John C. Wright's Journal » John C. Wright's Journal http://www.scifiwright.com Fancies, Drollery and Fiction from honorary Houyhnhnm and antic Science Fiction Writer John C. Wright Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:00:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0 A Parcel of Their Fortunes http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/a-parcel-of-their-fortunes/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/a-parcel-of-their-fortunes/#comments Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:00:33 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12600

Men’s judgments  are
A parcel of their fortunes; and things outward
Do draw the inward quality after them,
To suffer all alike.

–Antony and Cleopatra. Act iii. Sc. 13.

I want to draw something to your attention, my dear reader. I want you to do me a favor, and think. Think very carefully and very clearly. If you have an immediate emotional reaction, put the emotion aside and just concentrate on your facilities rationality, of judgement, of fairplay, of common sense.

The following clip was aired not on some webcast unseen by anyone, but by CNN, one of the most famed and prestigious of news media outlets. Ponder that for a moment. This does not represent the fringe, but the mainstream.

It is not unrehearsed, not ad lib. Someone wrote the lines for the newscaster, and placed them in the teleprompter. This is not one woman’s opinion, but the corporate opinion of CNN.

I have taken the trouble of finding the transcript, to make what is being said crystal clear. There is no room for evasion here, no place to hide, unless you yourself, my reader, create a hiding place in your head and use some unseemly excuse to distract yourself from the plain fact, to shift the blame, or drown out what your eyes and mind are telling you.

Look! Look at it!

CAROL COSTELLO, CNN: OK, I’m just going to come right out and say it. This is quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across. Well, come across in a long time anyway. A massive brawl in Anchorage, Alaska, reportedly involving Sarah Palin’s kids and her husband. It was sparked after someone pushed one of her daughters at a party. That’s what Bristol Palin told police in an interview after the incident. And now police have released audio of that interview. It does include some rather colorful language from Bristol. Here now is Bristol’s recollection of how that night unfolded. So sit back and enjoy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COP: Tell me what happened.

BRISTOL PALIN: My little sister comes over to me and says some old lady just (EXPLETIVE DELETED) pushed me. She just hit me.

COP: OK.

PALIN: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) no one’s going to touch my sister.

COP: Where was this at?

PALIN: So we were in a limo. I walked back up, did you push my sister, and some guy gets in my face, pushes me down on the grass, drags me across the grass. I’m like you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED), you (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I get back up and he pushes me down on the grass again and pulls me by the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) feet. And he’s the one that’s leaving (ph). And I have my five-year-old. They took my $300 sunglasses. They took my (EXPLETIVE DELETED) shoes. And I’m (EXPLETIVE DELETED) just left here?

COP: OK. Where are you injured at?

PALIN: My (EXPLETIVE DELETED) knees, my face, where is my (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I have a five-year-old in the car.

COP: Where was the limo at when your sister came and got you?

PALIN: It was here.

COP: So your sister came down and got you from the limo that was parked right here?

PALIN: Yes.

COP: You went back up to the house.

PALIN: I was closer to the house. Yes.

COP: OK. And when you got up there, you approached the 60-year-old —

PALIN: I don’t know how old she was.

COP: OK. An older lady.

PALIN: Some lady we gray hair —

COP: OK.

PALIN: Who wants to push my little — my 20-year-old sister.

COP: OK.

PALIN: I’m going to defend my sister. She’s 20-years-old.

COP: And then a guy came out of nowhere and pushed you to the ground?

PALIN: A guy comes out of nowhere and pushes me on the ground, takes me by my feet and my dress, in my thong dress in front of everybody, come on you (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Come on you (EXPLETIVE DELETED) here. I don’t know this guy. I’ve never seen this guy in my life. (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

SARAH PALIN: That’s what I don’t get. Why do these bad guys get to drive right on by (INAUDIBLE).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COSTELLO: I think that long bleep was my favorite part. We should point out that no charges were filed in this incident and in a September 19th Facebook post, Sarah Palin defended her daughter, writing part — writing in part, quote, “I love my Bristol. I have to say, this is a proud mama. My kids’ defense of my family makes my heart soar.” You can thank me later.

Now, notice several things. Costello calls this the best audio clip they’ve ever aired. Why?

This comment in introduced by the remark ‘I’ll just come out and say it’ implying that is it something she expect other folk, perhaps her company, perhaps her audience, perhaps all like minded souls, to believe and to think but not be willing to say.

Costello calls the event a brawl, indeed, a massive brawl, rather than a mugging, and assault, a theft, a battery, a man beating up a woman, or a woman being dragged across the lawn, beaten and robbed before the eyes of her daughter. Again, why? Why use that phrase, “a brawl” rather than a more accurate or more neutral term? Keep in mind that this is news, or pretends to be, and so the words used to convey a certain impression are selected carefully. What is the word ‘brawl’ likely to imply to the average viewer, that the word ‘beating’ or some other, more accurate term, would not? A brawl implies two parties of equal strength in a wild and violent slugging match, perhaps while drunk. It implies something more lighthearted than a man beating down a woman and robbing her.

Costello says that someone pushed young Miss Palin, and that this started it. But the testimony on the tape does not bear that out. The sentence reads “My little sister comes over to me and says some old lady just (EXPLETIVE DELETED) pushed me. She just hit me.” So the altercation was started by someone punching the little sister.

Why would the creature introduce the tape by saying someone pushed the sister rather than, as any normal newsman would have done, someone punched the sister? There was evidently both a push and a punch. As an old newsman myself, someone pushes someone is not a story, but someone punches someone is a story. Why the misleading into?

The misleading intro is mean to mislead, that is all. It is a simple fact of psychology that when you say, “I am going to show you X” and then you see both X and Y, later your will most likely remember X, because it was emphasized, and not Y, which was not.

And why do that? The motive again is not hard to guess. Someone pushing someone so that the comical Miss Palin goes and starts a ‘brawl’ leaves the viewer with a different impression, the impression of a lighthearted schoolyard tussle, whereas calling it what it is, a sister attempting to defend her sister from assault, sounds more grave and serious, and even brave.

When she goes to confront the assaulter, Miss Palin does not swing a punch, according to the testimony on the tape, but she is instead assaulted by a stranger, a man.

She is knocked to the ground twice, dragged by her feet, has her sunglasses and necklace stolen, and the attacker walks away with none to stop him.

Finally, the creature introduces this by calling Miss Palin’s language ‘rather colorful’. This is a snide way of putting it, but I notice most of the swearwords are her quoting her attacker.

Costello says delights in the long bleep, which she describes as ‘her favorite part.’ It is her favorite part, why? For what reason? The purpose of swearwords is to blacken the character and demean both those who speak them and those who hear them. The point of foul language is to be foul. We tend to think such language excusable in emergencies or moments of high emotion, but they still are demeaning. So the creature is expressing not merely pleasure, but delight at seeing an innocent woman demeaned.

Who is this women? She is the daughter of the Vice Presidential nomination running some years ago. The press at that time did all that was humanly and diabolically possible to demean, humiliate, vilify, and demonize Sarah Palin, so much so that I once overheard Michael Swanwick and Connie Willis chortling and chuckling over slandering Mrs Palin, with the same dronelike uniformity of thought George Orwell depicted as being directed against Emmanuel Goldstein during the organized Two Minute Hate.

Now, Costello ends with ‘You can thank me later’ a cattish and personal remark, a personal insult, a personal attack, and sneer and a jibe directed at Palin. Costello is laughing at the pain and humiliation the assault inflicted on Palin’s daughter.

Costello expresses no sympathy, no concern, no mention of the five year old in the car who had no doubt witnessed all this.

Costello likes the idea of women being beaten by men. She likes the idea of mothers being beating in front of the eyes of their daughters. She like pain inflicted on the weak.

Imagine it had been Chelsey Clinton. Imagine these two had been the daughters of Barack Obama.

Imagine it was your daughter. What is it called when a national figure on the national news jibs and laughs and sneers and mocks at your daughter being hurt.

I asked you, reader, to be as honest and logical and clearminded as possible, and not to flinch from the conclusion. What is the conclusion?

What is it called when one takes not just pleasure but delight, vaunting, elevated, lingering delight, at seeing or hearing pain inflicted on the weak? Pain and humiliation?

Saddam, so it is reported, would have women raped before the husbands, or parents tortured and murdered before their children. Saddam was someone the press, with one voice, rose up to defend, to apologize for, to excuse, to justify, and they called Mr Bush, who was Commander in Chief of the war against Saddam, a criminal and they called him many worse names, and some of them fantasized openly about assassinating him.

The conclusion that Costello merely suffered a lapse of courtesy and fairness is not tenable. That cannot explain the several factors I have assiduously underlined in the evidence we have examined. Costello spoke her words to create an effect in the audience and this was done with the aid and at the direction of her superiors at CNN, and with the cooperation of other employees — there is no mention, for example, of a disgusted cameraman walking off the job, much less all of them, which is the normal thing I would have normally expected from normal men.

What effect? Obviously she fully expected the majority of her viewing audience to share in the same state of mind, and take the same pleasure she took, in the beating of Miss Palin.

What is that called? What is the name for that state of mind?

If the question does not bring an answer immediately to the forefront, allow me to remind you of the general character of the political Left. I quote here from Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn.

the
history of the Revolution is a nauseating mixture of idealistic verbiage, of treachery and intrigue, of sentimental incantations and senseless butcheries, of envy and outbursts of sadism.

The colonnes infernales of the revolutionary army under General Turreau massacred the population of entire villages in the Vendee and eastern Brittany. As during
the Soviet occupation of Eastern Germany and Austria, women and girls of all ages were raped, from three- and four-year-olds to tottering matrons.

The republican regional governor, President Cholet, wrote to Turreau that his soldiers committed horrors of which not even cannibals would be capable. Some of the worst cruelties were committed after Le Mans fell into the hands of the Republicans, who murdered all the wounded counterrevolutionaries in the military hospitals. Almost everyone who had not fled was butchered. The women and girls were undressed, raped, slain, and finally placed together with naked male corpses in obscene positions-scenes which General Turreau perhaps failed to notice in his official promenades (as he called them).

These slaughters were also designed to reduce the grande armee de bouches inutiles. The Noyades in the Loire were nauseating beyond description and had a homosexual character.

These nightmarish horrors were repeated in Arras, where the guillotine was placed in front of the theater from whose balcony the revolutionary leader Lebon and his dear wife could watch the spectacle.

After a very arduous day with a big crop, the executioners amused themselves by imitating the batteries nationales of Le Mans, they denuded the decapitated corpses of both sexes, mixing the macabre with the lascivious.

That is the character of the Left. You see it online every day in the foulness that clogs the comments section of half the pages you view, or more. You see their character in the headlines, in the lies, in the counterproductive attempts to cover over those lies. You hear it in their voices when they talk about ‘White Privilege’ and ‘Patriarchy’ and when they get their little girls to use swearwords to tell T-shirts in adds, and when they call the people killed in the World Trade Center attack ‘”little Eichmanns”. You see it when they assign Howard Zinn as reading his history class rather then creative writing, that same Zinn whose introduction to his book says that objectivity in science is neither possible nor desirable. You see it in the book by Saul Alinsky, Obama’s mentor and guide, when he dedicates his book to that first of radical rebels, Satan.

You see it when the press and the president side with a thug and a strong-arm robber over a police officer, who shot the thug in self defense, whereupon the administration, using the governmental power the people by their votes placed in his hands, to stir up violence, call for riots, and hope the riots would energize the Black Vote in the coming midterm elections. You see it when conservative speakers are driven off campuses but cop-killers invited to give the commencement address, or mad bombers given tenure.

You saw it when jackbooted thugs pointed at gun at Elian Gonzales, whose mother died bringing him across the sea to the shores of freedom, only to have the Left rise as one, smirking, and throw him back again.

You saw it when Terri Schiavo was slowly, ever so slowly, with lingering torment, starved and dehydrated to death, not even shown the mercy one would show a mad dog by a swift bullet to the brain. And her parents were allowed to do nothing.

You saw it in the film clip Silent Scream, if your stomach could stand it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gON-8PP6zgQ This, this horror, is what all the Left regards as so sacred that even for Catholics to say they do not want to fund mothers slaying the unborn is called a War on Women.

When you saw the heads of reporters sawed off by knives in the hands of Jihadists shrieking their war slogans to Allah, you hear the voices on the Left, one and all, saying that this did not represent real Islam, that Islam is not the problem, that Jihad means only an Inner Struggle, that Islam is the Religion of Peace.

And when a security detail was assigned to Michele Bachmann, due to threats from Jihadists, comments left from readers on the Huffington Post article rejoiced in the threats, and wished her to be decapitated.

Can you imagine anyone, even the most ardent opponent of FDR, wishing that the wheelchair-bound cripple would be captured by Nazis and burned in an oven, during World War Two? No conservative would make such a joke. We do not have this thing, this character, which runs through the mainstream of the Left and defines their view of the world.

You know what I am talking about. You’ve see it. If you ever had a boss or coworker sent to a multiweek ‘charm school’ called sensitivity training for some innocuous courtesy to a shrewish woman, you’ve seen it, because the current Leftist laws put the boss or coworker in a position of powerlessness when it comes to certain types of accusation. And what is it called when one takes joy on inflicting pain on the powerless?

You see it when the office of the president is used to destroy the life and reputation of a young girl who committed adultery with the President in a particularly humiliating unnatural act. Or the another president uses his office to stir up a lynch mob against the community watch member who shot a crook in self defense, whereupon the president says the crook looked like his son would look, had he one. These civilians have no money, no power, no megaphone, and no crooked Justice Department at their beck and call. They are like fish in a toilet facing a man with a shotgun.

What is it? What is the state of mind which throws away law and order, honesty, objectivity, decency, and sanity, in order to hurt someone, to hurt those who cannot fight back, to hurt the weak?

Two men in a knife fight, if they are equally matched, their state of mind might be called bloodlust or battle lust.

But if you enjoy sticking the knife in the heart of someone tied helplessly to the table, tied and gagged, unable to answer, unable to reply, unable to utter a word of defense, what is that called?

And if, instead of a quick and merciful jab, you delight in twisting the knife slowly in the wounds with many shallow cuts and flourishes and lingering pauses … what is that called?

That is the core of the Democrat Party. The is the heart of Leftism.

It was at the heart of the French Revolution and their guillotines, and at the core of the Russian revolution with their gulags.

It is why they hate success, hate masculine men and feminine women, and why they hate unborn babies most of all, with a driving, blinding, passionate hatred that overpowers all other instincts and human emotions.

What is it?

I think you know the answer, reader. I think you know.

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/a-parcel-of-their-fortunes/feed/ 0
Feminism Sinks to a New Low http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/feminism-sinks-to-a-new-low/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/feminism-sinks-to-a-new-low/#comments Sat, 25 Oct 2014 02:21:49 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12597 A comment by Jonah Goldberg, which represents my sentiments so exactly that I have nothing to add:

I know that sounds impossible, but I think it just may be true. I won’t embed the video, but you can find it here at Mediaite along with a fuller write-up. Someone thought it’d be really funny/bold/transgressive to dress a whole bunch of little girls as princesses and then have them shout feminist-approved slogans and lots and lots of f-bombs. I could rant for a while about the rich cocktail of stupidity and creepiness of all this, but it really speaks for itself.  And, besides, that’s what they’re going for. I will say that the parents of these little girls should be ashamed of themselves.

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/feminism-sinks-to-a-new-low/feed/ 12
Global Warming Hoax Finally Declared Dead http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/global-warming-hoax-finally-declared-dead/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/global-warming-hoax-finally-declared-dead/#comments Fri, 24 Oct 2014 19:07:23 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12594 If the founder of the Weather Channel has no right to say this, no one does:

John Coleman, the founder of Weather Channel, has written an open letter to UCLA, in which he claims the theory of anthropogenic climate change is no longer scientifically credible.  The full text of the letter is as follows:
_______________________________________

Dear UCLA Hammer Forum officials,

There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed. There has been no warming over 18 years. William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.

Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present the failed science as though it is the final and complete story on global warming/climate change. This is major mistake.

I urge you to re-examine your plan. It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing). I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid.

I am the founder of The Weather Channel and a winner of the American Meteorological Society honor as Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year. I am not a wacko flat Earther. Nor am I a “paid shill” (as has been claimed) of the Koch Brothers. I am a serious Professional. I am strongly urging you to reconsider your plan.

I can be reached at xxx-xxxx (redacted) and will be pleased the discuss this matter with you and answer questions. I will be happy to provide links to all of the points I have made in this email. As a quick scientific reference you may wish to look at the website of the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change. http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

My best regards,
John Coleman

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/global-warming-hoax-finally-declared-dead/feed/ 7
Saluting Gamergate http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/saluting-gamergate/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/saluting-gamergate/#comments Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:55:02 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12589 An exchange concerning Gamergate seen over at VoxDay’s website, I thought I must share. A comment was posted by one AESchool supporting Antigamergate:

The discussion has gone well beyond [Anita Sarkeesian] and her agenda. It’s well out of her hands. But her work is done here…just look around at the media coverage. It’s not very kind to the GG crew. She won. The reason we know is that she could bow out right now and her agenda would continue on.

Prompting this comment from cailcorishev:

And in the TV era, the media coverage is all that matters, and since you’ve owned that, you’ve always won, right?

So what happens if that chain breaks? What happens if you take on a group of people and then find out they can’t be shamed by your media?

Prompting this counter from AESchool:

It’s a case of the bubble you live in just becoming a tiny bit bigger. That’s all.

If you don’t think culture is changed by media, ask yourself why the anti-gay contingent in the U.S. is so much smaller today. Ask yourself why blatant racism is no longer casually accepted today. Ask yourself why President Obama is president today. Ask yourself society is no longer based on patriarchy. Ask yourself America is much less stridently religious today.

The tiny gang behind GamerGate is so outmatched it’s not even worth trying to measure. What I’m finding interesting is watching the dynamic play out that motivates the GamerGate people to declare they are winning. That’s the interesting part.

However, please note that the Morlock admits something Brietbart used to say, and which I repeat: the Media is the enemy.  The press and the entertainment industry is where we must carry the fight. We must supervert, if I may use that term, what they have subverted.

The above prompted this reply, adroit and clear, and the comment I wanted to emphasize and underscore was from Jack Amok:

It’s funny to read leftists like this AESchool troll. They think they are the inevitable victors, but they don’t realize how fragile the castle they’ve build really is. Their victories are those of bullies with time on their hands to harass and vandalize people who can’t spend all day defending themselves. Nobody respects them. Nobody likes them. Nobody thinks they ought to be making decisions or be given much of a voice on any substantive matter. They’re only allowed to do what they do because people with jobs and lives and responsibilities are unwilling to risk all that against the howling mob, so people duck their heads and try not to be noticed.

One crack that erodes their ability to siphon resources, and suddenly they don’t have the time to target and harass. One successful Black Knighting operation and suddenly they don’t have quite the number of vocal foot soldiers, as their side starts to ponder the costs of being visible, of being a target.

Because nobody likes them. Nobody respects them. Nobody – not even their own side – trusts them. And many hate them, despise them. They have squandered all their goodwill, they have no reserves of social capital to draw on if they suffer a reverse.

And so it’s all very fragile. One crack, one demonstration of weakness, of the inability to hurt someone who stands up to them, and it can all crumble. The whole, rotten, Potemkin façade, steam-rolled to dust in a frenzy of pissed-off retribution. Or, maybe just shrugged off and ignored as irrelevant to a society trying to feed itself and fight off the banditos and jihadis.

One crack that they can’t contain and they’re toast. Which is why they’re so afraid of #GamerGate. When you rule your empire as a Mafioso, you can’t afford to ever lose.

But sooner or later, everybody does lose. Nobody can win forever, and they’ve set themselves up to be slaughtered when they do lose.

B0uLVSsCcAA-8dF.png large

My comment: bravo, Jack Amok, whoever you are.

You are more optimistic than I, since I believe no crack and no slaughter can deter them. They are true believers and fanatics, as devout in the spiritual realm as their twin brothers, the Jihadists, are in the physical realm, and as willing to ruin their careers as Jihadists are willing to end their lives. Both are willing to make shattering self sacrifices, any sacrifices, and ignite a bomb strapped to themselves, just in the hopes that the shrapnel with hurt some of women and children standing innocently nearby. They don’t want to live; they want you to die.

The wording of the Morlock has a distinctly triumphalist note. I am reminded of Baghdad Bob announcing the glorious victory of the glorious leader, Saddam, while American tanks are in the camera view in the background.

Speaking of background, after an extensive internet search, I found nothing but a continuous stream of Leftwing agitprop articles on the point, as repetitive as the chatter of talking magpies, so I cannot even discover the basic facts to my satisfaction. But I am an old hand at the newspaper business, and I know lies when I see them.

So AESchool is entirely right about the media coverage: The electronic world has been flooded with their agitation propaganda.

I am woefully ill informed about this particular kerfuffle, but I must say, that I declare my alliance, allegiance, fealty and sacred honor to the cause of Gamergate, whoever they are, merely on the point of how dishonorable, how utterly dishonest and despicable, their opposition is.

I look with eyes of envy at the gaming world, which had the manly fortitude to resist this influx of self-righteous would-be Grand Inquisitors, Thought Police, and Hall Monitors of the Established and Imperial Church of Leftwing Pervertarianism into their midst.

My world, the SFWA, caved with nary a word into the maw of these vapid moral troglodytes, and immediately abolished science fiction from the science fiction world, replacing it with dino-porn, race-baiting, wereseals, lynch mob slogans, homosex agitprop, blasphemy, christophobia, flag-trampling, and dreary lectures supporting their particular brand of mental and moral corruption.

The spark that started it all was some harlot copulating energetically with gaming-review writers in return for favorable reviews and publicity. When the corruption and harlotry was made public, the Leftwing media immediately closed ranks, as they did with President Clinton under similar circumstances, and, unable to defend the adultery-for-favors, merely accused all and sundry of witchcraft, consorting with demons, sodomy, causing storms, and blighting crops and cattle, poisoning wells, and kidnapping children to grind their bones into their bread in their impious and dark rites to glorify Moloch.

No, I am sorry, the Left is in favor of all of those things, and, like the Witches, think they can control the weather with politics. At the moment, it is only unborn children they murder for the greater glory of Moloch.

What they accused Gamergaters of was crimethink, other crimthinks, being mean, making death threats, and making rape threats to a freakshow castrato who dresses in woman’s clothing.  There are sufficient suspicious circumstances to indicate the death threats were self-imposed, and anyone with a passing knowledge of modern journalism recalls how often Leftists have made such false threats in the past.

Odd indeed that after decades of demeaning, debasing, and undermining all standards of courtesy, decency, and politeness, the Left now objects to rude and uncouth behavior, and faints as readily as a Victorian matron. But at the same time, the Left has successfully horsewhipped all gentlemen and traces of gentle behavior out of the public square, so I do not know whom the fainting matrons expect will catch them when they faint, as opposed to stare, blank eyed, at the old crazy lady pretending to swoon, and now lying in the dirt.

* * *

ADDENDUM:

Keep in mind, the antigamergate crowd are people who spend their time complaining about the lack of homosexual and transgendered characters one can play in first person shooter games, or complain about the fact that Princess Peach gets kidnapped by Donkey Kong.

Let us not assume a person making such a complaint is is sane.

He is not. He is impersonating what he knows or should know is an insane behavior, that is, he is attributing to an utterly innocent behavior (game writing) the most evil behavior he can imagine (racism, sexism, bigotry) and he is deliberately pretending to be insulted when no insult is intended nor imaginable.

Why he does this is at once both obscure and utterly clear. He clearly wants the unearned moral superiority of claiming to be a victim, despite that no one has victimized him. He cannot do this with a sane complaint, so he voices an insane complaint.

I assume that, at first, he knows it is insane, but that knowledge shrinks and dies as his conscience and his sanity dies. He pretends and pretends until his ability to tell the difference between pretend and reality. At that point, he had played make believe at being insane until the make believe becomes real.

So much is clear. What is obscure is why he adopts a set of beliefs which poison normal human relations, increase his misery, make him think the hands of all men are against him, render him unable to enjoy the games he likes.

Unless you believe in devils, I do not know how you can explain this behavior.

 

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/saluting-gamergate/feed/ 89
Gamer Credentials http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamer-credentials/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamer-credentials/#comments Fri, 24 Oct 2014 10:00:46 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12570 In the interests of full disclosure regards the Gamergate scandals, I should mention that the only games I have ever played are, obsessively, the long lost and dolorously lamented City of Heroes; I played DC Universe Online briefly, as an insufficient rebound-substitute for City of Heroes when it folded; Doom and its sequels, and, very briefly, despite my bone fides as a macho misogynist, the saccharine-sweet and slyly pro-gay yet strangely obsession-inducing Long Live the Queen. Darn! I should not have eaten the chocolates! Next time I must study history and magic while in a woeful yet obedient mood!

city-of-heroes-image1DC-Universe-Online-678 doomlltq

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamer-credentials/feed/ 16
Gamergate and Morlockery http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamergate-and-morlockery/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamergate-and-morlockery/#comments Thu, 23 Oct 2014 14:47:47 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12564 This is not my world; I know nothing of it and have no curiosity about it.

But I recognize the spoor and fewmets of the Morlocks, who are the same in the Gamer world as they are in the Science Fiction world, in law, in journalism, and in academia, which are worlds of mine where I know the landscape, each rock and tree.

For those of you not familiar with my quirky personal jargon, those I call ‘Morlocks’ are the vehement and zealous evangelists of Political Correctness. Science anticipates that by the year AD 802701, they will devolve into the perfect expression of their philosophy, retreating from the abhorred sunlight into the sewers, chasms and crannies of troglodytes, and emerging only on moonless midnights to savage the weak, feasting on flesh and bathing in blood. However, in the current year, the Morlocks hide their true nature, but form the backbone of the press, the entertainment, academic and legal community, the political elite, and of the loudest voices on social media. 

Those of you who have taken pains never to understand what Political Correctness means, should be made aware: The Political Correctors have no defined cause or viewpoint to defend, but instead form a scattered mob or cloud gathered around the viewpoints they oppose: they are foes of the Church and friends to whatever can oppose or harm her, from Islam to New Age to Socialism to Gnosticism; they call all moral codes are relative, all aesthetic judgments subjective. They oppose chastity, romance, marriage, family life, as well as masculine and feminine roles. They despise Christendom with ghastly bigotry and hate Caucasians with appalling race-hatred. They support the inversion of all normal ethics, and the reversal of all the normal meanings of normal words.

In economics, they are socialist; in politics, totalitarian; in speech, Orwellian; in thought, nihilist; in psychopathology, they are sadists.

The Morlocks never seek to persuade but only to bully, browbeat, and (ironically) play the victim card. The method is called ‘White Blackmail’ where you use your opponent’s own moral scruples of courtesy and compassion against him, scruples who not only do not share, but mock. They never, ever debate an opponent, but only accuse, accuse, and accuse.

The accusations rarely are sensible or proportionate, but, instead, the accusations form the script of the Two Minute Hate.

In sum, the even the girls of our side talk like gentlemen: honest, straightforward, bold, rational, humble, honorable. Their side, even the men talk like mean girls, termagants and slatterns: simpering and sniping by turns, self-righteous, sarcastic, backbiting, craven, arch, vain, venomous, vicious, vacuous.

One Mangotron, assuming an admirable stance of reconciliation and neutrality, posted an article interviewing a Gamergate and a Morlock. Mangotron, however, pulled the article, citing that Gamergate partisans had publicized his name and address on Twitter, causing him fear for his own safety.

This is a shame, because the difference between the two interviewees could not be more clear. I do not know what criteria were used to select the interviewees, but unless Magnotron went out of his way to select the most coherent and polite Gamergater and the most morlockian of Morlocks, the difference is damning.

As a public service, so that it not fade from the memory of my readers, I post the whole thing here, without comment. The thing speaks for itself louder than trumpets.

Pro Vs Anti GamerGate – Two Interviews

 Mangotron believes in peace and love between all. It does not promote aggression or hatred. It also believes in diplomatic solutions. Maybe the following two interviews can encourage compassion and a better understanding between the two sides.

Pro GamerGate

Liz is a well respected voice within GamerGate. Here’s her interview.
1) What is GameGate to you?
Gamergate is, very plainly, a call for transparency and fairness in journalism. It should be required in every facet of journalism, yet you will see it is enforced less the farther away from main stream media you get. It is impossible to be an unbiased journalist. We don’t expect someone to be unbiased – we are all human, capable of independent thought. We do expect people in positions of influence to put their bias aside in the interest of covering an issue fairly. In the event there is a personal or financial conflict of interest which could call the ability to cover something fairly into question, that should be disclosed.
2) What started GamerGate, in your view?
This is where people tend to get confused. Gamergate did in fact begin with the Zoe Post. A game developer’s ex boyfriend wrote a blog post detailing the end of his relationship, which had indications of being emotionally and mentally abusive. He outlined the infidelity of his girlfriend throughout the course of their relationship. Several of the names included in the post drew attention to a potential conflict of interest in gaming journalism. The issue here, is many people feel this was a reaction to a female developer having sex. In reality, the developer was a character backstory, and we were interested in the plot of the film.
When this was brought to light, two other undisclosed conflicts of interest were exposed at essentially the same point in time (Kotaku’s Patricia Hernandez and Polygon’s Ben Kuchera)
When we, as consumers, began questioning these conflicts, over a dozen articles declaring the “death of gamers” were published within 48 hours of one another, from competing sites, some more vitriolic than others.
Gamergate was described as misogynistic white men, and with the creation of Not Your Shield, sock puppets, by the people we were demanding answers from. What do you do when someone accuses you of something bad? You either admit you were wrong and fix it, or you accuse them of something worse.
3) What does GamerGate want to achieve, in your view?
Very simply, we want to see an ethics policy put into effect, similar to what we’ve seen recently from the Escapist. An article was written a little while ago, and it outlines everything so simply. How do you kill gamergate? 1. Adopt an ethics policy. 2. Adhere to it. I personally would add in 3. Don’t attack your consumers, but that’s just me personally.
4) Do you feel any part of GamerGate is about misogyny or anti-feminism?
I don’t believe the two to be similar. I personal identify as an egalitarian, not a feminist. The thing with Gamergate is you see feminists and non-feminists side by side, demanding ethical changes. What people don’t understand, is “feminism” is not synonymous with “women.” “Non-feminist” is not synonymous with “anti-woman.” Misogyny has become a grossly overused word. Disagreeing with a few women does not mean you hate or stereotype all women.
You will see bad apples in any group, especially one as large as Gamergate. However, the idea that Gamergate as a whole is a misogynistic ,movement is especially absurd, considering we helped to raise more than $70,000 for a feminist group, to aid women entering the gaming industry. The overwhelming majority of us are anti harassment. We call out all ugliness we see, and have reported plenty of “our own” simply because they have no place with us.
5) Do you feel any part of GamerGate promotes abusive behavior such as trolling and death threats?
We have been seeing many graphic threats aimed at both sides, and I suspect third parties of using the tension as a smokescreen for ugliness and hate. Every time I have seen a threat against either side, I report it, inform others, and they do the same.
For example, a gamergate supporter traced a recent threat against Anita Sarkeesian to a Brazilian blogger, and informed the authorities of his findings. Several nights ago, an anonymous party attempted to release a doxx (private information) of Zoe Quinn on 8chan. Hundreds of Gamergaters spammed the boards on 8chan (which recycle after a certain amount of posts) for hours in the middle of the night, preventing it from happening, until a moderator woke up.
The problem with anonymity on the internet, is anyone can post anything with a hashtag. Anyone can post on an anonymous board and claim to be whatever they choose. I don’t assume my death threats to be from someone anti-gamergate. I assume it to be from sick and twisted individuals.
6) What’s your opinion on the recent articles on gaming sites like Polygon about GamerGate?
I take issue with journalists relaying only one side of a story. Real journalistic integrity is not reporting some facts that support your bias, rather reporting all facts in spite of your bias. I do not want articles that are strictly from the gamergate point of view. I want balanced articles that fairly represent the facts, and interpretations of said facts, on both sides.
7) What else could the articles have mentioned?
I feel this is the same as above. The articles have all represented a single side of a conversation. I don’t like only reading my own opinions thrown back at me. I like reading balanced – and rational – points from all sides.
8) Are there any misconceptions Anti-GamerGate has about GamerGate?
Oh boy, yes! Mainly, that we’re all men, or “sockpuppets.” I’ve had to spend a large amount of time proving I even exist, only to be told I have “internalized misogyny.” I’m not going to lie, I’ve had death threats and vicious harassment, yet that probably hurts the most. I value diversity in opinions above all else – it’s how all great discoveries come to be – and yet I’ve constantly been told my voice is irrelevant because I dare to have an opinion opposite of what others think I should have. The same goes for all the women supporting gamergate. (Although, I’m not going to lie, it makes me a little sad that being male is enough of a reason for people to discount another person’s opinions)
9) Is there any chance of forgiving each other and moving on? We need more love in the world. Can’t we just hug it out?
I wish! While we will continue to fight for ethics in journalism, it would sure be nice to cut out all the rest of the drama. It’s not helping anyone. I value opposing opinions in life. I like being made to think about things in a different light. That can be done without assassinating anyone’s character.
And hugs are nice!
10) If Anti-GamerGate is willing to compromise, what would it take to bring about a resolution?
Changes to ethics policies, and adherence to these policies from the journalists. That’s really it!
I have no issue whatsoever with people who oppose gamergate who are not journalists. I respect and value their opinions, and their rights to freely express these opinions. But not if it involves unfairly attacking another person’s character. That’s not a productive environment for discussion.
11) What’s your message to Anti-GamerGate?
Talk to me. Talk to us. Keep an open mind. I’m not what you think I am. None of us are. You don’t have to agree with us, but you also don’t have to make assumptions about us. We really aren’t as different as you think.
12) If you had a chance to play any game with Anti-GamerGaters, what game would it be and why?
Street Fighter! I have no good or witty reason for this, other than Street Fighter being one of my favorite games.
Liz F – Twitter: @lizzyf620

Anti-GamerGate

Rex is outspokenly against GamerGate. Here’s his interview.
1) What is GamerGate to you?
An angry mob of paranoid reactionaries lashing out at a world they refuse to understand or sympathize with.
2) What started GamerGate, in your view?
The inciting incident for the explosion of anger culminates around Eron Gjoni’s blogpost about Zoe Quinn, and grew largely because the people who wanted to “discuss” the matter (read: calling her a whore predicated on baseless charges) felt disenfranchised when many websites, out of fear of contributing to a harassment campaign based on a singular rambling blogpost, refused to legitimize their desire to attack her.
This feeling of being put down by a nefarious force demanded, as paranoia does, a defined enemy, and so they reasoned themselves as the oppressed victims of “Social Justice Warriors,” for whom they all shared anger, and against whom they all banded together to wage war upon, and naturally, when you feel yourselves threatened on a battlefield, that’s where any behavior, no matter how viscious, becomes permissable. And from there, things sort of spiraled out into madness, particularly with Anita Sarkeesian’s “Tropes vs Women” video which came out shortly thereafter.
This sense of disenfranchisement further carries into the infamous “Gamers are Dead” articles (which, read correctly, are about dismantling the myth that all gamers fit a singular narrow stereotype) and the feeling that now they are not only under attack by the evil Feminazis, but by games journalism itself, and from here the conflic has only escalated.
As a footnote, it is commonly stated amongst Gamergaters, in the insistence that they can re-write their own unpleasant history a-la the Streisand Effect, that the articles are more of the initial incident than the Zoe Quinn debacle, which is why it bears acknowledging that the hashtag was created by movement hero Adam Baldwin in order to share the Internet Aristocrat’s video about Zoe Quinn, and appeared days before those articles were published.
3) What does GamerGate want to achieve, in your view?
Well, certainly there’s a more-than-insignificant contingent of it who seeks to legitimize an anti-woman agenda and cover for harassment of prominent women in Gaming such as Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Leigh Alexander, and the list goes on. Such people will claim Gamergate was never “about” these people (comically dehumanizing by referring to them as Literally Who #1-9, at last count) while still attacking them, not just with death threats as in the more notorious cases, but with insane accusations such as Zoe Quinn being guilty of murder, for instance. And this portion of Gamergate, it must tragically be acknowledged, has been the one actually getting things done.
However, being more charitable than Gamergate frankly deserves, what they say they’re about is ethics in Games Journalism, which, being concerned with myself, I can sympathize with the desire to discuss. The debate of how to pursue ethical practice in enthusiast media has been ever-ongoing, and in games media in particular for decades. The central question of how to balance necessity of access to games developers who would be incentivized to be more favorable to press outlets who reciprocated favors in kind is a pressing and pertinent one. What levels of disclosure are necessary to ensure fair and accurate reporting and review, what is and isn’t expected to be fair game for commentary, these are all relevant and worthy of discussion. That is why the discussion has existed as long as it has.
Gamergate, however, has demonstrated that they don’t want to participate in this discussion, they want to manipulate the terms of it. This isn’t about wanting games media to be “ethical,” it’s about wanting them under their control. They don’t see their preferred topics/viewpoints being given deference in modern games media (eg, Why is nobody reporting on Zoe Quinn’s sex life? Why aren’t they automatically doubting Anita Sarkeesian’s death threats? Why aren’t they all talking about how wonderful we are for starting a charity to combat the mountain of bad press we’ve gotten ourselves? CORRUPTION!) and through harassment of themselves and advertisers, have been using threats, both to life and revenue, to attempt to coerce games media to bow to their desires, all while never explicitly making clear what their desires are, or demonstrating an understanding of modern games media beyond declaring it evil.
Ignoring the abuse to come out of GG, ignoring the misogyny, ignoring the false claims of victimhood, the falsely invented scandals, and the literal nazis in their membership, this point is plain and bears repeating: Their idea of “ethical” journalism, is a model that caters to them out of fear. They don’t want non-biased, they want them-biased.
4) Do you feel GamerGate, or any part of it is about misogyny or anti-feminism?
This becomes a nebulous point of bickering. Attitudes towards feminism they by and large promulgate are what I would consider “anti-feminist” but, since they enjoy themselves to exclusively legitimize “equity feminism” as defined by Christina Hoff Sommers, they consider themselves more feminist than other feminists do. Appropriation of labels in a fight like this isn’t particularly helpful to either side, but suffice to say that I feel they stand in the way of what I would call positive feminist progress.
As far as misogyny, again you get this bizarre hair splitting of definitions where people can say they “love women” while still having views of their place in society that many, myself included, would consider regressive, so once again labels are difficult to apply meaningfully. Davis Aurini for instance was one of the major “heroes” of all this in the early days, largely for attacking Anita Sarkeesian. And for all that you can say he don’t hate women, when you declare “women in our culture have become the most decadent sluts since the fall of Rome,” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5vRKiQlUQ) it becomes difficult to see that mindset, and the people who actively promote it, as anything but misogynistic.
5) Do you feel GamerGate or any part of it promotes abusive behavior such as trolling and death threats?
The fact that they had to migrate from 4chan to 8chan speaks for itself. When your base of operations actively encourages doxxing and laughs about rape jokes, it becomes inevitable that someone will jokingly say, for instance, “Someone should rape that Anita bitch!” after which someone else will say to themselves, in all seriousness, “You know, maybe someone should.”
There’s also the fact that, as a vaguely defined movement, they’re more concerned with what I’ve heard themselves describe as “burning it all down” with regards to the current state of games journalism, and very very little about building it up. By their rhetoric and tactics they seem themselves more interested in destructive action rather than constructive, in declaring War against enemies on all sides rather than trying to find peace with a single one. And this kind of emotional battlefield can easily be the birthing ground of the violent paranoid reactionary.
I have no doubt there are many within GamerGate legitimately aghast at the abuse Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, etc. have been subject too, but when they actively pursue a home base where that kind of abuse is a natural byproduct, and a mindset where all they wish to do is cause suffering (physical or financial) to those who have wronged them, to declare themselves separate from the abuse they’re responsible for creating charitably reads as insincere.
6) What’s your opinion on the recent articles on gaming sites like Polygon about GamerGate?
I feel that on the one hand, it’s about damnable time major games media, developers, and organizations like the ESA began actively speaking out against the mess that GamerGate has become, and on the other, it’s easy to see their reticence for two months as tacit endorsement of the harassment that’s been carried out thus far. In a sense I’m inclined to be sympathetic to their desire not to get involved, not just for fear of their own personal safety and becoming a target of Gamergate, but perhaps out of that misguided, never-really-true rule of the schoolyard, “If you ignore the bullies, they’ll stop.” But in another it’s easy to perceive that as being cowed into silence and, ultimately, choosing to permit the harassment of Gamergate’s various victimized targets.
In the end, however, the saying holds true that “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” And in speaking out they’ve at least made their stand, however unfortunately belated it might be, and is ultimately a net positive.
7) What else could the articles have mentioned?
Many articles still are trying to have it both ways by declaring themselves above the fray entirely, and that’s frustrating. To make the lazy statement of any argument that “both sides have valid concerns but are drowned out by viciousness” does nothing to help aleviate the conflict, and only serves to permit such a commenter a feeling of superiority to an issue they can choose to be dismissive of, when others have their lives and livelihoods threatened. And condescension to victims of harassment as well as the sincerely involved and passionate is frankly stupid and insulting.
8) Are there any misconceptions GamerGate has about Anti-GamerGate?
I could list things I’ve been called which just don’t even make logical sense, like being told I’m “anti-ethics” and “pro-bullying” as though those are positions that any human actually identifies with, but I suspect the people levying such insults are doing so insincerely at any rate to “win” what passes for argument on twitter and internet forums.
I think the main misconception is that they’re fighting an organized enemy dedicated to destroying them and their worldview, when the simple fact is there isn’t any, nor should there be. People are fighting back because they’ve been attacked, or see themselves as targets of Gamergate. There is no organized, deliberate attempt to destroy them because, frankly, there doesn’t need to be one.
Honestly, I’m here ostensibly “representing the anti-Gamergate” side but there isn’t a singular side that they’re fighting against. They have no grand enemies, there is no war, and for their own good they need to quit with tilting at the windmills.
9) Is there any chance of forgiving each other and moving on? We need more love in the world. Can’t we just hug it out?
For many, no. Regrettably I have to say that of all the people within Gamergate with whom I have tried to engage honestly, I have only ended up disappointed to find, almost without exception, anger and hostility so deeply ingrained that I cannot imagine, in the current climate, human compassion overriding a need to attack declared enemies perceived as wicked beyond all redemption.
To those few others, I would love to be able to engage with as equals and have the discussions that need to be had. I would love to be able to debate whether, for example, Anita Sarkeesian is correct in how she’s pursuing her view of what modern feminism should be, whether the tropes she describes are inherently hurtful or merely are so by extension, and whether videos listing negative trope examples, while valid and important, are as useful to her cause as discussing positive examples might be. And regrettably, for as long as Gamergate continues, we cannot have that discussion, because we must instead treat as valid a debate on the merits of whether she deserves to be murdered.
10) If GamerGate is willing to compromise, what would it take to bring about a resolution?
Humility on their part. Their enemies have given them ground over and over again (Kotaku and Polygon revising ethics policies, The Escapist outright pandering to them, etc.), and their response has only been to become increasingly agitated and hostile as their sense of entitlement grows. They need to step back and see that, at the end of the day, game developers, games journalists, and all the other gamers they pretend themselves to speak for, all of us want a better games media, and hopefully to engage with the everlasting debate of how best to pursue that, rather than to try and dictate it.
11) What’s your message to GamerGate?
To those only ever truly interested in discussing games media ethics and can bring themselves to acknowledge and denounce the evil to have come out of Gamergate: Please see the truth for what it is, that games journalists can err without being villainous, and that there is no attempt to persecute you, and come, join in the continuing discussion without needing to bend it to your will.
To those actively engaged in continuing the mindset of insularity and outward hostility to critical and opposing viewpoints: You are only creating more problems than you are solving, and until you become aware of that the world will only continue to become a darker and less pleasant place for you moreso than you’re making it such for your targets.
To those using journalistic ethics as a cover for continuing to harass people who have committed no crime but demonstrating the irrelevancy of your worldview: Kindly seek psychological counseling for your impotent rage issues made manifest before you commit literal violence against someone.
12) If you had a chance to play any game with GamerGaters, what game would it be and why?
One Finger Death Punch. I just happen to like it and would like to share it’s praises with the world.
Rex Mundane – Twitter: @RexMundane
Disclaimer: Mangotron.com possesses a neutral stance. It is neither pro nor anti GamerGate. 
On a related note, here is Max Read of Gawker calling Gamergaters fascists (note: the favored swearword of the Morlocks since Hitler broke the Hitler-Stalin Pact). If you are from the gamer world, or someone interested in journalistic ethics, or even someone sick of the self-righteous self-parody of these screaming, poop-flinging Morlocks, here (h/t Vox Day) is a list of Gawker’s advertisers, with contact information. Please write and complain.
]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/gamergate-and-morlockery/feed/ 20
The Christian Magicians http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-christian-magicians/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-christian-magicians/#comments Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:00:05 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12562 L. Jagi Lamplighter over at Arhyelon pens a significant and seminal column on the point and the spirit of the Superversive literary movement.

The movement is about the magic of the sacred. We Christians are forbidden to monkey with occult things not merely because such things are snares for the unwary, but also because it is the Sin of Onan before the wedding night: the false thing blocks and forestalls the much richer and more glorious reality it mocks.

The Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time, the magic of the witch, is mysterious and majestic and surely the Sons of Adam have always lusted for such powers: yet we were meant for more, much more. The dreams of witches are small and shabby compared to the visions of prophets. We baptized Sons of God are meant for the Deeper Magic from Before the Dawn of Time.

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2014/10/22/superversive-literary-blog-deeper-magic-from-before-the-dawn-of-time/

 

For decades, there has been a large gap between traditional fantasy stories and Christian stories—fantastic or otherwise. This gap is growing smaller, especially with the existence of such things as Enclave Publishing, which specializes in Christian fantasy and science fiction. However, if the gap has been crossed successfully, more than possibly a few times, I have not yet heard about it.

What is this gap?

It is the gap between the wondrous and the pious.

The traditional fantasy stories include very little reference to Christianity. Many are overtly anti-Christian. The Christian stories, on the other hand, tend to be overtly pious, with no ambiguity or deviation from the particular strict doctrine.

I don’t know about you, but my life is not like that.

My life is more like being behind enemies lines. All around me is the secular world, filled with its terrors, its sorrows, its terrible doubts. I find myself challenged from all directions—both by the difficulties of life and by the skepticism of mankind. Those who are not Christian question my reliance on God, and many who are want to argue with me about the particulars of how to worship.

Yet, in the midst of all this comes glimpses of brilliant light, as if the Hand of God itself reached down from Heaven and touched some aspect of my life.

Miracles occur.

Many of them would not convince a skeptic. They are too subtle to point at: a sudden release from dark thoughts, an unexpected change in a seemingly hopeless situation. But some are more obvious: poison ivy on a baby instantly healed, a baby with a high fever instantly healed, back pain instantly relieved, Lime’s disease, which had progressed to such a degree as to cause semi-paralysis, instantly healed. The list could go on and on.

To continue, however, would be to miss the point, which is that it was not the physical changes that made the events so amazing, but the spiritual uplift that came with them. The moment when there was no hope—and suddenly, hope was present after all.

Unexpected touches of grace.

That is what I find missing from most overtly Christian stories, that moment when something totally unexpected but totally real happens. How could they be there, if the religion is so obvious that no one could miss it?

Where are the stories about people who discover the wonder and majesty of God, the way cleaning maids come upon unicorns or farm boys discover that they are Jedi?

Where are the stories that are as amazing as what happens to Gideon in the Bible? Or to Elisha? Or to Jacob?

(And if you have forgotten how utterly amazing and unexpected it is when three hundred men route an army, or when chariots of fire appear on the mountain, or when an angry, betrayed man who is coming to kill his brother suddenly embraces him instead, you might enjoy rereading a few of these stories.)

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-christian-magicians/feed/ 21
The Raven, the Elf, and Rachel — A Book of Unexpected Enlightenment http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-raven-the-elf-and-rachel-a-book-of-unexpected-enlightenment/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-raven-the-elf-and-rachel-a-book-of-unexpected-enlightenment/#comments Wed, 22 Oct 2014 15:15:39 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12555 Today is my birthday, and I would like all well-wishers to give me the same birthday present, of going immediately to Amazon and buying a copy of my beautiful and talented wife’s latest and greatest novel, THE RAVEN THE ELF AND RACHEL by L. Jagi Lamplighter (her maiden name).

This is the big day! This is the roll out! Buy multiple copies and drive up the sales figures!

If asked, I describe the book as ‘Nancy Drew coming of age in the Roke of Sleepy Hollow hidden in the world from FRINGE hidden in the universe of Gaiman’s Sandman hidden in the multiverse of Zelazny’s Amber meets Aslan at Camp Halfblood: girl detective at magical boarding school uncovers figures from spooky New England folktales, secret weirdness and secret conspiracies, ghosts and elves and gods and greater powers beyond that, hellish and heavenly. And has a crush on a boy.’

Before coming to Roanoke Academy, Rachel Griffin had been an obedient girl—but it’s hard to obey the rules when the world is in danger, and no one will listen.

Now, she’s eavesdropping on Wisecraft Agents and breaking a lot of rules. Because if the adults will not believe her, then it is up to Rachel and her friends—crazy, orphan-boy Sigfried the Dragonslayer and Nastasia, the Princess of Magical Australia—to stop the insidious Mortimer Egg from destroying the world.

But first she must survive truth spells, fights with her brother, detention, Alchemy experiments, talking to elves, and conjuring class.

As if that were not bad enough, someone has turned the boy she likes into a sheep.

When someone tries to kill a fellow student, Rachel soon realizes that, in the same way her World of the Wise hides from mundane folk, there is another, more secret world hiding from everyone-which her perfect recall allows her to remember.  Rushing forward where others fear to tread, Rachel finds herself beset by wraiths, magical pranks, homework, a Raven said to bring the doom of worlds, love’s first blush, and at least one fire-breathing teacher.


Trade Paper:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Raven-Rachel-Jagi-Lamplighter/dp/1937051994

Kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/Raven-Rachel-Unexpected-Enlightenment-Book-ebook/dp/B00OM73EXC

 

! The Raven- the Elf- and Rachel finish

And while you are at it, purchase the first book in the series, THE UNEXPECTED ENLIGHTENMENT OF RACHEL GRIFFIN

1 Rachel final mid-size

(One of my readers once expressed the wistful desire that he and I could have been a role playing game together, to see my abundant imagination, absurd personality and sense of humor in action. Well, this is as close as anyone not willing to move to Northern Virginia is likely to get: one of the characters in this book was invented by me, and I acted as the official consultant to the author, as well as wrote some of his dialog. You have to guess who. )

I also did the interior illustrations:

Sheep-and-Dread-Final-769x1024

BUY A COPY TODAY! OR VLADIMIR  VON DREAD WILL TURN YOU INTO A SHEEP!

 

 

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/the-raven-the-elf-and-rachel-a-book-of-unexpected-enlightenment/feed/ 30
You Cannot Boycott a Nobody http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/you-cannot-boycott-a-nobody/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/you-cannot-boycott-a-nobody/#comments Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:00:25 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12545 By definition, one can only boycott a vendor one patronizes, perhaps even patronizes on a regular basis. So, one cannot boycott someone of whom one has never heard, or someone one already avoids as a matter of course.

That said, I know nothing of Gamergate, aside from dim echos and third-hand accounts from partisans involved in the matter. I do not know what it concerns and I could not care less. However, I can tell, even from a distance, what the tone and the tactics of the self-appointed Social Justice Crusaders, or, as I call them, Morlocks, are attempting: accuse, accuse, accuse, ad hominem and personal destruction.

Had I not been on the receiving end of similar tactics myself, I might be willing to extend the Morlocks the benefit of the doubt. As it is, after the boy who cries wolf has cried it for over a hundred years and never once, no, not once reported a real example and real instance of a real injustice, but instead always and forever without a single exception used the cry merely to savage and silence decent and normal people going about their normal business, I would, myself, far rather see the boy who cries wolf eaten by the wolf than run the risk of listening to what I damn well know is one more false alarm turned in by professional false alarmists who hate me and everything I love, my clan and nation, way of life, philosophy, worldview, church.

So I was bemused by this list, found at Vox Day’s website, complied by a Morlock boasting of the relevance and victorious might of the forces of Morlockery.

Look it over. Notice anything odd about the list?

I compiled a list of the news and opinion outlets that have published articles critical of #gamergate just in the last few days. They’re welcome to boycott these all, it’ll just hasten their increasing irrelevance.

Here is what I notice: two items from the BBC; one from Buzzfeed, the honesty-challenged persons who called me the sixth biggest bigot of all novelists; CBS; CNN; two items from the Guardian, which employs the honesty-challenged loser whose name I forget who has never written a SF novel, but pontificates endlessly about novel writing, insulting me and Larry Correia and writers infinitely his superior, because we do not bow the knee to his Politically Correct dipshittery; two items from the Huffington Post; one from the New York Times; one from the New Yorker; Newsweek; Reuters; Rolling Stone; Slate; Time Magazine; four items from the Washington Post; one from Boing Boing.

And the rest from news organs I have either never read or never heard of, including  a suspicious number from Canadian or overseas sources. (The Irish Times? Really? My mouth is dry with semi-ecstatic excitement waiting for their next world-shaking opinion of paramount significance.)

Here is what I notice: the list is padded. I do not have the patience to click through all the links, but I would unsurprised to discover they all lead back to one or two press releases by an interested party, taken as Gospel by a compliant and lazy journalist, not fact-checked, and the rest are repeats of the same few stories. It looks like a snowball-job, the kind of thing newspapermen (like me) see all the time: the artificial inflation of a minor story through endless repetition. It is an old trick in my field.

Here is what I notice:  Of those I recognize, these are all Leftwing rags whose integrity and journalistic ethics died during the Clinton Administration, and the corpse was burned during their bouts of Bush Derangement Syndrome in the administration after that; and the burnt ashes scattered to the far corners of the universe, no scintilla thereof ever to be found again, no, not by the most persistent forensic paleontologist, during the rapture and the coming of the Messiah, Obama the Lightworker, whom they all adore in grovelling transports of ecstasy indistinguishable from bouts of epilepsy.

This list is about as convincing to a skeptic as hearing a true believer in Marxism quote from Pravda to prove his point.

Here is what I notice: without knowing anything whatsoever about the issues, or who started what, or what the facts on the ground might be, I notice that there is one accusation of McCarthyism, which tells you right away that the accuser here is a liar with no substance to his claim; one of relentless death threats forcing someone out of her home, which tells you right away that liar does not know enough to tell a convincing lie; countless accusations of harassment, threats of massacre, misogyny, threats of gun-violence, which tells you right away we are dealing with freaking paranoid lunatics who are trying to outdo each other with hysterical shrieks of make-believe fear. Of course they are talking about the normal rudeness accompanying any typical internet debate among the young. What they call violence, misogyny, and so on is what sane people call a robust debate between equals, protected by the First Amendment.

Here is what else I notice: If I had not heard this before roughly a zillion times, I might be curious enough to look into the matter, and hear what each side has to say. But since one side has decided on the screaming lunatic method of making its point, my normal curiosity is abated.

This is a rerun.

My reaction to the shrieking hypochondriac-of-injustice who yet again claims he is the innocent victim of relentless evil, and rolls at my feet in a puddle of his own spew, screaming in tones of utterly hypocritical self-righteousness that I must side with him, because his foes are so hateful that they must never be allowed to give their side of the story — my considered and healthy instinct is to wish for an excuse to trample his face below the bubbling mud until he shuts the hell up.

I am haunted by the thought that there may be a real person with a real problem suffering a real evil, a person whose cry I cannot hear because of this noise, such as, for example, Copts in Egypt having their churches burned down, or Christian girl-children being kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery by the Islamic jihadis.

These are the Jihadists whom the Left are so swift and so vehement to defend from criticism, that they start up new comic book superheroines, for example, to show their broadminded love for everything Islamic.

I do not have the patience to compile a list as long as the forgoing, but for those of us who are comic fans, just the titles are telling

and note the company they keep:

When one comedian  made a pointed joke mocking the preposterous political correctness of Marvel Comics for toadying up to the Muslims while we are at war with them, the Left played pile-on, not just on him, but on anyone who applauded the joke. It was freakish, as if one were to see Jews during World War Two drawing or praising a comic book starring the superhero Captain Jewhunter, Champion of Racial Purity, and other Jews lambasting anyone who mocked the comic, calling them an anti-German bigot.

And, why, look, we are seeing the same names there, concerning that tempest in a teapot, as here. Making the same accusations.

These accusations, these humbug reports of death-threats and riots and gun-violence and misogyny.

All bull.

This is all for their internal consumption. They neither believe this nor expect to be believed: it is like the fretting and fuming of those who dwell in a floating island above Cloudcuckooland, as reported by that honest historian, Lemuel Gulliver, and which I am pleased to repeat yet again:

These People are under continual Disquietudes, never enjoying a Minute’s Peace of Mind; and their Disturbances proceed from Causes which very little affect the rest of Mortals. Their Apprehensions arise from several Changes they dread in the Celestial Bodies. For Instance; that the Earth by the continual Approaches of the Sun towards it, must in Course of Time be absorbed or swallowed up. That the Face of the Sun will by Degrees be encrusted with its own Effluvia, and give no more Light to the World. That, the Earth very narrowly escaped a Brush from the Tail of the last Comet, which would have infallibly reduced it to Ashes; and that the next, which they have calculated for One and Thirty Years hence, will probably destroy us. For, if in its Perihelion it should approach within a certain Degree of the Sun, (as by their Calculations they have Reason to dread) it will conceive a Degree of Heat ten Thousand Times more intense than that of red hot glowing Iron; and in its Absence from the Sun, carry a blazing Tail Ten Hundred Thousand and Fourteen Miles long; through which if the Earth should pass at the Distance of one Hundred Thousand Miles from the Nucleus or main Body of the Comet, it must in its Passage be set on Fire, and reduced to Ashes. That the Sun daily spending its Rays without any Nutriment to supply them, will at last be wholly consumed and annihilated; which must be attended with the Destruction of this Earth, and of all the Planets that receive their Light from it.

A Laputian gentleman taking a walk.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> Illustration by Arthur Rackham, 1909.

They are so perpetually alarmed with the Apprehensions of these and the like impending Dangers, that they can neither sleep quietly in their Beds, nor have any Relish for the common Pleasures or Amusements of Life. When they meet an Acquaintance in the Morning, the first Question is about the Sun’s Health; how he looked at his Setting and Rising, and what Hopes they have to avoid the Stroke of the approaching Comet. This conversation they are apt to run into with the same Temper that boys discover, in delighting to hear terrible Stories of Sprites and Hobgoblins, which they greedily listen to, and dare not go to Bed for fear.

 

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/you-cannot-boycott-a-nobody/feed/ 94
Snap Out of It http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/snap-out-of-it/ http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/snap-out-of-it/#comments Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:00:15 +0000 http://www.scifiwright.com/?p=12507 The proponents of what is called (with unintentional hilarity) gay marriage express the gaiety for which they are named by crowing and gamboling with delight that the Supreme Court has declined to do its core Constitutional mission of interpreting the law, and chastise and check the abuses of activist judges overruling the sovereign votes of the decent and sober majority.

They should perhaps rein in their gay celebrations: gay marriage cannot be justified either in law or logic. This means the law has just departed from the environs of law and logic.

The gay partisans should instead recoil with dread, for the thing, by being given into their hands, is effectively destroyed. Whatever meaning or sanction the pairs of homosexuals are seeking out of the pretense of marriage is destroyed by the very fact that it is a pretense, not a marriage.

I am not speaking about an abstraction, but as a matter of law. The way law works, for those of you who are unfamiliar with the basic principle, is that once a precedent is established, until and unless it is definitively overruled, it has controlling authority over every case standing on similar facts, and the degree of similarity is the core of what all legal arguments are about.

This ruling, now left to stand, will and must create more havoc with family law, with testaments and estates, divorce laws, property laws, far more than if the government simply decreed marriage to be a private contract. No matter what the desires and tastes of the reformers, and no matter their promises, once set in motion, the law operates by a logic and by an inertia of its own.

Let us take it as a given that all men are sinners, and that my personal motives are malign beyond description. Nonetheless, if I speak the truth, my words are true, no matter what my motives are, and if an malign man says twice two is four, the statement is true. Those who argue that twice two is three must address the argument given, not the man who gives it. It is a sign of the deep mental corruption of our times that I must preemptively fend off the yawningly irrational personal attacks and informal logical error that just so happens to be the only counterargument ever encountered to an argument in favor of chastity, marriage, decency, sexual normalcy.

Such nonsense is predictable to the point of tedium. Gossipy, shrill and groundless accusation is the way schoolgirls maintaining a clique punish dissenters, not the way sober men debate the great issues of the day. If one argues that the law concerning marriage must concern marriage and does not concern sodomy, if one argues that a thing is not its very opposite, if one argues that twice two is four and not three, the only response will be an eructation of scorn directed against the speaker, not a response addressing the points spoken.

That said, for those who read these words with the eyes of sober men, with a refined sense of logic and a stern and clear understanding of justice, let us turn to the matter:

First, there are those, including a surprising number of conservatives, who hold that it is a matter of fundamental moral right that two sodomites who wish to solemnize their alliance with a marriage-like ceremony or civil union should be seen and celebrated by the same customs, mores, and obligations society beholds and celebrates a husband and wife establishing a family. We should throw rice, and cheer, and teach our children that such unions are romantic and healthy and normal and permanent, and we should scorn and condemn, and perhaps punish at law, those who teach their children otherwise.

Second, there is a parallel legal argument that it is a matter of fundamental justice that the same legal privileges and rights awarded to a marriage couple should be extended to an alliance of sodomites, such as tax loopholes and hospital visitation rights and child custody and survivor’s benefits.

Third, there is a technical legal argument that the Fourteenth Amendment is properly interpreted to mean that should a state government treat a married couple and an alliance of sodomites with two different ergo unequal rules, such is a violation of the Constitution.

Fourth, there is a Civil Rights argument that for a private individual to refuse to do business, to hire, or to serve a pair of sodomites who wish to represent themselves as a married couple is a violation of the fundamental human dignity of the sodomites. The argument here is that the same penalty at civil law should obtain which prevents, for example, a diner from refusing to serve Negroes, or seating them only in the back of the restaurant. This argument mainly applies to businesses such as bakers, caterers, photographers whose services are purchased for weddings, to bake wedding cakes and such, or to institutions renting halls, or clergy performing the ceremony.

Finally, there is the libertarian argument that a man’s vices are private, and that the state should have no power to say as to which marriage ceremonies shall be recognized and which not recognized, allowed or prohibited, for the same reason that the state should have no power to interfere with private contracts.

Let us take matters in reverse order, starting with the Libertarian argument.

There are two insurmountable obstacles to the Libertarian argument: first, Libertarianism, in reality, requires that both side of a dispute agree to rely on peaceful, non-coercive means to settle the dispute. In other words, it is obvious that if one side refuses to promote or pass laws supporting his side, but his enemy does not refuse, the enemy without hindrance will prevail. Second, the state can and must and does interfere in matters where no peaceful and non-coercive means to settle disputes of this kind is possible. In the current case, marital status effects disputes about marriage and family matters, divorce, child-rearing, education of the young, and inheritance laws.

The first Libertarian argument can be safely ignored as irrelevant to the real world as things stand now.

If, at some point in the future, the pervertarians pushing the gay agenda wish to stop using gays as their mascots, and stop using gay issues as a battering ram to smash in the doors of the Church, then indeed, in that pastel-pink future, faithful Churchgoers could live in a commonwealth where sodomy was legal, in the same way sabbath-breaking or idol-worship is legal, praying for the sinners but not calling upon legal sanctions to harass them. All that would be required is for the pervertarians likewise to agree not to call upon legal sanctions to harass Churchgoers.

But keep in mind most pervertarians are not homosexuals themselves, or have anything they stand to gain personally from abolishing marriage in the name of marriage equality. They are enemies of the Church, and have found a convenient stick with which to beat the Church: they can claim that laws against sodomy, or laws acknowledging marriage, are just like the Jim Crow laws the Democrats enacted in the South after the Republican Union smashed the Democrat institution of slavery. What the connection is between race-hatred, which is an irrational antipathy of a whole racial group of man based on a trivial external characteristic no one can control or change, and a moral opprobrium against sexual perverts, which a rational antipathy against those individuals who freely decide to transgress the bounds of law and of nature, is a mystery of the Democrat faith. It is a talking point, something said without substance, neither meaningful nor meant to be believed, merely an emotional appeal, like calling someone a bad name, or calling an atrocity by an nondescript euphemism. It is a word-fetish.

The point is that even if the gays themselves wanted to live in peace with the Church, not approving of each other but tolerating each other, the pervertarians using the gay issue as their battering ram and their excuse to batter the Church will not allow that to happen.

There are many examples. I will mention but one: the Bible has been outlawed in Canada, and quoting from it is a hate crime, at least in cases where sins are condemned. Or, rather, sexual sins involving unnatural acts: http://christiannews.net/2013/02/28/canadian-supreme-court-rules-biblical-speech-opposing-homosexual-behavior-is-a-hate-crime/

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Biblical speech opposing homosexual behavior, including in written form, is essentially a hate crime.

On Wednesday, the court upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002. The 7-judge panel consisted of Justices Beverly McLachlin, Louis LeBel, Marie Deschamps, Morris Fish, Rosalie Abellia, Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell.

“The Bible is clear that homosexuality is an abomination,” one flyer that was found to be in violation stated, citing 1 Corinthians 6:9. “Scripture records that Sodom and Gomorrah was given over completely to homosexual perversion and as a result destroyed by God’s wrath.”

Another flyer, entitled Keep Homosexuality Out of Saskatoon’s Public Schools, was written in response to the recommendation of the Saskatoon School Board that homosexuality be included in school curriculum. The Supreme Court declared the document to be unlawful because it called the homosexual acts that would be taught to children “filthy,”

The thing speaks for itself. It is illegal in Canada to quote the Word of God while speaking in favor of not teaching small children to celebrate and applaud a grotesque and unnatural sexual perversion.

Think it cannot happen here? It already is happening: http://www.caintv.com/unreal-city-of-houston-subpoen

… in June the Houston City Council passed, and Mayor Parker signed, a “human rights ordinance” that panders in numerous ways to activists pushing for gay and “gender identity” rights, including a requirement that men be allowed to use women’s bathrooms and vice versa. Not surprisingly, many local pastors opposed the ordinance, and more than 17,000 residents filed referendum petitions to get it repealed – which the city blatantly threw out alleging “irregularities”.But lest you thought Houston politicians were done playing hardball with their critics, not a chance.

[Houston's] City attorneys, in an unusual step, subpoenaed sermons given by local pastors who oppose the law and are tied to the conservative Christian activists that have sued the city.

City attorneys issued subpoenas last month during the case’s discovery phase, seeking, among other communications, “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

The subpoenas were issued to several high-profile pastors and religious leaders who have been vocal in opposing the ordinance. The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a motion on behalf of the pastors seeking to quash the subpoenas.

The subpoenas are supposedly to see if pastors had in any way violated the law by using the pulpit to preach about the law. Aside from the obvious First Amendment problems here, the pastors weren’t even involved with the petition drive, so the city had no basis for issuing them subpoenas.

Not that this would stop them. The secular cultural left smells blood when it comes to gay rights, and they think they are now free to take any action – no matter how unconstitutional or illegal – against those who oppose the gay agenda…

Big picture: If a city can subpoena a pastor’s sermons just because the pastor preaches from the book that includes 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and other passages that call homosexuality sin, then we no longer have freedom of religion. At all. Period.

Which is the purpose of the exercise.

So, O Libertarians, we Christians find ourselves in a position where no compromise nor peaceful coexistence is possible because the Pervertarians, the Left, the Democrats, the Progressives, the Cultural Marxists, that amorphous blob of darkness that continually changes its name each time the public becomes of aware of who and what the name masks — they will not leave us in peace. For us to drop the sword of the magistrate now is not burying the hatchet; it is unilateral disarmament. The Sabbath-breakers and idol-worshiper are willing to leave us alone to worship and live our lives as we see fit. The Pervertarians, no matter what falsehoods they mouth, have abundantly proven by their actions that they will not.

But even if the situation in the real world were not so dire and clear, even on theoretical grounds, no matter what the situation, the Libertarian argument must fail: because marriage is not a contract. It does not involve two people dealing with each other at arm’s length for the exchange of goods and services or even for the exchange of sexual favors. Attempts to call marriage a contract are as phoney as calling it a bicycle or a three-ringed circus or a jar of sour gooseberry jam.

A marriage is a covenant for the foundation of a family, and also the building block of civilization. It is the primary mechanism by which civilization reproduces itself, and the legal and moral foundation for the race to reproduce. For an allegedly sex-obsessed age, this generation seems not to notice the most blatantly and painfully obvious thing about marriage: marriage is all about sex and sexual reproduction and children and families.

When a wife divorces a husband, the dispute over how to split shared property cannot be settled by the parties themselves, nor the rights and duties surrounding child-rearing. The matter must be settled by a court of law or public magistrate for the same reason that invasions from over the border by Huns must be settled by the public legal authority: because no private and voluntary system can enforce due process, uniformity, equality, and finality.

Even the commercial contracts to which the Libertarians awkwardly analogize the marriage covenant can rarely if ever be settled merely by private and mutually voluntary negotiation or private arbitration. Such arbitration agreements inevitably contain provisions referring the matter to the civic authorities if negotiation breaks down.

If a libertarian commonwealth were founded starting with a blank slate, and all marriages were handled in the same fashion as hiring a woman as a permanent live-in prostitute (which would be perfectly legal under a libertarian commonwealth) the moment the first child in the commonwealth is born, assuming the child is not treated as chattel but as a human being with rights, he has a right to be raised by his parents, who are under a natural duty to nurse and house and feed and rear and govern and educate and protect him — and these rights predate all human institutions, indeed all human law and writings, as they are derived from nature.

All that would happen in such a blank slate commonwealth is that the contract law would evolve into a specialized branch outlining the duties and obligations of filial and maternal obedience and child-rearing which would be indistinguishable from family law. Some legal theory would be created to make the natural duties of child-rearing controlled by the rubric of mutually beneficial private contracts, but there would be no contract. Babies do not sign contracts.

Privatizing family law is as unsound and unlikely an idea as privatizing the Navy, and letting all-volunteer militias fund and build and man the battleships.

In a commonwealth with a powerful, popular and Established Church enjoying exclusive and authority over matters of marriages, trusts and estates, inheritance and so on, the Church rather than the secular authority would handle family law and apply the coercive measures needed, but I doubt this is what the Libertarians who wish to abolish family law altogether, and replace it with contract law, have in mind.

Turning from this arid area of speculation to a more practical matter, the next question is whether there is a civil right by which a sodomite couple wishing to purchase the services of cake-bakers and wedding photographers and wedding planners, rent chapels or halls, or call upon Christian Churches to solemnize their vows of sodomy, must be served.

If a wedding dress tailor refuses to sew a pair of bridal gowns for a pair of lesbians wishing to enter into an unnatural, abominable, and truly sad and pathetic mockery of marriage, is that tailor the same as a clerk or cook refusing to serve Negros at a department store counter or diner?

The difference is so painfully obvious that I have trouble bringing myself to believe all Liberals and an embarrassing number of conservatives do not grasp the answer.

Our friend the Libertarian would say that the clerk and shopkeeper for any reason or no reason has the right to deny service to anyone, either due to the customer’s race or for any motive, fair or foul, honest or hateful, full stop. Let us consign that answer, for better or worse,  to an academic discussion having no bearing on the present case.  The fact of reality is that this is not the law as it stands in the United States in the current generation. There are abundant court cases confirming the interpretation of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment as granting to any potential customer a right to be served or sold any good or service offered to the general public, not to be denied on the basis of race.

Now, nothing in the civil rights law says that if a man offers firearms for sale to the public, he is required to sell a gun to a member of a minority who tells him he means to use the weapon to rob a bank.

Nothing in the law says that a house-painter who offers his skills to the public is required to accept a job from a member of a minority who asks him to paint graffiti on the Washington Monument, or a mustache on the Statue of Liberty.

Nothing in the law says that a tap dancer who offers his skills to the public is required to accept a job from a member of a minority who asks him to trample the crucifix, or burn the flag, or spit on his mother’s face.

Indeed, nothing in the law requires me, a writer who offers his skills to the public, to accept a job from a member of a minority to follow his orders to pen a 3000 word document containing nothing but blasphemy against my God, treasonous sentiments against my nation, or filthy insults against my wife.

This is simply not what the civil rights law says and not what it is meant to say.

Likewise here.

When a baker or a tailor or a Church renting a hall to a pair of sodomites whose express the intention to make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage and desecrate it, a faithful Christian cannot aid, participate, or assist this desecration, lest the sin be his. He is not asking Caesar to draw the sword of the magistrate to prevent the desecration — our First Amendment as a matter of law makes all protection of sacred things to be a private matter, handled, if at all, by the customs and non-coercive mechanisms of courtesy and shame — he is merely asking Caesar to be excused from doing that which his religion forbids, that is, namely, materially aiding and abetting in the commission of a notorious and public sin.

It simply baffles me that I hear few or no conservatives address this argument. The baker, under our current laws, has no right to refuse to sell a gay man a cookie if such cookies are offered for sale to the general public. This is because selling a cookie is not prohibited by the baker’s religion, or else he would not be offering them for sale to the general public. The florist willing to sell a wreathe to a gay man holding a funeral again violates no stricture of religion. But asking the baker to bake a wedding cake or the florist to make a bridal arrangement to celebrate a gay so-called wedding does clearly and unambiguously propose that the baker and the florist aid and abet the desecration of the marriage sacrament.

No matter what the civil rights laws say, the First Amendment clause concerning the free exercise of religion overrules this. If the florist or the baker is being asked to desecrate something their religion holds sacred, they have a right not to be forced to participate, the same right they have not to be forced by public law to offer incense to an idol.

Any law that requires a man to trample a crucifix, or burn a Torah, or make and worship and image of Mahound, is null and void as a matter of primary Constitutional principle, and enjoys an endless line of court cases to support this construction.

Note, please, that this is a non-issue as far as real gays and lesbians are concerned: any of them can find a Jewish or Anglican or Unitarian baker or a florist, or a lapsed Catholic. The non-Christians and lukewarm Christians and lapsed Christians by such astronomical numbers outnumber the serious, practicing Christians who might voice a serious objection to the desecration of marriage, that a pervert couple who actually just wants a cake or a floral wreathe can easily obtain it, and no one stands in their way, not in America, not in this generation.

Only those who are seeking to make an issue out of it, to pick a fight, to disturb the public peace, and to trample the Constitution in the name of all-inclusive diversity (or whatever the bafflegab non-word of the day is today) have the time and patience to track down the practicing Christian bakers and florists to demand they publicly humiliate their faith by betraying Christian teaching.

So the legal argument that civil rights are being offended fails both as a matter of law, since the Free Exercise Clause is controlling legal authority, and as a matter of practical fact, since the matter only comes up for perverts seeking to be offended by hunting out those rather few Christians with faith enough and loyalty enough to defy the perverts and turn away their business.

And only their business in this one area: the bakers and photographers and florists and hall renters will sell and rent to them their skills and facilities for any other purpose other than a wedding.

The Christians will happily bake birthday cakes and sew confirmation dresses and rent halls for gay dances or any other purpose whatsoever, because we have no objection to sinners existing. We are all sinners. But the Christians would also refuse to bake cakes, sew dresses, take photographs, and rent halls to a man marrying his sister, or a man marrying as two wives, or a man marrying a child.

We do not refuse to participate in desecrating marriage because we hate desecrators, but because we love marriage.

It is because marriage is  sacred, a thing established by God whom we dare not disobey, not because sinners are sinful, that we ask you to take your business elsewhere. It has nothing to do with you. It is not all about you.

Get over yourself. Unglue your eyes from the looking glass, Narcissus. Snap out of it.

All we ask is that you not compel us to participate in your blasphemies and desecrations when you commit them. All we ask is to be left in peace.

So the Fourteenth Amendment argument fails because the cases are not parallel between a baker who refuses to be hired (and it does not matter who hires him, gay or straight) to help celebrate a gay wedding that desecrates his religious faith, and a baker who refuses to bake anything for Black customers. The first is protected by the Free Exercise Clause and the second is not.

We turn now to the more general legal argument, which says that, as a matter of fundamental fairness and equality, we cannot afford the right to marry to a man and his wife unless we also extend that right to a sodomite and his catamite, or to two lesbians. The argument is that the law should be blind to the difference between the sexes and sexual orientations, just as it is blind to the fame or wealth or race of the citizens, and is thus obligated to treat all equally, by their acts.

This argument is so utterly insincere and fallacious that I have difficulty imagining why any man finds it persuasive, or thinks others will. It is the same as the argument that, since it is legal for a man to marry his bride, he should be able to marry his mother or sister, or to marry a pair of twins, or to marry a women currently married to another man, or marry an animal, a slave, a child, a corpse, an inanimate object or national monument, or anything else his fancy says.

Now, one might object that slaves, children, monuments, corpses and animals cannot give informed consent to marriage. Christian marriage requires consent, but no other religion, so far as I know, requires it: hence consent is not a central and essential property of the mating ritual we call marriage, but the ability, at least in theory, to mate and form a sexual dyad, a couple, is and must be a central and essential property.

But even putting that question to one side, the lack of informed consent does not apply to incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, or bigamy. Your adult sister or mother can give her informed consent, and so can the Barnstable twins  and so can Draupadi.

Moreover, as Antigone and King Rehoboam and King Edward VIII will testify, such matings are indeed matings, and will in the natural course of events produce offspring.

The alliance or agreement between two men or two women to masturbate each other, while it is a sexual or sex-like act, is not copulation, is not mating, and is not sex.

It is the stimulation of the sex organs without the actual mating act, the act of sex.

As far as I can tell, the strongest argument as to why this alliance should be granted the formalities and solemnities and legal rights of marriage is that the feelings of the homosexuals toward each other are the same romantic and tender feelings as a man toward his wife or her toward him.

So if the feelings are sexual but the sexual act is by nature impossible between them, the argument is this is feeling is sufficient to justify the calls for equality, equal rights, and to have the laws concerning paternity and inheritance apply to them, even though the pair is not a couple and cannot have any biological offspring.

If we grant this argument, then the same argument applies with more force to incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, marriage to a fertile but underage teenager, or bigamy. Indeed, the argument is more forceful in such cases, because mating is biologically possible between such pairs. A man and his sister or a man and his second concubine form a couple, a male-female dyad.

Now, the libertarian argument at this point is to say that, just as granting homosexual allies who masturbate each other the same solemnities and legal rights as a man and wife who copulate, we should grant such rights and solemnities likewise to Oedipus and Jocasta, Solomon and his three hundred wives, Joseph Smith and his dozen wives, Mohammed and his child-bride Aisha, and (why not?) Pasiphae and her bull.

The problem is one of definition. If marriage is, like posting a valentine card, nothing more and nothing less than a public expression of affection, erotic longing, and romantic tenderness, then the object of the affection should not matter as far as the law is concerned. But if that is all marriage is, it is not marriage. It is not a legal institution at all, merely a symbolic expression of sentiment.

Defining marriage as a public expression of private sentiment is the same as abolishing marriage altogether. While, given the state of the law and the customs concerning contraception, fornication, adultery and no-fault divorce, a strong argument could be made that marriage de facto has already been abolished in any serious or binding sense, nonetheless, as a matter of law, it has not.

The question of abolishing marriage has already been discussed above, and, I trust, conclusively: the thing is merely impossible. As stated above, the attempt to reduce marriage to a private contract is vain and illogical. The only real result is that marriage vows will no longer be enforced, and will create no legal ramifications.

If marriage is defined as a public oath which binds one to a law that will identify paternity, this has no bearing on homosexual alliances one way or another: the question never comes up. Paternity in the case of adoption is voluntary, and the person to be recognized as the guardian of the child, with the legal rights and duties to govern and rear the child, are clearly identified, and again this has no bearing on the role of marriage in identifying paternity.

If marriage is defined as a public oath which binds one to a law that will punish unchastity, so that a bachelor copulating with a willing maiden is licit and legal, but a married man runs afoul of a public law against adultery, all one need say is that none of the pervertarians are asking for this or even discussing it. I am also not sure what the applicable law would be to try a case where a man was accused of cheating on his homosex partner to whom he had vowed to ‘forsake all others’ by copulating with a maiden.  The concept is innately risible. Are the gays now celebrating because the state will penalize them for committing sodomy outside their avowed single partner to whom they have vowed exclusive and lifelong love? Should the dubious privilege of no-fault divorce be granted them? What about annulments on the grounds of an inability ever to consummate the marriage?

If marriage is defined as a mating ritual to solemnize a male-female couple who have vowed themselves to each other, and to serve all the above purposes and many more, then the wish of homosexuals to participate is meaningless. It is not through some cruelty that the law forbids male to copulate with male; it is a fact of biology. Marriage is a copulation ceremony used to cement, celebrate, and enforce the bonds of love (or of cynical mutual convenience) that form the sexual dyad that reproduces the species and forms the family unit. We don’t need gay marriage to cement the reproductive bond between a man and his mate.

The pervertarians do not want gay marriage recognized at law for this purpose: the ceremonial and legal bond tying together the reproductive dyad has nothing to do with the pervertarian cause. All they want is to shatter the bond. They say they are shattering this bond in the name of equality, but the progressives and their spiritual forbears have been trying to untie the knot of Christian marriage since the days of Henry VIII. Equality is merely the latest excuse. Privacy and population-prudence was the excuse used to usher in contraception; convenience was the excuse to usher in no-fault divorce.

Civilizations have a choice whether to recognize and enforce the union of man and wife as a sacrament, or to ignore and discourage such unions and pretend they are a private matter, like friendship, and ignore the social ramifications and implications of family loyalties, inheritance, property, childrearing. Those civilization who chose the former prosper; those who chose the latter fall into increasing disarray, and the generation of bastards, reared by no fathers, having no emotional ties to and stable social organs, tend to cluster in gangs for their own protection, and tear the body politic to shreds.

So the assault of the giants called law and custom against the Olympian mountain of marriage cannot end in any other way: the mountain will stand, and those who seek to tear the mountain down will fall beneath the landslides they unleash.

Marriage serves a variety of purposes, not the least of which is to delimit with whom copulation is licit versus illicit. Since copulation, in the natural course of things, is directed toward the end result of reproducing the young, marriage laws also treat with trusts and estates, wills and inheritances, child-rearing, custody and support. These things cannot be applied to an alliance of sodomites or lesbians in any logical way, or any way that comports with common sense or common law.

If a man is hired for pay by a lesbian couple to father a child which they will then claim as their own by adoption, and then they divorce, either the law (as it now does) holds him liable to a duty to rear and protect the child as its father, or the law (as it soon must, given the logic of homosex) must hold him able to divest himself of that duty by contract, which, in effect, makes the child a chattel, a parcel to be bought and sold. In the first case, the father has the burdens of fatherhood without the right as a father to his child, and in the second case, the child has no rights as a child to his father and mother, or even his human right not to be bought and sold. And likewise for a surrogate mother negotiating with a pair of sodomites.

The possibilities for legal mischief and absurdity is rife: it gives our unelected judges the right to decide that strangers unrelated by blood to the child, such as the ‘marriage partner’ or live-in lover of a lesbian who bears a bastard from the seed of a hired man, is the one who bears the duty of child-rearing. The judges will be deciding and re-deciding the definition of marriage on a case by case basis, with no guide but their personal discretion, and, since the law will be in a state of confusion, personal whim.

The least convincing argument commonly encountered is the claim that gay so-called marriage will not harm nor even influence nor touch real marriage. I am, once again, unable to comprehend what relation this argument has to reality, or even what it is purporting to argue. Affirming gay marriage as a matter of law affirms that marriage is not marriage, that there is no such thing as marriage, that the thing called marriage is actually its own direct opposite. I cannot see how the abolition of marriage fails to harm marriage. That is the harm of which none greater can be conceived.

No matter what sentiment or kindly fellow-feelings to our neighbors suffering from the scourge of same-sex sexual attraction, the fact of the matter is that, if their sexual adventures are licit, then there is no sexual action which is illicit, save those that are illicit on other grounds (as when force or fraud is involved). This means that there is no dividing line between licit versus illicit sex, allowed partners versus not allowed. But the whole point of marriage is to draw a dividing line between licit versus illicit, allowed versus disallowed sexual partners.

Ergo celebrating an alliance or agreement of sodomites only to masturbate each other (perhaps forsaking all others and perhaps not, as they like) as if that is a marriage vow is inescapably the same as rendering all marriage vows to be of none effect.

The counterargument is that once marriage is (all but in name) abolished in order to allow sodomites to pretend they are married, the normal people are unharmed, on the grounds that they too can pretend to be married.

The fact that the pretense of marriage is not marriage is not addressed by this counterargument.

The fact that married couples do not want to pretend to be married but to be ACTUALLY married, and to live in a society where custom and law discourages and deters violations of the marriage vows, is dismissed without being answered.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, serious folks and even more serious romantics do not want to pretend to be married. I want to be married.

When I vow a vow, I want society to hold me to it. There is no point in wagering if you cannot be made to pay.

If society lets every man for himself decide how seriously his vows are to be taken, logic says all vows fall to the least common denominator, and become, not vows, but merely words expressing one’s current, and perhaps passing, sentiment.

Once the marriage vow is held, as a matter of law, to be everything and nothing, to apply to illicit as well as to licit sex, to apply to natural as well as unnatural sexual acts, to apply equally to chaste desires as well as perverse desires, then society will not and can not hold anyone to his vows.

So, the argument that, as a matter of law, the institution of marriage must be applied equally to those whose coupling can form a marriage as it is applied to those whose mutual masturbation is the direct opposite of marriage fails as a matter of simple logic. Equality does not mean abolishing the thing to be shared equality.

Equality means that we should not have one set of laws for sinners suffering same-sex attraction as for sinners suffering from other temptations and false desires. And this is the exact situation we have at present: any man, gay or straight, drunk or sober, can marry any woman not his blood-relation who is of age and can give informed consent to the vow, just as any man of any race, origin, or sect can.

No man, gay or straight, of any race or origin can wed two wives, or wed a child or another man’s wife, even with the other man’s consent.

Equality is preserved: the same law applies equally to all, and their race and so on, including whatever sexual temptations, natural or not, they suffer, simply and absolutely are not taken into account by the law.

Nothing in any statute, now or in the past, in any jurisdiction in America or in the English-speaking world, says “Men not sexually attracted to other men may not marry a woman, but men attracted to women may.”

Whether or not a man suffering this unnatural sexual perversion has the desire to wed is beside the point. I do not want to learn to fly a plane, but it would in effect abolish the licensing of pilots if I were to call (in the name of Equality) for non-pilots to receive piloting licenses by demonstrating an utter inability to fly. Under such a law, the ability to fly and the inability are treated as one and the same, which is to say, obtaining a piloting license no longer means anything. Under such a law, obtaining a piloting license means you had the hankering to go get a meaningless bit of paper.

Turning from the legal to the moral argument, the argument here is that as a matter of morality, society should allow each man the maximum scope for liberty as is consistent with an orderly and law-abiding society; and moreover it is no place for the force and majesty of the law to enforce moral rules, and that sexual perversions, if kept private, are not a legitimate concern of the public.

This argument can be dispensed with in a word: it is not pertinent, even if true, to this discussion. We are not now discussing what two people do in the privacy of their own home, but what the public law concerning marriage versus the abolition of marriage should be. That marriage laws are necessary for a law abiding society is too obvious a point to discuss: absent marriage laws, either the state claims all property of a man who dies without a will and gives it arbitrarily to whomever the presiding probate judge sees fit,  or the state treats all matings that produces a child as a de facto marriage, a common law marriage, and imposes on the biological father the financial and moral duty to rear the child, and the state grants that child a claim in the estate of any deceased father, marriage or no marriage. The legal nightmare can only be imagined, since no record would be kept of such matings, and every child would have to be identified by medical test.

The neutrality of the law toward moral questions is a chimera, a figment as unimaginable as an octagonal triangle. Either the law recognizes marriage, in which case the law deters unchastity and encourages chastity by rewarding it with its due dignity; or the law renders marriage to be of no legal effect, in which  case the law encourages unchastity by granting it equal respect with chastity, and deters chastity by robbing it of its due dignity.

You have sold your birthright for not even a mess of pottage: you have given away the most precious, civilizing and crucial institution of civilization, and in return, you get a false promise of equality.

You get nothing.

Such a state is not equality. It is not even tyranny. A tyrant at least is in charge of something, and can make decrees and give orders which have his name on them. I doubt one person in ten, or a hundred, reading these words knows, off the top of his head, without looking it up, the name of a single one of the judges who overruled the state constitutions of these states and spat in the face of each and every voter.

This is the one thing worse than tyranny: this is anarchy.

This ruling, now left to stand, is that any judge of any level can overrule valid state constitutional amendments on core features clearly matters of local jurisdiction, can decree all voters to be ‘irrational,’ and can redefine institutions older than written history to mean anything and nothing, on the grounds that, if two people want to clam to be married, no one  can dispute the claim.

The way the law works is this: the claim of a polygamist to marry many wives cannot be held as false if the claim of two men to be married is true, not if the mens’ claim rests on nothing but their desire to make the claim, for the polygamist can likewise entertain the desire to make the claim. And likewise for any number of persons in any condition, such as the congregation of a Church — why cannot all the Unitarians or Unificationists, for example, all marry each other as a group, en masse, and form one, big happy family?

And, once marriage is not sacrosanct, what other institution is left?

What makes anyone think private contracts for the sale of goods will be held in more reticent respect than the mutual vows of man and wife to form a family?

If any random judge, at any time, based not on the law but on the judge’s personal political opinions about what is just and unjust, can overrule the marriage institution, the most ancient and most worthy of respect of all institutions, then there is no basis in law or logic to prevent that judge (or any officer at any level of government) from overruling, redesigning, rewriting, or abolishing any church, any priesthood or sacred brotherhood, any school or university, any academic or scientific institution or body doing research, any aspect of the criminal justice system, or civil or administrative courts, any military or paramilitary arm or service, including the Boy Scouts, any police force, any corporation or industrial institution, the arts and entertainment, the medical community, the press, any family business or social club or civic society.

If marriage is not sacrosanct, safe from arbitrary and fickle amendment by unelected lunatics, none of these are safe.

None of these institutions have any power to conduct themselves as they see fit; all are now vulnerable to amendment or abolition by a random stranger in a black robe drunk with power, and acting with dismissive and arbitrary powerlust. What makes you think some random judge in California will not outlaw, let us say, doctor-patient privilege, or lawyer-client privilege? Or the spelling of words in the dictionary, or anything else he sees fit? Is your relationship to your doctor or your attorney more sacrosanct than your relationship to your wife?

Marriage is a private institution that merits public recognition for a variety of legal reasons, most particularly those dealing with adultery, child-rearing, and inheritance.  Absent marriage laws, the State will be thrust in the role (as has largely already happened) of deciding the paternity on a case by case basis of every child born, and compelling absent or (much more likely) abandoned fathers to support children being reared by the biological mother’s current live-in lover of either sex or any number; and all taxpayers likewise to help the mother foot the bill.

In Christian marriage, God, the Husband and the Wife, all three, together form the irreducible unit of the marriage. In antichristian unmarriage, the gaily-named and frivolous jabberwocky called gay marriage, the three are the person, the second person, and Caesar.

You are all making the state the center and main stay of your marriages. But this is hardly a reason for gaiety.

At the same time, this precedent unmoors the state from any legal precedent limited the jurisdiction of judges or defending the sanctity of marriage or, indeed, of any institution. With this, a precedent has been set which allows any non-elected officer has just as good a reason to break or rewrite  or ignore the law as to enforce it. It is the death of law as a concept.

Laugh, fools, laugh. Enjoy your triumph. You have thrown open the gates, not to a returning hero, but to a barbarism of chaos.

————————————————-

ADDENDUM: The day after the above column was written, this news came out:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/new_america_ordained_ministers_threatened_with_jail_unless_they_perform_same_sex_marriages.html

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order Friday to stop officials in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from forcing two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its “non-discrimination” ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho’s voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

“The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that’s what is happening here – and it’s happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple’s freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended.”

The couple would face 180 days in jail and up to $1000 in fines per day if they dared to adhere to their religious beliefs.

 

 

 

]]>
http://www.scifiwright.com/2014/10/snap-out-of-it/feed/ 118