QOTD: Critical Theory Consequences, Feminist Stump

The purpose of feminism was never about equal rights; it was about getting women working so that the government could raise fatherless children to be the worthless dependents of the next generation.

Not that they always succeeded, some single women and families with two working parents are successful in raising fine kids despite the public schools, but the Marxists have succeeded often enough to degrade seriously the moral fabric of the nation after cumulative generations. — Carry_Okie @ FR, Feminists Are Waging War On Family Finances.

Statist Tools: One-Way Outrage

My title refers to the deliberate polarization of discourse, so that reasonable discussion becomes all but impossible. To me it is clearly straight out of the "divide and conquer" playbook, a climate where demagogues may too easily destabilize our society.  

Mike D'Virgilio, writing at The American Culture, believes that Elton John has revealed the True “Gay” Agenda. After providing us the raw evidence, Mr. D'Virgilio summarizes the message being sent:

In order to not be held in contempt by Elton John and his ilk (how very tolerant of them), I have to “respect” his lifestyle. I am forced to believe that the anal cavity is a sexual, um, receptacle, when it is obvious from nature that it exists to deposit bodily waste, or I am worthy of publically being the object of a vicious vulgarity. And not only that, but the one who hurls such an insult can be “cheered wildly”.

Those who happen to believe that homosexuality is not only unnatural, but immoral, whether that is on religious grounds or not, are accused here of saying that homosexuals are not human. I am a Christian, and I don’t believe such a thing and I don’t know of any Christian who believes such a thing. But such sentiments stated have one purpose, and that is to demonize; ironically it is to itself dehumanize.

You can see very clearly here the real agenda of homosexuals and their supporters. Either we accept their moral standards, or we will be considered societal and social pariahs.

At the end, Mr. D'Virgilio gets very close to voicing the point I'm making -- that this is another Statist tool -- but doesn't quite state it that way. He concludes:

If the very nature of marriage is redefined in [law by elitists on high], the liberty of a huge segment of the American people will be effectively nullified, which is exactly what they want.

I was going to suggest to Mr. D'Virgilio that what he saw revealed was much more than the the true gay agenda, but the ever more rapid unfolding of the Statist agenda. Indeed, his antecedent for "they" in that last paragraph were "the progressives and the left and the elitists."  But the casual reader could too easily believe "they" are the gays rather than the bigger fish. And that would miss the larger message revealed by his efforts.

I wanted to say "Mr. D'Virgilio, why not go on to the next step and see how this reveals the misanthropic agenda that so few in power dare admit?"  The number of onslaughts on America are now coming in quick successions. Those exploiting the homosexual community, by staging such  vulgar and over-the-top self parody, are quite literally what they are meant to be: shock troops. Stunning. If they have the desired effect on our larger society -- to paralyze us by its audacity -- then we are more readily overwhelmed by the other onslaughts on our liberty.

That last emphasized statement I held off for this blog. It was too off topic and potentially controversial to introduce in a comment at another man's blog.

Instead, I wrote out the following that I hoped exposed the same thoughts so that he might arrive at the same conclusion. My humility inclines me to believe I have little chance at success, and will almost certainly expose myself to angry rebuttals (at best), but I pray I helped him what I see.

This is why sarcasm is dead. It is virtually impossible to parody what is itself a parody of life.

Homosexual love, with or without any explicit act, produces no new life. Mr. John wants to share in the respect society has reserved for those who endure the whole task -- the joy, pain, cost and effort -- to look to build the next generation by their love without making that commitment himself.

It's even worse because Mr. John demands respect from those to whom he grants none. What do I mean by that? Note that Mr. John has no harsh words for those on his side who regularly hurl the bigoted slur "breeder." It appears in signs and in comments at gay events, yet one never hears a word of reproach of such bigotry except in mock reproach.

The one way street demands of extremists once were easy to parody. When counter-cultural warriors regularly make a parody of the lifestyles they claim to champion, what avenue is left to cultural defenders?

The technique that Blaise Pascal pioneered, that led to the freeing of the human mind, has been neutralized. The parody of his lifestyle that Mr. John and company exploits is a broad copy of celebrity roasts wherein targets learn to develop both callouses to incoming criticism and a callousness in being critical. The old court jester's purpose employed in postmodern times. Thus, they have developed immunity to parody by going beyond the parody and embracing it. And then they are free to go on the attack themselves against their critics, real and imagined.

I surmise that what we are witnessing here is just another effort to put out of bounds certain thoughts. One thought attacked after the other. It is the deliberate attempt to close down freedom of thought. Such repression is regressive on its face, the trademark tactic some call PC -- that I've relabeled as Political Cowering -- that is the "Progressive" way.

The respect Mr. John demands is but one step removed from the respect demanded by a misanthrope. "I hate people, and you display your bigotry by not showing any respect for my anti-human agenda." *

-----------
(*That's a topic too long to explore in a comment that is already too long, but it is the next step the Incrementalists have moved on to. That aggression is frequently exposed to criticism at my blog.)

Machinations of the Super-Moral

Urban Legend #1: The ACLU does not like Police.

False. 

"We'd like a police officer on every corner. Then we could close the prisons." [emphasis added]

Quoted, to the best of my recollection of a conversation roughly twenty years old, of an executive member of the ACLU in stating her organization's goals to me. I detected not a bit of irony nor disparagement of my concerns. Simply speaking, she was conveying a liberal stance she believed to her core was the right course for society. I have no doubt as to her sincerity. What I always doubted was that she could have ever thought badly of the people who had convinced her such a goal was good. She was, at the time, the mother of two. I got the impression she had not thought out the long term consequences well at all. Consequences for herself, or her children and the world they'd inherit.

What prompted the recollection of the ACLU's wish for omnipresent police -- and my recounting of it today -- was this story noted by Drudge: Drone may be coming to Miami-Dade

Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida approves of the drones but also advocates strict regulation of the drones. "Technology: there's no reason not to embrace technology if it makes the streets safer, if it helps the police. The concern is, though, that every new technology also has within it the capacity to threaten people's privacy," he said. [emphasis added]

The two sentences of Mr Simon's quote represents the goals and the consequences -- split into two separate thoughts. The details of how the second thought might substantiate, and used by whom, was what was ignored by old my friend. The ACLU is thoroughly Marxist in its origins, and you know the history of Marxism. Anyone who thinks that the last sentence was only rhetorical eyewash (and it is that too, on a simple level) needs to do more research on the organization.

I can explain why the ACLU stance is threatening. But I bet there are wise people in your local neighborhood who could help you explain it in local terms.

It involves the Left's love for power; its hiding behind liberal softheartedness. And it's dependent upon the liberal's beliefs (assertions!) that: man is basically good; that poverty, the result of unequal outcomes, is the sole cause of crime; and that social justice requires society to pay for those inequities. And this will be done by empowering those with a super-moral commitment. Hence the Left's love of modern liberalism. And, hence, the Statist's love for and protection of the Left. (Conservatives: convince a "liberal" of this, and you've birthed a new conservative.)

I wished to keep this introduction to the sort of thinking short. Please question me, rhetorically if necessary, so I will feel better that more people have come to understand the danger.

PSB Month 11: Sen Brown (RINO MA) Backs DADT Repeal

Once again, do not despair social conservatives and American patriots. Despair favors your enemies. They're enjoying this betrayal, sure, but they're enjoying your discomfort even more.

We started the Post Scott Brown series back when Scott Brown won the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. We knew the elation over his win ("new era" of conservative takeover of the GOP) was overblown. This is the first addition in a long dry spell to the series because more popular sites, of whose allegiance to principle remains open to question, seem to enjoy passing along troubling news.  Because he does not appear to be nasty to SoCons as others are, I give you this from Ace:

And now Scott Brown, somewhat predictably, as he had the same objection.

Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown today voiced his support for a stand-alone repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell [DADT] policy, bringing the bill one vote over the 60-vote threshold that it will need to reach if and when the Senate votes on the measure in the coming weeks.

Let me remind you that Scott Brown's "staunch conservatism" was denied by him as early as nine days after his election. From PSB Day 9:

See? This hardly took any time at all:  "Brown tells AP he'll sometimes side with Democrats". One needed not be some great seer to recognize that Scott Brown is human, and a politician at that, and he hails from Massachusetts. QED.  

Scott Brown is merely another ADE to those who are applying the finishing touches to the destruction of one of America's most important institutions -- it's armed forces. I'm not sure how DADT will undermine our forces, but almost assuredly it will come from treating non-heterosexuals as a protected class. No, it does not need be that way, but that is the way it has played out in every other institution in this country. This does not portend well for our forces.

My principled position is:

DADT should not be removed UNTIL the destructive and unjust practice of dividing the population between  protected and unprotected classes is ended. This anti-American one-way street of "justice" must end. 

So far, even among friends, I have not heard a single voice who agrees with me. Maybe only God knows how badly that speaks for our country.

How Statists Advance

Political Cowing and Cowering 101, On-going classes.

Obamabots	Bushbots
An effort to preempt all discussion and criticism as "racist."	An effort to preempt all discussion and criticism as "Bush-Bashing."

Anyone reading this blog knows of people who fit these descriptions?
I thought so.

Do you know of any who finally recognize what useful idiots they are?
I thought not. Lots of excuses though.

The next iteration is found below the break.

The Pain & Embarrassment...

...of Celebrity.

Andrew Klavan today forced himself to face the truth.

The fascination with celebrity—the fascination with artists above and beyond the works they create–is, in effect, the opposite of wisdom.  It is honoring the fool whom God inspired rather than engaging with the wisdom of the art he was inspired to make.

Let me shorten that for emphasis:   

The fascination with celebrity is the opposite of wisdom.

It is a painful truth, especially for someone in Mr. Klavan's line of work.

But it is mandatory that we search over a broader range for our leaders, and almost certainly from humbler walks of life. The best leaders who might serve us now will not seek to be boss, but will have the vacancy thrust upon them.

The paramount reason to seek out those who have a history of restraint repeatedly turns up in human nature. The very first sin recorded in scripture revolves around this aspect of human nature. You need not believe in God to see that primitive people understood this danger better than the majority of our  contemporaries who voted for all the scum that's risen to the top in the last score of years.

Note below the two labels I've put on this post. Think about how they apply, and resolve to do better by convincing our neighbors not to fall for them any longer.

Anticipate; Designate; Mitigate; Dissipate

• You are major strategist for a large government program.
  
• You know you will meet strong resistance.
  
• You review your plans to pinpoint where you are weakest so as to know where your opposition should attack.
• You discover that your weakest point cannot be adequately fortified.
• So, might there be there some way to blunt your opponent's attack?
  
• One strategy, a priori to widespread disclosure so that opponents lack time to ally and amass into too big a number, is to select an opponent -- preferably a hot-head -- who you fully expect will initiate an attack under circumstances controlled by you.
  
• What sort of circumstances would you choose, and what kind of opponent?

Arrange a forum where you choose the moderator and only comments and not debate are permitted.

Choose an opponent who has a checkered past or questionable connections and with whom other opponents would not choose to be allied.

• Expect that the reports of the interchange will be limited.
• Expect that your allies will connect all who attack your weakest position with the initial attacker whom you chose because others do not wish to be associated with him.
  
• Expect dissipation amongst attackers on your weak position as they labor around the obstacle of that opponent you picked.
• Expect opponents to bicker amongst themselves over whether or not his being there is good or bad or matters or doesn't matter.
  
• Expect many big names from whom you otherwise expected opposition to now exempt themselves from the battle. They've positions of respect to protect, and will not risk their reputations by attacking an obvious point that is closely tied to that pariah you had the foresight to pick.

The following video is of Ezekiel Emanual, BHO's chief health care advisor, being excoriated by an historian, who "coincidentally" works for a Lyndon LaRouche organization, at a forum where only comments are permitted.



Fully expect MSM to tar with a Lyndon LaRouche label all who point out the many ways ObamaCare really does resemble something out of the Third Reich.

Help Me Defeat Leftist Social Engineers

People generally do not like being manipulated. I believe that the more people understand how they and their neighbors are manipulated the better are the chances that the majority can mount a defense against the divisive, dissembling demagogues.

A long time ago I explained the mechanics of how social engineering works to various technical engineers I work with. Each and every one understood. More recently I wrote an entry for my Glossary in an attempt to make more concrete what I mean by social engineering. Fundamentally it can be expressed by the formula D = LR, where D is dissatisfaction, L is liberty of action, and R is resistance to the action.

Social Engineering is used by those in a position to implement their plans or schemes, or defeat the plans of schemes of someone else, but who are afraid of the consequences should they try and fail. The selling of a political idea more than anything involves overcoming resistance to that idea. Pushing too hard or too fast will anger or scare the general public. When that happens, a large enough bloc of the public is more apt to revolt. Thus most politicians and their backers will only feel comfortable in forcing their plans upon the public when the resistance to the plans are suitably fractured so as not to infuriate too large a bloc.

Hold on. I fear I'm getting too deep too fast once again. Look, if you can find the patience, please try reading social engineering and come back.

What I haven't gotten done in all these years is the simplifying of the concept so that more people can understand. I'd like to break the analogy down into small soundbites that may capture the imagination of more people. At least enough people so that the discussion that might emerge would help the larger body of people be able to foil the most rotten plans and schemes proposed by our ever more arrogant (thinking they can't be stopped by puny, unorganized and ignorant rabble) power-seeking class.

Help me make myself more clear.