 50 child porn consumers were caught, and then silence. And when you do hear something, it’s to say that most were never sent to jail. And the victim stats of sexual abuse are very high.
Alas, what a horrible world.
A long time ago, I was watching TV (or reading) and I came upon a historian who remarked one of those things that are completely obvious, but until you hear it, it’s never been stark or clear or obvious at all.
He said: the key problems we have today are the same as we’ve always had 2000 years ago, 4000 years ago, i.e., people do not get along, there’s violence and greed, a lot of it, selfishness, irresponsibility, war, mental illness, hunger, disease, etc., etc.
Now, it was only when he said this that it hit me that I had been largely sold a lie up until then. I had been taught the world (and civilization) were progressing in linear fashion and that the effective progress was ongoing, like a nice little line graph that curves continuously upward, slowly, but steadily; that we are supposed to be much better off than in the past. Well, the fact is, the extent and the number of problems we have in the world clearly belie that narrative. It’s a sham of a narrative, and yet it’s what I had been sold all through school: We are progressing, society is progressing, the world is progressing. Clearly, many of very, very old problems have not be solved – at all. They continue. They may vary in shape or form or place; the problem merely mutates and is transfigured, but it continues, generation after generation.
Now, without delving into this topic of the false narrative of a linear and continuing world progress much further, I just wanted to use it as a preamble to what I have been reflecting on. Presently, I keep thinking about issues with the way society is organized into groups, especially gigantic and hugely complex ones, like large nation-states, where you have a variety of layers of control and super-structures. And whether a lot of the problems that we have today stem from so much heterogeneity within the huge State.
Think about the Amish; they live in their own community, with their culture, their laws (albeit with another super-structure), etc. Now, if they weren’t allowed to do this and they were forced to live in larger society, all of this unique micro-society would be largely destroyed and they would be obliged to then live by rules and submit to a culture that goes clearly against how they want to live – therefore, a most fundamental question of self-determination is at play. There would be endless frustration, complaining, strife, and most fundamentally, a profound lack of freedom.
Now, wouldn’t it better to extrapolate the Amish experience to other groups? Something like the Amish dynamic happens to a certain degree regarding redder or bluer states. But it’s very bland when compared to the Amish. I just wonder if people wouldn’t all be happier if we could have politically and culturally defined cities or communities. Obviously a lot of energy and warfare is exerted in trying to get a larger structure to be what you want it to be (for example, regarding state or national politics). And I just wonder if it wouldn’t be a better solution for many people if there was less of a super-structure and more locally homogeneous towns. I would love to live in a city where most people sincerely shared and upheld my most fundamental values and culture. Why should this never be possible? Maybe anything more than a very small group of people will always entail serious and ugly problems within a society – I don’t know. Maybe we just think so because our world is so messed up and so clobbered with a high number of problems that it mires our ability to think about alternatives.
I was thinking about this issue again today when I came upon this announcement: Thursday, September 12, 2013
Catholic and Evangelical Law Professors Publish Joint Statement On Theological Foundations of Civil Law
A group of 15 Evangelical and 14 Catholic law professors have just published a paper that has been 8 years in the making titled Evangelicals and Catholics Together On the Law: The Lord of Heaven and Earth. (Full text in Summer 2013 Journal of Christian Legal Thought). Heavy on theology, the 9-page joint statement begins with this explanation of purpose:
… we wish to speak from and to our respective communities about law, politics, and government. We speak from the conviction that law’s place and role in society are shaped by enduring truths – truths that transcend the differences among cultures and traditions – about God, about the world, about the human person, and about what the entire human family is called by its divine creator and redeemer to be.
This is a perfect example of the dilemma between heterogeneity and homogeneity. This announcement took me back to remarks from anti-religion people who are adamant about stomping their feet and saying that nothing even remotely related to any religion should be part of the legal system or the government – a completely rabid and prejudiced position. Regardless, these are totally antagonistic positions. These people want one society, the other group (to keep the example simple) wants something profoundly differently. Instead of the two warring each other for generations on end, given that each one has their own very distinct vision of the laws, culture, social interactions, etc., and a good number of people will always be unhappy with how things are, why not have two societies? Perhaps that is an unrealistic question given that there is little that many people can agree on today, so the number of conflicts would always be high and endlessly divide people. But it seems to me that heterogeneity can create as many unsatisfying problems as homogeneity.
There seems to be no simple solution, but I refuse to believe that things couldn’t be better resolved. Experiences such as the “Ave Maria” city project or some Orhtodox Jewish communities are examples of how difficult it is for such projects to work out in practice, even today. And yet the Amish seem to be better off having their community than if they didn’t and were forced like many people today to live in very large and heterogeneous cities/states/nations, where people are always fighting about the control, the laws, the culture, the resources, and can only have as an option to form a community within the larger system/city, given that the latter is not modeled after their values and views. This is not merely a question of group/city size, since small towns can be suffocating too. And maybe life within an Amish community has more of such conflictory and power-related problems than the homogeneous façade lets on. In any case, I keep thinking about this question.
Another day I will write my thoughts on how awful it is to have a very homogeneous country/society, since so often that means issues are decided by a more absolutist dynamic of power which does not permit dissent or questioning. Herd kind of thinking, like many liberals love to engage in, even though highly homogeneous, is an awful thing. What could be more pathetic than what Dave, the liberal cad over at Ordinary-Gentlemen.com, said: the market place of ideas is a horrible thing, because too obnoxious.
As we can see then, the heterogeneity/homogeneity plot is always apt to thicken, independently of what aspect of the conundrum you decide to tackle.
I think this is a major, major case. As I have posted around the Net:
I simply do not understand how these cases can be framed as discrimination from a legal standpoint. The provider is refusing to provide service because they would be serving a destructive political and social agenda. These are freedom of conscience cases, much more than freedom of speech. The compelled speech is just the type of compelled behavior (working for people who are destroying society because of their political agenda). It’s no different than being asked to take photographs of a Neo-Nazi event or a porn shoot and refusing.
There is no such thing as equating “sexual orientation” to race (or any in-born physical characteristics), thus legislation that equate it to racial discrimination is empty of meaning. It is a fraudulent concept at its very root. This is just one more case that evidences that every piece of legislation regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation is a fraud and must be scrapped. Lastly, and the most important point in all of this, is that once you establish a “protected class” for whom different laws apply, you’ve clearly done away with equal protection before the law.
Thus, everyone has a most fundamental right to discriminate based on sexual ideology and behavior. The right to total discrimination against others pushing pornography onto you is a fundamental human right. The right to total discrimination against prostitution, sexualization of kids, S&M, etc., is a fundamental human right. And so it is with people pushing a noxious and ignorant homosexuality agenda that normalizes homosexuality instead of trying to resolve it. Everyone who has such problems (LGBTs) is responsible for investigating their underlying psychological problems that produce their dysfunctional sexual psychologies.
There’s is nothing normal about having serious underlying psychological problems that pervert the ability of a person to establish healthy intimate relationships with the opposite sex. Simply because liberals don’t want to face the problems involved, doesn’t make homosexuality normal.
Guaranteeing freedom of conscience, religion, speech and equal rights are all American traditions. And that’s why the homosexuality agenda is such a noxious, nasty, undemocratic agenda. Liberals and their agenda are going against all of these fundamental rights that are indispensable for democracy.
Having a destructive homosexuality agenda cannot in any way be compared to the black civil rights movement, it’s actually an insult to blacks, and to women.
Regarding the claim that “Elaine is being treated equally: all public businesses must not discriminate, as the law states,”
its proponents obviously forget the law starts with the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, and all the others amendments, before we get to this irrational and – patently unconstitutional – law related to “sexual orientation discrimination.”
The very fact that stupid LGBTs claim they are entitled to a type of protection that other people are not entitled to violates the very principle and the practice of equality before the law.
If we are all equal before the law, there is no such thing as special, arbitrary “protected” categories – as when some people have the protection of a law, and others don’t. Some people have a special category, and others don’t. That’s inequality. Either Elaine cannot refuse a single customer for any reason – the same principle applies – or she is free to refuse any of them – they are equal. Equality means no special categories or classes, no different rules, no differences in allowing discrimination for one group of people but not for another.
The claim that inequality equals equality is so irrational, it could have been taken out of Orwell’s 1984. What LGBTs want is inequality and, most grievous, to take away our most important freedom: the freedom required to live a moral, decent, wholesome life. Without this freedom, people are slaves to any destructive agenda imposed by the State.
A commenter (Jeffrey) said: “You are crazy if you think imposing your religious values on normal people, or else you’re the victim of discrimination, is equality. Religionists are not allowed to break laws, or harm others, because god whispered in their ears and told them to.”
Actually Jeffrey is crazy if he thinks imposing his destructive homosexuality agenda on normal people, or else he’s the victim of discrimination, is equality. People with a homosexual agenda are not allowed to break laws (starting with the Constitution), or harm others, or punish or persecute others because LGBTs are so dysfunctional and irresponsible that they refuse to deal with all their underlying psychological problems causing them to be deformed in terms of sexuality. And then they want to force other decent people to promote their harmful homosexuality agenda.
Everyone is responsible for taking responsibility for their homosexual (or any other psycho-sexual) problems, investigating them and resolving them.
That is equality.
LGBTs love to violate other people’s most fundamental rights and then claim it’s other people that don’t like “equality.” Obviously looking in the mirror is not their forte.
Given the zeitgeist then, it was a nice surprise to see that a poll taken recently says 85% of those asked are in support of Elaine! A wonderful turn of events against the stupid lesbians using the State to harass this wonderful couple. With Kennedy and the lipstick-on-a-pig Kagan though, I’m not hopeful at all about the Supremes.
Must-read article on this case:
The New ‘Equality’ Principle
By William Murchison
Our overwhelmingly liberal media would have us believe that only … let’s call them non-liberals favor the curtailment of others’ right to act on internal beliefs. Experience shows us otherwise. To dissent from enforcement of the new equality principle – everybody equal except those suspected of voting for Mitt Romney – is to fall out with our new moral leaders. You know – the ones fond of shouting, “Liberty,” meaning it
for themselves alone.
I have been blogging on how the liberal homosexuality agenda is incompatible with democracy for awhile.
here’s one post: https://alessandrareflections.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-road-to-tyranny-normalizing-homosexuality-is-a-tiranical-cultural-process/
So… awhile ago someone I asked to read something I had written told me that it reminded them of Evelyn Waugh, who I had never read, and who, for a long time, I thought was a woman writer (Evelyn!). So, I put this on my list of things to do before I die, one more author I needed to check out. I often do not like famous authors, and not only that, quite often the feeling of dislike, frustration, or in-satisfaction is intense towards their writing, followed by a heart-sinking dismay in thinking how could millions or symbolically some huge and oppressive number of idiots ever laud and fawn over an author who is profoundly depressing, dry, boring, heavy-handed, sleazy or espousing the most noxious ideologies… Therefore, I am always wary when people recommend to me some famous big name because displeasure often ensues.
For this reason, I first went on the Internet, as a cautionary measure, to look up Waugh (and was once again reminded it’s a man).
Mr. Waugh passed this first test however. The biographical snippets and other literary criticism bits that I read on wikipedia and other book sites piqued my curiosity (the good, the bad, and the ugly) and I decided to take a chance with Mr. Waugh. Not with Brideshead Revisited, God knows how long that would take to read. No, let’s start with something short. Which just suited me amazingly well, because I love short stories with a passion. After a little searching, I found some, and clicked on “Tactical Exercise.”
It begins magnificently: “John Verney married Elizabeth in 1938, but it was not until the winter of 1945 that he came to hate her steadily and fiercely.”
Now just with that, you smile, because you have just read the first sentence and right there you are already expecting some good writing to follow, especially if you had read that the author is supposed to be “bitingly satirical” and capable of “brilliant social commentary.”
So, with very nice expectations and my curiosity piqued, I started the journey. But then, right away, the unexpected hit. The story very quickly became dark, and then darker and not what I had bargained for in terms of that amusing and more congenial, even if at times dramatic or hard-punching social criticism. I began to worry. All this darkness and dreariness and bitterness that just seemed to go from bad to worse was definitely off-putting and not what I had wanted to read. One more famous writer that I clearly would not like. As a result, I started skimming the text a bit, not too happy about what was happening and not wanting to emotionally invest myself just to get kicked in the stomach down the line. Just skip the details and get a sense quickly of how awful this story is going to develop – avoiding all emotional attachment. How dark and awful is Mr. Evelyn Waugh?
It certainly didn’t take long for me to start getting to the end – it is a short story after all! And that’s when something very unexpected happened. Something very clever. To my surprise, it turned out to be one great short story. And I ended up with an unexpected enjoyment of the tale and a happy little end to my first experience reading Evelyn. (How could anyone call a boy Evelyn?)
So, Mr. Evelyn Waugh has been approved – for the time being at least until more reading is done.
Anyways, I started this post by ever so lightly mischievously misleading you to think that I write like Waugh. I am curious to see after I have read more of him what aspects I could say match and which don’t. And so far, I am pleased that someone loosely associated my writing to his.
this post was slightly tweaked after it was first posted.