ANOTHER GRAMSCIAN ATTACK ON AMERICA'S FAMILIES

The Gramscian left has won another victory against Western civilization. Just persuading the gliberal glitterati to accept bestiality as a normal subject for a normal film would go a long way towards undermining marriage and family in America.




But they have gone even further than that in their depraved attack on decency.

They have succeeded in making it (in the words of the Sundance Festival's official website) "as smart as it is eloquent."

By undermining the foundations of our culture from within, the Gramscian left seeks to render us too weak to withstand the attacks the come from without.

Perversely, although they appear to favor every form of license and the most extreme manifestations of irresponsibility and recklessness, they seek to destroy every traditional human institution (such as church & family) only in order to foster their dystopian State, in which only the State is permitted to mediate any and every aspect of daily life.


Reliapundit adds: The post modern, Gramscian Left wants liberty without Natural Law; this is of course nothing more than libertinage, and it's decadent - perniciously so. These statists are like perverted nannies: they want a strong state in order to mainstream (IOW: force down your throat) their decadence, and also to regulate things like smoking on private property. If he were alive today, the tyrant Caligula would be a member of the Gramscian Left - he'd probably live in SF and vote for Pelosi. Heck: he'd be a big fundraiser for her and the rest of the New Democrats! [Then again, perhaps Caligula was not as bad as toay's Gramscian left: he merely made his favorite horse a Senator; he didn't have sex with it - at least that was never alleged publicly!]

Previous TAB posts on the Gramscian Left HERE and HERE and HERE.

NYTIMES STILL PROMOTING GRAMSCIAN AGENDA

IN TODAY'S NYTIMES, THE THEATER SECTION HAD THESE TWO ARTICLES:

FIRST THIS ONE:

Maximum Security and a Starring Role

By ELISABETTA POVOLEDO

Published: July 22, 2009

VOLTERRA, ITALY — As a sound-system blasted a cha-cha-cha, the men began to dance. Wearing outlandish costumes with oversize hats and wigs, and boots with 15-centimeter heels from a Milanese store that caters to drag queens, they strutted and pranced.

But this was no ordinary cast of actors. The performers were convicted criminals serving anywhere from five years to life in a maximum-security prison for crimes as varied as armed robbery and murder.

“Theater is surreal, it’s all fiction,” one inmate, Dorjan Cenka, originally from Albania, later mused. Dressed completely in white with heart-shaped red lips, Mr. Cenka was trying on his costume for the latest show by the Compagnia della Fortezza, the theater company named after the Medici-era fortress that houses the Volterra jail where the convicts are imprisoned. It would be his first time on stage and he confessed to being a little nervous. “I’m shy, I don’t like to speak in public,” he said. With a sway of his hips, he swished his Marie Antoinette-era skirt, the powdered wig on his head tottering. “I’m doing this to get over my resistance.”

...Of Italy's 205 prisons, about half have theater programs. But none is as renowned as the Compagnia della Fortezza, which over the years has won some of Italy's most prestigious theater awards.

AND THEN THIS:

Some Village Folkways: Incest, Murder, Adultery

By CHARLES ISHERWOOD

Published: July 23, 2009

The naked cowboy with the sequined phallus would be a startling apparition just about anywhere, with the possible exception of a gay strip club, but he seems a particularly incongruous vision in the humble Hungarian village of “Peasant Opera,” the quirky musical melodrama that opened Tuesday night at the Clark Studio Theater as part of the Lincoln Center Festival.

Written and directed by Bela Pinter, a leading figure from the theater world of his native Budapest, with music by Benedek Darvas, the show is a ribald sendup of opera that blends the earthy sounds of Hungarian folk songs with the ordered conventions of baroque music, to strange but surprisingly satisfying effect.

..."Mr. Pinter juxtaposes celebratory songs in a traditional folk idiom with bluntly vulgar humor that reveals the private pathologies behind the pretty myths of bucolic village life."

THE NYTIMES IS NOT REPORTING. THEY ARE PROMOTING A GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

THESE PLAYS ARE ABOUT ATTACKING TRADITIONAL BOURGEOIS VALUES.

(MORE HERE.)

THESE GRAMSCIAN ATTACKS ARE MEANT TO DESTROY TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS SO THAT THE STATE MAY TAKE OVER.

POSTMODERN LEFTISTS WANT THE STATE TO BE EXTREMELY PATERNAL (TAKE CARE OF THEM IN ALL REGARDS) - AND EXTREMELY SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE.

THE WEST'S FIFTH COLUMN AND HOW IT GOT THAT WAY

• THE USSR DIED, BUT IT INFECTED THE WEST WITH A SUICIDAL MEME: POSTMODERN LEFTISM.

• PO-MO LEFTOSM WAS ORGINALLY INVENTED AND DEPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE USA DURING THE COLD WAR.

• THE USA IS NOW RUN BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SWALLOWED THE KGB'S GRAMSCIAN IDEOLOGY HOK, LINE AND SINKER:

EXCERPTS: Gramscian damage

Americans have never really understood ideological warfare. Our gut-level assumption is that everybody in the world really wants the same comfortable material success we have. We use “extremist” as a negative epithet. Even the few fanatics and revolutionary idealists we have, whatever their political flavor, expect everybody else to behave like a bourgeois.

We don’t expect ideas to matter — or, when they do, we expect them to matter only because people have been flipped into a vulnerable mode by repression or poverty. Thus all our divagation about the “root causes” of Islamic terrorism, as if the terrorists’ very clear and very ideological account of their own theory and motivations is somehow not to be believed.

By contrast, ideological and memetic warfare has been a favored tactic for all of America’s three great adversaries of the last hundred years — Nazis, Communists, and Islamists. All three put substantial effort into cultivating American proxies to influence U.S. domestic policy and foreign policy in favorable directions. Yes, the Nazis did this, through organizations like the “German-American Bund” that was outlawed when World War II went hot. Today, the Islamists are having some success at manipulating our politics through fairly transparent front organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

But it was the Soviet Union, in its day, that was the master of this game. They made dezinformatsiya (disinformation) a central weapon of their war against “the main adversary”, the U.S. They conducted memetic subversion against the U.S. on many levels at a scale that is only now becoming clear as historians burrow through their archives and ex-KGB officers sell their memoirs.

... the Soviet espionage apparat actually ran two different kinds of network: one of spies, and one of agents of influence. The agents of influence had the minor function of recruiting spies (as, for example, when Kim Philby was brought in by one of his tutors at Cambridge), but their major function was to spread dezinformatsiya, to launch memetic weapons that would damage and weaken the West.

In a previous post on Suicidalism, I identified some of the most important of the Soviet Union’s memetic weapons. Here is that list again:

• There is no truth, only competing agendas.
• All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
• There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
• The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
• Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
• The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
• For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
• When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

As I previously observed, if you trace any of these back far enough, you’ll find a Stalinist intellectual at the bottom. (The last two items on the list, for example, came to us courtesy of Frantz Fanon. The fourth item is the Baran-Wallerstein “world system” thesis.) Most were staples of Soviet propaganda at the same time they were being promoted by “progressives” (read: Marxists and the dupes of Marxists) within the Western intelligentsia.

The Soviets consciously followed the Gramscian prescription; they pursued a war of position, subverting the “leading elements” of society through their agents of influence. (See, for example, Stephen Koch’s Double Lives: Stalin, Willi Munzenberg and the Seduction of the Intellectuals; summary by Koch here) This worked exactly as expected; their memes seeped into Western popular culture and are repeated endlessly in (for example) the products of Hollywood.

Indeed, the index of Soviet success is that most of us no longer think of these memes as Communist propaganda.

... The reduction of Western politics to a bitter war for government favor between ascriptive identity groups is exactly the outcome the Soviets wanted and worked hard to arrange.
Call it what you will — various other commentators have favored ‘volk-Marxism’ or ‘postmodern leftism’. I’ve called it suicidalism. It was designed to paralyze the West against one enemy, but it’s now being used against us by another. It is no accident that Osama bin Laden so often sounds like he’s reading from back issues of Z magazine, and no accident that both constantly echo the hoariest old cliches of Soviet propaganda in the 1930s and ’40s.

Another consequence of Stalin’s meme war is that today’s left-wing antiwar demonstrators wear kaffiyehs without any sense of how grotesque it is for ostensible Marxists to cuddle up to religious absolutists who want to restore the power relations of the 7th century CE.

In Stalin’s hands, even Marxism itself was hollowed out to serve as a memetic weapon — it became increasingly nihilist, hatred-focused and destructive. The postmodern left is now defined not by what it’s for but by what it’s against: classical-liberal individualism, free markets, dead white males, America, and the idea of objective reality itself.

... I think there is still an excellent chance that the West can recover from suicidalism without going through a fevered fascist episode and waging a genocidal war. But to do so, we have to do more than recognize Stalin’s memes; we have to reject them. We have to eject postmodern leftism from our universities, transnational progressivism from our politics, and volk-Marxism from our media.

The process won’t be pretty. But I fear that if the rest of us don’t hound the po-mo Left and its useful idiots out of public life with attack and ridicule and shunning, the hard Right will sooner or later get the power to do it by means that include a lot of killing. I don’t want to live in that future, and I don’t think any of my readers do, either. If we want to save a liberal, tolerant civilization for our children, we’d better get to work.

RTWT. AND USE THE LINKS!

OBAMA STILL TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH - TO DIFFERENT AUDIENCES

Hillary gave an interview TO AL JAZEERA - intended for an Arab audience - in which she admitted that the Obama administration was DEMANDING Israel halt ALL settlement activity.

Meanwhile, Obama smooth-talks/sweet-talks Jews.

Just like how Obama told one thing to voters in Scranton and another to RICH left-wing donors in San Francisco; (video of Palin - skip 1:50 seconds ahead). (More here and here.)

It's they way Obama routinely operates: lying and breaking his word: Gitmo; Gays in the military; Abu Ghraib photos; and so on.

It proves Obama cannot be trusted by ANYONE.

Obama can only be counted on to serve those who really matter to him: the machine; and his deeply left-wing associates who are more interested in making the USA socialist than any thing else - more than accomplishing the cultural/GRAMSCIAN Agenda.

The Gramscian Agenda is just a tactic: a way of demolishing traditional culture IN ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FOR SOCIALISM.

Since Obama holds power over all three branches, he doesn't need to serve the Gramscian left ... RIGHT NOW.

THE NYTIMES, HOMOSEXUALITY, CHRISTIANITY, WW4 AND THE GRAMSCIAN AGENDA

NYTIMES Gramscian Agenda travels to the Middle East to promoite homosexual junkets:

Travel

The Provincetown of the Middle East

Provincetown of the Middle East

Gay and lesbian travelers are flocking to Beirut, party capital of the Arab world.

• Slide Show

THIS PROMOTION IS ACTUALLY FEATURED IN THE NYTIMES THE DAY AFTER AN GUN-ATTACK WITHIN A GAY CENTER IN TEL AVIV BY A DERANGED ATTACKER WHICH LEFT TWO DEAD AND WOUNDING A DOZEN MORE. NYTIMES:

Coastal, cosmopolitan Tel Aviv has a bustling gay scene, but open homosexuality is less welcome in conservative areas of the Jewish state. Annual gay pride parades in Jerusalem meet with often violent protests from ultra-Orthodox Jews.

WHEN MUSLIMS KILL CHRISTIANS JUST FOR BEING CHRISTIAN IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND PAKISTAN THIS GETS NEXT TO NO COVERAGE IN THE NYTIMES.

THE NYTIMES RAN ONE WIRE-PIECE - "A version of this article appeared in print on August 2, 2009, on page A10 of the New York edition." - PAGE A10 - NOT FRONT PAGE, NO PHOTOS, NO SLIDE SHOW.

IN FACT, THE NYTIMES HAS FEATURED A POST BY KRISTOF DENYING THAT CHRISTIANS ARE TARGETED FOR BEING CHRISTIAN IN PAKISTAN.

KRISTOF:

The report suggests that Shaheena was targeted because she was a Christian, but typically this kind of crime is really class-based.

• TO THE NYTIMES AND THE LEFT, CHRISTIANITY IS BAD: IT'S SEXUALLY REPRESSIVE IN WESTERN SOCIETY AND A FOREIGN SUBJUGATOR EVERYWHERE ELSE.

• THE NYTIMES FEELS THAT THOSE WHO MURDER CHRISTIANS ARE MISUNDERSTOOD CLASS-ORIENTED WARRIORS, AND THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS GOOD AND THOSE WHO MURDER GAYS ARE VIOLATERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

• I CONDEMN THE KILLINGS OF PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS AND OF PEOPLE JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL.

• THE NYTIMES CAN'T CONDEMN BOTH - IT WOULD UNDERMINE THEIR GRAMSCIAN AGENDA.

• AND IT WOULD UNDERMINE THE LEFT'S TACIT SUPPORT FOR JIHADISTS WHO ATTACK THEIR COMMON ENEMY: THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN WEST.

• THE LEFT AND THE NYTIMES REFUSE TO GIVE CHRISTIANS THEIR TREASURED "VICTIM" STATUS.

• THIS IS A STATUS THEY RESERVE FOR AGENTS OF THEIR REVOLUTIONARY AGENDA.

THIS IS WHY - DURING WW4 (THE WEST'S BATTLE AGAINST GLOBAL JIHAD) - THE LEFT SO OFTEN SIDES WITH THE ENEMY AND COMPRISES A FIFTH COLUMN FOR THOSE WHO WOULD BRING DOWN OUR CIVILIZATION.

THEY SHARE THIS GOAL WITH JIHADISTS.

BOTH THE LEFT AND THE JIHADISTS WANT TO DESTROY OUR CIVILIZATION.

[ASIDE: THE FACT THAT ARAB MEN ARE ROUTINELY HOMOSEXUAL ISLAMO-MISOGYNISTS WHO ROUTINELY BEAT THEIR WIVES AND MURDER THEIR FEMALE FAMILY MEMBERS TO RESTORE FAMILY HONOR NEVER GETS A MENTION IN THE STORY!

YEAH, I SAID IT: ISLAM BREEDS A BUNCH OF WIFE-BEATING DAUGHTER-MURDERING ACID-THROWING WOMEN-HATING HOMOS. (IRSHAD MANJI WOULD PROBABLY AGREE - THOUGH PHRASE IT DIFFERENTLY!)

AND THE NYTIMES FEATURES THEIR DISCOS.]

UPDATE:

GRAMSCI, BOSS TWEED, AND A QUESTION ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION AND DRAFT POLICIES OF THE POST MODERN LEFT

The Left believes that the military is overwhelmingly poor and under-educated (a factually FALSE claim repeatedly made by Charles Rangel, among others).

The Left believes that the biggest reason most people join the military is that they are under-educated and can't find a good job in the Bush economy - because the Bush economy is horribly bad; (ALSO FACTUALLY FALSE - AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS).

Phenomenal US economic growth - AND CONSUMPTION - helped the entire world economy. FACT (Clinton Sec Treas Summers):

"...the world economy in aggregate grew more during the last five years than in any five-year period since World War II."

So... if the Lefties REALLY believe that the economy is bad and that wages are too low and that this is forcing people to join the military then why don't Lefties favor severely curtailing legal immigration and ENDING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION altogether by building a wall on our border with Mexico?!

These two policies would create a huge labor shortage, which would, in turn, drive wages up and lure these under-educated people away from the military. This would hobble the military's recruiting, and force the Pentagon to request a return to the draft, and it would drive up wages - two goals the Left claims are central to their platform. IOW: It seems to me that Leftie Doves should be immigration hawks.


I think they don't pursue these policies because they run counter to their deeper agenda, (their post modernist agenda - THEIR GRAMSCIAN AGENDA), which is an agneda designed to permenantly hobble the USA and weaken the West.

Toward that end, they want the USA to be less Anglo-American, and unfettered immigration - coupled with multiculturalism which doesn't demand assimilation - helps mightily to achieve that end.

And it's also because they want to use the immigrants as a voting bloc - as they have for a century. Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall are alive and well.

The more they let in, the more potential voters they think they'll be able co-opt. Like most elitist power-seeking groups, the Left - the Democrat Party - places achieving power for themselves above policy consistency and policy goals.

Proving once again that they are a cynical bunch of hypocritical demagogues. They seek to exploit race and class differences - and even faith in God - ONLY to achieve power. Even if it weakens our national defenses - as a draft would.

In a nutshell: the Democrat Party is controlled by two forces: one Gramscian and post modernist; the other Tammany-esque and all about partisanship, patronage and exploiting class and race differences, and this part is as old as the party itself. Both of these forces are bad for America - and therefore bad for the Free World.

[NOTE: I call them the post modern Left to distinguish them from the the Old Left - (the idealistic dupes of the 1930's), and the New Left - (the "anti-war" dupes of the 1960's), and to highlight the centrality of their moral and cultural relativism and their anti-Western attitudes.

Though post modernism began in the ashes of WW1, (which seemed for many - especially the so called intelligentsia who controlled the academy and the bureaucracy - to be such a collossal waste that it led them to hate the West and everything Western), it didn't get control of the Left until China abandoned Marxism and the USSR collapsed.

Faced with the utter failure of their economics-driven ideology in the economic sphere, the Left whole-heartedly enlisted in a culturally-drive war against the bourgeoisie - which Gramsci had agitated for and which had been present in "bohemian" Leftism before the 1990's but which hadn't yet dominated it. Now Gramscian ideologues dominate the Left and the Democrat Party.]

BIRDS OF A FEATHER - PART 29: AL GORE AND BINLADEN. OR ECO-NUTSIES AND ISLAMO-NAZIS

YAHOO/"Reuters":

Global warming could exacerbate the world's rich-poor divide and help to radicalize populations and fan terrorism in the countries worst affected, security and climate experts said on Wednesday.

"We have to reckon with the human propensity for violence," Sir Crispin Tickell, Britain's former ambassador to the United Nations, told a London conference on "Climate Change: the Global Security Impact."

"Violence within and between communities and between nation states, we must accept, could possibly increase, because the precedents are all around." He cited Rwanda and Sudan's Darfur region as two examples where drought and overpopulation, relative to scarce resources, had helped to fuel deadly conflicts.

Experts at the conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute said it was likely that global warming would create huge flows of refugees as people tried to escape areas swamped by rising sea levels or rendered uninhabitable by desertification.

Tickell said terrorists were likely to seek to exploit the tensions created.

"Those who are short of food, those who are short of water, those who can't move to countries where it looks as if everything is marvelous are going to be people who are going to adopt desperate measures to try and make their point."

BIN LADEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE

John Mitchell, chief scientist at Britain's Met Office, noted al Qaeda had already listed environmental damage among its litany of grievances against the United States.

"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries," al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden wrote in a 2002 "letter to the American people."

He makes no mention of the fact that Darfur and d Sudan are on-going islamo-wars. As are nearly all the wars in the world today.

FACT: Globally, there have been more than 7000 jihadoterrorist attacks SINCE 9/11. None have anything to do with climate change, or poverty.

Convergence between the Left/eco-nutsies and jihadism is not novel. It is a NATURAL ALLIANCE. WHY?! Simple: the basic affinity that the Left has with the jihadism is based on the fact that both are opposed to modernity, and both revile traditional Judeo-Christian/Western Civilization.

Both the post modern Left and the jihadists see the J-C West as bad; (the relativist Left even seemingly makes an exception to their relativism in order to assert that the J-C West is truly and absolutely bad). Typical of this anti-Judeo-Christian West attitude is the fact that so many on the Left either equate Christian fundamentalists with jihadoterrorists and/or fear Bush and Falwell more than Binalden and Zawahiri. The post modern Left blames the J-C West for the what they feel are the worst acts in all of human history: Third World poverty, most of humanity's genocide, and global warming.

Each if the charges the Left levels at the J-C West are demonstrably false. (Even if one believes that global warming is caused by man, the emerging Third World nations of China and India are just as "guilty" of creating atmospheric CO2 as is the USA and the West, but the Left and Kyoto gives them a free ride and ZERO criticism. This proves that it's more about being anti-USA/J-C West than anyhting else.) Additionally, the Third World committed more genocide than the West, And their poverty was not caused by the West.

The jihadists blame the West for the sad state of affairs inside the former Caliphate.

The Leftists and jihadists are united in their hatred of the J-C West, and the since the USA is the defender of the J-C West they hate the USA. (FURTHER PROOF OF THIS CONVERGENCE: The recent attack on the USA embassy in Greece was done by Leftists acting on behalf of Muslims.)

Like the jiahdoterrorists, the post modern Left wants to destroy the J-C West by bringing down the USA - only the Left wants to accomplish this through their Gramscian agenda (which we have posted on extensively at TAB). OF COURSE: they are willing to appease the jihadists if this will HURT the USA an the West; chastise the West, if you prefer.

The jihadists want the West to become dhimmis and withdraw from all lands which were ever muslim. And they will do anything within their means to accomplish this: including starting a nuclear holocaust.

The Left is the enemy within, and - because they are also a Fifth Column of the jihadist enemy - until we defeat them, we will not be able to defeat the jihadists abroad. This is a big challenge, because the MSM and the academy and a few key bureaucracies (CIA, FBI, State) are dominated by the post modern Left. Defeating the Left is even tougher in Europe where the post modern Left is even more entrenched in the MSM, the academy andf the bureaucracies; (SEE: BRUCE BAWER).

Basically, the USA Left has been anti-USA since Truman broke with Stalin. The Left supported the USA during WW2 ONLY because FDR was allied with Stalin. The Left has opposed the USA in every war since WW2. Iraq is just another in a long line of wars the Left wanted us to lose: Korea; the Bay of Pigs; Vietnam; Nicaragua; Grenada, the Gulf War; Panama; and Iraq. (Many also opposed the Afghan War - arguing it was about gas or oil or the deliberate starvation of Afghanis.)

WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? Well, about 30% of the USA public are OK - hawkish and pro-West and positive about Judeo-Christian civilization. About 30% are Leftie secular doves - Gramscian or their dupes. And about 15% are unreachable apathetic people who basically don't give a damn about politics or history. And then there's the indecisive 15% - "FREE-REANGERS". These folks blow with the wind: when the news from Iraq is bad, then they oppose the war.

In addition to attacking the jihadists with everything we've got, in addition to attacking the post modern Left with everything we've got, we have to do whatever we can to reach THIS last group. But without an objective MASS MEDIA it's a very VERY tough problem. WHY?! Well this 15% are the folks who get their news and take their cues from the MSM's TV news, which takes its cues from the Gramscian NYTIMES.

Fox cable has helped, but the cable audience is 1/20th the size of the broadcast audience and there's still not enough convergence between Fox and news-talk radio and blogs and podcasts to make up this distance. If we're ever going to liberate this 15% from the stranglehold of an MSM dominated by the post modern Left, then we're gonna have to create synergies between these three mediums to reach the masses and to undercut the Leftist lies and propaganda of the MSM.

[BTW: The polices which the Left advocates on behalf of the impoverished Third World are ALL BAD. If we really want to cure Third World poverty then we need to help INDUSTRIALIZE the Third World and get them to introduce more free market capitalism and more globalization. It's what works. The policies which the Left advocates DO NOT. Only when China and India gave up on Leftist economics and began to thrive.]

Others blogging this convergence between eco-nutsies and islamo-nazis: LGF and Jihad Watch.

"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.

"ARE WE NOT MEN?" ... maybe not, maybe to the Gramscian Left we are BEASTS?

The deliberate beautification and gentrification, if you will, of human-equine sex by the post-modernist intelligentsia at the Sundance Festival (see our previous post) is not an isolated phenomenon. We have identified this artistic activity as part of an overall Gramscian attack on the fundamental values and cultural institutions of the West. The Gramscian left's overall program calls for the destruction of the family, private property, and organized religion. The ultimate goal is our dehumanization.

The proximate goal of the bestiality buffs is to blur the distinction between the human and the animal, and thereby to reduce human beings to the status of animals.

And that's not the only way that our civilization's traditional view of a separation between the human and animal realms is being dissolved. Let me show you how.

Although there initiatives were widely reported as a comedic faits divers, leftist legislators in Spain were deadly serious when in June 2006 they introduced a bill to accord human rights to the great apes.

Spain could soon become the first country in the world to give chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes some of the fundamental rights granted to human beings under a law being proposed by members of the ruling Socialist coalition.

The law would eliminate the concept of "ownership" for great apes, instead placing them under the "moral guardianship" of the state, much as is the case for children in care, the severely handicapped and those in comas, said the MP behind the project, Francisco Garrido.

Please note that the apes will share the present legal status of children, the severely handicapped, and those in comas. The identity and character of those categories of individuals will be important in this discussion.

Despite the enthusiasm of the socialist ruling coalition, not everybody in Spain is on board:

The Roman Catholic Church has expressed concerns about his resolution. The Archbishop of Pamplona and Tudela, Fernando Sebastian, has said that only a "ridiculous or distorted society" could propose such a law. "We don't give rights to some people - such as unborn children, human embryos, and we are going to give them to apes," the archbishop said.

Amnesty International's Spanish branch has also expressed concerns, saying that humans have yet to see their rights fully guaranteed. A senior member of the Spanish opposition Partido Popular, Arturo Esteban, called the proposal an "act of moral poverty".

Advocates of conferring "personhood" on the great apes claim that such a measure will not diminish human rights:

Amnesty International correctly observed that the rights of many humans in the world are yet to be respected. The group also correctly understood that advocates are actually asking for basic rights for nonhuman apes, acknowledged by the United Nations — not just improvements in the conditions in which humans hold and use other great apes.

What Amnesty International misses is that respecting the 'personhood' of great apes does not diminish human rights. There is no reason why the basic rights of life, liberty, and freedom from torture should only be applicable to humans. Moreover, such a change would help humanity to preserve the environment instead of destroying it, and it would open more general discussions of animal rights in Spain.

The Catholic Church is on record opposing the measure. Fernando Sebastian denounced the concept when, in the archbishop's view, abortions violate the human rights of embryos. The archbishop also reportedly said, "Too much progress becomes ridiculous."

The ape rights initiative has received backing from academics in dozen of universities. GRASP submitted a letter of support for the measure.

However, according the human rights associated with a concept like "liberty" to an animal, even one of the great apes, inevitably trivializes and diminishes the status of that right for human beings.

And it is of course a direct contradiction of the basic concept of human freedom and responsibility enshrined in the Jewish Bible, which is also accepted by Christianity. The "personhood" activists want to grant human liberties to animals, but do you think they would accept the equally absurd idea of putting an animal on trial for its instinctual actions? Would you try a hungry wolf for the killing of a defenseless fawn before a jury of ruminants or carnivores?

By elevating an animal to human status, and human stature, the post-modern relativists want to degrade the status of the human being. If human beings are only animals, then there is really no moral problem with the State's altruistic and beneficent servants (notice the claim that "academics in dozens of universities" support granting human rights to apes) incarcerating or even killing any humans they deem unable to enjoy a proper "quality of life." A foetus, a defenseless adult in a coma, or a severely handicapped person can be discarded without compunction.

Eugenic breeding and eugenic culling of human specimens would thus be no worse than any other form of animal husbandry.

The Spanish government took another step towards abolishing human personhood by directly attacking the biological and familiar basis of human reproduction; henceforth, Spanish birth certificates will not list the baby's Mother and Father, but only its "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B:"

The new changes replacing Mother and Father come courtesy of a ministerial order.

"Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Spanish Minister of Justice, excused the ministerial order by claiming since the government modified "the status of civil marriages, to allow the union of same-sex couples, it was necessary for a new format for the Family Book (Libro de Familia) and one that uses terms such as "Parent A" and "Parent B" instead of "Father" and "Mother".

There is furthermore no reason that the socialist governments of the world should stop there. The Canadian Supreme Court recently decided that a child can legally have three parents, and ordered the State to register both women in a same-sex relationship as his mothers, with the "family friend" who provided the sperm to be listed as his father. In the dystopian world of polyamorous "families" and "alternative" living-arrangements, why should a birth certificate only show "Progenitor A," "Progenitor B," and not "C," "D," and "E?"

Strictly speaking of course, what the Spanish government and the Canadian Supreme Court have enacted is nonsense, and makes as much sense as King Hardicanute ordering the incoming tide to recede, or a law commanding the Sun to rise in the West. Only in a science fiction fantasy does any human child come into the world with anything other than one mother and one father. Elementary biology shows us that a fertilized human embryo consists of the ovum provided by the mother and the DNA from the sperm, provided by the father.

I am not speaking now of the critical role played in child development by an active, involved father, and the drastic social consequences faced by children in our inner cities who are growing up in a fatherless world. Although that is also part of the brave new world the socialists are wishing on us.

Again in this instance, I am reminded of H.G. Wells's fevered vision of the Island of Doctor Moreau, where half-animal, half-human victims of the Doctor's self-important and unethical experimentation struggled for their identity:

“Say the words,” said the Ape-man, repeating, and the figures in the doorway echoed this, with a threat in the tone of their voices.

I realised that I had to repeat this idiotic formula; and then began the insanest ceremony. The voice in the dark began intoning a mad litany, line by line, and I and the rest to repeat it. As they did so, they swayed from side to side in the oddest way, and beat their hands upon their knees; and I followed their example. I could have imagined I was already dead and in another world. That dark hut, these grotesque dim figures, just flecked here and there by a glimmer of light, and all of them swaying in unison and chanting,

“Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men?

“Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?”

And so from the prohibition of these acts of folly, on to the prohibition of what I thought then were the maddest, most impossible, and most indecent things one could well imagine. A kind of rhythmic fervour fell on all of us; we gabbled and swayed faster and faster, repeating this amazing Law. Superficially the contagion of these brutes was upon me, but deep down within me the laughter and disgust struggled together. We ran through a long list of prohibitions, and then the chant swung round to a new formula.

“His is the House of Pain.

“His is the Hand that makes.

“His is the Hand that wounds.

“His is the Hand that heals.”

And so on for another long series, mostly quite incomprehensible gibberish to me about Him, whoever he might be. I could have fancied it was a dream, but never before have I heard chanting in a dream.

“His is the lightning flash,” we sang. “His is the deep, salt sea.”

A horrible fancy came into my head that Moreau, after animalising these men, had infected their dwarfed brains with a kind of deification of himself. However, I was too keenly aware of white teeth and strong claws about me to stop my chanting on that account.

“His are the stars in the sky.”

At last that song ended. I saw the Ape-man's face shining with perspiration; and my eyes being now accustomed to the darkness, I saw more distinctly the figure in the corner from which the voice came. It was the size of a man, but it seemed covered with a dull grey hair almost like a Skye-terrier. What was it? What were they all?

There is a difference between a human being and an animal. To be sure, the human being is built upon the chassis of an animal body. But although the animal is endowed with a "living spirit" (Genesis 1:24), the human being also has soul that derives from the breath of God (Genesis 2:7). To deny the difference is to make a mockery of both the human being and of the animal -- it is to transform the animal from that which he is, into a childish cartoon figure; and it is to degrade the human being, and all of his potential, into the passive victim of the bureaucratic intelligentsia.

I am also reminded of the recurrent and defiant refrain in Bertolt Brecht's song "Wie Man Sich Bettet" -- "Ein Mensch ist kein Tier!" A human being is not an animal:

Meine Herren, meine mutter praegte
Auf mich einst, ein schlimmes Wort.
Ich wurde enden im Schauhaus
Oder an einem noch schlimmern Ort.
Ja, so ein wort, das ist leicht gesagt.
Aber ich sage euch: Daraus wird nichts!
Das koennt ihr nicht machen mit mir!
Ein Mensch ist kein Tier!

Your Honors, my mother pronounced
An awful curse on me - that
I'd end up in the morgue
Or an even worser place.
Yes, a word like that, it's easily said.
But I say to you: Nothing will come of it!
You can't do that with me!
A human being is not an animal!

The freedom and potential of the human being is what is being called into question by the multi-faceted Gramscian attacks on human dignity and on marriage & the family. That is what is at stake in the left's culture war today. If we do not win that war, we will cease to be human beings. Let us remember then, "Are we not men?"

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.

Ban on 'mom' and 'dad' considered - again

California agenda would require K-12 'gay' indoctrination:

"A plan that has been launched in the California state Assembly - again - could be used to ban references to "mom" and "dad" in public schools statewide by prohibiting anything that would "reflect adversely" on the homosexual lifestyle choice.

It's similar to a plan WND reported was approved by lawmakers last year, but fell by the wayside when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

"SB 777 forcibly thrusts young school children into dealing with sexual issues, requiring that homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality be taught in a favorable light," according to an alert issued by the Capitol Resource Institute.

"Not only does SB 777 require that classroom instruction and materials promote and embrace controversial sexual practices, it also bans school-sponsored activities from 'reflecting adversely' on homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals," the group said.

Source

(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, DISSECTING LEFTISM. Email me (John Ray) here.)

RELIAPUNDIT ADDS: GREAT POST JR!

This is all part of the Left's Gramscian Agenda: to destroy traditional culture so as to make the "world ready for socialism" and the state's takeover of all institutions. This is why the Left and the Jihadists are allies: BOTH hate traditional Western culture. Each feels that they alone have a UTOPIAN IDEOLOGY which - if ever implemented by a totalitarian state - will allow humanity to live ion perfect harmony with the universe.

It's prescriptivist, statist, and utopianist - and it's why the Left and Jihadists have always resorted to violence and genocide: when you feel you can create heaven on earth, well... then you're willing to do ANYTHING. Stalin, Mao, Bin Laden, Khomeini, Hitler, Fidel - they're all utopianists, ALL GENOCIDAL tyrants.

The Left's desire to force a gay agenda on to the rest of us is just more proof of this basic utopianist urge. ESSENTIALLY, IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE JIHADISTS WHO FORCE WOMEN TO WEAR VEILS.

Freedom-loving people should reject it. Sadly, many Democrats today are effectively "dhimmis to the Gramscian Left." And as a result they go along with the radical base of their party. I wish they'd wake up!

NYTIMES CONTINUES ITS WAR ON RELIGION

THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S WAR ON RELIGION CONTINUES - ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYTIMES - AND ITS MAGAZINE: "FROM THE MAGAZINE - From Bible-Belt Pastor to Atheist Leader"

The new heroes within the secular movement are coming from unlikely places — like the pulpit. Above, Jerry DeWitt, an atheist, at a church where he once preached. 

... Not long ago, the atheist movement was the preserve of a few eccentric gadflies like Madalyn Murray O’Hair, whose endless lawsuits helped earn her the title “the most hated woman in America.” But over the past decade it has matured into something much larger and less cranky. In March of this year, some 20,000 people marched through a cold drizzle at the “Reason Rally” in Washington, billed as a political debut for the movement. A string of best-selling atheist polemics by the “four horsemen” — Hitchens and Dawkins, as well as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett — has provided new intellectual fuel. Secular-themed organizations and clubs have begun to permeate small-town America and college campuses, helping to foot the bill for bus and billboard ad campaigns with messages like “Are You Good Without God? Millions Are.” 

The reasons for this secular revival are varied, but it seems clear that the Internet has helped, and many younger atheists cite the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as a watershed moment of disgust with religious zealotry in any form.

THE NYTIMES - AND THE LEFT - ARE DELIBERATELY CONFLATING ATHEISM WITH SECULARISM TO MAKE IT SEEM AS IF ANTI-RELIGIOUS VIEWS ARE AS MUCH PART OF OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE AS SECULARISM IS.

THAT'S BS.

OUR NATION WAS FOUNDED FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - AND FREEDOM TO BE RELIGIOUS, NOT FOR FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.

And when they write this crap -  " ... many younger atheists cite the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as a watershed moment of disgust with religious zealotry in any form... " - they make a false moral equivalence between all religions.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE NOT THE SAME - NOT FUNCTIONALLY, NOT STRUCTURALLY  AND NOT MORALLY.

EQUATING JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY WITH ISLAMISM OR PAGANISM OR BUDDHISM IS INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST AND FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

THE POSTMODERN LEFT'S WAR ON RELIGION IS PART OF THEIR GRAMSCIAN AGENDA - PART OF THEIR "CULTURE WAR"  STRATEGY TO DEMOLISH EVERYTHING THAT STANDS IN THE WAY OF THEIR "UTOPIAN NANNYSTATE".

• THIS GRAMSCIAN AGENDA IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THEIR OIKOPHOBIA - THEIR HATRED OF OUR CIVILIZATION, AND XENOPHILIA FOR ANYTHING NON-WESTERN.

• THEY HAVE MANAGED TO CAPTURE MANY GENERATIONS OF IDEALISTIC YOUTHS BY CONVINCING THEM THE WEST IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD - WHICH DOVETAILS NICELY WITH THE JIHADIST AGENDA.

THEY FALSELY BLAME THE WEST FOR:

• THIRD WORLD POVERTY;
• AN IMPENDING (AND IMAGINARY) GLOBAL CLIMATE CATASTROPHE; 
• ALL SEXUAL REPRESSION - AND FOR PERPETRATING THE "FALSE NOTION OF 'NORMALCY'"; 
• AND MOST OF HISTORY'S GENOCIDE.

EVERY NOTION IS FACTUALLY FALSE.

(1) THIRD WORLD POVERTY IS A RESULT OF A LACK OF INDUSTRIALIZATION - ITSELF CAUSED BY LEFTIST INDUSTRIAPHOBIA.

(2) CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL, AND THERE IS NO WARMING CURRENTLY OR IN THE LAST DECADE THAT IS OUTSIDE THE WARMING/COOLING RANGES IN GEOLOGICAL HISTORY.

(3) THERE IS SUCH A THING AS NORMAL AND DEVIANT - NO MATTER HOW HARD THE POSTMODERNISTS TRY TO DUMB DEVIANCY DOWN. AND SEXUAL LIBERTINAGE IS NOT LIBERTARIAN.

(4) MOST OF THE WEST'S GENOCIDE WAS PERPETRATED BY LEFTISTS IN THE 20TH CENTURY - THEY KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY KILLED IN THE PRECEDING 19 CENTURIES ... COMBINED! 

AND ISLAM KILLED MORE PEOPLE IN THE LAST 14 CENTURIES THAN LEFTISM AND JUDEO-CHRISTIANITY COMBINED!!


WE MUST USE THESE FACTS (EASILY FOOTNOTED AND FREQUENTLY POSTED ON IN THIS BLOG) TO DEMOLISH THE APPEAL OF LEFTISTS TO YOUNG IDEALISTS AND TO NEUTRALIZE THE LEFT'S ABILITY TO SHAPE EVENTS.

IT'S OUR PARAMOUNT TASK.

• IF WE WANT TO DEFEAT GLOBAL JIHAD AND ELIMINATE GLOBAL POVERTY, THEN WE MUST FIRST DEFEAT THE POSTMODERN LEFT.

LET'S START THIS NOVEMBER BY DEFEATING OBAMA - THE FIRST POSTMODERN LEFTIST PRESIDENT.

YOU COULDN'T MAKE THIS UP

The Gramscian attack of the Left knows no limits.

A "scholar" at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has published a paper condemning the I.D.F. for failing to engage in the systematic rape of Arab women.

That's right. The I.D.F. is condemned for its moral standards.

As reported by Israel National News:

The abstract of the paper, authored by doctoral candidate Tal Nitzan, notes that the paper shows that "the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals."

The next sentence delineates the particular goals that are realized in this manner: "In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be seen that the lack of military rape merely strengthens the ethnic boundaries and clarifies the inter-ethnic differences - just as organized military rape would have done."

The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.

In fact, the moral code of the I.D.F. has been held up as an example by military forces around the world, including our own West Point. But to a Gramscian, that couldn't be the reason:

Makor Rishon editor Amnon Lord, who first publicized the story, wrote that not only did researcher Nitzan not consider Jewish tradition as an explanation, but neither did she "raise the possibility that her initial assumption - namely, that the situation in Judea and Samaria is just like any other situation of conquest - may be wrong."

This benighted "paper" is an example of the Western intellectuals' over-riding and corrosive self-hatred. The West's most dangerous enemies are within our walls, already.

THE WEDDING PHOTO THAT SAYS EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE POSTMODERNIST ATTACK ON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES AND TRADITIONS - AND ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE PEOPLE IN THIS WEDDING PHOTO - ONE FEATURED PROMINENTLY TODAY IN THE NYTIMES WEDDING SECTION:

TWO MEN MARRIED BY A FEMALE RABBI.

I WONDER:

WILL THEY SERVE SHRIMP COCKTAIL AND HAM AND CHEESE SANDWICHES AT THE RECEPTION? (NON-KOSHER FOODS)

DID THE FEMALE "RABBI" WEAR A CROSS AND RECITE BUDDHIST OR HINDU CHANTS, TOO?

SERIOUSLY:

GAY MEN WHO WANT TO ESTABLISH LIFETIME BONDS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO SO WITHOUT MARRIAGE.

I AM FINE WITH THAT - AS WERE BJ CLINTON AND OBAMA UNTIL A FEW MONTHS AGO,

THIS IN NOT ABOUT GAYPHOBIA - OR WHATEVER THEY CALL IT.

THIS IS ABOUT THE GRAMSCIAN AGENDA:

THE POLITICAL EFFORT TO ESTABLISH GAY MARRIAGE IS PART OF THE GRAMSCIAN EFFORT TO DEMOLISH THE TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS THAT UNDERPIN OUR CIVILIZATION, (THE FAMILY AND THE CHURCH), SO THAT THEY CAN BE REPLACED WITH A SOCIALIST STATE -- A SEXUALLY PERMISSIVE NANNYSTATE.

IT'S NOT TOO LATE TO STOP THEM.

BUT IF OBAMA IS RE-ELECTED IT MIGHT BE SOON.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

VOTE ROMNEY-RYAN.



(NOTE:

A FEMALE CAN NO MORE BE A RABBI AND MEN NO MORE MARRY EACH OTHER THAN A WHITE MAN BE ORDAINED A FISH AND A BLACK WOMAN TRANSFORMED BY LAW INTO A BANJO.

AS LINCOLN FAMOUSLY SAID:

CALLING A DOG'S TAIL A LEG DOESN'T MAKE IT A LEG.)

ANOTHER PROMO FOR THE GRAMSCIAN AGENDA FROM THE NYTIMES

MORE GRAMSCIAN CRAP FROM THE NYTIMES:

FROM THE MAGAZINE

What’s So Bad About a Boy in a Dress?

By RUTH PADAWER

Many couples now reject corrective therapy and take a new approach to parenting gender-fluid children.

THE POSTMODERN LEFT WANTS A WORLD IN WHICH "EVERYTHING IS NORMAL/NOTHING IS NORMAL"...

AND THERE IS NO CHURCH, NO FAMILY - ONLY A SOCIALLY PERMISSIVE NANNYSTATE THAT PAYS FOR EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, AND PENSIONS, AND ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BE LIBERTINES.

UPDATE: WE SCOOPED HOT AIR BY A DAY ON THIS.

MORE ANTI-WEST PROPAGANDA FROM THE POSTMODERNISTS OF THE NYTIMES: PUSHING DHIMMITUDE AND TRANSGENDER POLITICS

From DHIMMI WATCH, news that the NYTIMES MAGAZINE published a long paean to sharia. One which never once even mentions the word dhimmi. But it does have the temerity to call shariah one of the most liberal codes of law - one with an undeservedly bad reputation.

Also in the magazine this week: a paean to transgender politics.

What do both of these pieces have in common: they're Gramscian attacks on traditional Judeo-Christian culture and Western Civilization. Traditional families and religion are the foundational structures of Western Civilization. They get in the way of the socialist revolution.

The MSM and the Academy attack these structures constantly, brainwashing people into feeling that the West was always bad, and families and religion the sources of alienation and oppression.

The Left - according to the Gramscian agenda they've been employing for decades - attacks these traditional structures of culture in order to demolish them and replace them with the socialist state.

These two articles - selected by the gay left-wing editor of the NYTIMES MAGAZINE, in keeping with the basic editorial outlook of the NYTIMES - push that agenda. First by propagandizing about sharia, telling their readers that they have nothing to fear, that sharia is not as bad as the JOOOOOZE and NEOCONS say. Second by trying to get their readers to accept transgenderists as normal and in need of mainstreaming.

What makes it INSANE is that, in one article, the sharia they soft-peddle and want you to appease would punish by death the homosexuality and "transgenderness" of the second article.

It's beyond hypocritical; it's schizoid.

It's the Left. The folks who control the Democrat Party.

Vote accordingly.