:: Friday, July 03, 2015 ::
The Supreme Court Gaieties
Posted by Edward Cline at 11:11 PM
Once upon a time gays wanted to be like Greta
Garbo. Decades before YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Video on Demand, they would
flock to a revival house theater for a week-long Garbo retrospective. Perhaps
any given audience would be almost evenly divided between gays and
heterosexuals. But male heterosexuals, if they weren’t with members of the
opposite sex, were regarded as “fresh meat” to be propositioned by gays. I
speak from experience.
Today, they idolize the likes of Bruce
, a fool who, because he “felt” he was a woman, and convinced himself
that he was one, has undergone an expensive and elaborate physical make-over to
the applause of a promiscuous MSM, but still isn’t a woman. And never will be. Now
he’s just a dolled up eunuch, a papier-mâché pinup for gays and bisexuals
I can just hear again the swoons of gays in the
audience when John Gilbert, the Spanish ambassador in Queen
, discovers that the man he was planning to share a room with
in a snow-bound Swedish inn is actually a woman. Or perhaps they were groans of
disappointment that Gilbert was ecstatic that Garbo wasn’t a man.
Now, the Supreme Court has never been a Pantheon of
reason and rationality. It has a checkered history of semi-rational decisions,
outright and belabored judicial flummery, and being the compliant object of
political legerdemain and manipulation. What it certainly isn’t is an exclusive
philosophical debating club whose opinions and dissensions are based on
individual rights. Preserving individual rights has, as a rule, been an
incidental and parenthetical concern of the Court. Its decisions contra-positions
are based on the received wisdom of the time, which it either defends or turns
on its head or marries to a glib argument for collectivism (see Oliver Wendell
It innovates only in oft-times skewed interpretations
of the Constitution and the law. Very, very rarely has it ever upheld
individual and property rights. Remember Kelo vs. City of New London, and John
Roberts’ first rescue of ObamaCare because it was a tax, and then it wasn’t,
and maybe it was? The thinking model for virtually any Supreme Court ruling on
key issues is a pretzel embedded in unbaked sourdough.
This column would love to dive into the second
decision now under the Court’s belt, decided on by a couple
of male morons; a superannuated, senile-looking statist (Ruth
, who once said that the perfect model for a new U.S. Constitution
was South Africa’s); a “wise Latina lady” (Sonia
, an Hispanic activist and a La
associate from way back); and Elena
, a sexless butch dyke who has always advocated “gay rights.” To parse
the Obamacare decision is to get lost in a maze of rationalizations about state
insurance exchanges vs. federal insurance exchanges and interpreting the
letters of the immoral law, or the Affordable Care Act. But the main issue here
is gay “marriage.”
However, it was “conservative” Chief Justice John
Roberts who saved Obamacare the first time in 2012; it was “conservative”
associate justice Anthony Kennedy who saved it the second time. Conservatives
cannot be relied on to uphold any freedom. Their premises and conclusions are
such a mare’s nest of fallacies and illogic that their decisions resemble
faulty power steering in a car or perilous gear shifts in an automatic
transmission. They are more likely to drive one into a wall or over a cliff
than straight ahead.
This is the problem one should recognize with most
conservatives who express outrage over either the second Obamacare rescue or
the gay marriage issue. More often than not, conservatives excoriate socialized
medicine or gay marriage for completely irrelevant reasons: it’s a departure
from or attack on “traditional” American values; it’s a defiant action against
“God’s plan” or some other Biblical reason; it won’t work for a variety of
economic or social reasons, ergo, it isn’t “practical.” Can’t we reach a
It matters not which conservative blog site one
reads: Brietbart, The Blaze, Clash, and so on: they’re all religion-based or
religion-biased, and religionists are not strong supporters of individual
rights. A man doesn’t own his own life; God does. See this Breitbart
on an Oregon couple being served a gag order to not criticize gay
marriage (for its pro-Christian tone), and virtually any other conservative
website. One can only agree with these sites on an ad hoc basis. Then there is
for refusing to serve a lesbian couple.
Even the headline is misleading. The Supreme Court
can’t “make” rights out of thin air. “Nationwide”? This is a redundant term
even if one conceded that the Court possessed the powers of wand-waving Harry
longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the
majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage,
for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and
family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than
once they were.”
“Something greater than they once were”? Which is…what? More on the guaranteeing of rights later, but
the “liberty” to be “married” has never been denied. Frowned upon at times, but
never denied. Tens of thousands of gay and lesbian couples have been living in
a state of non-matrimonial cohabitation in this country for a very long time. As
well as heterosexual couples.
The key term here is marry
. In my June 24th Rule of Reason review of Ron Pisaturo’s
ground-breaking of study of the nature of the sexes and the meaning of marriage,
Power, Feminine Beauty
, I devote some space to the definition of that term.
own take on the definition of marriage is this: From an etymological
standpoint, to “marry” two or more entities presumes that the entities are unlike but “marriageable” to form a new
entity. Thus marriage means the union
of a man and woman; it does not mean the “marriage” of a man and a man or of a
woman and a woman, or the “marriage of likes. If the entities weren’t unlike,
there would be no purpose in trying to “marry” them and the term would not be
applicable. Other terms suggested by the OED
[Oxford English Dictionary] for a “civil union” of gays or lesbians come to
mind: union, alliance, fusion, amalgamation, combination, affiliation,
association, connection, coupling, merger, unification, all listed by the OED as synonyms.
One can “marry” Dvořák’s “From the New World
symphony to a ballet; one can “marry” zinc and copper to produce our worthless
pennies; one can install a Chevy V-8 engine in a Volkswagen Beetle and call it
a hot rod. But the other OED terms just aren’t sexy enough. What the LGBT
brigade wants is to appropriate or steal the meaning of marriage for their own
collectivist and nefarious ends.
The New York Times article continues:
is a “keystone of our social order,” Justice Kennedy said, adding that the
plaintiffs in the case were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”
I don’t recall the Founders adding to the Bill
a guarantee of anyone’s “dignity,” equal or not. How would it have
read? “Congress shall make no law that disparages, diminishes, or injures the
dignity or feelings of persons because of their sexual orientation or lifestyle.”
Liptak also insinuates that American public opinion
now approves of gay marriage. Show me the money, Adam. Or are you just engaging
in Progressive psych-war? (“See, you dumb clucks, everyone else is for gay
marriage, so you’d better get on board or be left behind.”) In any event, it is
not the mandate of the Court to promote any kind of “social order,” but to
uphold individual rights. The concept of a “social order” that must be
preserved or advanced is one shared by conservatives and the Left alike, and
for the same collectivist reasons.
Even were it true that American “public opinion”
has swung to approval of gay marriage, are polls the proper gauge of the
Court’s cogitations? As Ayn Rand once noted, “Fifty million Frenchmen can be as
wrong as right.” Head-counting does not determine reality or the truth of
anything. But, that’s the Marxist “social construction” fallacy and apparently
the term “fallacy” is now a “white privilege” term or a bourgeoisie tool of
The Court can uphold certain moral principles, but
can't "originate" them as SCOTUS has done across the board in this
decision. Among its other follies, SCOTUS has arrogantly acted as an amateur
lexicographer when it has no business fiddling with definitions.
Someday, someday…dream the Islamic “civil rights”
organizations in this country….the U.S. Supreme Court will sanction Sharia Law
in the name of “religious freedom.” That’s how philosophically and morally
rudderless these fools are. We can get away with it.
So, someone might ask, what’s wrong with commanding
a change in the definition of marriage?
As I noted to one correspondent on the issue of definitions:
and broadening definitions are the history of the English language. But if
there are going to be any changes or broadenings, they should not be ordered,
mandated, censored, or overseen by the government (SCOTUS), the EPA, the SEC,
etc., or by destruction-for-the- sake-of destruction nihilists, which is what
we're witnessing today. The only government I know of that has put the
government in charge of preserving the language is the French. All other
nations have let their languages "evolve" or grow without the
expedient of a decree or exercising fiat
power. The English language has grown from Samuel Johnson's pioneering dictionary
to the OED to the various American dictionaries.
I’ve read more intelligent and incisive commentary
on the whole gay marriage issue, and also on the nature of homosexuality, than I
have in the MSM or any conservative blog site. And as another correspondent
1. It is not the right decision for the Court to
redefine the plain, straightforward meanings of English words. Nor is it the
right decision for the Courts to order a state legislature to draft its
statutes using a language/dialect that the majority of its citizens do not
2. Language does evolve – but court orders enforced by the guns of federal
marshals do not constitute an "evolution" of language.
3. There were real rights violations for same-sex couples. These rights
violations were wholly remedied by civil unions. The law is about correcting
rights violations, not making people feel good.
Or inventing them out of whole cloth for fear of the LGBT crowd throwing rotten
tomatoes, bags of fecal matter, or rocks at the Court in an organized campaign
of hate similar to the tactics of #BlackLivesMatter. It could have its own hash
Another correspondent noted:
think they [homosexuals] have a love that is not friendship, and they want it
to be sexual. To the extent two of the same sex can be sexual, it is.
You've brought up an interesting point I have to chew a little. Yes, it's essentially
the differences between sexes that set up the chemistry, the sparks that fly,
when one falls in love. And no, homosexuals can't have that. Not really.
I’ve noticed that they often imitate heterosexuality, with one partner more masculine
or more feminine. It’s often seemed like an arrested development in sexuality. There
is a disinclination to move beyond a fixation [infatuation?]on the ideal in one’s
own sex, that often occurs in adolescence or a little before.
Understanding that the end game is power, not any
civil rights or freedom of association or even “gay rights,” many of my
correspondents agree with Daniel Greenfield when he wrote in his June 30th
column, “No Truce
With the Left
left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of
the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently
divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran
denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them….
left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes
in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power….
left does not care about social justice. It cares about power. That is why no
truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues….
left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It
will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them
because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them
because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if
they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically
The left exists to destroy you. It does not
seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common
ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are
kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress….
not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.
More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people
who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.
No, it’s not about wedding cakes and anti-gay photographers or even
about gays having a float in the St.
Patrick’s Day parade
. Utter a single word critical of gays or gay marriage,
and you’re declared a non-person and shown the door with a kick in the pants.
And one of the most important human achievements the Left wishes to
take over is language. Thus the battle over the term marriage. The battle was
instigated by the Left in the mid-1990s and now the battle had been concluded
on the Left’s terms. And thus the whole
politically correct speech movement. My
Heterosexual romantic love, AS AN IDEAL, must
be destroyed. This is the end game. Never mind that most marriages today are
NOT quite as happy or idyllic as one would like.
What they are after is the IDEAL, the idea
that one could achieve that type of happiness with one other person, a MAN or a
WOMAN, who, per the Left, is the enemy. Or should be the enemy.
Woman are so GOOD (and so trampled upon as
victims) and men are so intrinsically BAD (destroyers of nature and builders of
capitalism – envy, envy, envy). This union of both simply can no longer be seen
as worthwhile or special. We – the Left/Communists – must destroy this special
area of individual happiness.
Destroy the values, destroy the idols, take
away from men and women what they need to believe in, to strive for, to be
rewarded with….Break their spirit, the better to rule over them.
have the inalienable right to make any kind of living arrangements and personal
commitments they choose.
have the inalienable right to use whatever word they wish in describing it,
including "marriage," whether or not that term is epistemologically
correct or "offensive." By the same token, third parties have the
inalienable right to use whatever word they wish to in describing it, including
"non-marriage," whether or not that term is epistemologically correct
or "offensive." This is a direct application of the right to free
I've read Binswanger's piece twice – nay, three
times – trying to understand what about it bothered me the first time around
and sent up storm flags. I finally nailed it: His article is what you'd find in
a libertarian magazine, something like Reason, that eschews the whole
philosophical issue. The metaphysics of sex? -- irrelevant. Epistemology? --
whatever you wish can be whatever you want. Words? – whatever meaning you wish
to attach to them. Definitions? – you can chuck your dictionaries, they're
Dr. Binswanger then takes a shovel to the straw men
of existing government relationships with marriage, court precedents, etc.
? (I'm not a fan of any Supreme Court justice, particularly not
conservative ones) – a
idiot who wouldn't mind establishing a Christian theocracy as opposed to an
Islamic one. And what else is new? The SCOTUS decision was flawed in its
reasoning but correct in its conclusion, he says. We have six of one and half a
dozen of another instances of irrationality in the majority and dissenting
opinions, he avers. True. But his take on the whole issue of gay marriage is
most un-philosophical and a disappointment.
Binswanger wrote, "The government may not
True. But he
has little or nothing to say about the new LGBT power bloc infringing on other’s
rights, by targeting individual, businesses, and even churches
for punishment for being or appearing to be
anti-gay. Will the Court come to their rescue? Doubtful, but it would have been
nice to have him speculate on the answer to that question, because that bloc is
wasting no time throwing its weight around. Many companies are now pandering to the
in their commercials to forestall LGBT lawsuits, boycotts, and
other nasty business.
These include the
makers of Tylenol, Hallmark Cards, and other well-known products.
At times, when one turns to the “authorities” for
answers, they fall down on the job. They fail to see the larger picture, or perhaps
even reject the idea there is a larger picture to see.
I won’t bore readers with citing some of Barack Obama’s
banal remarks on the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. You can read them here
And my favorite line from Queen Christina is: “One can feel nostalgia for places one has
0 Comments ::
:: Monday, June 29, 2015 ::
Barack Obama’s Swamp of Evil: Part II
Posted by Edward Cline at 9:26 PM
As Jean-Luc Picard, captain of the Enterprise, said
of the Borg:
collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone:
the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption,
This is true of not only Islam and of the
Marxist/Progressive agenda for this country, but now of the LGBT movement,
whose political agenda has been boosted by the Supreme
on gay marriage. To paraphrase Islam authority Robert
of Australian Prime Minister’s public statement that
divorces Islam from religion and totalitarian theocracy, the Supreme Court’s
and the MSM’s responses to the LGBT’S political power play remain “blind,
uninformed, and based on falsehood.” The principal falsehood is that
homosexuality is not a matter of volition, but of external and/or intrinsic
factors beyond the realm of choice. That is, of sociological or biological
influences and pressures.
The other falsehood is that the Law of Identity
does not apply to one’s sex, and can be defied because one’s sex or “gender” is
based on the notion of the primacy of consciousness and not on the primacy of
existence. It is the former that governs contemporary thinking, that is, in believing
that reality is what the mind makes it to be, fueled by one’s feelings.
The idea that emotions are not tools of cognition
is an idea rejected by the whole homosexual advocacy movement. The LGBT
movement is moved by a will to conquer, politically and socially, in accordance
with Barack Obama’s campaign to “transform” America, and is demonstrably beyond
But, back to the Mexicans, that is, all Central and
South Americans who invade the U.S. through Mexico. We left off in Part I by
noting that Mexicans can also take another leaf from
their Muslim compañeros de
armas in Europe once they become permanent, “legalized” settlers
in America who refuse to assimilate, and by highlighting the strategy laid out
in the Institute
of Muslim Minority Affairs. I’m sure the National Council of La Raza has a
similar organization that researches and describes how the gringo politics and culture
can be made to bend to the Hispanic will.
substitute Mexican for Muslim and see if it rings a bell:
manifesto could explain "Mexican Minority Affairs" as more than an
organization or a social concept, but as a calculated foreign policy of the La
Raza Foreign Affairs, designed to achieve these specific goals. Now, don’t
start denigrating the immigrating Mexicans. They’re our “friends,” aren’t they?
1) Recruit individual Mexicans who live in a non-Mexican
land and transform them as a collective unit by establishing Mexican cultural centers,
educational programs, churches, and organizations like La Raza and the Sinoloa
and Guadalajara Cartels’ Educational Foundations that
serve to discourage and prevent Mexicans from assimilating into the culture of
their non-Mexican host nation, namely the U.S.
2) Encourage these Mexican residents of the non-Mexican host nation to shift
the demographic scales in their own favor by means of population growth—and by
a militant separatism and self-ghettoization — thereby enabling them to more
effectively advance an agenda based on fundamentalist anti-West and
anti-assimilation doctrines, with special stress on perceived discrimination
and career victimhood.
3) Eventually the proliferation of Mexicans in the host nation will hit
critical mass, tilting that society toward majority-Mexican or Hispanic status.
4) Ultimately, the host state will join Los Estados Unidos de México. Well, at least California and most of the Southwest will
As I remarked in Swamp
of Evil I
, it may be interesting to witness the clash between Muslims and
Mexicans over who gets to lord it over a dissolved United States. I have no
idea where Mexican and Muslim gays will fit into this scenario, but the Left,
which champions and celebrates the submission of America to homosexuality,
dismisses or is oblivious to the fact that in Islam homosexuality is forbidden
and gays are tossed off of rooftops or hanged as a matter of enforcement of
National Council of La Raza
? What is that? Is it an organization that
advocates the supremacy of Hispanics over all other races, as Islam touts
itself as superior to all other religions. Discover the Network reports:
The words “La Raza” (Spanish for
“The Race”) in NCLR's name have long been a source of considerable controversy.
Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial
separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR's telling,
however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term 'La Raza,'”
says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American
literature and translates into English most closely as 'the people' or,
according to some scholars, 'the Hispanic people of the New World.'”
According to NCLR, “the full term,”
which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos
[1882-1959], is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes
this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that
“Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and
NCLR's interpretation of Vasconcelos's explanation, however, is inaccurate. As
Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science,
respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note
in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:
"The concept of La Raza can be
traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who
developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least
partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority.
Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and
geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a
superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct
race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case."
In short, Vasconcelos was not
promoting "an inclusive concept," but rather, the notion of Hispanic
Over all others. As Islam refers to all non-Muslims of other faiths (or of
no faith) as the “People
of the Book” and enemies to be conquered, converted, enslaved, or slain, La
Raza’s own “People of the Book” are all non-Hispanics, i.e., Caucasians,
blacks, and probably even Asians.
“O People of the Book! Come to an
agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we
shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for
lords beside Allah. (Al-i Imran Surah, 3:64) That is, let us not call others
Lord, God, Creator. Let the order of Allah (SWT) and His Pleasure be our criteria
for our deeds Let all of us be servants to Allah (SWT). Let us consider
ourselves responsible to Him. Let us be dependent on and loyal to each other in
accordance with these rules.” (Yazır, II, 1132)
Or else: “Fight against such of
those who have been given the Book as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day,
and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not
the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”
(At-Tawbe Surah, 9:29)
is the issue regarding Mexicans or Hispanics, it is central to La Raza’s
manifold aims and purposes, as can be seen in this information-rich Discover
the Networks report. As the Muslim
Minority Affairs report and the Muslim Brotherhood’s 1991 Explanatory
Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America clearly
state, among other things, that the cultural and political assimilation of Muslims
in the U.S. is not the goal of the
waves of Muslim settlers consciously facilitated by Obama, La Raza’s own overall
“strategic end” is to turn large chunks of the country into Mexican or Hispanic
enclaves in which non-Hispanics become the minority, an end also consciously
facilitated by Obama.
Greenfield’s fine June 3rd essay, “How
Islam in America Became a Privileged Religion” reveals aspects of Islam in
America that can be equally construed to apply to the aggressive pursuit of
Hispanic hegemony and the LGBT movement as well.
Criticism of Islam is denounced as
racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race. Islamist
organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion
and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of
The biggest form of Muslim
privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in
all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a
Islam is the only religion that
cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats
criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates
dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize
that religion without being accused of bigotry.
By equating religion with race,
Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both
good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized
without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic
violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.
equating race with culture, or culture with race, or religion with race, or
race with religion, Muslims have the advantage coming or going, and very, very
few defenders of the West and of Western civilization have been able to call
who criticizes Islam and Muslim settlers, illegal Mexican immigrants or settlers,
and homosexuals risks being accused of Islamophobia, Hispanophobia, or
Homophobia. These are the handy blanket smears which the Left, Islamic supremacists,
and homosexuals use as weapons to disarm or neutralize their critics. To the
MSM, anyone accused of these phobias is an automatic pariah to be denigrated
and shunted aside as the vanguards of these ideologies – and, yes,
homosexuality has now become an official political player in the pursuit of
power for power’s sake – trample underfoot the rights and civil liberties of Americans.
And each group seeks absolute, craven, supine submission to its particular
Hive, Cube, Umma, or Collective.
irony is that they expect the boot each plans to plant on our faces to be supplied
Not on these pages.
7 Comments ::