No Chastity, No Peace
A reader with the tropical yet frosty name of Bahama Ymir observes:
“For all our lives we have been presented this Hello Kitty version of homosexuals. That it is not our business what happens between consenting adults, that the gay man goes skipping about brimming with goofy exuberance and goodwill, that he just wants the same rights as you or I and to deny him our unreserved acceptance is something akin to kicking a puppy. But always underneath there is the commanding whip of lustful passion which can accept no boundary to depravity, and the pursuing shame which will abide no judgement. Peace was never an option.”
Hear, hear.
Not long ago, I was deceived by the Libertarian mantra that all things should be lawful save for those which caused harm to another.
Leaving aside that fact that abolishing the nuclear family and normalizing perversion has more wide ranging harm than any imaginable changes to law and custom, the idea would have been foolish even if the vice were harmless in that sense.
Light can tolerate darkness. Darkness cannot tolerate light. Vice cannot coexist with virtue.
The thinking behind the Libertarian mantra of legalizing all things harmless to others was the idea that that the coercive power of the law, while being a necessary evil, was evil, and could not be trusted to be used in a just and fair way, therefore should not be trusted to be used at all, save in those minimal situations where the peace was broken, the harm threatened was clear and present, and the aggression could be met with proportionate aggression, to preserve the peace.
Force is used to end force. To no other end, so runs the Libertarian theory, can force be used.
The Founding Fathers of this nation, seeking to ensure that the inter-denominational turmoil of Europe found no root here, wished all Christians to agree to what was basically a cease fire touching all matters of faith and belief, and worship.
In effect, all parties agree not to use the coercive power of the state to enforce orthodoxy against the heterodox, or heterodoxy against the orthodox, or one heterodoxy against another. The salvation of souls and moral probity of man was no longer a proper concern of the state.
Since seeking religious liberty was one of the primary motive of most of the colonials, the colonies agreed. There was no ancient church with long-entrenched power and prerogatives present in America, nor large amounts of church-owned lands or wealth to be looted by any disestablishment effort. With no established church to disestablish, it was easier than any Old World power would have found it to find a position of neutrality for the state to stand, taking no sides between the various denominations. The various theologians of the various sects were Englishmen, by and large, and had no deep disagreement on matters of secular law.
At first, the federal government was held to be unauthorized to pass laws hindering the freedom of religion, and, later, justices attributed this restriction to state governments.
The denominations, in effect, agreed to allow each other denomination to worship as it saw fit, provided this tolerance was reciprocated, and this toleration was extended to the Jews as well.
An aside:
Please note that tolerance, here, is taken in its real meaning of the word, that is, something one puts up with despite detesting it, as one might tolerate a bad smell. The word does not mean applauding, encouraging, welcoming, comforting, or supporting.
The word tolerant, in Newspeak, means fanatical intolerance, specifically against any opposing opinions, questions, doubts, or hesitations, or any momentary lapse of absolute loyalty and infinite enthusiasm.
All Leftism operates by the principle of Newspeak, that is, debasing old words or coining new words to manipulate perception to falsify reality.
Hence “social” justice is being granted privileges denied others who have equal or better right to them, solely because their rights are equal and better, hence the utter opposite of justice; “planned” parenthood is infanticide, child-killing rather than child-rearing, hence the opposite of parenthood, “gay” marriage is desecrating marriage by celebrating infertile and perverse sexual excess, the very thing the sacrament is meant to prevent, hence is the utter opposite of marriage; and “wage slavery” is, of course, the free and voluntary exchange of labor for pay, which is the opposite of labor exacted by involuntary coercion, that is, the utter opposite of slavery.
In each case, the new word-fetish has not just the opposite of the real word, but the utter opposite. The words are not just wrong, but as wrong as wrong can be.
So, here, the word tolerance actually means tolerance, not intolerance. It means leaving alone in return for being left alone.
End of aside.
The mechanism of the First Amendment cease fire was to render religion a matter of private conscience, and public worship was to be voluntary, not enforced nor deterred by law. So was the “Free exercise” clause of the First Amendment born.
The Libertarians, seeing the utility and justice of this ideal, like idiot cooks who suppose that if a pinch of pepper improves the soup a pound of pepper must moreso, wished to extend this cease fire to every aspect of human culture, including regulation of the economy; funding public works; deterring vice.
Under the Libertarian vision, the free market would be left to its own devices, save in the cases involving fraud, breach of contract, and negligence; public works would be privatized, save in the cases of fortresses, shipyards, and post road having a military necessity; victimless crime laws would be overturned, prostitution, sodomy, drug abuse, be legalized.
Fringe variations of Libertarianism call for restricting the government still further, to forbid the state maintaining national borders, naturalizing citizens, punishing fraud, breech of contract, or negligence, and privatizing police forces, at which point the philosophy is indistinguishable from anarchy.
Ironically but not unexpectedly, as the GOP establishment in America, in the postwar years, whored after more votes by backstabbing conservatives, and throwing the idea of principled defense of social issues under the bus. Meanwhile, the Leftwing whored after whores, and sought the wholesale subversion of the moral strength of the West.
The Right consists, more or less, of an alliance of three groups: intellectuals who support a laissez-faire free market; a midlevel who support a strong military and industrial expansion; and a base who support Christendom, including what are elliptically called family values, that is, the traditional and eternal norms of civility, moral order, and public decency.
The Left consists of a similar but mirror-reversed alliance of three groups: an intellectual elite whose main purpose is antinomian if not satanic; a midlevel of progressives and useful idiots, who yearn for socialist utopia, green energy, world peace, and flying unicorns; and, at one time, their base was pro-Union workingmen and farmers, as well as bureaucrats, teachers, trial lawyers, and others dependent on the government for their status and employment.
Within the last decade, the Left ejected or betrayed their farmer and workingman base in favor of the “woke” mob of anarchists, rioters, looters as well as hivemind mobs of politically correct brain zombies. They allege themselves to be the enemies of various utterly imaginary threats, such as heffalumps, woozles, systemic racism.
This, in a nation where a black man can literally get away with murder, while an innocent white man convicted for one, with all the facts notoriously and obviously known to the public, and solely due to skin color — see the O.J. Simpson and Derek Chauvin cases for details. This, without recounting the endless number of little injustices created by affirmative action laws, and by a culture insulating minorities from accountability.
Within this same timeframe, the surreptitious alliance between the media, permanent bureaucracies, intelligence agencies, major news conglomerates and the rising power of the social media giants with the middle ranks of the Right came to light, and became open, obvious, and insolent.
The elite and the middle ranks of the Right became hopelessly corrupt, becoming, as the saying goes, Republican In Name Only or RINOs. The RINOs joined with their opposite numbers among the Left. The socialist joined with the plutocrats against their mutual enemies, small businesses, low taxes, deregulation efforts. Meanwhile the utopian one-worlders and pacifists joined with with war profiteers and career generals against soldiers and sailors.
The permanent Plutocracy became too obvious to overlook during the Obama years, when the phrase “too big to fail” gained circulation.
The idea of corporate welfare, which the old fashioned Social Liberals of the Old Left would have anathematized as fascism, the Fascist Liberals of the New Left embraced as a pragmatic way to loot the nation and secure their grip on power.
Likewise, on the Right, the once healthy ideals supporting a strong military kept at home, and a free market, was replaced by a pragmatic contempt for Constitutional government, and a permanent military-industrial complex, but a “woke” military that both provoked endless wars oversees, and weakened and demoralized the military. The utopians burn buildings and call for defunding the police, while peace efforts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Far East are undermined or abandoned, and Muslim Terrorist wars against Israel are funded, applauded, and hence resume.
And, again, the atheist intellectual elite of the Left, which long had supported and applauded terrorist attacks by Muslim jihadists against any and every target, dropped all pretense of supporting the West against the bloodthirsty religious fanatics. They rallied to the support of terror masters killed by US special forces, shrieking freakish fury at the affront, while they cheered the random shooting of homosexuals at a nightclub by a jihadist murder fanatic, lapping up the blood of the slain with their tongues, and grinning grubby smiles, glassy-eyed, with red stained teeth on the nightly news.
This elite uniparty is an unnatural combination of anarchist totalitarians, socialist plutocrats, and atheists jihadists.
The old distinction of Right and Left become meaningless. The elites of both parties are allied against the common man. The workingmen and farmers, once solidly Democrat voters, now vote Trump. The rightwing base, one solidly behind whatever candidate, Bush, Romney or McCain, the donor class funded to lose with polite aplomb while never actually rolling back any erosion of our Constitution, voted Trump in a mass-catcall of contempt for our disloyal and inert leadership.
Trump has one blind spot, where his failure is complete. He is as pro-pervertarian as any Leftist, and moreso, because he is sincere, whereas they lie. Leftists will sacrifice homosexuals on the altar of jihadism, and have done so. Trump would never, ever betray the interests of the homosexuals. He has not said one word against the illogical abomination of homosexual marriage, nor will he ever.
For that matter, no mainstream politician or pundit on the Right will utter a word against sodomy, or even support the idea that women deserve happiness as housewives, and that a society that sends them to toil like men is sick.
To sum up: after World War Two, Leftists successfully recast or rebranded Christianity as a source of mere repression and slavery, with no beneficial side effects. The family unit, as the basic building block of Christian congregation, had to be attacked at his heart, which is motherhood.
Meanwhile the GOP establishment, during the heady days of postwar industrial expansion, sought the disintegration of the family unit in order to bring women into the workforce, drive down wages, and increase the number of consumers, and increase the number of unwary victims of what could be called consumerism, that is, the artful nurture of demand for goods for which no natural or native demand previously existed.
Hence, motherhood had to be destroyed. The Socialists of the Left made an unspoken compact with the Plutocrats of the Right toward that end. This act of widespread decades-long cultural suicide was called Sexual Revolution.
Under the rubric that leaving virgins to be prey to male lusts under the theory that divorcees, adulteresses, and harlots enjoy freedom and liberty, the talking points of the Sexual Revolution were disguised as Women’s Liberation.
So it was called. In reality, it was the De-christianization of America.
In Christianity, marriage is a sacrament. Polygamy is forbidden, and the bride must consent to the marriage, which is lifelong. Both man and wife are obligated to abstain from sex before marriage, and be chaste within it, and bound by vow to forsake all others. Contraception has always been forbidden within Christian marriage, as has the pagan practice of exposing infants.
The heresy of Anglicanism introduced the concept that divorce was permissible when politically convenient, provided with wife was falsely accused of adultery. This horror rapidly spread to other heretical denominations. The Anglicans also, first of all Christian denominations in the West, introduced the concept that contraception was licit, a heresy that also rapidly spread.
This social movement achieved three untoward successes between the Progressive years of Woodrow Wilson and the war years of FDR: first, it became socially acceptable for women to smoke tobacco, to wear trousers rather than skirts, to disobey their husbands, to seek professional careers rather than seek marriage and rear children, and in every other way discard the symbols and adjuncts of femininity; second, in the postwar years, sexual glamor, thanks to Marilyn Monroe, and pornography, thanks to Hugh Hefner, became mainstream; and, finally, no-fault divorce was propounded as a valid at will, upon the consent of one party alone.
Once femininity was no longer supported by any customary uses, modes of speech or dress, particulars of career or education, a concerted effort, aided by the sinister sciences of mass propaganda just then being discovered, carried by the new inventions of radio and television, to create a deliberate neurosis.
A neurosis, in this sense, means when one’s emotions and passions are directed to an inappropriate or unreal object. A fetish which misplaces the sexual desire for women to such objects as stockings and shoes is such a neurosis. Feeling sexual lust toward a member of one’s own sex is such a neurosis. But so also would be a desire to chew and swallow waste material as if it were food. Hatred toward the parents who reared you or the nation supporting you is often a neurotic, and, in the parlance of older times, such children and such unpatriots were called “unnatural” as were sexual desires misplaced from their proper objects.
The art of modern propaganda, modern mass manipulation of public opinion, consists nearly entirely of artificially creating such a neurotic false-to-facts association or subconscious programming in the minds of the unwary. If done correct, he is not even aware of the manipulation, and he regards the false and inappropriate reaction as true and appropriate, so much so that he with hereafter react to the truth with disgust and hate.
The first known historical example of this deliberate art was in 1928, when the American Tobacco Company hired Edward Bernays. He was the nephew of Freud, and sought to use his uncle’s discoveries in the field of psychology to manipulate the minds of the masses. Bernays hired a group of attractive young suffragettes and got them into the Easter Sunday Parade in New York City. He inveigled a group of photographers to be on hand when the suffragettes, at prearranged signal, halted the march and lit their cigarettes. Since smoking was taboo for women, the photographers of course sold the shocking photo to all major newspapers. Bernys told the reporters that these ladies were not just lighting cigarettes, but they were lighting “freedom torches” to demonstrate their bold nonconformity as they all acted in unison, and to display their power to become their own idea of womanhood, which was Bernys’ idea.
With the corruption of the Right Elite into the Uniparty, the base of the Right, the social conservatives betrayed by our trusted leadership, could make no effective attempt to conserve Christian society. They could not even make anything more than meaningless gestures in opposition to the mass slaughter of the unborn.
We were also betrayed by the intellectual and pundit class of the Right, for our well spoken spokesmen spoke only about the dangers to our loss of prosperity in the face of taxes and regulation, and our loss of liberty in the face of socialism, but spoke rarely or ineffectually about our loss of decency.
At one time, sodomy was so ill regarded that it could not be mentioned by name in public. Even written laws were too delicate to call it by its disgusting name, instead using the euphemism “unnatural acts.” Now, sodomy is so well regarded, that even lifelong Republicans would be shocked and scandalized to hear the word spoken in public, not because the act is unmentionable, but because opposition to the act is unmentionable.
At one time, even gentlemen of the Left would be willing to discuss and debate the pros and cons of legalizing sodomy, and were willing to discuss the drawbacks of allowing homosexuals the legal privileges of a civil union, an institution like a marriage but opposite it, that is, based on sexual perversion rather than on sexual union.
What happened?
What happened was Edward Bernys and mass brainwashing. No one in the history of the world was ever talked by a rational argument, based on facts and logic, into supporting homosexual marriage. The phrase is a contradiction in terms: a non-sexual sexual union; a mating ritual for those who cannot mate.
Instead, the matter was presented as a civil right, using the same argument as feminists use: perverts are as straight as straights, just as women are just as manly as men, and therefore deserve the same rights.
Those who pointed out that, as a matter of scientific fact, two males of any species, or two females, cannot mate with each other, by definition of the words “male” and “female” were savaged as bigots.
Please note that despite what you may have heard, there is no law against homosexuals marrying each other. No marriage law in the history of the world ever covered that case, because the case does not exist, and cannot exist. Likewise, there is no law against a woman ejaculating semen in public, or a man selling the eggs in his womb to a doctor for pay. Likewise, there is no law against a man flying to heaven on a winged unicorn and eating all the cheese of the moon.
But the Edward Bernys technique was used to associate opposition to gay marriage with miscegenation law, which forbade marriage between the races. A new word had to be formed “homophobia” to cast all opposition illegitimate, in order to end all debate before it began.
And so the matter was never discussed. At least, insofar I saw and read, not a single sober discussion between the two sides about the legal precedents and ramifications to family law that would be set by redefining marriage to include an alliance between sodomites. The legalization of polygamy and incest and the normalization of pederasty — which is the commonplace way homosexuals of one generation generate a supply of catamites for the next — were perhaps mentioned in passing. The legal ramifications never discussed included the effect on estates, wills, divorce law, common law marriage, community property, and so on and so on.
By framing this absurdity as a matter of civil right, when it obviously is not, obvious absurdities arise in direct consequence, such as using the Civil Rights Act to punish Christian cake bakers for failing to bake a wedding cake to celebrate a sin; such as punishing a centuries-old Catholic charity for failing to place orphans into the hands of sexual perverts; such as destroying the Boy Scouts for attempting to protect young boys from the predatory sexual abnormalities of perverts; such as eliminating decency and wholesomeness from the entertainment industry, so that Disney movies, Blue Clues and shows aimed at little children are exposed to Drag Queens and pederasts; such as all but eliminating female sports and female locker rooms; such as eliminating the sex of a child from a birth certificate; such as taking little boys away from their fathers to be castrated because the mother insists a boy is a girl; such a harassing and firing actresses or professors who refuse to allow the state, or peer pressure, to dictate what pronouns the English language uses.
This is simply a neurosis that has grown into a psychosis.
The Libertarians, and the elite of the Right during their corruption, made a similar false-to-facts association between two concepts that are unrelated.
As said above, the Libertarian, seeing how well the cease fire between orthodox and heterodox operated in America, once it was illegal for the federal government to establish, or even to favor, one denomination over another, fondly imagined a similar cease fire could operate between the chaste and the unchaste, the honest and the adulterer, the straight and the perverted, the happily married and the warped sideshow freaks who hated them.
The case fire was a lie from the first. An honest difference of opinion and worldview between two Christians, both loyal to Christ, both following the same Ten Commandments and vowing the same Nicene Creed, but who differ on a technical question of theology, can live under the same laws, fight in the same army, and even treat each other with a certain dignity at arm’s length, even if they have good reason to detest each other. The Christian creed, in all variations, demands obedience even to pagan kings and caesars, and love even toward hated enemies.
It is far different between saints and perverts. No honest difference of opinion is possible. The pervert, in order to justify his own guilty and unnatural acts to himself, must assert that sex is not sex. He must assert that no emotions and no passions have any due and proper role aside from those he wills them to have, or, if he argues he cannot help surrender to temptation, no proper aside from those nature instilled into him at birth.
Hence, in the Christian worldview, there is no temptation so strong that is cannot, with the help of the Holy Spirit, be resisted. In the Pervert worldview, sexual temptations, and these alone, cannot be resisted, and should not be if they could.
If the sexual perversion is innate, that is, caused by hormones or gene malfunction, then medicine could cure it. If caused by psychological trauma, therapy can battle it. But these things, in the Pervert worldview, are anathema, because sexual perversion has to be defined as a non-perversion. It is as chaste as chastity: A is non-A.
Hence conversion therapy is a hate crime, and preaching chastity and abstinence cannot be tolerated.
The Christian and the Christian, even when one is heterodox and the other orthodox, can tolerate each other, because neither one’s worldview is based on the need to destroy the other.
It is not so between Christ and Antichrist. The two are opposed at every point and cannot come to terms. There can be no peace.
What decent people do not understand is why perverts are perverted. Normal sex does not please. Sexual pleasure contains an element of the sadomasochistic, because demeaning or being demeaned in acts that mimic the sexual act is part of the fetish. Sexual perversion also contains an element of rebellion, of defiance, of Satanic refusal to obey. Non serviam. The zest of the forbidden, hence the need for ever more perverse expressions of the perversion, lends a needed thrill.
Perversion hates innocence. One a pederast, for example, performs statutory rape on a child, that child does not grow up and become his wholesome and lifelong sexual partner. Once the innocence is demeaned, the thrill of demeaning innocence cannot be found except in the next victim.
More to the point, rare indeed is the pervert who can rest comfortably in his sins without being goaded or stung by his conscience.
Now a third false-to-facts neurosis comes into play. Since he has associated sex with non-sex, and associated perversion with non-perversion, the pervert must next pretend that if his conscience dampens his feelings, that it is not his conscience speaking, but the voices of bigots who are his inexplicable enemies.
If life between catamite and sodomite does not lead to a happy home-life, a large family, and a trusting mutual relationship and growth in love between man and wife and God, the pervert cannot blame his perversion for his frustrations and loss and sense of guilt, without condemning his own sin as sinful.
As long as the sin is a bold and beautiful expression of his inner and honest self, and not a sin at all, the side effects that come from sin cannot be acknowledged as coming from their true source. They must be attributed to a scapegoat.
So the conscience cannot be the conscience: instead it becomes the internalization of an oppressive cisheteropatriarchy attempting to fetter your brave and free expression of your free bravery. The Christian who refuses to bake you a wedding cake, even if you have to drive for two hours to reach the county where he lives, by the mere act of existing at all, by withholding his enthusiastic approval for the sins crippling your life and ruining your happiness, but his mere act of wishing you joy, has become an enemy.
You cannot tolerate him, nor live under the same laws, nor serve in the same military, because you hold his existence to be mutually exclusive with your own.
Either the law must forbid you from sodomy, or it must forbid him from failing enthusiastically to support sodomy.
But, as a matter of logic, while it is possible to outlaw sodomy by punishing the act when detected, it is not possible to establish a limit at law, or a limit in theory, where sufficient enthusiasm and support for sodomy is enough support.
The Libertarian conceit that they two can agree to a mutual non-aggression pact, which can work between two Christian denominations where neither controls an established church, cannot work between Christ and Antichrist, nor between host and parasite, nor between honest and corrupt.
The corrupt cannot stand being corrupt. They cannot stand themselves. They hate themselves and project that hatred onto you, calling you a bigot when all you might want is to be left alone.
They cannot leave you alone and also use you as a scapegoat. If you are the source of all their ills (such is the function of a scapegoat) no apology, no concession, no compromise, and no retreat is possible.
One falsehood leads to another. Once, as a matter of principle, one holds that sexual pleasure, not the sexual act, defines sex, then no source of pleasure can be licit or illicit.
All the self same arguments, unchanged, can be used for sodomy as for any other sexual perversion or unnatural act. If homosex is licit, all are licit. Certainly the distinction between one wife and many, between monogamy and polygamy, cannot be decreed illicit. Those, at least, involve natural acts.
Even the vaunted idea that consent is necessary to make the act licit is no real boundary: if a parent or a pet owner can consent on behalf of child or animal for, let us say, a needed surgery, why can be not do so for sexual congress? The necrophiliac need only consult a last will and testament, or whatever living relatives have legal control of the corpse.
Once heterosexual and homosexual love is equated, no distinction of male and female is licit. And so was have seen with the transgender movement.
Once sex is diminished to mere personal preference, mind and body become, legally speaking, immaterial to each other. (Why this same logic does not apply to skin color as it does to genitalia and XX or XY genes, is left as an exercise for the reader.)
The material world is no longer real, only one’s own mental world: you are a woman if you feel yourself to be. Or asexual, bisexual, nonsexual, polysexual, whateversexual. Invent your own.
Reality then becomes a matter of opinion, or of self-identity. Science halts. Art dies. Even entertainment no longer entertains.
If reality is opinion, language becomes arbitrary, merely a matter of the will of the stronger, like the barking of dogs, where the big dog drowns out the small. As language erodes, laws grow corrupt, one more example of strong outbarking weak.
Anarchy reigns, and cities burn. Which is as we also have seen.
The good hearted people who thought that sodomy laws punished innocent men whose only crime was to suffer some inborn genetic or hormonal defect, thought that eliminating those laws would allow the two parties, straight and queer, despite their difference in sexual orientation, to cooperate and live in mutual peace.
There can be no peace. If homosexual lust is regarded as equal and interchangeable with natural lust, then teaching young boys to adopt the habits and mannerisms of flamboyant drag queens is no more untoward than teaching young girls the habits and manners of refined young ladies from finishing school. Urging a boy to steal a kiss from a boy under the mistletoe is no more untoward than urging he kiss a Spaniard’s pretty daughter.
There can be no peace because society cannot, by law and custom, both uphold chastity, and uphold unchastity. Unlike the two Christians who can agree on the same laws, the decent and the indecent cannot agree.
For pornography to be legal, it must be normalized, and hence censorship of pornography must be illegal. Likewise, for homosexuality to be legal, it must be normalized, hence any speaking against it must be made abnormal. It must be censured by society, which means, eventually, must be censored by the law. Hence, if sodomy is legal, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah must be illegal — which we have already seen.
Living in a society with no censorship, alas for the Libertarians, is simply not possible. Either we have the Hayes Code, and lurid sex and violence is kept from children, or we have Cancel Culture, and normalcy and decency is kept from everyone, and the Bibles be burned.
If sodomy is legal, and if marriage is merely a secular contract and not a holy sacrament, no legal argument can be made to disqualify sodomites from making such a contract.
These good hearted people willing to legalize sodomy were fools, because they said in their hearts that God has nothing to say on the matter.
Nor did they listen to the pagan sages, oriental wise men, Norse witches, tribal shaman, votaries of Egyptian death-gods, or the teaching of the Buddha. Every civilized religion and law code from ancient times onward condemns pederasty and homosexuality, and, nor does any oral tradition from any tribal lore affirm the practice.
This is because having a difference of sexual orientation is not like the difference between being lefthanded and righthanded.
It is the difference between natural and unnatural, because sinner and saint, between healthy and neurotic, between Dracula and Mina Harker.
Telling a healthy but shy man to gather his courage and try his best is asking him to live up to an ideal, and not let his emotions betray him or rule him or ruin his life.
Telling a neurotic that reality is mad but he is sane is asking him to betray himself, to surrender to all his worst emotions, and to abdicate reason. It destroys his ideals.
One does not cure a madman who thinks himself Napoleon by saluting him as Emperor of France — and to call any psychiatrist attempting to cure him a bigot motivated by psychopathic phobia, would prevent others from curing him as well.
There may be many motivations for luring lunatics ever deeper into labyrinthine trap of their own self-delusion, but love is not one of them.
We tried to live in peace with those who suffer from same sex attraction. We thought they might be grateful. They will not leave us alone, even if we leave them alone. They insist on buggers among the Boy Scouts, and lesbians among the Disney Princesses shown to children. They insist on month-long celebrations of vice, and Drag Queen story hour. They will not allow our charities to find home for orphans, will not let our bakers bake wedding cakes in peace.
They will not leave our children unmolested.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
