A helpful guide to the Western hemisphere “underrepresented”.

What is a historically underrepresented group? Underrepresented how? The Williams College Technology Summit for the Underrepresented (exploited by white men?) defines the group as “African Americans, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders.” This parsing of denizens of North America (assuming they mean Pacific Islanders who reside in the USA) has become so complicated in this age of smartphone-addicted glassy-eyed sleepwalkers mimicking early onset Alzheimer’s that I am stepping up with a handy dandy classification system for ALL denizens of the Western hemisphere.

My modest, humble, self-effacing system goes like this: North America and South America become N-amer and S-amer. Then each sovereign nation gets into the act. For example, Brazilians become S-amerBra, Mexicans become N-amerMex, Canadians become N-amerCan, citizens of the United States of America become Americans, like we are now. Before all you woke SJWs complain about the arrogance of this designation, I have a very practical reason for this appellation. Every ethnic or racial or sexual minority in the USA must have its own hyphenated designation. Not only that, but it must include ancestral country of origin. Origin of whom? Ancestors. How far back? Well, the National Paper of Record, modestly known as the New York Times, says this country began 400 years, so that’s how far back we should go. For example, a very dark skinned individual, to be fair, since I am a Caucasian, is Negro—a designation they object to, though it means black in Latin (our root language). So for the sake of better racial relations, I will use the English translation—black. Anyway, a black person in the United States, whose grandparents came from Jamaica, but whose line all the way 400 years was from Africa (and who probably has never been to either Jamaica or Africa), would in my system be AmerAf, or, if their ancestors were in Jamaica 400 years ago, they would be AmerJam (Ja might be confusing, since Japan also starts with those letters, and kids today are totally ignorant of geography, except knowing where Norway, home of the iconic Greta Thunberg is). Just imagine how much messier it would be if we had to say N-amerUS-Af or N-amerUS-Jam.

But we cannot stop there, because what about the sexually underrepresented? In America, we must be radically inclusive. So a homosexual (the G in LGBTQ) black American would be AmerAf-G or AmerJam-G. If lesbian, bisexual, transgender or queer (aren’t queer and transgender somewhat redundant? ) would be AmerAf-L, AmerAf-B, and AmerAf-T. Isn’t that much better than N-amerUS-Af-T? We aren’t done yet. We can’t leave out the other groups, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. In my system, the list would read AmerALN (N for native), AmerAr, AmerAs, AmerLaX, AmerN.A., AmerHawN and AmerPacIs. I object to lumping all Asians together, even though they all look alike (wink), so let’s get precise: AmerAsJap, AmerAsChi, AmerAsKor and so forth. If their sexual preference is not the usual, just add the hyphen and appropriate capital letter.

On second thought, maybe we should ditch the whole taxonomy, and just assign every citizen a number, or even a barcode on the forehead. Then put telescreens on every corner and in every room. Why not? After all, “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

1984 chronologically has passed, but Orwell’s words remain: “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” Newspeak is here. The inmates have seized control of the lexicon!

Rectifying an oversight.

Kelsey(?) processing an eggplant emoji

I tell folks who have not read this blog that it’s satirical, but that’s not quite true, well it is for some posts but not others, when I’m in the mood, which from reading a lot of recent posts, I realize doesn’t strike me that often…..okay, I’m lying when I call it satirical, well not quite lying, more like exaggerating, which isn’t really lying is it, because my intentions are good, if satire is good, unless it offends…By now you’re saying, “he’s gone bonkers, he can’t make up his mind.” How can I make up my mind when I lost it back in 2016? How can Donald Trump be President of the greatest—well, formerly greatest according to MAGA, or the worst if you’re a Democrat—country in the world?

Electing Donald Trump President is as bad as my buying Amazon stock for $34/share back in 1998, then selling it for $39/share the next year, instead of holding it, unless you believe that Hillary would have been worse, which I certainly do. This whole rambling prologue is leading up to the funniest line I have read in years. If you’re a regular reader of this blog—don’t you have anything productive to do with your time? Be that as it may, or really, be that as it is, you know that I love Takimag.com, and especially Jim Goad, who wrote the funny line to which I am alluding. So after my confession about the dearth of satire in my satirical blog, I thought I would rectify it, which might make some people think I am alluding to sodomy, which is the joke I was alluding to. I promise not to use the word alluding again in this post, but here’s the item from Jim Goad:

If it ever seems as if white people invented almost everything, that is because white people are racist and kept other races down from inventing things. To help rectify this—and in case you were wondering, rectification has nothing to do with what is classically known as “sodomy”—the private Massachusetts-based liberal-arts academy known as Williams College is hosting a science and technology symposium that is open only to students of color. The event’s official call for papers has invited scholars to submit only if they come from a “historically underrepresented group,” which they go on to explain covers the following clusters of poor and huddled masses: African Americans, Alaska Natives, Arab Americans, Asian Americans, Latinx, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders. What the hell is a “Latinx,” is that X-rated latins (or hispanics)?

The school also announced that “we aim to create an inclusive, intellectually enriching experience for all involved, including the visiting speakers and the faculty and students of Williams.” If you don’t know what “inclusive” means, it’s a word that signifies anything that excludes white people. Jim should have added “heteronormative, cisgender, and Trump voters” after the word “exclude” (that sounds pretty close to allude, which I promised not to write, but it’s really different). I should also add, that since it’s illegal to exclude anyone based on “group” characteristics, and applicants were asked to write a couple sentences proving themselves as a member of a “historically underrepresented group”, Williams provides an equal employment opportunity statement that people from all backgrounds are welcome…..even though they really aren’t. Good to know that Williams is following the “letter” of the law!

As if this weren’t enough madness for one day (and Sunday, to boot), comes this item from The Guardian (I can never figure out what they are guarding): Earlier this month, after waking up to find an unwelcome dick pic in her Twitter account’s DMs, web developer Kelsey Bressler, 28, co-created an AI filter she claims is capable of preventing over 95% of sexually explicit images from reaching her inbox. To test the filter, Bressler solicited pictures of male genitalia en masse, receiving hundreds to the trial account @ShowYoDiq, “for science” .(Bressler is unsure of the exact final number of volunteer pics because she is still processing them manually and many respondents jokingly messaged her pictures of Donald Trump, which she must now weed out). Okay Kelsey, how are you “processing” them manually, or is that something you wish you could do with the real thing? Or not….Jim Goad again (because police are looking at all sorts of ways to criminalize this practice): “Then again, if your penis is so unattractive that it would impel someone to call the police and send you to jail merely for forcing them to look at it, you might want to consider genital cosmetic surgery before sending your next dick pic.” Ha ha.

Proving that public servants can be just as satirical as yours truly and Jim Goad, last year councilman Joseph Borelli, a Republican from Staten Island, co-sponsored a bill (yet to pass) that would make cyberflashing–sharing nudes via Apple’s AirDrop feature, which allows people to anonymously send content to other devices within a 10-meter radius–punishable by up to a $1,000 fine or one year in jail. “In the old days, you had to have a long trench coat and good running shoes,” Borelli told the New York Times. “Technology has made it significantly easier to be a creep.” Sounds like he knows what he’s talking about. I’m not done yet demonstrating the bottomless ingenuity of homo sapiens (we might want to consider getting rid of the “ien” part): Companies are able to defend their refusal to protect victims by citing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which, because they are not technically publishers, absolves them of responsibility for the content their users share. Lawyer Carrie Goldberg recently told the Guardian that the CDA “is the enabler of every asshole, troll, psycho and perv on the internet”. Every? I haven’t used that excuse yet. If Kelsey can solicit pics of male you know what “for science”, why can’t I solicit pics of female you know what for the same reason? Nope, that’s a gateway drug to prostitution.

My final sally for this morning is my submission to the Williams technology summit: “I am a caucasian cisgender heteronormative male, and as such have been historically underrepresented on welfare rolls, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, and calls for reparations!!! Since you asked for a couple of sentences, this is it.”

Kulturkampf, American style.

Kulturkampf is the name given to German chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s efforts to subject the Roman Catholic church to state controls. According to historian Victor Davis Hanson, Donald Trump is waging a nonstop, all-encompassing war against progressive culture, in magnitude analogous to Kulturkampf. I have great respect for Mr. Hanson, his knowledge and yes, his honesty. His side is truth, not either political party or any politician. He is not pursuing an agenda, except love for our traditions and ideals. Therefore, I am going to let him speak to you, through this post.

“For most of his time in office, Trump, his family, his friends and his businesses have been investigated, probed, dissected and constantly attacked. In 2016 and early 2017, Barack Obama appointees in the FBI, CIA and Department of Justice tried to subvert the Trump campaign, interfere with his transition and, ultimately, abort his presidency. Now, congressional Democrats promise impeachment before the 2020 election. The usual reason for such hatred is said to be Trump’s unorthodox and combative take-no-prisoners style. Critics detest his crude and unfettered assertions, his lack of prior military or political experience, his attacks on the so-called bipartisan administrative state, and his intent to roll back the entire Obama-era effort of ‘fundamentally transforming’ the country leftward.

“Certainly, Trump’s agenda of closing the border, using tariffs to overturn a half-century of Chinese mercantilism, and pulling back from optional overseas military interventions variously offends both Democrats and establishment Republicans. Trump periodically and mercurially fires his top officials. He apparently does not care whether the departed write damning memoirs or join his opposition. He will soon appoint his fourth national security adviser within just three years. To make things worse for his critics, Trump’s economy is booming as never before in the new 21st century: near-record-low unemployment, a record number of Americans working, increases in workers’ wages and family incomes, low interest rates, low inflation, steady GDP growth and a strong stock market.

“Yet the real source of Trump derangement syndrome is his desire to wage a multifront pushback — politically, socially, economically and culturally — against what might be called the elite postmodern progressive world. Contemporary elites increasingly see nationalism and patriotism as passe. Borders are 19th-century holdovers. The European Union, not the U.S. Constitution, is seen as the preferable model to run a nation. Transnational and global organizations are wiser on environmental and diplomatic matters than is the U.S. government. The media can no longer afford to be nonpartisan and impartial in its effort to rid America of a reactionary such as Trump, given his danger to the progressive future.

“America’s ancient sins can never really be forgiven. In a new spirit of iconoclasm, thousands of buildings, monuments and statues dedicated to American sinners of the past must be destroyed, removed or renamed. An insomniac Trump fights all of the above nonstop and everywhere. In the past, Republican presidents sought to slow the progressive transformation of America but despaired of ever stopping it. No slugfest is too off-topic or trivial for Trump. Sometimes that means calling out former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick for persuading NFL stars to kneel during the national anthem. Huge, monopolistic Silicon Valley companies are special Trump targets. Sometimes Trump enters cul-de-sac Twitter wars with Hollywood has-beens who have attacked him and his policies.

“Trump variously goes after antifa, political correctness on campus, the NATO hierarchy, the radical green movement, Planned Parenthood, American universities and, above all, the media — especially CNN, the Washington Post and the New York Times. For all the acrimony and chaos — and prognostications of Trump’s certain failure — a bloodied Trump wins more than he loses. NATO members may hate Trump, but more are finally paying their promised defense contributions. In retrospect, many Americans concede that the Iran Deal was flawed and that the Paris climate accord mere virtue signaling. China was long due for a reckoning.

“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proved fruitless and was further diminished by Mueller’s bizarrely incoherent congressional testimony. Trump has so enraged his Democratic adversaries that the candidates to replace him have moved farther to the left than any primary field in memory. They loathe Trump, but in their abject hatred he has goaded the various Democratic candidates into revealing their support for the crazy Green New Deal, reparations for slavery, relaxed immigration policies and trillions of dollars in new free stuff. In a way, the left-wing Democratic presidential candidates understand Trump best. If he wins his one-man crusade to stop the progressive project, they are finished, and their own party will make the necessary adjustments and then sheepishly drift back toward the center.”

I am not sure of that last sentence. Perhaps the voyage to the far left margin will cause the Democrats to sail off the edge of the world. But since they are the political proxy for Critical Theory, and Trump is the troglodyte who gives proponents of C.T. a target that allows them to whip up the hatred of the old order—that is our traditions and values—my own belief is that when Trump wins again, the extreme left of the Democrats will say, as they do now, that their candidate was not radical enough, and will hoist the pirate flag for one of the “squad”. The biggest problem with that scenario is, I am also predicting that none of the squad will get re-elected. Well, a guy can dream, can’t he?

Where have all the Communists gone?

Anyone with eyes, or enough sense to evaluate what Communism has actually done, as opposed to what the doctrine says would be done under it (or what they want to see) could understand that by the late 1960’s Communism was a massive failure, as well as a murderous sham. But Communism was rescued by postmodernists, re-branded as it were, resurrected as Critical Theory. That’s really what postmodernism, the preference for subjective interpretation over objective evidence, does, it re-brands. Failures of courage or moral fiber are re-branded as illnesses, therapeutic approaches are substituted for training (good habits) and self-discipline, the very notion of self-discipline is re-branded as deprivation, and any adversity, even temporary, is re-branded as oppression, thus watering down what true oppression is. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot anyone?

Critical theory has six premises. Here they are in all their glory.

1. Individual identity is inseparable from group identity. There are only two human groups: The Oppressed and the Oppressors. Therefore, every individual is classified under a group label, based on past oppression: racial/ethnic (the darker your skin, the more oppressed), sexual behavior (the less heteronormative, the more oppressed), female (all are oppressed), religious (the less Christian, the more oppressed), class (the poorer is more oppressed), country of origin (the less western, the more oppressed).

2. Oppressors exercise hegemonic power—the ability of a group to impose their values, norms and expectations on another group. This is not necessarily related to the numbers of each group, rather the power to shape. It’s all about power. There is no logic, reason, investigation, evidence, dialogue or debate involved; whoever has the power wins. Therefore, adherents to critical theory will exercise power–infiltrating the “levers” of power: media, education, government (starting with becoming bureaucrats).

3. The Fundamental moral duty of government is freeing the oppressed from the hegemonic power of oppressors, by removing or suppressing intolerance. Justice = liberation from hegemonic power. Ex.: Any “dominant group” claiming that certain moral norms are universally obligatory is oppressive. Such dominating groups and institutions must be silenced in order for humans to be truly free. Followers of Christ who believe that biblical norms governing morality (sanctity of life, marriage, homosexuality) are pre-determined by a Higher Being and apply to everyone equally, are an oppressor group that needs to be silenced.

4. Experience lived is more important than objective evidence in understanding oppression. Rational thought is a tool of oppression when it contradicts an oppressed person’s testimony. Since an oppressed person experiences life differently than oppressors, you have no right to disagree unless you’re in the exact circumstances.

5. Oppressors hide their oppression by appealing to objective evidence. When a member of an oppressed group “speaks their truth”, you say amen, you don’t argue. Using rationality and facts is a sneaky way of gaining and holding power, cloaking your will to dominate.

6. People who are at the intersection of different kinds of oppression experience it in a unique way that no one who isn’t occupying the same intersection can understand. Race, class, sexuality, gender, and religion are foremost among the various roads that can intersect.

Extension of those 6 propositions = “There’s no right or wrong objectively, other than oppression is wrong and liberation from oppression is right.” But what does liberation from oppression look like? To the proponents of critical theory, liberation looks like the rallying cry of the French Revolution–liberty, equality, fraternity. But the true endpoint of the rejection of “universal norms” is always the gulag and the gun: the “killing fields” of Laos and Cambodia, the torture of the “great leap forward”, the mass starvation of the “kulaks”, where “the rich”–anyone who has more (education, possessions) than the least, get “what’s coming to them”. Envy run amok and writ large in the corpses and broken backs.

A better take than “two groups” is “two visions”. Thomas Sowell, in his 1987 book, A Conflict of Visions, talks about the two competing visions of the world. The constrained vision sees the “evils of the world as arising from the limited and unhappy choices available given the moral and intellectual constraints of human beings.” The unconstrained vision sees good things as natural and bad things as the result of evil institutions or intentions. Sowell rebutted an argument that blacks are poorer than whites because of the legacy of slavery. His rebuttal said, “let’s compare where blacks stood 100 years after slavery with where they stood after 30 years of the welfare state.” From 1940 to 1960, the black poverty rate in the U.S. fell from 87% to 47%. After 1960, the poverty rate continued to decline, but at a much slower pace, and that was mainly due to the residual of economic policy of the past. Prior to 1960, the majority of black children were being raised by two parents; during the next 30 years, that reality was replaced by 70% of black children born out of wedlock.

The welfare state isn’t just a plague here. In Iceland over 40% of children are growing up with one parent, while in South Korea, NOT a welfare state, it’s only one out of 66. Sowell cites affirmative action as being a unique policy, in that it “hurts everyone and is beneficial to no one”. He gives the example of when he was teaching at Cornell, and discovered that most of the black students there were on academic probation. He looked up SAT scores and found that the average score for black students placed them in the 75th percentile of all those who took the tests. That would be sufficient to get them into, and be competitive in 80% of the colleges in the country. But at Cornell, the average SAT of all liberal arts undergraduates placed them in the 99th percentile. Cornell’s affirmative action requirements set those affirmative action students up to fail.

“Affirmative action” is a product of the worldview of critical theory, particularly propositions 1, 2 and 3. “Black students” are part of a group, not individuals, “standards” are hegemonic power, and “liberation” is removing the barrier of standards for every member of the group. Since in the unconstrained vision, institutions rather than individual choices are the cause of failure, the power of the institution to set standards must be thwarted. If my reader has absorbed the propositions of critical theory, s/he might think that Mr. Sowell is a black man born to privilege, so I will disabuse them of that notion. Please read this brief bio, especially the part about his early years. https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell

In critical theory, Sowell, and his close friend (my other favorite practical economist), Walter Williams, both of whom grew up in similar deprived circumstances, would be considered “outliers” who don’t disprove critical theory because they espouse “white ideas”. But in reality, they embrace the truth of the world as it is, not as they wish it were. Those who would think “well, most people of color benefit from affirmative action”, and see Sowell and Williams as the exceptions who don’t need it, probably have absorbed the propositions of critical theory, seeing the world through that distorted lens.

Our country makes THE list…..Really?

Meghan Daum is a writer I follow on Medium.com. Here, she’s writing about The Perverse Seductions of ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’.

“That (the show) might be a smart way of promoting a new book, especially in a country reeling from our ongoing political fiasco. But the United States is not poised to become a misogynist totalitarian regime simply because there are some monstrous men out there (some with considerable power) and things don’t always move in the direction we’d like them to. It’s this overreaching premise that led Thomson Reuters to include the United States on a list of the 10 most dangerous countries for women, along with India, where public gang rapes are rampant, as well as Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia (plus Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Congo and Nigeria. Whew, aren’t you relieved that the USA is only #10?), places known for “honor” killings, forced marriages, and female genital mutilation. The United States’ inclusion on the list, according to the poll’s website, was attributable to the fact that the survey, which polled 548 “experts on women’s issues,” was conducted last fall, in the wake of #MeToo movement.”

It might be telling that Congo, officially the Democratic Republic of, is on the list, along with the others, not counting the USA. While the dominant religion of 7 of them is Islam, with Hinduism the dominant religion of India, supposedly the dominant religion of the other two–USA and Congo–is Christianity. Telling, because real Christianity–the Bible–shows utmost respect for and care of women. If women are being abused in a culture, it is anything but Christian. In the case of Congo, it is endless war that is the oppression factor, specifically the enthusiasm for rape and torture of the victorious African “soldier”. In the case of the USA, it is imaginary.

“While the United States’ inclusion among the world’s worst women-haters is absurd, if not downright offensive, the list is an important reminder that there are countries in the world that, right now, get pretty damn close to Gilead. Which might raise the question as to why we don’t spend more time talking about them. Some progressives will reduce such comparisons to ‘whataboutism,’ insisting that a bad situation isn’t made less bad because another situation is worse. But another word for whataboutism is perspective. Once an essential tool for thinking, perspective is now a kind of obstacle. It gets in the way of the stories we want to tell ourselves — especially the stories we want to tell about ourselves.

Interesting thought, that perspective presents an obstacle to believing narratives. Since she is writing for women, her focus is on anti-woman narratives. There are also racial, ethnic, religious and cultural narratives. You may have heard the expression, “there are four kinds of people in the world: those who make something happen, those who watch something happen, those who don’t know something is happening, but not sure what happened, and those who don’t know anything is happening.” With regards to pop narratives, they roughly correspond to: narrative promoters, who either believe the narrative or pretend to, mainly because it’s in their interest to do so; narrative agnostics, who are bombarded with the narrative until they aren’t sure what they think; narrative shruggers, who aren’t sure and don’t care anyway; narrative sleepers, medicated enough by social media, entertainment, or other drugs, and miss practically everything. I often wonder if the last group aren’t really the smart ones, since narratives come and go in “their sound and fury, signifying nothing “ (apologies to Shakespeare). Back to Ms. Daum.

“So, what makes Atwood’s persecution story so compelling? In my wilder moments of pondering, I’ve wondered if the extraordinary, unprecedented freedoms now enjoyed by women in places like the United States have made us all the more fascinated with the notion of our own oppression. It’s almost like part of the pleasure of reading the books and watching the show comes from imagining our own punishment and martyrdom. As is often the case with such conjurings, the cartoonish proportions of this punishment transform it from a factual possibility into a speculation, a ghastly fantasy that’s compelling precisely because you know it will never happen in real life. Maybe it’s not so much that we’re living in Gilead, but that some aspect of Gilead is living in us.

Has the “USS Free Speech” already sailed? CR 99.

Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 begins with: this measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state. Sorry, but I feel compelled to print and rebut almost the entire resolution, with questions. This is my version of critical theory.

California lawmakers passed a resolution this month telling “religious groups” — including Christian pastors and churches — to “embrace” the LGBTQ worldview, even if it contradicts the moral values of those religious groups. The resolution overwhelmingly passed the California Senate and House this month. Let’s question the assumptions in the actual text of the resolution.

WHEREAS, The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The legislature has “found”? Tell me, where did you find that truth? You didn’t mention sin either, but I’m sure that’s just an oversight. It’s good to know that you folks were elected to be the moral arbiters of sexuality.

WHEREAS, Major professional associations of mental and physical health recognize that being LGBTQ is part of natural variations that occur in sexual orientation and gender identity, and recommend responsive services that foster self-acceptance and skills to cope with social stigma and discrimination. Like who? “Natural variations?” In gender identity? How many genders did you say? Two, four, 50 or, if we’re in Great Britain, they’ve found 100!

WHEREAS, Practices or therapies that attempt to create a change in a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often referred to as conversion therapy. I’ll let that go, that’s at least accurate.

WHEREAS, Some family, caregivers, and communities promote conversion therapy when a person is known or thought to be LGBTQ. Isn’t it true that most conversion therapy is sought by the patients themselves? It’s a little difficult to do “therapy” involuntarily.

WHEREAS, California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful. Sez you? Some people have benefited. Can you back up such a generalization? Unethical, according to whom?

WHEREAS, Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States. Which ones specifically? “Leading?” Led by whom?

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals. Perhaps you have cause and effect reversed. What if those emotional problems were the result of the lifestyle itself, or the emotional problems that were already there fostered the sexual behavior? Can’t be, right? It’s the therapists and religious groups. So tell me, are all the LGBTQ people happy and well adjusted now that they have the power? I’d like to know.

WHEREAS, The State of California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including LGBTQ youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by family rejection and attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity. “serious harms caused by family rejection.” Now we’re getting into some pretty intrusive territory. Are you setting the table for direct government intervention in families? What Constitution gives any branch or level of government the authority to “protect the psychological well-being” of anyone?

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities. What does that mean? Reads like you’re telling churches what their responsibilities are.

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance. We’re only suggesting what the family and “community” (whom? Probably the church.) should do—voluntarily. We don’t yet have the power to compel, yet.

Be it further Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy. Yep, this is a more clear step in the slithering under the tentflap. “LGBTQ matters?” Has sexual preference now become a legislative priority? Hey, I thought you L’s and G’s always said, “keep the government out of my bedroom.”

Be it further Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state. Just wait until you bigots don’t follow our call.

It did not require Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) signature because it has no legal force. Republican state Sen. Andreas Borgea said, “When an individual seeks therapy or guidance before a religious leader, whether it be a mosque, a temple, or a church, that’s a private setting. … To disallow or create the pathway where we tell individuals they cannot say certain things should give us pause.

Indeed, Greg Burt of the California Family Council told the Epoch TimesWe believe in free speech. They [the legislators] have every right to criticize our position, but the state government does not have the right to use its power to coerce us to change. And that’s where we believe this resolution is heading.”. I say amen. I wonder if the free speech ship has already sailed.

Now let’s be clear about the implications. I am not criticizing LGBTQ people per se, rather an agenda which is not about respect for their sexuality, but is part of a much larger agenda to replace all vestiges of norms and standards with the tenets of critical theory. C.T. posits that humanity is composed of two groups only—the oppressed and the oppressors. The latter group exercises what C.T. calls hegemonic power—the power to shape and enforce norms, standards and expectations of the culture. The former group consists of anyone who is perceived as not having the power to do that, and the solution is liberation, which consists of destroying the dominant group and replacing it with….that’s the problem, what? I go into a lot more detail in my post “Where have all the Communists gone.” But for my purpose here, understand that non-heteronormative sexuality places them in the category of oppressed. Make no mistake, be not naive, this Resolution 99 IS a powerful salvo against the idea of cultural norms, and specifically against Judeo-Christian norms. It will not stop here.

Hooray for genderless penguins.

Paul McHugh, professor and psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins University, has condemned the act of allowing children to transition from one gender to another. McHugh told the College Fix that there will likely be long-term negative implications for those children who are permitted to engage in such medical treatments. “I think their mental problems, often depression, discouragement, are the things that need treatment,” he said. “I’m not positive about this. It’s a hypothesis, but it is a very plausible hypothesis, and it would explain why many of the people who go on to have treatment of their body discover they are just as depressed, discouraged, and live just as problematic lives as they did before because they did not address the primary problem.” I have been saying the same thing since the transgender-gender dysphoria mess appeared. How paradoxical is it, that postmodern western cultures, which turn every sin or failure of moral courage, into a psychological syndrome, turn gender confusion, which really is psychological, into a pseudoscience, with surgery the solution? I do take issue with his use of the term, “transition”, as in one gender to another. Hormones and surgery don’t transition, they merely change the outward appearance. A man and a woman are the sex they are in every cell. Altering the outward appearance doesn’t change that reality.

McHugh said that he is not optimistic about children “transitioning” at young ages, especially when coupled with hormone treatment therapies. “They’re going to be in the hands of doctors for the rest of their lives, many of them are going to be sterilized and not able to have their own children, and many will regret this,” he explained. “Can you imagine having a life where you need to seek doctors all the time, for everything, just to live?” he asked. “Getting your hormones checked, getting everything checked. That is something doctors should like to spare people of.” McHugh went on to point out a correlation between how people feel about transgenderism and how they look at eugenics. Did eugenics ever become this political and public?

Out Magazine blares the headline, “This Lesbian Penguin Couple Is Raising a ‘Genderless’ Chick.” The Sea Life London Aquarium has announced that a penguin chick raised by two female birds will not be assigned a gender-based name. Same-sex couple Rocky and Marama have raised the chick, now four months old, after its birth mother was overwhelmed by multiple eggs. The two adoptive parents have been together for about five years. Marama, the older of the two, has been more protective of the chick, while Rocky has been eagerly adventuring, showing it around the aquarium.

In a statement, the aquarium calls the newborn the first in its history “not to be characterized as male or female.” As juveniles, male and female penguins are treated identically by Sea Life, and so this one will not be assigned a gendered name or color-coded tag before displaying relevant behaviors. This is also true of the wild, where penguins do not adopt gendered names or dress in gendered colors. Those are conventions used only by humans. “It is completely natural for penguins to develop genderless identities as they grow into mature adults,” General Manager Graham McGrath adds in the press release. Earlier this month, two male penguins in Berlin hatched an egg, but sadly it was not fertilized and there was no chick for them to raise. The gender-neutral chick in London will presumably mature along one of two physiological paths and may eventually engage in breeding. But until then, it will be allowed to grow up as it naturally would in the wild — without any baggage of human gender imposed.

Let’s examine the underlined words and phrases in those two paragraphs, to better understand the presuppositions or confusion underlying the article. “Will not be assigned a gender-based name” and “not to be characterized as male or female” By whom, the penguins? I doubt the penguins even answer or respond to their assigned names Rocky and Marama. Obviously, it’s the aquarium staff that does the assigning. What exactly do they intend to accomplish by not assigning a name? The birds don’t care, they don’t even know they have names, and since the headline blares they are “lesbians”, thus presumably female, they’ve already struck a blow against the LGBTQ cause, by calling one of them Rocky, a male-gendered name. I guess Rocky’s the butch, and Marama the fem, or, if the staff married them already, the husband and wife. Then the writers slip by introducing the term “relevant behaviors”, which means either male or female behaviors. Isn’t this gender roles? But I thought such ideas were anachronistic. At any rate, Rocky is “eagerly” showing the chick around. Pardon me, how does one know that a penguin is eager, do their expressions change? How does a penguin “show” the chick, carry it under a flipper?

Then there’s the issue of penguins not “adopting gendered names or dress in gendered colors.” Are we still talking about birds, which as far as I know, neither adopt any kind of name nor dress in any fashion other than their natural tuxedo? Or have we entered an alternate universe where penguins develop “identities” and “carry around baggage because some human imposed a gender on them?” Alas, unlike humans who, according to the more extreme transgender activists, can somehow get pregnant without a uterus or fertilization, the two German male penguins could hatch an egg (not lay one, but rather try to get a laid egg to hatch), but couldn’t figure out how to fertilize it. Hint boys: You need to fertilize the egg while it’s in the female, thus you need a female.

I hope that by now, you realize that Out Magazine is not your typical, mainstream publication, but rather one of the flagship ragsmags of the LGBTQ juggernaut. This is the only article I have read in this mag, and only because it was linked to another that was mocking it. It just occurred to me to wonder, how do the editors know that Rocky and Marama are lesbians? Can’t a couple of girls co-parent without being sex objects? Seems misogynistic if you ask me…..not that there’s anything wrong with that (if you’re not a Seinfeld fan, don’t ask me to explain).