|Question asked at a gay protest event|
A RETURN TO BASIC VALUES
|Question asked at a gay protest event|
18 November 2014: This is perhaps one of the most important articles for our present time. Paul McGuire nails it again.
The only way an individual can find freedom from the holographic prison is to go outside the prison. This requires knowledge that is becoming increasingly censored. If any individual chooses to accept this present consensual holographic reality as being the final truth, they are locked in hopelessly.
Prior to 1950, America was primarily a nation which held to some form of Christian values, patriotism, traditional family values, capitalism, and a belief in right or wrong. However, after World War II, America brought into our nation Nazi mind control scientists under what was called Operation Paperclip, and in the early 1960’s the Tavistock Institute launched a campaign from Great Britain to completely transform America through sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and the mysticism of a tsunami of British rock bands like the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and many others.
Read it all – pass it along. It’s important that we understand what’s taking place around us. READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE
Media conveys immediacy, but it doesn’t convey culture. Its famous flattening effect makes shoppers at a Staples in D.C. or a Whole Foods in Berkeley feel like they’re right among the toppled buildings of Aleppo or Gaza, without actually giving them any insight into the motivations of the players.
They’re watching foreign movies in a language that they don’t understand and attributing their own motivations to the main characters. They assume that the differences are incidental, but if the differences really were incidental, America would look a lot more like Iraq.
It’s been a while since Westerners lived in a society in which human life was truly worthless, in which no one trusted anyone else and it was easier to kill than not to kill.
Outside of a few urban centers in the Middle East where the elites start the revolutions that end up stringing them from the gallows, life is cheap and worthless. Men kill their wives and daughters over petty suspicions. Clans murder each other in vicious brawls. Wedding celebrations begin with firing guns into the air and end with bodies on the ground.
Everything is worth more than people. A camel has value. A pickup truck has value. A smartphone has value. All these things are hard to make.
People are easy to make.
The birth rates are high. Everywhere there are too many people. Too many sons to inherit. Too many daughters to marry off.
The UN and a whole bunch of international organizations slop in enough aid to keep hunger and disease away, but not enough to make life livable or worthwhile. The wealthy have satellite dishes on which they watch American reality shows and Turkish soaps. The poor kidnap them and hold them for ransom. It’s not just life in the Middle East. It’s the whole Third World experience.
About the only reliable source of wealth comes out of the ground and the countries that have it are usually too lazy to get it themselves. That’s what the armies of Western engineers are for. They don’t build their own skyscrapers with the oil money. That’s what the disposable Asian workers are for.
Killing is the easiest solution to most problems. Men kill over honor. Women kill themselves out of desperation. Children grow up torturing animals.
Clerics settle religious questions with murder. It’s just easier that way.
Theological debates are complicated and impossible to settle, but fly the black flags, seize a village, kill the men and force the women to convert to the true faith of the machine gun and the sword and the debate is over.
ISIS is how Islam has been settling questions of theology since the 7th century. Why stop now just because you can order takeout from your smartphone? Westerners are innately fascinated by new technology. For the Middle East, technology is a tool for settling medieval disputes. Twitter is just a way of showing off your latest crop of severed heads. The pickup truck substitutes for a camel.
Politicians settle political debates with more murders. Elections are complicated. Democracy is messy. It’s easier for a colonel to take everyone out back and shoot them. And then spend the next twenty years building palaces with his people’s wealth. And the people mostly like it that way too.
Dave Brat’s victory over Eric Cantor (R-VA) was attributed to his Tea Party backing, when national groups like the Tea Party Patriots gave him no financial assistance at all. What the media ignored was his campaigning in local churches and emphasis on family values.
In addition to opposing illegal immigration, Brat’s platform declared that “the most important factor in our nation’s success is the strength of the family unit.” It said that Brat would “protect the rights of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage, and will oppose any governmental intrusion upon the conscience of people of faith.”
“A man of deep faith,” his bio says, “Dave attends St. Mary’s Catholic Church with his wife Laura and their two children: Jonathan, 15 and Sophia, 11.” It says he went to Princeton where he obtained a Masters in Divinity and on to American University where he earned a Ph.D. in Economics.
During the campaign he also repeatedly emphasized a national security policy of “peace through strength.”
As they played down his pro-moral values message, in a victory that is continuing to send shock waves through the political establishment, our media have failed to report on how President Obama’s “fundamental transformation” of America has been working out in a process that can only be described as the homosexualization of the Armed Forces.
It is a topic that some Republicans, eager to sound like Democrats on social issues, want to avoid. But Brat’s victory—and the fact that his pro-traditional values message struck a chord—may cause them to start paying attention.
Many have been amazed at the lengths to which the Obama administration went to get Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl out of enemy hands, by exchanging him for five top terrorists. But consider the extraordinary June 5th Department of Defense “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month Ceremony,” which featured “the highest ranking transgendered civilian appointment in the Department,” a “woman” named Amanda Simpson who used to be a man named Mitchell Simpson.
Simpson introduced the event and proudly identified herself/himself as transgender, generating a round of applause.
We reported on Simpson in 2010, when he/she became the first openly transgendered appointee to the federal bureaucracy. Simpson has since moved from the Commerce Department to the Defense Department.
Simpson reflects the aggressive infiltration of the federal government, even the Pentagon, by the George Soros-funded transgender movement. The Executive Director of something called the “Army Energy Initiatives Task Force,” Simpson served as a board member of the National Center for Transgender Equality from 2007 to 2009. George Soros has been a backer of the group, giving them $150,000 through his Open Society Foundations in 2011 alone.
You may recall that former Army soldier Bradley Manning had listed the National Center for Transgender Equality among his “likes and interests.” Manning, who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for violating the Espionage Act, theft of government property, and other offenses, has now said, “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female.” He wants the taxpayers to pay for his sex-change operation and the Pentagon seems willing to oblige him/her.
At the Pentagon event, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work delivered the keynote address, saying, “We honor the service and sacrifices of our gay and lesbian service members…” Clearly, Manning is not somebody the Pentagon is necessarily “proud” of.
For most of human history the family was the basic social unit of the species. Family was a way of passing down genes, beliefs and wealth. It was a retirement plan that you paid into by keeping your children alive long enough for them to grow up and support you. It allowed the individual to pass on his ideas to people who would care about them because they were part of their heritage. Family was a collective endeavor, small enough to reflect the individual. It was a practical and philosophical aim that made life beautiful and meaningful.
But who really needs it anymore?
The basic practical functions of the family have been replaced by the nanny state. It is the nanny that takes over the care and teaching of the child as soon as possible. And when their parents grow old, it is that same nanny that oversees their care and death.
Governments have come to serve as undying guardians of human society, ushering new life into the world and ushering old life out of it. New parents are as likely to turn to the government for help as they are to their extended family. When their child is old enough to look around for a career, it is the government that they expect to provide the education and the jobs. And when they grow old, the child can keep on working at his government job and paying off his student loans knowing that the government will be there to make all the difficult and expensive decisions about their care.
With all that taken care of, who needs parents or children anyway?
People once had children to pass on wealth, genes and beliefs. But wealth is now thought to be the collective property of society, which is taxed to death or often just given away on some quixotic quest to stamp out disease in Africa or illiteracy in Antarctica. The thought of passing on genes carries with it a tinge of racism for the European and European-descended populations whose birth rates are dropping, but raises no such concerns for minority groups with high birth rates. That only leaves beliefs, which are also thought to be the collective property of the society and the state. Public education, mandatory in some countries, means that the best way to reproduce your beliefs is not to have children, but to get a job as a teacher.
The family has been displaced and replaced. In some places it is even repressed. Like an old station wagon, it idles by the side of the road, while its former owners drive away in their new sleek electric government compact car built for two or a micro-car built for one into a wonderful childless future of unfunded pensions, social collapse and death panels.
Marriage rates have dropped sharply. Not only is divorce more commonplace, but many couples aren’t even bothering to marry at all. And many of those who do marry don’t bother having children. Childfree is the new Zero Population Growth, not on behalf of the planet, but on behalf of the self. Modern society has made the price of children extremely expensive and many couples have found it easier to end the family with their own deaths.
First Elliot Rodger murdered his three roommates with a knife, hammer and machete. Then he shot eight people, three of them fatally, and tried to run over several others in his car.
After the bodies were taken away, everyone on television agreed that it was the fault of the guns.
Rodger had been in therapy since he was eight and was seeing therapists every day in high school. He had a history of making violent threats and the police had already gotten involved. He was on multiple prescription medications and had therapists whom he alerted to his plans by sending them his manifesto.
A therapist reacted by notifying his mother who drove out personally. By then even more people were dead.
In a country where a little boy with a pop tart chewed in the shape of a gun triggers immediate action, the professionals who cashed in on the killer’s wealthy family were in no hurry to call the police. One even reassured his mother while the shootings were going on that it wasn’t him.
So it was clearly the fault of the guns. Guns that Elliot Rodger bought with $5,000 from his family. The BMW he used to commit some of the attacks was given to him by his mother.
Jenni Rodger, his British aunt, blamed America and guns for her nephew’s massacre. “What kind of a society allows this? How can this be allowed to happen? I want to appeal to Americans to do something about this horrific problem.”
Somehow the parenting failure of her brother is now the fault of an entire foreign country.
Rodger’s father issued a statement through his lawyer in support of gun control and “staunchly against guns.” It might have been a bit more useful if Peter Rodger, instead of opposing a category of manual instruments, had spent more time dealing with his son’s problems.
Guns did not kill six people. His son did.
Maybe Elliot Rodger’s family would not have been able to change anything, but it’s likely that they could have at least prevented the massacre if they had become more involved instead of delegating the problem that their son had become to therapists and medications. It’s the height of cynicism for his father and aunt to take refuge in abstractions about gun control.
When a teenager stabbed twenty people at a Pittsburgh-area high school there were no easy answers about gun control to take refuge in. If Rodger had stuck to his knife, hammer and machete, his relatives who coddled him all these years wouldn’t be able to shift the blame to an abstract policy. They wouldn’t be able to politicize the crime and snip their own involvement out of the picture.
Elliot Rodger’s parents, communicating through a lawyer and a talent agent, find it convenient to put up another layer of abstraction between themselves and the actions of their son. And the easiest way to do that is to transform it into a widespread social problem. The more that the smiling people on television talk about gun control, the less likely they are to talk about them.
Even mental illness reduces a specific crime to the abstraction of a social problem. Expanding an individual act into a social problem manufactures a collective responsibility.
How can a law be illegitimate? Isn’t this an oxymoronic question? It is a question that brings us to the concept that there can be a difference between what is legal and what is right. This is the debate between those who believe in Legal Positivism and those who believe in Natural Rights.
Legal positivists “believe that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.” In other words whatever the government says is legal is right.
While those who believe in Natural Law believe “all written laws must be informed by, or made to comport with, universal principles of morality, religion, and justice, such that a law that is not fair and just may not rightly be called law.” Any law which is contrary to Natural Law is not a legitimate law. For example a law that says it is legal to murder others would be seen by all to be illegitimate in a moral sense even though it would be technically legal.
That this is the concept under which the United States was first formulated is self-evident when we read that incomparable document which was issued by the Continental Congress as a justification for its war and its purpose: the Declaration of Independence. In its opening paragraph, the preamble which all school children once memorized, this document explains itself thusly: “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
This brings us to the first debate of this essay. Is God supreme and consequently His laws binding upon all people and all nations? Or is man supreme and all nations amendable to his will and purpose and all his laws supreme until they are changed?
When they decided to adopt the phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” the fifty six signers of the Declaration based the foundation of our country on a legal standard of freedom. They sought to impress this mold into all the various forms of government to follow. This legal standard of freedom they adopted was that God’s law was supreme and that this law inherently gives man freedom. The phrase “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” referred to the laws that God as the Creator of the universe established for the governance of people, nations, and nature. Throughout History these laws have been described as the laws of Creation, God’s Creation laws, or as the Founders of our nation chose to call them, the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
We live in a highly moral society. And we know this is true because our guardians of public morality, our politicians, professors and professional entertainers remind us of this at every possible occasion. Just like the guardians of public morality in Iran, China and Pakistan assure their people that they are the very best and most moral people in the world.
Once upon a time we used to have benchmarks for that sort of thing. We were the best people in the world because we would be willing to die to defend those who disagree with us. We were the best people in the world because we cured Polio. We were the best people in the world because we tolerated religious dissent. We were the best people in the world because we embraced knowledge. We were the best people in the world because we wouldn’t let any government push us around.
Now we don’t have benchmarks anymore. Certainly not those benchmarks. We would be willing to die to silence those who disagree with us. We don’t cure anything, we provide research grants to studies on the rates of alcoholism among Lesbians. We criminalize religious dissent. We mock knowledge and we urge government to take over every aspect of our lives.
We know that we are good people because we are trying to be post-racial. We know that we are good people because we let the people who claim to be good people tell us what to do. We know that we are being good people when we worry about racism, the environment, hunger abroad, income inequality at home and a thousand other things.
Mainly we know we’re being good people when we get outraged at the things that the media wants us to be outraged by. We know we’re good people when we can drag a bad person out of his home and lynch him in the strange virtual space occupied by the convergence of the internet and the media. Somehow only membership in an affirmative action post-racial lynch mob reassures us of our morals.
That and the occasional viral outrage.
In a Brooklyn housing project, Andre Robinson, a typical denizen, was caught kicking a cat. Robinson had a string of previous offenses, including a knife point robbery, but that didn’t outrage anyone. Viral videos of the Knockout Game being played were ignored or denounced as a racist hoax. Andre’s video was mild by the standards of World Star Hip Hop which is crammed full of videos chronicling violence against human beings.
If Andre Robinson had been taped kicking a man, no one would have thought about it twice. But he was filmed kicking a cat. And “the internet”, a term which sites specializing in viral videos use refractively to refer to themselves, sprang into action to track him down. And track him down they did. Robinson will probably serve more time for kicking a cat, which is okay, than he did for his knife point robbery. Because we are a moral society. We are the best people in the world.
Around the same time another viral video was making its rounds.
Others have already pointed out the absurdity that gay marriage is becoming a right in places where plastic bags and large sodas are becoming against the law. This sort of next wave civil rights step is only an expansion of freedom if you aren’t paying attention.
All the arguments over the differences between civil unions and marriage are largely meaningless. Once gay marriage is recognized, then marriage becomes nothing more than a civil union. The real casualty is the destruction of the word “marriage”, but the left is adept as destroying language and replacing meaningful words with meaningless words.
There was no word in Newspeak for freedom. We can look forward to an English language in which there is no word for marriage. And what does freedom mean anyway in a country where most things are banned, but we are constantly throwing holidays to celebrate how free we are?
But if marriage is no longer refers to a natural social institution, but now means a civil union recognized by the state, then why stop at two? Gay rights advocates insist that there is some magic difference between polygamy and gay marriage. There isn’t any difference except the number. And if we’re not going to be bound by any antiquated notion that marriage is an organic institution between man and woman, then why should we be bound by mere number?
Surely in our enlightened age and time, it can be possible for large groups of consenting adults to tie their confusing knots together in any number from 2 to 2,000.
True marriage equality would completely open up the concept. But it’s not actually equality that we’re talking about. It’s someone’s idea of the social good. And the social good is served by gay marriage, but not by polygamy.
The question is whose social good is it?
Equality and justice are words that the left uses to cloud the question of who advocates the causes and who benefits from them. Who decides that the cause of justice and equality is served by limiting marriage to two gay men, rather than four gay men, three bisexual men, two women and a giraffe?
The rhetoric of equality asserts a just cause while overlooking the social good. Rights are demanded. The demand is absolute and the logic for it remains left behind in a desk drawer on the wrong side of the table. Instead there are calls for empathy. “If you only knew a gay couple.” Hysterical condemnations. “I’m pretty sure you’re the devil”, one recent email to me began. And a whole lot of vague promises about the good things that will follow once we’re all paying for it.
We aren’t truly moving toward anarchy or some libertarian order, but a calculated form of repression in which shrill demands substitute for legal guidelines and those who scream the loudest get the most rights.
The new freedoms are largely random and chaotic. Donate enough money to the right people while helping out the left and a special addition to the marriage split-level house will be carved out for you. Why? Because there will be a lot of yelling. Naturally.
I am going to draw on decades of having been a public relations counselor to corporations and other organizations for some thoughts about the resignation of Mozilla’s cofounder, Brendan Eich, after his donation to support a California proposition banning gay marriage six years ago became an issue for the company less than two weeks after he became its CEO.
Despite the passage of the ban, voted upon by a majority (52%) of Californians who believe that marriage should be restricted to the union of a man and a woman, the California Supreme Court ruled against it. Same sex marriages in California resumed after the U.S. Supreme Court restored the federal district court’s ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Heeding the will of the people is not the California way.
At the end of 2008, same-sex marriages were legal only in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Today seventeen states, including California, allow such marriages. The gay, lesbian and transgender population of America is about three percent, but they are among the most vocal special interest groups in the nation.
From a PR point of view, Eich’s decision was a very bad one. Other corporations have found themselves targeted by the gay community. Chick-fil-A, an Atlanta based company has opposed gay marriage based on its commitment to Christian values, but most corporations regard any vocal opposition with more fear than courage. It has a lot to do with being in the business of selling products and services as well as being answerable to their investors.
It also explains, for example, why most embrace environmental demands in some fashion, including Big Oil and Big Coal. It’s no accident that BP Oil has a television advertising campaign going these days emphasizing the way drilling for oil in Alaska generates thousands of jobs elsewhere in the nation. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill is fading into the past as well it should. Simply said, accidents happen.
I suspect that Eich’s decision was based in part on the fact that its corporate headquarters are located in San Francisco. A Reuters news article noted that “Gay rights are widely embraced in the San Francisco area” described as “long known for its thriving lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Silicon Valley’s tech culture reflects that sensitivity and its companies rely on their CEOs to set that kind of tone.”
The curious thing is that Eich’s “views about gay marriage had been known within Mozilla for nearly two years…” His appointment as CEO put him in the limelight and a call for a boycott by OkCupid opened the doors to a decision to stand by his views or leave, presumably in the interest of the company. The company chairwoman, Mitchell Baker, said of his resignation that “you need free speech to fight for equality. Figuring out how to stand for both at the same time can be hard.”
After freedom of religion, free speech is the next one cited in the Constitution’s First Amendment. It’s not hard to stand for it if you have the courage to do so.
Largely unknown to most Americans is the growing matrix of laws at the state level that grant a special status to the GLBT community. This is particularly true in Massachusetts.