It’s Worse Than You Thought

Despair is not the answer to the following confirmations of gloom and decadence about which you might have been unaware. Recognition of the depths to which Western liberal culture has sunk is a good, because knowing what is so (as opposed to believing what is not so) is a good, and any good is to be greeted with cheer.

Headline: Drag Queen Makes Powerful Statement By Wearing Tiara Coated With HIV+ Blood.

And that statement is that the drag “queen” looked at Reality, found it wanting, and then fled from it. Far from it.

In case you wondered or worried, the diseased blood was taken from a “consenting individual”.

Speaking of HIV, have you heard of “bug hunting”? Not that which an entomologist or software engineer might do. No, the sort a drag “queen”, or similar such person, in search of infection with the HIV virus might do. The practice also goes by the names “bug chasing” or “gift giving”. The term “liquid gold” is sometimes used, but I will not explain it.

Headline: Police find male escort ‘cooking’ transgender wife on stove

The story is that these two men, both of whom worked as prostitutes, and one of which pretended to be a woman, had a bit of a falling out. Just like out of the old cartoons of cannibals and kettles, the first man cooked up the second, but the pot spilled over and shorted out the electricity. The chef called an electrician, who discovered the kettle, and so the chef fled and killed himself with a knife.

Headline: Is having a loving family an unfair advantage?

The power of the family to tilt equality hasn’t gone unnoticed, and academics and public commentators have been blowing the whistle for some time. Now, philosophers Adam Swift and Harry Brighouse have felt compelled to conduct a cool reassessment.

Equality is a (small ‘g’) god, and it demands victims, though it is never appeased. It never can be sated: what this god wants is impossible.

Said the academic philosopher: “One way philosophers might think about solving the social justice problem would be by simply abolishing the family. If the family is this source of unfairness in society then it looks plausible to think that if we abolished the family there would be a more level playing field.”

We have seen this before.

Headline: Can conversion therapy get a fair hearing in mainstream press? Short answer: No

“Conversion” is a poor choice of name for the therapy that seeks to talk men out of their errors. There are no such things as “gays” or “homosexuals”—or even “heterosexuals”. There are only men and women, with varying sexual desires. So it really is impossible to “convert” something which does not exist (a “gay”) into that which also does not exist (a “heterosexual”).

But, as the late Joe Nicolosi has proved time and again, men who are tired of acting on their same-sex attraction can be convinced to stop and to become normal. Yet government officials, bullied and mollified, or themselves enjoying unnatural sex, outlaw this kind of therapy. This, quite literally, makes seeking Reality a crime.

Headline: US Support for Gay [Gmarriage] Edges to New High

Accepting there is always error in surveys, the estimate is that some two-thirds of adults now accept gmarriage. By an (admittedly crude) extrapolation, this proportion will break 90% around 2025. Once a democracy goes that far wrong, there is no chance voting will restore Reality.

This is not similar to another situation in which the country lost it mind. With prohibition, the majority of citizens did not want the no-alcohol law imposed on them from above. The rebellion of the citizens against the law was enough to snap government back to Reality.

With gmarriage, there is every reason for politicians to support the majority. Those opposing the majority will have a difficult to impossible time getting elected. Reality will fade fast, becoming a Forbidden Zone a desolate land where only daring criminals venture.

But at least you’ll be able to vote!

Headline: White Harvard students holding a graduation of their own

White students at Harvard University are organizing a graduation ceremony of their own this year to recognize the achievements of white students and faculty members some say have been overlooked…

Harvard joins a growing number of universities that have added graduation events for students of different ethnicities. Some have offered white commencement ceremonies for years, including Stanford University, Marshall University and the University of Washington. Some have added them more recently, and are also adding events for a variety of cultural groups.

I might have got the races backwards. Also: “The University of Delaware held its first LGBT ceremony this year, joining dozens of others across the country.”

Update I cannot recommend anybody click on this link. But it reaches a depth of idiocy to which I thought we’d have to wait at least two more weeks to reach.

Update Reality officially illegal in NYC (again). You will pay a hefty fine for telling the truth.

20 Comments

  1. Michael: And yet we are still here……

    As for colleges, PARENTS WANT THIS. They stupidly pay to send their kids to these colleges for indoctrination. This is the DESIRED STATE OF EDUCATION.

    As for family, abolishing the family is defininately Brave New World. This is an admission that we are basically there, folks. In this Brave New World, the drug Soma comes in with many names, costs $40,000 or more a year and is covered by insurance.

  2. “By an (admittedly crude) extrapolation, this proportion will break 90% around 2025.”
    So the principle of non extrapolation and all that jazz goes out of the window if you’re trying to predict your favourite doom?

    Here’s an interesting fact.
    A person in the UK can expect to live as long with HIV as anybody.
    Not so somebody in West Africa, though.
    How’s that conversion therapy going?

  3. Sheri —

    I disagree that “parents want this.” I think parents want their kids to receive degrees from certain institutions, no matter the cost.

    Or, parents defend their allegiance (i.e. their piece of paper — the degree) by siding with the institution no matter how it changes, all the while encouraging their children to attend.

    I see this from folks I went to college with. While claiming to be “conservative,” they continue to support and promote the institution (through fund raising, etc.) even as it openly rejects “conservative” views. Very Gramscian.

    So it is not so much that “parents want this.” Rather it is that they want something else which they value over the ideals they claim to hold so dearly.

    Therefore, it is their demonstrated preferences that need to be taken into account, not stated views that contradict their actions. As is said, “Actions speak louder than words.”

  4. Have you noticed that when the government tries to make something fair they usually make the situation worse? My favorite example is affirmative action, which was started to make things fair for blacks, and has now turned into a racket for rent seekers.

  5. Double take:
    “This is not similar to another situation in which the country lost it mind…”
    What an odd thing to say. The country doesn’t have a mind. If you think it does, you’ve lost touch with the truth. Are we on a non philosophy day today? common speech and figurative language is allowed today?

    “… With prohibition, the majority of citizens did not want the no-alcohol law imposed on them from above…”
    No, that was the religious idealists who engaged in that tyrany.

    “… The rebellion of the citizens against the law was enough to snap government back to Reality.”

    What reality’s that then? I don’t recall a lack of reality was a feature of prohibition. More like an idealism gone rampant, a common problem with idealists of any political or religious persuasion where the truth is secondary to the ideal.
    Gardener’s world is starting an I’m afraid I don’t have time to help any more!

  6. Prohibition was largely driven by idealistic but unrealistic women which may be a characteristic of those who lead social improvement movements that often make the situation worse.

  7. “Now we know what Sodom and Gomorrah may have been like.”

    LOL! That was funny, Michael!

    Briggs, Nicolosi proved no such thing. research shows what he was doing was dangerous. The science for rewiring the sexuality of people is just not there yet. You do no service to your credulity making such a lunatic-fringe statement. I don’t know what this fascination with gays is with you, but it really makes me wonder. I’m interested as a matter of civil liberties. But you seem to have a farther reaching concern going on.

    JMJ

  8. That is not the case Michael Dowd, you write a falsehood and rewrite history.
    It originated in the church, squarely and fairly, that is the origin of the fixation.

    Women who are unfortunate to have hooked their star with a drinker have their work cut out and all the nagging in the world won’t produce a respectable drinker from an alcoholic.

    As to the fixation with gay sex? hmm.

  9. Briggs, I’m not convinced that homosexuals do not exist naturally. There exist physical mix ups in the anatomy of genitalia. Why shouldn’t there also be mix ups in the psychology of sexuality?

    The argument from natural law regarding homosexuality does preclude the possibility of actual, from birth, part of the genes, homosexuals.

    Are homosexual acts immoral or sinful? Are homosexuals themselves sinful? These are legitimate questions for you to address. But the existence of homosexuals is a reality.

  10. The argument from natural law regarding homosexuality does not preclude the possibility of actual, from birth, part of the genes, homosexuals.

  11. Yawrate,

    That’s so, but the diligent, hopeful, and long search for such biomarkers has so far come up empty. And then there would have to be the explanation for how these genes survived, given genetic-SSAs would not mate, or not mate frequently. And then there would have to be an explanation for the sudden appearance of SSAs. They didn’t seem to exist before ~1900. Homosexual behavior existed, yes, but not “gays”.

    And then there would have to be a genetic/biological explanation for woofies, necrophiliacs, objectum sexuals, transsexuals, and so on for each non-teleological sexual desire.

    The genetic/biological explanation wears mighty thin by that point.

  12. JMJ – I think your neural nets dropped a connection with “You do no service to your credulity…”. I assume you meant either “You do no service to your credibility…” or “You do service to your credulity…”, but I don’t know which. Or it could be . . . wait, no, that makes no sense, why would an AI use a spell-checker (outside of a Dilbert cartoon).

  13. This is no better than saying there’s no such thing as the biomarker for an idiot or a creep, or insert any improper noun. You are arguing about grammar and expressing taste in word use. A realm of the arts.

    “… but the diligent, hopeful, and long search…”
    sardonic! “ … for such biomarkers has so far come up empty…”
    1.
    this is a straw man argument. A distraction from what is actual, existent.

    Biomarkers do not mark behaviour. Nor do they reflect character judgements which identify a person’s nature.
    (The word nature is used in it’s true sense as opposed to the romantic sense; The word romantic there is used in it’s pejorative sense.)

    2 A gay man is a male and has the appropriate biomarkers for being male.

    “ …and Then there would have to be the explanation for how these genes survived, given genetic-SSAs would not mate, or not mate frequently… “ assumption “… And then there would have to be an explanation for the sudden appearance of SSAs….”

    3 Sudden Appearance? this is an imaginary scenario based on a non existent mechanism which is said to exist within the DNA. It is a straw man about the unknown and non materially quantifiable behaviour of humans which is not claimed to be depicted in genes in a way that sexual organs are.

    It does not do to claim that X or Y individuals display a behaviour of same sex because the actual existence of homosexuality demonstrates the self evident error.

    Some males and female humans, have no sexual activity at all. The behaviours are too many and complex to sort for counting!

    4 Behaviour isn’t marked in genes in any way shape or form that humans have been able to measure quantify or demonstrate. If you refer back to sexual behaviour of heterosexuals then you are stuck in a circle of your own making. Homosexuals exist, deal with it. If you advance an argument to say,
    “Every behaviour originates in genes”
    but you’ve said something obvious. You may as well say all behaviour of humans genetics originates from humans which is to say nothing at all.

    “…They didn’t seem to exist before ~1900. Homosexual behaviour existed, yes, but not “gays…”

    Here’s the problem: the name game again. What’s in a name? This doesn’t solve the puzzle, it alters the name.
    “ Gay” is as valid a term as X in equations if the term is defined sufficiently for a sensible proof.
    ‘gays’ and ‘homosexual’ are different parts of speech.

    ‘Homosexual’ and ‘gay’ are adjectives.
    “a homosexual’, ‘a gay’, ‘gays’ or ‘homosexuals’ are improper nouns!

    “..And then there would have to be a genetic/biological explanation for…”

    You first must prove your argument about the non existence of homosexuality, which you have not done and which I hope to God you were not attempting to do. I also hope you weren’t arguing about parts of speech.

    Anyone advancing this as an answer is confused and I mean that charitably. If not, he’s deliberately playing slight of hand and the former is more palatable to me, being gullible by nature and by choice.

  14. … why would an AI use a spell-checker …

    A spell-checker won’t help in choosing the right word. The word chosen was correctly spelled.

  15. Briggs, you assert there are no bio-markers for homosexuality despite the continuing search. There are no bio-markers for Lupus or MS. Yet neither disease is inherited. My wife the physician explained it this way: There is much about genetics where we don’t know what we don’t know.

    I agree that g-marriage is BS and that it is a slippery slope leading to the legalization of other more socially undesirable behavior. But asserting that homosexuality is not real is not a logical result of the argument that it is “not natural”.

  16. The ‘biomarker’ point is just an attempt to appear scientific. The very sin which is often laid at the door of the lovers of theory which is likely flawed.

    Whether it be dangerous global warming or homeopathy. This theory of no such thing as Gay is a non starter and based on emotion rather than anything intellectually pure. Some very weak references to old testament texts telling tales of men’s disgust is no argument or demonstration of God’s judgement. It is entirely a worldly judgement. Atheist males say the same kinds of things if they have an irrational hatred which spills over towards homosexuals. They are just as desperate in their argumentation as those who have faith or pretend to have faith for social gain.

    Atheists have no case to answer to Christians. They are subject to the laws of the land the same as everybody else and they are just as lovable, more so in many cases.

    Truly faithful Christians have to answer to their professed beliefs and to themselves and to God.
    “Love thy neighbour as thyself. ”

    Vengeance belongs to God. Ultimate justice rests with him.
    The wish to persecute and generally prosecute homosexuality is a wish to bring heaven on earth based on a belief about God’s judgement.

    I believe God is a loving God as Jesus was.
    “stop bitching” WM Briggs.

    Stop trying to make sins illegal! You don’t like the left doing it based on their often dumb world view so why would you think it’s okay for you?
    Failing that, go and live in a tyrannical state run by the pope. You will have to swallow Global Warming as another sin to add to your conscience.

    Bon Voyage!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *