You are currently browsing the monthly archive for October 2014.
End of the afternoon. She starts complaining she’s tired and wants to go to sleep. To sleep? After napping for three hours in the afternoon! Is she coming down with a cold? I suggest that we sit down and I make her some drawings. She is much more intent on going to bed but I succeed in convincing her.
“What shall I draw you? A pretty doll? Sit here beside me and I’ll draw you a doll. We start with the head, the eyes, the hair. This is her dress, her arms, her legs, her shoes. Now let’s add some white socks with a little lace on top. Isn’t that nice?”
She looks on without saying anything.
“There, done! What shall I draw you now?”
“Spiderman,” deadpans the three and a half year old.
“Spiderman!” I chuckle silently surprised at her request. That’s what she had been thinking all along. “OK, Spiderman it is.” So I begin drawing Spiderman from memory, his suit a blue and red blur. “Is his suit blue or red?”
“Blue,” she says.
“Let’s color it blue then.” I can’t picture his face mask very clearly. I draw something like a red mask around the eyes. I thought there was red in there somewhere. To change from all the blue, I make his hands red.
“No, they are also blue,” she corrects me.
Well, too late now. Doesn’t look bad with the red contrast. Spiderman is done. On to the next one. “So what now? A dog, a teddy bear?”
“Superman.”
Over at TAC, there were two more excellent comments this week that I wanted to save.
Carlo says:
October 24, 2014 at 11:30 am
The problem here is ideology, meaning detachment from reality for the sake of an imaginary vision of the world that provides a sense of identity, self-righteousness and purpose in life. In other words, a secularized religion, which in the US naturally maintains many traits of old American Puritanism.
Notice that replacement of transcendent religion by political religion was the ESSENCE of the totalitarian movements of the 20th century in Europe. In this sense, the US are experiencing the third wave (after Communism and Nazism) of the revolutionary dream that destroyed Europe in the 1930′ and 40′s. In the US it co-opted illegitimately the civil rights movement of the 1960′ and put it to the service of the sexual revolution, as opposed to a socio-economic revolution. But it remains totalitarian, inasmuch it denies the universality of reason (because by definition “bigots” cannot have rational arguments) and thus reduces politics to a war.
Carlo, as usual, being way above the crowd. It is for the reasons exposed above that I had previously mused about the similarities between Nazis and today’s liberals.
Church and state – Nazis and liberals
Liberal Gleichschaltung plus Germany in 1933
Nazi homosexuals – an inconvenient reality for liberals
Church and state – Nazis and liberals
The Impossible Separation of Church and State
Aleksandreia: Musings on the false separation of Religion and State in the United States (updated and continued)
KD says:
October 24, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Carl Schmitt (a brilliant lawyer whose career was compromised by his role in the Nazi party) held that the friends/enemy distinction is the essence of politics. If we look at it in terms of group dynamics, a political group defines itself against a set of external enemies and internal enemies. Identity of a group consists in its difference from another group. Politics consists of conflict between groups. The idea of universal tolerance is nonsense, you are not going to tolerate someone intent on killing you or destroying your particular way of life for long. (Tolerance cannot be a suicide pact.) Mill’s harm principle is really an attempt to narrow the category of who ought to be a domestic enemy of the State, but it fails because what a “harm” is or is not is a political question. Do Evangelical Christians or the Nation of Islam harm America? Such questions cannot be answered in a way that everyone–not just the tribe– will agree with. (Schmitt himself presents the interesting dilemma of friendship, are we friends with Schmitt’s thought because it is true or are we enemies because our group loyalties are diametrically opposed to his group loyalties?)
Invoking liberal rights may be useful as a situational, rhetorical, tool to protect the less powerful groups in society from getting clobbered (it’s not fair, they should be treated the same as everyone else) but they don’t provide a coherent account of how politics actually functions in the real world, even by liberals, who are after all a tribe, who share common domestic enemies and common external enemies, whom they seek to exercise absolute power over. I think the problem with liberals is that they believe their own BS, without seeing how the way they actually live contradicts their own pet theory.
I’ve updated the section on defining and describing the homosexuality agenda, which is part of my page on why so many people have normalized homosexuality:
What is the homosexuality agenda?
The homosexuality agenda is the political and cultural movement to normalize homosexuality in every aspect of society, by systematically lying about its etiology and consequences, and to criminalize any questioning, differing viewpoints, and objections of said homosexuality agenda. As such, the goal of people with a homosexuality agenda is not only to silence dissent but to paint decent thinking as evil and to malign and slander the character of all conservatives who have a moral and healthy understanding of human sexuality. Thought crime is the goal.
The main tool of people with a homosexual agenda is propaganda, i.e., constantly spreading myths, misinformation, and downright lies, and promoting perverted and dysfunctional attitudes about sexuality. Concomitantly, they move to cover up and silence every single case and collective action of LGBTs and their supporters perpetrating harm and violence in society. Thus, within homosexual propaganda, “gays” are painted as downtrodden victims, masking the millions acts of violence and other egregious behaviors they engage in. This violence and harm include, but are not limited to: the destruction of marriage, trafficking, prostitution, promiscuity, sexual harassment, abuse, molestation, murder, assault, battering, bullying, fake hate crimes, porn, degradation of human sexuality, attack on social conservatives in all spheres of life (professional, political, personal, business), trampling on fundamental rights (speech, religion, conscience), character assassination, persecution, discrimination, spreading of STDs, S&M, violation of children’s rights to heterosexual parents, and censorship of research and debate. Most of these harmful actions are perpetrated with impunity, if not downright support from liberals and others promoting homosexuality as normal. Moreover, the violence LGBT individuals perpetrate is often blamed and projected on conservatives, i.e., the false stereotype of who does violence to “gays”. In truth, it is LGBTs themselves, by millions of cases compared to a handful of incidents by conservatives, who are violent to LGBTs.
Another part of the propaganda involves conducting irresponsible and corrupt research and academic content regarding homosexuality, used as a means to legitimize the agenda in legal, medical, and academic circles, as well as to give a false wrapping of “scientific authority” to liberal political ideology.
The homosexual agenda (ridiculously called “gay rights movement” and other such euphemistic terms) is part of a larger liberal agenda regarding sexuality and personal behaviors (including the endorsement of promiscuity, hook-ups, perverse and perverted attitudes and behaviors related to sex, porn, adultery, abortion, destruction of traditional marriage, STD epidemics, etc.).
Do not confuse the term “(homo)sexuality” with “(homo) sexual orientation. They are not the same.
Homosexuality is about sexual attitudes, values, attractions, repulsions, concepts and interpretations about sexuality, power and domination or subjection dynamics relating to the sexual other, affection or objectification of the sexual other, admiration or disrespect related to the sexual object,conscious and unconscious feelings related to self or other which shapes or deforms relation and sexual feelings towards other, obsessions and distortions, projections, fantasies, dysfunctions, traumas, impacts from social conditioning, problems with masculinity or femininity, problems with personal history and fundamental caretakers, etc. that will result in the sexualization of someone of the same sex and a hindering of the normal sexualization of someone of the opposite sex.
Society needs to be concerned about homosexuality, not homosexual orientation. Homosexual attraction or desire is only a mere product of myriad configurations of these aforementioned dysfunctional
psycho-social dynamics. There is nothing normal about homosexuality and no one is born homosexual. It is perverted and dysfunctional and the best a person with a homosexual problem can do is to seek to treat the underlying reasons that produce such a perverted way of thinking and feeling about same-sex people, which for homosexuals comes accompanied by a deformed way of thinking about opposite-sex people too.
On using the words “a homosexual”
The problem I see with using “a homosexual” is that it has an essentialist, inborn, or biological determination connotation to it that is the opposite of reality.
This is why I often prefer using “individual with a homosexual problem,” since no one is born with a homosexual problem.
This means in “liberalspeak” that no one is born a homosexual, no one is born gay, no one “is gay” in the biologically determined sense, and homosexuality or gayness or homosexual sexual orientation are not inborn.
Homosexuals are not “being themselves.” They are being themselves with a homosexual problem. Resolve the problem and they are heterosexuals being who they are.
There were a few excellent comments in sites around the net yesterday, a couple of which I’ll be copying here because they distinguish themselves by the strength of their keenness in analyzing current ideological, social, and political dynamics.
First, this one by Aaron Taylor* over at Ethika Politika – where my own comment was censored (too heretical? ;-).
Taylor writes:
By saying psychology acts as a mechanism of social control, I am not trying to imply there is some kind of elite conspiracy to use psychology to control the unsuspecting masses. As Foucault pointed out, power is immanent within social networks rather than being — in the manner of crude Marxist analysis — simply something that is used by one group against another. What I am saying is that psychology has come to be the primary vehicle through which different interest groups in society try to achieve moral ascendancy for their ideas.
America (and one could extend this to other parts of the modern West) is a fragmented society that doesn’t share a coherent common morality, yet, of course, like every society, it needs to have moral conversations. It does, however, share a common faith in “objective science,” and so, over time, it has developed a discourse that masks its moral conversations in a scientific disguise.
Therefore, while individual groups within a society (Catholics, say, or Mormons, or whatever) might share a moral code and have explicitly moral discussions, as a society, we could not possibly any longer have a discussion about whether pornography was “good” or “bad,” or about whether its usage made citizens “virtuous” or “vicious” persons. Instead, we have a discussion about whether it leads to “healthy identity development.”
Your [that is, ‘s previous] comments [in the thread] about how some psychologists are attempting a “political move” to have pedophilia declassified as a mental illness are an illustration of my point. I agree with you that the likely motives behind such a move are, of course, grotesque, but stop and ask yourself: why would these people even bother attempting such a move if it weren’t for the fact that the discourses of psychology have a tremendous amount of social and political *power* to either normalise or abnormalise certain behaviours? No zoologist, for example, would ever think they had scored a political victory by reclassifying a kangaroo from marsupial to mammal.
So perfectly keen.
By coincidence, I had a mini-feud on Twitter yesterday, and when I made some comments criticizing homosexuality, the first thing the stupid LGBT squabbling with me hilariously said is “You don’t believe in the scientific method”. Obviously, since this is just an LGBT idiot on the Net, he is too obnoxious to read my site and realize that my critique of the normalization of homosexuality is built using a secular framework, which constantly incorporates scientific approaches, methods, and findings, and scientific ways to conceptualize and understand reality as fundamental means to effect this critique. But the stupid LGBT must assume anything and everything I say is based not only on a religious framework, but a Christian one, because it is critical of his agenda. Not only that, in his tiny LGBT mind, anything Christian must be wrong, and anything he labels “scientific” must be right. Second, this LGBT, like most liberals, is too stupid to understand Taylor’s point above – it is extremely foolish to proclaim that science (i.e.,”the scientific method”) is appropriate to decide all questions in life.
It is exactly because I understand the scientific method and the history of the various sciences we have today (psychology, anthropology, medicine, etc.) that I understand just how profoundly problematic, corrupt, manipulated/manipulative, and just plain wrong Science has always been and will be, if not always, then for a very long time, regarding a very large number of its claims. It would be my guess that the majority of scientific claims made in the history of modern Science have been proven wrong some time later – a fact that liberals seem to forget when it comes to their claims that they have the Truth on homosexuality because the APA said so – oh, the inanity!
In science, it’s not only individual claims, but entire schools of “scientific” thought have been completely discarded as awful or wrong – see, as one of many examples, Kuhn for his excellent analysis of the power dynamics of wrong orthodoxy in science. Lastly, Science (or the scientific method, if you will) has been and it will largely always be partially inadequate and an incomplete tool to determine morality questions.
The funny thing is, it is the liberal LGBT guy on Twitter prattling about the “scientific method” who doesn’t believe in the scientific method, in the sense that he doesn’t even understand what the scientific method entails in the soft (and consequently political and ideological) sciences such as psychology. Nor does he understand how fraught with failures and uncertainties the method is. For the liberal riff-raff, the high priests of the APA have declared that homosexuality is normal, and given papal, I mean, APA infallibility regarding its “science,” this notion must now be fanatically believed in and heretics burnt at the stake.
Regarding the liberal discourse on homosexuality, as Taylor points out in his overall critique, once the APA started declaring homosexuality was “normal” – and how scientific is that claim? – the ignorant masses then started screaming this was “scientifically” proven, since the claim was made by what is in their view the authority of all things real and moral. (Claiming that the APA is the definer of what reality is for humanity for eternity is a joke all in itself, but let’s leave that aside).
Moreover, it’s not that this institutional body ever truly used the scientific method or science to establish any of its claims. It mostly utilized junk reason under the guise of “science,” and it simply ignored all criticisms and questionings to its reasonings, to proclaim its edicts on the morality of homosexuality. And so, by wrapping a secular/scientific body around their moral claim, liberals pretend that it’s not morality, plain and crude, that they are prescribing and arbitrating. However, as Aaron Taylor so finely articulated above, it’s exactly what they are doing.
On a tangential and closing note, regarding Taylor’s previous comments in the thread, I understand what he is trying to say here: “Psychology of the modern variety is a post-industrial revolution pseudoscience that tries to dominate people by planting a mechanism of social control inside their mind (unlike, say, the discourses of law, which attempt to restrain from without)“. However, it is poorly developed. Taylor is quite right in that this is how psychology is being wielded to control people, but there is much more to psychology and psychotherapy that is profoundly good and beneficial to people and society. Thus, psychology/psychotherapy can lead to profound healing, health, and well-being.
What we have with psychology is a “baby and bath water” problem. In his criticism, Taylor has reduced all psychology and related practices to the bath water, while ignoring the baby. I would say it is nevertheless refreshing to see such a well articulated analysis of the dynamics for implanting cultural hegemony used by liberals, since the problem we have in society is certainly that most people only see the baby (the touted wonders, supreme authority, and infallibility (!) of science/psychology/APA) and they lack any ability to see its glaring failures and the damage that ensues from those failures. Yes, the millions of failures and the inadequacy of the “scientific method” that liberals seem to forget is central to their “science” – which is in reality just liberal political ideology dressed up in the scientific method.
* Aaron Taylor is a Ph.D. student in Ethics at Boston College. He previously studied at the Universities of London and Oxford.
Someone at the NRO doesn’t like my freedom of speech to happen at their site! He/She is deleting every comment I make. I’ve listed the deleted comments at my other blog “Censored”.
Censorship at National Review Online – NRO – all my comments deleted re “More on Houston’s Harassment of Pastors/Annise Parker”
CENSORED – all my comments about the UK Rotherham scandal censored at the National Review Online
It must be the umpteenth time that I recently come across a liberal obsessed with normalizing homosexuality that is now arguing that Jesus “did not explicitly say anything that condemned homosexuality,” THEREFORE it must absolutely mean he endorsed it and had normalized it like liberals have. The logic of people obsessed in normalizing their sexually deformed minds! See this fine example:
Comment made on Pope Francis’ Machiavellian strategy to liberalize the Catholic Church
on The Week ) RogerFerguson1 :
Jesus had very little to say about sex, nothing to say about adult same-sex consensual relationships. This is a subject which has been blown up out of all proportions. Personally I fail to see the moral difference between two people having some form of mutual masturbation and the two masturbating separately. Before you ask the question, let me answer. No, masturbation has not made me morally blind. Thank you,
My reply:
“Jesus had very little to say about sex”
Really? So he really didn’t agree with anything the Bible says? I’m glad we got that cleared up! According to Roger then, liberal authority on all things Jesus, what the Bible says about sex and marriage and homosexuality is all a hoax – and clearly Jesus didn’t agree with any of it because he didn’t repeat every word himself.
Roger’s logic goes like this: If the Bible says it, and Jesus didn’t repeat it (in the Bible), then He doesn’t agree with it. Roger is telling us that if Jesus had “very little to say about sex” then it means he is OK with any and all the sexual perversions liberals endorse today! This consequently means Jesus doesn’t agree with the rest of the Bible – you know, all the passages where sin, especially of a sexual nature, is quite clearly spelled out.
It’s rather amusing to see liberals claim that Jesus doesn’t agree with the Bible (ha!) and to see how they sweep this very contradiction out of any consideration. Since their goal is to use Jesus and any other religious authority symbol to normalize homosexuality, such contradictions are not to be acknowledged, much less questioned. It is particularly amusing to claim that Jesus was really just another porn, homosexuality, promiscuity-loving liberal pig, since it shows how much people have a need to mold religion (and religious symbols) to their conveniences – independently of how perverted or destructive these conveniences may be.
Roger claims that had Jesus believed in a healthy and pure sexuality ideology, He “would have said something specific in the Bible against each and every liberal sexual perversion”. Since He didn’t, He must be a liberal.
And so, this is how liberals co-opt the key symbol of religious authority (Jesus) in the (semi-post) Christian West to be part of the homosexuality agenda. Liberals must now reveal to the rest of us that Jesus has always thought like a liberal – he just didn’t say so before!
This “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” line is a great example of sexually perverted liberals colonizing the Bible and especially the figure of Jesus… and it would be amusing if it weren’t so destructive, and hence so sad to see it happening in my world, in my life.
In practical terms, Jesus is just a Ken doll that liberal Catholics, Americans, etc. will dress up as they find most convenient – and the “most convenient” for Western society at the moment is to normalize the majority of sexual dysfunctions and perversions amongst its midst. With this we have not progress, but an increasing depraved, sexually harassful, and sexually violent society, where sex and relationships are relentlessly perverted and demeaned. And you can’t demean sex without demeaning humans.
The Federalist:
Christians Can’t Accept Houston’s Intimidation Tactics Without Protest
…the latest story out of Houston will likewise do little to quell concerns that religious liberty and free speech are under serious attack. Earlier this year, the City Council passed a law regarding rights related to sexual and gender identity. Mayor Annise Parker has made support for this law — the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance — a major part of her administration. A petition drive to repeal the ordinance — with more than 50,000 signatures, and only 17,259 required — was disallowed by Parker and the city attorney. Some of the Houston citizens sued over the matter and the city responded by subpoenaing emails and sermons from five pastors who are not party to the lawsuit but were involved in the petition drive.
…
The public’s mostly negative response to the intimidation attempts seen in Houston was so pronounced that Parker now says she agrees with Alliance Defending Freedom that the subpoenas were overly broad. Heck, the whole thing’s so toxic that she’s even claiming she didn’t know about the subpoenas until shortly before she took to Twitter vigorously defending them. But don’t be surprised if these attacks on religious liberty and free speech don’t cause more people to question what we’re being forced to give up — and why — in exchange for expanding gay rights.
this is a comment to another recent thread:
Look at the fall-out already!!
(article: “Gay unions should be respected, accepted, Archbishop Martin Currie says”)
In an interview with CBC’s On the Go Tuesday, Archbishop Martin Currie said the church must uphold its teaching that marriage is between a man and a woman.
But he added, “Hopefully we can find some accommodation where (same-sex) unions are accepted and respected and they can have a part in the church life.”
Homosexuality “accepted and respected”!! The destruction of everything the Church has stood for as good and wholesome – thanks to these garbage of perverted homosexuals. And it’s not unions that they merely want to normalize – by normalizing homosexuality per se, it means these junk of people are always bothering others and pursuing others with their homosexual behaviors, that is their perverted, malicious, nasty sexual attitudes and behaviors and thinking everyone has to put up with whatever crap they do.
That’s how corrupt the Church is now. Sad!!! Sad!!!! Horrendously sad.
An archbishop preaching to normalize homosexuality and shove it as normal for Catholics and for the Church! Disgusting. He has just thrown the Bible in the trash can. Look at how corrupt the Church is!
“Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. ”
Not just a Church, they want society to submit to whatever trash and perversion their minds produce – and to welcome and accept them. They want to do as much harm and violence as they can get away with, and with impunity – that’s what this corrupt Church doesn’t care about and won’t talk about – how much damage these people do to society and to any church. They want to impose their perversion as part of the norm.
This is horrendous. And I have lived to see this ugly day for the Church.
fantastic comment by “ForChristAlone” on Bergoglio in Crisis Magazine thread:
Possible titles for upcoming books on this papacy”
“Bergoglio Gone Mad”
“The Last Nail in the Coffin of the Family”
“The Synod from Hell”
“Bergoglio: The Conclave That Went Wrong”
“Bergoglio: “I Don’t Give A Damn About Faithful Catholics”
And one thing that I would want to remind Bergoglio of is this: many of us faithful Catholics were made to suffer because of your homosexual priest scandal wherein so many thousands of our sons were abused by your homosexual clergy. And now you want to tell us that homosexual acts are not sinful. You know what you can do with your “Gradualism?”
By, the way, this piece by Father Longenecker is the best one he’s written that I have read. It should be sent to every priest and bishop all over the world. It epitomizes the quandary that many tens of thousands of orthodox Catholics are waking up today thinking..
========================
my reply to above: Thank you for this most wonderful reply – nailed it. Bergoglio is not fit to lead the Church, only to destroy it.
article on the Barbwire on the racist lesbians and “wrong” baby color case: It is Not Their Fault: Why I am Not Angry at the Lesbians Suing the Sperm Bank – By Jennifer Roback Morse
Jennifer Roback Morse: “I do not know if they will get the “justice” they seek: $50,000 in damages and the satisfaction that the sperm bank will not “do this to another family.”
These two women are two trashy, perverted homosexuals, who are racist to boot. What exactly is wrong with what the sperm bank did? Why would the child need to be white? If these two perverted lesbians saw each child as wonderful, they would have never sued because no injustice has been done. Moreover, if they didn’t have a profoundly perverted mind towards both men and women, they would each be in search of a healthy heterosexual relationship with a man where they could conceive normally. How disgusting that two women with such warped minds are now in charge of a child who has no rights regarding who cares for her.
And as much as the Elites are to blame because they use their power to institute corrupt and harmful ideologies, “common folk” are just as perverse and guilty to follow along when it serves their nasty interests. An ideological elite can only be an elite if it has support from a trashy populace.
Overall, though, great article with lots of very good points.
Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra 
You must be logged in to post a comment.