THE END IS NEAR, BUT SO TOO MIGHT BE A GREAT NEW AGE

The world of Islam is devolving into hell on earth... Iran about to go nuclear, ISIS increasing its brutality daily, and war and terror stretching within the islamic world from east Africa to southeast Asia

Europe is buckling under social and economic strain...

China's bubble economy about to burst and drag us all down with it....

The USA under Obama is becoming a second rate military power and a banana republic without the rule of law... drowning under unsustainable debt and an economy that can't employ 1/3 of its people...

Russia is lashing out at its neighbors in a desperate attempt to grow their economic pie, but with global energy aplenty - and cheap, Russia's prospects suck, too, because they really don't manufacture a damn thing anyone wants to buy except military hardware and vodka....

Turkey is getting ready for a national civil war as Erdogan and the AKP desperately try to hold onto power as their young people and their Kurds revolt - and they are flooded with refugees,..

Iran is about to get a nuke one way or another, by building it or buying it, but all this really does is bring the whole damn world closer to total annihilation...

Meanwhile India wallows around unable to develop its people or economy as China did and wary of Pakistan - whose nukes might easily fall under the control of islamists....

Meanwhile in northeast Asia, Japan has reached the demographic point of no return, and South Korea and North Korea edge ever closer to war...

WHAT CAN STOP THIS SEEMINGLY INEXORABLE CRASH OF HUMANITY ON EARTH?

I think only a few things that are on the near-term horizon:

1 - THE ADVENT OF COMMERCIAL FUSION ENERGY - which will provide clean cheap sustainable energy to all humanity and moot the anthropogenic climate change hysteria which has retarded economic growth and squelched improvements to QOL and life-spans for 1/3 of humanity.

2 - CURING CANCER AND MOST DISEASES, and greatly lengthening youthful lifespans. This will decrease most people's desire to use violence, terror and war, but make threats of same a more powerful weapon for a minority - a minority which might finally be eradicated since they threaten much more in a world in which people might live to be 150.

3 - NANOTECHNOLOGY WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.

I think these three innovations could become a part of everday reality within the next ten years.

I'm just not sure that Weatern Civilization will last that long. 

In the next ten years, Iran, ISIS, China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Putin might ignite a global nuclear war.

Meanwhile, the attack on our civilizations foundations from within by Gramscian postmodern leftists threatens to destroy us from within.

And then there's the possibility of total, global economic collapse.

It seems to me that these three grave threats - (the hegemonistic mania of the totalitarian states and islamism which bring war and terror and destruction, and the socialistic utopian mania of so-called progressives who bring us economic and moral bankruptcy, libertinage, anarchy and decadence) - might easily lead humanity to total collapse within the next ten years.

As Yeats wrote right after the first global war:

THE SECOND COMING

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre

    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Surely some revelation is at hand;

    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out

    When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi

    Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;

    A shape with lion body and the head of a man,

    A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,

    Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it

    Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

    The darkness drops again but now I know

    That twenty centuries of stony sleep

    Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,

    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The great pity is that our end will be of our own making.

We have the capacity to stop it, but the current crop of world leaders in the Free World, the Western World, do not have the will.

If I had to lay odds, I'd say the end comes before we make fusion and eternal youth - and a great new age of prosperity and creativity - a reality.

And what happens after the collapse?

The future after the seemingly unavoidable impending cataclysm depends on if a remnant survives, and who that remnant is.

It might very well be Iran. Or North Korea.

Imagine a whole world that looks like either of them.

I really believe the next president may very well be our last. And certainly be the last of this Age.

If we choose poorly and elect someone who carries obamunism forward, then we will surely be choosing our own end.

YES: ON THIS NEXT ELECTION RESTS THE FUTURE OF ALL HUMANITY.

Vote accordingly.

Vote as if the future of humanity depended on it.

And the future of your own soul, too...

"LOVING" AND "OBERGEFELL" ARE NOT APPOSITE BUT OPPOSITE

The Gramscian left has repeatedly characterized the effort to abolish traditional marriage and substitute a polyamorous free-for-all, as an extension of the civil rights victory that was represented in the 1967 Supreme Court decision that struck down State laws prohibiting marriages between men and women of different races.

Writing for the majority in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that nationalized the right to marry for same-sex couples, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited another landmark case: Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down bans on interracial marriage.

Here's one example:

Forty-seven years ago today, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Loving v. Virginia, striking down all interracial marriage bans as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The famous case has since served as the cornerstone of the legal battle for marriage equality: Gay marriage proponents seized upon Loving’s due process and equal protection rationales to make their case at the court.

 Another example:

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on the heels of the Union victory, provided the basis 150 years later for a landmark ruling for same-sex couples citing its Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Try as we might to separate our struggles, our history throws us together, as illustrated by Kennedy's citations of the 1967 decision inLoving v. Virginia ending state bans on interracial marriage. 

 And there are even articles in law school review journals that make the analogy:

This Essay considers the posited Loving analogy and the contentions (1) that different-race marriage and same-sex marriage prohibitions present similar, albeit not identical, instances of unconstitutional state limitations on an individual’s freedom to marry the person of his or her choice, and (2) that interracial marriage bans are conceptually distinguishable from laws forbidding same-sex marriages and therefore do not violate the Constitution. The Essay concludes that Loving is a useful and authoritative analogy supporting the claims of plaintiffs who contend, among other things, that states may not constitutionally deny same-sex couples the right to marry based solely on the traditional view that marriage is, and should only be, the legal union of one man and one woman.

As is usually the case in analogies proposed by the Gramscian left, the Supreme Court decisions in Loving v Virginia and Obergefell v Hodges are not analogous at all - in fact, they are entirely dissimilar and actually almost exactly opposite.

Let's review the particulars.

In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court struck down a particular statute, a specific Virginia state law, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924." This law was passed as part of the progressive eugenics movement that swept the country in the post-Wilsonian twenties.

A specific statute making it illegal for men and women of different races to marry was passed in Virginia, because there is nothing - not one whit - against inter-racial marriage in the Common Law of Great Britain and the United States.  There is nothing in the Canon Law of the Holy Roman Catholic Church or in the Church of England to prevent inter-racial marriage.  Therefore, in order to make inter-racial marriage illegal, a specific statute was passed by the Virginia legislature and signed by the Commonwealth's governor.

The "Racial Integrity Act of 1924" was not the first law in America forbidding inter-racial marriage. In 1664, A law was promulgated in Maryland to prevent marriages between free persons and slaves, and laws against marriages between whites and blacks were first passed in Virginia and Maryland in 1691 and 1692, respectively.  Initially, these laws were intended to avoid the complications of determining the free or slave status of the children born in a marriage of a free person and a slave; the racial prohibitions came later.

The point I'm making here is that inter-racial marriage was always recognized as a possibility, that inter-racial marriage is perfectly proper and legal under the Common Law, and that specific statutes had to be passed by state legislatures in order to make inter-racial marriage illegal.

And even those laws did not deny the validity of a marriage properly contracted or celebrated between a man and a woman of different racial backgrounds.  Such marriages were not annulled by the laws; the couple were simply banished from the Colony.

(Incidentally, in Louisiana, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics were forbidden, but inter-racial marriages were always recognized.)

Therefore, in striking down the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924," and similar laws in any other state that had them, the Supreme Court did not create a new social institution, did not fundamentally alter the character of any social institution, and returned the states to conformity with the Common Law of England and the United States.

The decision the Court reached in Obergefell is quite different.

The Common Law of England and the United States, the laws of every one of the States, and the traditional Canon Law of every Christian church have always recognized that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  There are restrictions concerning the possible pairings and partners who may marry: a person can't marry one's parent, one's sibling, or one's child, for example.

There has never been a restriction in the Common Law prohibiting a homosexually oriented person from marrying - so long as he or she married a partner with whom marriage was possible.

But to the Common Law, the idea of a marriage between partners of the same sex was an absurd impossibility.

Perhaps the most important reason for that, is that to be recognized by the Common Law and the Canon Law of the Church, a marriage has to be consummated.  Non-consummation is grounds for the annulment of a marriage, after all.

What does it mean to consummate a marriage?  It means that the "spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring."

Therefore, it is impossible for a same-sex relationship to be consummated.

Recognizing that impossibility, by the way, when the British Parliament changed the marriage laws of the United Kingdom to accommodate same-sex partnerships, they changed the grounds for annulment; non-consummation is grounds for annulment of a marriage between a man and a woman, but not for the annulment, in Britain, of a same-sex marriage. In addition, adultery in England consists only in heterosexual sexual intercourse with a partner other than one's spouse.

Therefore, in order to create a new social institution, namely same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court did not overturn a specific state statute that banned same-sex marriages permitted under the Common Law from time immemorial.  The Court created a new social institution ex nihilo.  The Court essentially decided that 1,000 years of English and American Common Law, and 2,000 years of Christian Canon Law, could be ignored, and that the meaning of the words "marriage," "consummation," and so forth could be discarded.

If the Obergefell decision is followed up by further Gramscian challenges to the fundamental social institutions of civil society - as it surely will be - then marriage will have ceased to exist in the United States altogether.  There will no longer be a social institution, called "marriage," that means anything more than anyone wants it mean at any given point in time.

Loving and Obergefell are not examples of the same principles of jurisprudence, but are almost exactly opposite.  In Loving, the Court overturned a specific statute that was at variance with the Common Law (and I might add, Natural Law), and showed from where in the Constitution its authority to do so derived. In Obergefell, the Court revolted against the Common Law (and Natural Law) in order to create an entirely novel social institution that was entirely undreamed-of in the Constitution.

BRUCE JENNER PROVES THAT THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S ATTACK ON TRADITIONAL VALUES AND INSTITUTIONS IS CONTRADICTORY AND UNPRINCIPLED

I think the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner thing contradicts itself and exposes the contradictions within the postmodernist vision of feminism and genderism.

Bruce didn't just want to have a vagina and pendulous breasts - or to take care of home and hearth, have babies and nurse them; he wanted lipstick and high heels and dresses.

Doesn't that prove that, despite what he and the transgender advocates argue, he was really only identifying with the socially constructed aspects of gender and not the genetically inheritable aspects - unless you believe that dresses and lipstick and high heels are genetically encoded, which the postmodern feminists certainly do not believe.

If, as the pomo leftists believe, gender is socially constructed, then all Bruce Jenner, and other boys and men who think they are really girls and women, would really crave are vaginas and breasts and lots of estrogen. Because the transgender crave the things the left says are socially constructed, it would aeem their ceaving cannot be genetically bases, but must also be constructed.

And why do so many homosexual men seem effeminate, and so many lesbians... butch? Are their homosexual genes preprogrammed to ceave socially constructed trappings of gender?

So it would seem that the postmodernist's embrace of transgenderism and radical feminism and homosexuality is filled with contradictions.

Or the truth might just be even simpler: postmodernism's Gramscian attack on gender and sex and marriage is opportunistic, unprincipled, and absolutely full of shit. The postmodernist left is merely embracing any handy deviant, decadent, depraved, destructive, and transgressive thing they can to attack and destroy Judeo-Christian Civilization.

IT'S OFFICIAL: MONOGAMY UNDER LEGAL ATTACK....

... AND BECAUSE OF THE GAY MARRIAGE DECISION - ACCORDING TO CJ ROBERTS,  THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS ANYMORE TO STOP THE POLYGAMISTS.

News of the legal challenge here.

This is all part of thr left's Gramscian Agenda and plan to TRANSFORM America into a second rate world power and third world socialist banana republic.

As Chavez did to Venezuela, so Obama is doing to the USA - in spades...

1968 Redux, AKA: The Second Coming of postmodernist mayhem

IN THE LATE 1960'S WE HAD AND AGGRESSIVE TYRANNY IN THE USSR, WOODSTOCK AND RACE RIOTS AND FREE SEX AND LOVE, DRUGS...

A GENERAL ATTACK BY POSTMODERNISM ON TRADITIONAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION.

THE SAME CONFLUENCE OF EVENTS TODAY - AND FOR THE SAME REASONS:

TODAY'S NYTIMES FRONT PAGE: GAY MARRIAGE AND RIOTS...

POSTMODERNISM ATTACKS CIVILIZATION AND THEN THE CRETINS, EVIL-DOERS, AND THEIR RUNNING DOGS AND LACKEYS STEP INTO THE VOID...

WITHOUT THE VALUES AND INSTITUTIONS WHICH HAVE MEDIATED AND MODERATED HUMAN BEHAVIOR FOR 3000 YEARS, CHAOS REIGNS...

POSTMODERN LEFTISTS FOMENT THAT CHAOS IN THE HOPE THAT THEY CAN SEIZE POWER IN THE AFTERMATH. IT'S THEIR GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

AND WITH OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE, IT'S ONCE AGAIN WORKING...

SIGH.

THE SECOND COMING
WB YEATS

Turning and turning in the widening gyre  
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere  
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst  
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.  
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out  
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert  
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,  
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,  
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it  
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.  
The darkness drops again; but now I know  
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,  
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,  
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?


Source: The Collected Poems of W. B. Yeats

BRUCE JENNER IS MENTALLY ILL

Johns Hopkins Psychiatrist: Transgender is ‘Mental Disorder;' Sex Change ‘Biologically Impossible’

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder. Dr. McHugh, the author of six books and at least 125 peer-reviewed medical articles, made his remarks in a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, where he explained that transgender surgery is not the solution for people who suffer a “disorder of ‘assumption’” – the notion that their maleness or femaleness is different than what nature assigned to them biologically.  

He also reported on a new study showing that the suicide rate among transgendered people who had reassignment surgery is 20 times higher than the suicide rate among non-transgender people. Dr. McHugh further noted studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic of children who had expressed transgender feelings but for whom, over time, 70%-80% “spontaneously lost those feelings.” 

While the Obama administration, Hollywood, and major media such as Time magazine promote transgenderism as normal, said Dr. McHugh, these “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. ... This intensely felt sense of being transgendered constitutes a mental disorder in two respects. The first is that the idea of sex misalignment is simply mistaken – it does not correspond with physical reality. The second is that it can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” The transgendered person’s disorder, said Dr. McHugh, is in the person’s “assumption” that they are different than the physical reality of their body, their maleness or femaleness, as assigned by nature. 

It is a disorder similar to a “dangerously thin” person suffering anorexia who looks in the mirror and thinks they are “overweight,” said McHugh. This assumption, that one’s gender is only in the mind regardless of anatomical reality, has led some transgendered people to push for social acceptance and affirmation of their own subjective “personal truth,” said Dr. McHugh. As a result, some states – California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts – have passed laws barring psychiatrists, “even with parental permission, from striving to restore natural gender feelings to a transgender minor,” he said. 

The pro-transgender advocates do not want to know, said McHugh, that studies show between 70% and 80% of children who express transgender feelings “spontaneously lose those feelings” over time. Also, for those who had sexual reassignment surgery, most said they were “satisfied” with the operation “but their subsequent psycho-social adjustments were no better than those who didn’t have the surgery.” 

“And so at Hopkins we stopped doing sex-reassignment surgery, since producing a ‘satisfied’ but still troubled patient seemed an inadequate reason for surgically amputating normal organs,” said Dr. McHugh. The former Johns Hopkins chief of psychiatry also warned against enabling or encouraging certain subgroups of the transgendered, such as young people “susceptible to suggestion from ‘everything is normal’ sex education,” and the schools’ “diversity counselors” who, like “cult leaders,” may “encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.” 

Dr. McHugh also reported that there are “misguided doctors” who, working with very young children who seem to imitate the opposite sex, will administer “puberty-delaying hormones to render later sex-change surgeries less onerous – even though the drugs stunt the children’s growth and risk causing sterility.” Such action comes “close to child abuse,” said Dr. McHugh, given that close to 80% of those kids will “abandon their confusion and grow naturally into adult life if untreated ….”

WHO IS MCHUGH? HERE:

• University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry

• Former Henry Phipps Professor and Director (1975-2001)

• Former Psychiatrist-in-Chief, The Johns Hopkins Hospital (1975-2001)

• Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Paul Rodney McHugh (born 1931) is an American psychiatrist, researcher, and educator. He is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine[1] 

Education 

McHugh was born in Lawrence, Massachusetts, the son of a Lowell High School teacher and a homemaker,[2][3] He graduated from Harvard College in 1952 and from Harvard Medical School in 1956. While at Harvard he was "introduced to and ultimately directed away from the Freudian school of psychiatry."[4][5] 

Following medical school, McHugh's education was influenced by George Thorn, the Physician-in-Chief at the Harvard-affiliated Peter Bent Brigham Hospital (now Brigham and Women's Hospital). Thorn was disillusioned with Freudian psychiatry and felt that those who devoted themselves to it became single-minded, failing to grow as doctors. Thorn encouraged McHugh to develop a different career path, suggesting that he enter the field of psychiatry by first studying neurology. At Thorn's recommendation, McHugh was accepted into the neurology and neuropathology residency program at the Massachusetts General Hospital where he studied for three years under Dr. Raymond Adams, the chief of the Neurology Department.[6] 

From Massachusetts General, McHugh went to the Institute of Psychiatry in London (where he studied under Sir Aubrey Lewis and was supervised by James Gibbons and Gerald Russell). Following his year in London, McHugh went to the Division of Neuropsychiatry at Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.[7] 

McHugh believes that adult males who wish to surgically alter themselves to appear anatomically female fall into two main groups: (1) "conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men"[24] and (2) "heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females".[25] McHugh, had several other impressions: First, "they [the transgendered individuals] were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled".[26] 

Second, they expressed little interest in and seemed indifferent to babies or children (typically female interests).[27] Third, they came off as caricatures of the opposite sex.[28] McHugh, P. R. (2006). "Surgical Sex" in The Mind Has Mountains: Reflections on Society and Psychiatry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp.220-228

THE PUSH TO NORMALIZE TRANSEXUALITY IS ART OF THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

SEEING THAT MARXISM HAD FAILED TO TAKE OVER AS MARX HAD PREDICTED, GRAMSCI PROPOSED THAT THE LEFT NEEDED TO DISMANTLE THE CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION FIRST, BEFORE THE STATE COULD BE TAKEN OVER BY SOCIALISTS.

HENCE THE LEFT'S ATTACKS ON FAMILY, AND CHURCH - AND EVERYTHING TRADITIONAL.

WHAT WAS ONCE DEVIANT BECOMES NORMAL UNDER POSTMODERNISM - NORMAL IF NOT LAUDATORY.

THE POSTMODERN LEFT CELEBRATES THE DEVIANT AND TRANSGRESSIVE AND SUBVERSIVE AND ATTACKS WHATEVER IS TRADITIONAL IN THE WEST.

OFTEN THE POSTMODERN LEFT ALSO CELEBRATES CULTURES THAT ARE NOT WESTERN - SUCH AS ISLAMIC CULTURE OR NATIVE AMAZONIAN CULTURE - USUALLY BY SHOWING THEM TO BE EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN WESTERN CULTURE. THEY DO THIS TO UNDERMINE OUR OWN FAITH IN OUR OWN CULTURE AND TO FOMENT OIKOPHOBIA.

GRAMSCIAN LEFTISTS KNOW THAT ONCE WE LOSE FAITH IN OUR OWN CULTURE, WE CAN BE MORE EASILY SWAYED TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES AND INSTITUTIONS THEY BELIEVE IN.

MORE POSTS ON GRAMSCI AND THE LEFT'S GRAMSCIAN AGENDA HERE.

OTHERS COMMENTING ON THIS NEWS HERE.

OBAMA'S ACCOMPLISHMENT'S ARE SO SMALL, THEY CAN BE VAGINALLY INSERTED

MSNBC: MARXIST SOCIALIST NEO-GRAMSCIAN BLAME-BUSH COMMIES

NYTIMES NON-STOP GRAMSCIAN AGENDA CONTINUES UNABATED - NOW FEATURING TRANSGENDER VAGRANTS

NYTIMES - SAN FRANCISCO — There were times — after he told his parents he was gay, for example, and his mother wept and his father tried to hit him — when Fredy Bolvito curled up on a bench in Union Square here and cried because he had AIDS and no job and no place to stay and he felt, he said, that “my life was over.”

But there were also days when he sat on the bench in the square and sang “The Star-Spangled Banner,” looking up at the flags atop the Westin St. Francis hotel and thinking, “That’s breathtaking, that’s my American dream.” Or when he mingled with tourists, giving them directions to the cable cars, or gazed through the windows at the shoppers in Macy’s and was saddened by how rich and healthy they looked. 

He scavenged for meals in garbage bins. He avoided the homeless shelters, where he had heard that gays were taunted, or worse. His “angel,” he said, was in the center of the square: the statue “Victory,” a trident in one hand, a wreath in the other. 

“I would look at it at night and think, ‘Oh my God, that’s my hope,’ ” he said. 

San Francisco is often viewed as a Mecca for gay people. But the warmth of the city’s welcome can quickly vanish for those who are poor. 

City leaders were startled this year when a survey revealed that 29 percent of the homeless population —about 2,100 of the 7,350 people counted — identified themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. 

Bevan Dufty, the director of the city’s homelessness initiatives, said he was surprised the percentage held true for all age groups, even adults and the elderly. “What was really staggering was to see that it didn’t change as you got older,” he said. 

The survey found that gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people who are homeless had higher rates of disability than homeless heterosexuals and were more likely to be homeless when they arrived in the city. Some of them were older gay men with AIDS who had been evicted from their apartments or people who had been cast out by their families in other states. Others, like Mr. Bolvito, a native of Guatemala who graduated from college in Hayward, Calif., with a degree in political science and once worked as a real estate agent, had good jobs that disappeared during the recession.

JUDGING BY THEIR FREQUENCY AND PROMINENCE, LGBT STORIES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CONTEMPORARY ISSUE - AT LEAST ACCORDING TO THE POSTMODERN LEFTISTS EDITING THE NYTIMES.

THIS IS FINE - IF YOU WANT TO BE THE LGBT NEWSPAPER OF RECORD.

BUT IT'S A HUGE STEP DOWN FOR THE NEWSPAPER WHICH WAS ONCE THE INTERNATIONAL PAPER OF RECORD.

THE NYTIMES HAS TRADED IN THEIR ONCE WIDELY WELL-REGARDED OBJECTIVE REPORTING FOR PUSHING THE GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

THEY'VE GONE FROM OBJECTIVE REPORTAGE TO SUBVERSIVE LIBERTINAGE.

THE MARQUIS DE SADE WOULD BE THRILLED.

GEORGE JONES AND HENRY RAYMOND - THE FOUNDERS OF THE NYTIMES - ARE SPINNING IN THEIR GRAVES.

IT NEVER STOPS: NYTIMES PUSHING GRAMSCIAN AGENDA

STYLE VIDEO: A Community of Co-ParentsDavid Dean had already had one son through a network of lesbian and gay co-parents when he met Steve Lowinger. They had one more child together, and in the process, built a large extended family. FROM THE AMOUNT OF CONSTANT COVERAGE THE NYTIMS GIVES THEM, YOU'D NEVER KNOW THAT JUST 3.4% OF THE USA POPULATION IS HOMOSEXUAL - AND MOST ARE SINGLE. THEIR COVERAGE IS NOT ABOUT NEWS; IT'S ABOUT ADVANCING AN AGENDA - A GRAMSCIAN AGENDA DESIGNED TO DEMOLISH TRADITIONAL CULTURE SO THEY CAN FILL THE VACUUM WITH THEIR SOCIALIST CRAP: ESSENTIALLY A SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE NANNYSTATE. WHICH MAKES THEM NOTHING MORE THAN PERVERTED ADOLESCENTS.

NYTIMES GRAMSCIAN AGENDA CONTINUES WITHOUT A BREAK: FEATURES TAILOR WHO MAKES MEN'S SUITS FOR LESBIANS

The Masculine Mystique

Custom Suits to Make Transgender and Female Clients Feel Handsome

WHY DOES WHAT WAS ONCE THE WORLD'S LEADING NEWSPAPER OF RECORD FEATURE A STORY SO PROMINENTLY ABOUT TRANSGENDER CUSTOM-TAILORING - SOMETHING WHICH DIRECTLY EFFECTS PERHAPS  1/2% OF THE PUBLIC?

BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN AGENDA.

THE NYTIMES DOESN'T COVER NEWS; THEY PROPAGANDIZE.

THIS IS WHY THE NYTIMES AND THE MSM ARE LOSING THEIR AUDIENCE.

LGBT PEOPLE ARE ONLY 3.4% OF THE POPULATION IN THE USA - ABOUT 9 MILLION; TRANSGENDER ARE ESTIMATED TO BE 700,000. YET THE NYTIMES TREAT THEM AS IF THEY WERE A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION DESERVING OF 24/7 COVERAGE AND THE PRESIDENT'S WEEKLY FOCUS.

THE LEFT FOCUSES ON THE LGBT AS A WEDGE AND A HAMMER: TO ROUSE THEIR BASE - WHICH LIKE TO HAVE ALL THEIR BIASES INDULGED AND PROTECTED AND TO WEAKEN THE FOUNDATIONS OF TRADITIONAL WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

THE PROBLEMS OF HARD-WORKING AND CHURCH-GOING CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS DON'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS IN THIS CRAZY POSTMODERNIST DOMINATED WORLD.

THEY WOULD RATHER TRANSGENDERS GET SUITS AND SLUTS GET FREE BIRTH CONTROL A CONNECTED CRONIES GET "GREEN ECONOMY" SUBSIDIES AND LOANS, THAN GIVE HARD-WORKING FAMILIES A LITTLE TAX BREAK.

IN THE INTEREST OF OBJECTIVITY, I THINK THE WRITERS OF THE NYTIMES SHOULD REVEAL THEIR SEXUALITY AND PARTY AFFILIATION.

I BETHCYA THEY HAVE 80% HOMOSEXUALS AND 80% DEMOCRATS.

AND I BETCHYA THEY DON'T WANT THEIR DECLINING READERSHIP TO KNOW THIS.

THEY WANT TO KEEP UP THE RUSE THAT THEY ARE AN OBJECTIVE REPORTER OF FACTS.

THE NYTIMES IS AS OBJECTIVE AS PRAVDA WAS.

NYTIMES REPORTS/CELEBRATES THE LEFT'S GRAMSCIAN AGENDA: DESTROYING THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY

The Changing American Family 

Same-sex parents. Cohabiting couples. Voluntary kin. Children with parents in prison. Immigrant-Americans. What we thought of as the typical American family is being rapidly redefined. It is more diverse than it was even half a year ago.

IN MY OPINION, THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE ENBOURGEOISIFICATION OF THE SUBVERSIVE;

IT IS ABOUT THE ERADICATION OF THE TRADITIONAL - LONG A GOAL OF STATISTS WHO NEED TO DEMOLISH THE FAMILY, AND THE CHURCH, IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH TOTAL CONTROL OVER SOCIETY.

WITH CONTROL OF SCHOOLS, PENSIONS, HEALTHCARE - AND SOON CHURCHES AND THE FAMILY, THEY'LL CONTROL ALL THE INSTITUTIONS OF SOCIETY.

IN RETURN, THEY PROMISE THEIR ACOLYTES A CRADLE TO GRAVE SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE  NANNYTSTATE.

OF COURSE IT WILL ULTIMATELY FAIL - AS OBAMACARE IS ALREADY FAILING.

BUT MILLIONS WILL BE HURT ALONG THE WAY.

THE LEFTIST POLITICIANS DON'T CARE: THEY GET RICH AND POWERFUL ALONG THE WAY.

A Man Needs a Penis Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle: Sex, The Gramscian Agenda, And Public Schools

If thy penis offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee.

From the Withersoon Institute:

Two years ago, the Massachusetts legislature enacted a statute prohibiting, among other things, discrimination in public schools on the basis of “gender identity.” The law defines gender identity as “a person’s gender-related identity, appearance or behavior,” which is not determined by “the person’s physiology or assigned sex at birth.” 

On the basis of that statute, the Massachusetts Department of Education (MDOE) has now eradicated sexual distinctions from public schools. MDOE’s new directive requires schools to let children use bathrooms and play on sports teams according to the gender they personally identify as theirs, not their anatomical sex. The directive also admonishes schools to eliminate sex and gender distinctions in graduation garb, physical education, and other practices.Under Massachusetts law, the connection between gender identity and sexual distinction is now considered a historical accident, the result of arbitrary (at best) or mistaken documentation at birth. MDOE’s directive explains: 

One’s gender identity is an innate, largely inflexible characteristic of each individual’s personality that is generally established by age four, although the age at which individuals come to understand and express their gender identity may vary based on each person’s social and familial social development. As a result, the person best situated to determine a student’s gender identity is that student himself or herself. 

Because the child is solely responsible for identifying his or her own gender, the regulations require school officials to seek the student’s permission before disclosing the student’s gender identity to his or her parents. 

That’s not all. The regulations suggest that students who don’t endorse a fellow student’s gender identity may be subject to punishment. After condemning bullying, the directive endorses a memorandum that a Massachusetts school principal sent to teachers instructing them to discipline students who intentionally refer to a transgender student by his or her given name, or the pronoun corresponding to his or her anatomical sex. Such behavior “should not be tolerated.” 

MDOE justifies these regulations on pedagogical grounds: “All students need a safe and supportive school environment to progress academically and developmentally.” By “all students” MDOE must mean all students who share MDOE’s conception of sex and gender as an individual choice. 

It is not difficult to imagine who will embrace MDOE’s conception. The regulations state, “A student who says she is a girl and wishes to be regarded that way throughout the school day and throughout every, or almost every, other area of her life, should be respected and treated like a girl” (emphasis ours). The caveat that the student might want to be treated like a boy for some purposes seems an implicit admission that gender identity is not, in fact, an inflexible characteristic, as MDOE insists, but rather can adjust over time. And the directive states that the law “does not require consistent and uniform assertion of gender identity” (emphasis original). 

While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the provenance of gender personality, it’s not a stretch to suppose that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activity. 

Perhaps this is why many parents in Massachusetts find these regulations shocking. We must confess that we are not so surprised. Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the logical consequence of those efforts. 

Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic doesn’t automatically commit a state to forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a logical connection. One of the premises justifying the redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations, that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the practice of marriage. 

But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less intimate practices. If one’s anatomical reality isn’t relevant to one’s marriage, it’s even less obvious why it should be relevant to one’s bathroom choice. 

To be sure, there are prudential implications of eradicating sexual distinction from education laws. But if letting people identify their own gender is a matter of justice, then it’s the job of law to solve the practical problems of implementation. (That is a key lesson of civil rights legislation.) 

Though future practical problems might seem obvious, the law makes it far from clear that there are any. If a boy who identifies as a girl really is a girl, as the law declaims, then any perceived harms resulting from his presence in a girls’ locker room are illusory. No wonder the Commonwealth exhorts school officials to discipline students who object to the arrangement. 

There are other indications that those who perceive inherent differences between men and women will increasingly be marginalized from public life in Massachusetts. A few months ago, a federal court in Massachusetts ruled that the United States Constitution requires the Commonwealth’s Department of Corrections to pay for a sex-change surgery requested by an inmate who is serving time for murder. It is cruel and unusual punishment, the court reasoned, to force the prisoner to keep his anatomy intact while he is incarcerated.This ruling might seem unrelated to removing sexual distinctions from law, but for the court’s reasoning. The court discredited the Commonwealth’s expert witnesses, who expressed doubt that a sex-change surgery is medically necessary, and who recommended treating the prisoner’s psychological and emotional disorders instead. 

The court ruled that these recommendations are “not within the range that would be acceptable by prudent professionals.” In other words, the court decided that no prudent professional would deny sex-change surgery to a male prisoner who identifies himself as a woman. 

The lesson is clear. If you think male and female are two distinct sexes determined by your anatomy at birth, then don’t bother serving as an expert witness in the United States District Court in Massachusetts. Nor can you in good conscience send your children to public school in the Commonwealth. A view of human nature that until very recently was understood to be obvious is becoming a source of disqualification from participating in public life.

OBAMA, AN INEPT MODERATE/LIBERAL OR A FOCUSED POSTMODERN LEFTIST?

MOST CRITICS OF OBAMA ARGUE HE IS MERELY INEPT:

WR MEAD: 

President Vladimir Putin and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei now believe they are dealing with a dithering and indecisive American leader, and are calibrating their policies accordingly.

DANIEL PIPES:

... with Barack Obama, the United States has slid into shocking irrelevance in the Middle East, the world's most turbulent region. Inconstancy, incompetence, and inaction have rendered the Obama administration impotent. In the foreign policy arena, Obama acts as though he would rather be the prime minister of Belgium, a small country that usually copies the decisions of its larger neighbors when casting votes at the United Nations or preening morally about distant troubles. Belgians naturally "lead from behind," to use the famed phrase emanating from Obama's White House.

I DISAGREE.

The foreign policy of the last 5 years has been a fiasco, but this fiasco is NOT a result of "Obama's ineptitude".

The consistency of the results proves that they are not caused by ineptness; ineptness alone would have had varying results - some good and some bad.

Obama's results have all been bad for the USA and our allies and they have all been good for Putin, China and especially the Muslim Brotherhood and similar islamist political parties.

Obama has consistently punished our traditional allies - and islamo-terrorists who don't follow the political TACTICS of the Muslim Brotherhood, Erdogan's AKP, Nasrallah's HIZB'ALLAH and Abbas's FATAH. Obama and Biden and Kerry - since the time they were Senators - have also aided the political islamists in Pakistan specifically the PML(N) of Nawaz Sharif - the Morsi-like PM of Pakistan.

None of these leaders and none of their parties act in the interest of the USA or our allies.

Aiding them is against our interest and the interests of the Free World - yet this is precisely what Obama has done.

Patriotic Americans agree that for the Free World to expand and prosper and be safe and secure that we need an America that leads and has a military that's second to none.

Obama aids them because at his deepest level Obama is a postmodern leftist who believes very deeply that America specifically and the West in general have been negative forces in human history.

It is this viscerally held belief that fuels and directs  Obama's foreign policy - and explains why the result have been consistent and not the result of ineptness.

All postmodern leftists like Obama blame the West for: 

(a) Third World poverty,
(b) the impending "Global Climate Catastrophe",
(c) sexual repression of LGBT's and sex workers,
(d) implanting phony nations within authentic nations at the expense of indigenous peoples - as in the cases of Israel and South Africa,
(e) all racism, and
(f) most of history's genocide.

ALL OF THE NOTIONS ARE DEMONSTRABLY FALSE: 

(a) Without free-market capitalism and industrialization the Third World won't ever become prosperous - (even Bono agrees with this now);
(b) the Earth has not gotten warmer for 16 years despite a doubling of man-made CO2 - and sea level has actually declined the last 3 years;
(c) the Gramscian desire to obliterate the family has led postmodernists to argue that there is no such thing as normative sexual roles and mores, but all species which sexually reproduce value the individuals who can reproduce over the ones who cannot or do not; the future of the species demands this; sexual norms are part of our nature - and typical of ALL human cultures for all time. In other words: "sexually normative" is not a culturally relative term; it is a value inextricably entwined with sexual reproduction and the nature of species which reproduce sexually. Destroying the normative is a political act.
(d) Almost all peoples on Earth are immigrants - Hungarians didn't arrive in Hungary until 895AD; Burgundians and Finns are also immigrants around that era. So-called "native Americans" came here about 40,000 years or so years ago FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.
As for Israel: Jews have lived there in great numbers continuously, more so than Greeks or Romans or or Turks (who also immigrated into Turkey!) or Arabs. And the Dutch and the British were in South Africa for centuries. Longer than most people today who call themselves Americans - (and had no connection whatsoever to slavery, or the Indian Wars).
(e) There is plenty of racism all over the world between and within many ethnic and racial groups: light-skinned blacks versus dark-skinned blacks; Koreans versus Japanese; and there has always been plenty of tribalism everywhere and for all time.
(f) Most of the genocide in human history was committed by islam; and socialists killed more people in the 20th C than Europeans did in the preceding 20 centuries. (A fact that leftists like Obama conveniently overlook.)

Despite the facts, despite their demonstrable truth, postmodern leftists persist in their negative feelings about the West in general and the USA in particular as the leader of the West/the Free World.

And when you deeply believe that the West and the USA are to blame for all our current problems and maybe a "global climate catastrophe" then of course you are willing to do just about anything to punish the West and the USA and make sure they can never ever ruin things again.

As a postmodern leftist who POTUS and therefore the putative leader of the Free World, Obama is in a difficult position:

Obama must appear to be patriotic without actually being patriotic.

The most obvious illustration of this conundrum Obama must continuously face was when - while campaigning in 2007, he said he wouldn't wear a flag-pin on his lapel - and this greatly pleased his leftist base. Later - needing to appeal to a bigger part of the electorate, he realized it was a good thing to wear the flag-pin: wearing deflected a lot of criticism and helped make him appear to be something he was not: A PATRIOT.

Since then, Obama has repeated this trope in many ways: appearing to be patriotic when he is not.

The results speak more loudly than anything else. The consistency of the results proves this.

And the consistency of his appointments and attempted appointments - as do the characters of the people with whom he has been close for the decades before he ran for federal office:

• Charles Freeman, 
• the al Ahzar educated John Brennan
• Samantha Power, 
• Rashid Khalidi, 
• Edward Said, 
• Bill Ayers, 
• Rev. Wright, 
• Jodie Evans, 
• Louis Farrakhan - to name just a few.
• And then there's the fact that Erdogan is his closest personal foreign ally.

SO... I must respectfully disagree with distinguidhed critics of Obama like WR Mead and Daniel Pipes:

what they call a "foreign policy fiasco" is "Mission in the Process of Being Accomplished" for Obama and the postmodern left; though Obama can never admit it.

UPDATED: PERFECT SYMBOL FOR THE POSTMODERN LEFT: BRADLEY MANNING WANTS TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF INTO A GIRL

Bradley Manning, the Army private sentenced to military prison for leaking classified documents, revealed he intends to live out the remainder of his life as a woman. 

“I am Chelsea Manning. I am female,” the Army private wrote in a statement read on TODAY Thursday. “Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition.” 

Manning, 25, was sentenced to 35 years in prison on Wednesday after having been found guilty of 20 charges ranging from espionage to theft for leaking more than 700,000 documents to the WikiLeaks website while working in Iraq in 2010.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE PERFECT METAPHOR FOR THE POSTMODERN LEFT, WHICH HATES AMERICA AND THE WEST.

HE STOLE NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS AND EXPOSED THEM TO HURT THE USA AND THE WEST.

NOW - TO BE HAPPY AND FULFILLED -  HE WANTS TO BE TRANSFORMED INTO A FEMALE AND HAVE HIS PENIS CUT OFF.

AND THE LEFT SEES NOTHING WRONG HERE.

WHY DOES THE POSTMODERN LEFT HATE THE USA AND THE WEST?

SIMPLE:

IN THE TWISTED LITTLE PROPAGANDIZED MIND OF THE POSTMODERN LEFTIST, AMERICA - AND THE WEST THAT WOULD FALL WITHOUT AMERICA'S SUPPORT - IS RESPONSIBLE FOR:

1. MOST OF THE WORLD'S GENOCIDE - ESPECIALLY RACIAL GENOCIDE; 
2. SEXUAL REPRESSION;
3. CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING;
4. AND POVERTY - ESPECIALLY THIRD WORLD POVERTY.

ALL OF THESE ARE DEMONSTRABLY, FACTUALLY FALSE - PROOF HERE.

POSTMODERNISTS WILL ARGUE THAT THEY LOVE AMERICA. BUT THEY REALLY ONLY LOVE AMERICA THE WAY A NAGGING BITCHY WIFE "LOVES" THE HUSBAND SHE CAN'T STAND AND TRIES TO TRANSFORM.

THEY DON'T LOVE AMERICA FOR WHAT AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON, HAS ACCOMPLISHED OR REPRESENTS. 

THEY HATE THOSE THINGS ABOUT AMERICA. 

THEY LOVE THE BOUNTY AMERICA LABORED TO BRING FORTH AND THEY WANT TO GET THEIR FILTHY STINKIN' PAWS ON IT SO THEY CAN DOLE IT OUT TO THEIR FACTIONS.

UPDATE: 

Addendum: SEX CHANGE SURGERY AND THE GRAMSCIAN AGENDA

Like Lysenkoist science, the postmodern assertion that the choice of male or female sexual partners is rigidly fixed at a genetic level, but that gender is infinitely transformative, that gay men cannot turn back to straight, but that men can become women and women can become men, makes no logical sense. It makes even less scientific sense.  

But it makes perfect political sense. 

The left’s version of the old racist “one-drop rule” that treated anyone with even one drop of black blood as black is to treat anyone with even the loosest claim to minority status as a minority and to mandate the irrevocable nature of that minority status.  

That is why Obama is black, rather than half- white, why Elizabeth Warren can be a Cherokee and why a straight man can become gay, but a gay man cannot become straight. [AND WHY GOV. CHRISTIE FELT HE HAD TO OUTLAW "GAY CONVERSION THERAPY".]

It is why a man can become a woman or a woman can become a man and gain an entirely new transgender minority status. 

The scientific principle at work here is the conservation of minority status.  

The left’s policies are meant to diminish the size of the majority and enlarge the size and number of minorities. 

Political diversity when applied to science logically leads to immutable homosexuality and mutable gender. It leads to a construct of race governed by a politically correct version of the one-drop rule in which racial identification always trends toward minority status, rather than majority status.  

The science is bad, but the political calculation is impeccable.  

Biology is just as irrelevant in 2013 America as it was in 1923 Russia.  

How the human body works doesn’t matter. How the body politic ought to work is of obsessive importance.  

The individual is a metaphor for the collective. 

The power of the state to transform the individual from male to female is a metaphor for its power to transform the entire nation through the transformation of language. 

In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it,” George Orwell wrote in 1984. “It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.

WHAT'S THE POLITICAL MOTIVATION OF THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S EMBRACE OF TRANSGENDERISM? Simple:

By dividing the majority into a series of tiny minorities, they diminish the ability to oppose them, AND BECAUSE - AS FAVORED MINORITIES THEY BECOME PART OF THE LEFTIST COALITION QUALIFYING FOR THE PLETHORA OF DOLED-OUT GOODIES AND SPECIAL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES THE LEFT HAS MADE AVAILABLE AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. 

"Gay marriage" actually has a similarly POLITICAL goal: 

 "Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage"

And then there's this:

Children’s Television Network Launches Transsexual Superhero Show…

The postmodernist's Gramscian Agenda doesn't stop there, either: 

Gov’t-Run School Curriculum… Children Forced to Kiss Same Gender In Simulated Homosexuality (Video)

This is tantamount to the enforcement of perversion and goes beyond even the nightmarish world Antony Burgess imagined in "The Wanting Seed."

BOTTOM-LINE - ALSO FROM DAN GREENFIELD:

... why stop at gender when you can also do species? There are people who believe that their true identity is that of an animal. And who is to say that species isn’t in the mind, just like gender is in the mind?

This isn’t just a thought-experimentor satire. It’s reality.

Species dysphoria is the equivalent of Gender dysphoria. Mentally ill persons with gender dysphoria are fashionably diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder. There is as of yet no Species Identity Disorder, but that is no doubt coming.

Like Trannies, Transpecies Americans create special pronouns for themselves and insist that refusing to pretend that they’re cats or wolves is a hate crime.

Like most newly minted civil rights groups, Trannies are intolerant of Transpecies Americans accusing them of only pretending to think that they’re cats and playing the old, “How dare you compare your pain to my pain and your imaginary identity to my imaginary identity” game.

Men who claim that they were really born women based on their personality insist that the idea of men who claim they were born cats is just nuts.

“Trying to legitimize your “species dysphoria” is despicable and insensitive to people with gender dysphoria,” one site says. “Denial of a biological link to sexuality/gender-identity is harmful to all queer (LGBTQI) people.”

Identity is apparently only in the mind, until you encounter people whose identity is also in the mind and make your mind identity look stupid.

ADDITIONAL READING:

WHY THE LEFT WANTS TO DESTROY THE FAMILY

 EXCERPT:

 As the Gramsci biography puts it:

Gramsci stated that, in the West, bourgeois cultural values were tied toChristianity, and therefore much of his polemic against hegemonic culture is aimed at religious norms and values [umph added - Relipaundit]. He was impressed by the power Roman Catholicism had over men's minds and the care the Church had taken to prevent an excessive gap developing between the religion of the learned and that of the less educated. Gramsci believed that it was Marxism's task to marry the purely intellectual critique of religion found inRenaissance humanism to the elements of the Reformation that had appealed to the masses. For Gramsci, Marxism could supersede religion only if it met people's spiritual needs, and to do so people would have to recognise it as an expression of their own experience.

The destruction of the family will condemn millions of children to dysfunctional outcomes. The left would sacrifice those children - future drop-outs, wards of the State, prisoners, runaways, and suicides - in order to create a society in which everyone is essentially institutionalized from birth to the grave, and in which every decision affecting everyone's daily life is made by a bureaucratic elite and enforced by violence.

For further details, see The Road to Serfdom, the must-read and re-read book by the economist F. A. Hayek.

NEWS FROM SODOM AND GOMMORAH

SODOMITES AND GOMMORAHCANOS WEREN'T SINFUL OR DEBAUCHED; THEY WERE JUST TOLERANT AND INTO DIVERSITY.

THOUGH, I THINK EVEN THEY WOULD BE SHOCKED BY SOME OF THE TRANSGENDER STUFF REPORTED NONCHALANTLY IN TODAY'S NEWS; HERE ARE A FEW OF THE RECENT HEADLINES:

• CNN: Former Navy SEAL comes out as transgender

• ABCNEWS: Transgender Candidate Could Become a First in NYC

• NPR: Transgender Youth Battle The Odds

• POLICYMIC: Meet the 15-Year-Old Transgender Teen in Maine Leading the Fight For Equal Rights

• CBS: Calif. Bill Would Allow Transgender Students To Have Equal Access To School Programs, Facilities

WHAT'S NEXT? I SHUDDER TO THINK... MAYBE.... REASSIGNING SOME PEOPLE AS SOME OTHER ANIMAL SPECIES, (AFTER SOME ARTFUL SURGERY/MUTILATION), AND BESTIALITY, I GUESS...

DON'T SMIRK AND CALL ME A RIGHT-WINGNUT; IT'S ALSO A HEADLINE FROM TODAY'S NEWS:

Waukesha man argues constitutional right of goat love, charges filed 

A 41-year-old Waukesha man was charged last week with allegedly arguing (loudly) on behalf of one of America’s lesser known freedoms: the right of a man to love a goat.

WE'RE NOT ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

WE'RE DEEP IN A CESSPOOL OF AMORALITY.

JUST SAYING....

AND ANOTHER THING: ITS NO ACCIDENT THAT ALL THE LEFT-WING DOMINATED MEDIA OUTLETS IN THE LIST ABOVE ARE PUSHING THE TRANSGENDER ITEMS.

IT'S THE NEXT ITEM IN THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

ALINSKY, CLOWARD & PIVEN AND GRAMSCI: THE AUTHORS OF THE STRATEGIES BEING USED BY THE POSTMODERN LEFT TO DESTORY WESTERN CIVILIZATION IN ORDER TO REPLACE IT WITH A SOCIALIST, SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE NANNYSTATE.

AND THEY'RE WINNING.

SIGH...