March 8, 2017 § 71 Comments
As we’ve discussed many times before, what modern people call “rights” are instances of discriminating authority. A property owner has the authority to eject trespassers without everyone insisting that he has to give good reasons for why he is doing so.
A property owner’s discriminating authority is labeled “property rights” as a way of short circuiting any further thought on the matter. By labeling this a “right” we don’t have to acknowledge that the law discriminates between the property owner and everyone else, empowering the property owner to, himself, discriminate and bind people to do or not do certain actions within the domain of his authority.
The magic word “rights” acts as a kind of wrongthought circuit breaker, allowing us to notice the empowerment involved in “rights” while studiously ignoring the multitude of constraints which are concomitant to every right. “Rights” give us mental cover for thinking of ourselves as empowered while at the same time avoiding the terrible crime of discrimination. Because rights are empowering, more of them means more freedom to our short-circuited modern minds. The more expansive our “rights” are interpreted to be by the ruling class, the more of this “freedom” we have.
At least for certain values of “we”.
October 30, 2016 § 13 Comments
We must not tolerate illegal immigration. Since 1992, we have increased our Border Patrol by over 35%; deployed underground sensors, infrared night scopes and encrypted radios; built miles of new fences; and installed massive amounts of new lighting. We have moved forcefully to protect American jobs by calling on Congress to enact increased civil and criminal sanctions against employers who hire illegal workers. Since 1993, we have removed 30,000 illegal workers from jobs across the country. – Between Hope and History, by Bill Clinton, p.134 , Jan 1, 1996
Donald Trump in 2016 is objectively very similar to Bill Clinton in 1992. The main difference is that from an Overton Window standpoint Trump is now an extreme right wing candidate rather than an extreme left wing candidate. Anything resembling social conservatism has simply dropped off of the radar: even the pro life movement these days is pro choice. Donald Trump when elected (assuming he is smart enough to let Grandma Abortion Witch implode) will just be the third black president.
Liberalism is insane and anti-human, but its insanity ironically makes it extremely adaptable. The Trump phenomenon is not some great new hope for the salvation of Western civilization: some new direction which represents the possibility of a future free from SJW excesses and other leftist insanity. Rather what we are witnessing is the action, in real time, of liberalism’s own internal mechanisms for protecting itself from the results of its own excesses as it continues to dominate more and more of reality. We are witnessing how it absorbs and repurposes any possible incipient opposition, turning the energy of that opposition toward liberalism’s own ends: ends which include self preservation.
Liberalism’s greatest enemy has for centuries been the consequences of its own comprehensive triumph. But by keeping all political conflict inside of its inescapable gravity well it ensures its own long term persistence, in spite of itself.
October 13, 2016 § 12 Comments
Apparently the Polish Episcopal Conference sabotaged the passage of anti-abortion legislation because the legislation treated abortion as if it were a form of murder:
… the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons responsible for conducting an abortion, including women who allow their children to be killed.
Despite having the means to simply expunge this section of the Bill and continue to work on it without the penal consequences for women who decide to kill their children, they refrained from doing this. This reflected the position of the Polish Bishops who on the same day decided to reject the Bill in its entirety.
Like Donald Trump the authors of the law made the mistake of taking pro lifers seriously in the contention that abortion is a kind of murder, when in fact the mainstream pro life position in the Current Year[tm] is merely a variation of pro choice. The mainstream pro life position is that the provision of abortion should be restricted and heavily regulated, but women who procure abortions should never face any sort of legal penalty for doing so. Abortion victimizes the perpetrator and is the fault of abusive men; it isn’t a choice made by women who are responsible for their own choices.
The assertion that when a pregnant woman procures an abortion her act should never be treated as a crime simply is the pro choice position. How much and what kind of regulation one thinks there ought to be within the pro choice framework is just variation on the theme: we’ve established what we are and are just haggling over the price.
My own understanding is that abortion is in fact a species of murder and should be legally treated as such. I call my position ‘anti abortion’ to distinguish it from the various pro choice legal doctrines (including the ‘pro life’ variant of pro choice).
Under just positive law, murderers can receive all the spiritual accompaniment and mercy that they need in their cells.
October 2, 2016 § 41 Comments
Today is Respect for Life Sunday. Most people assume that this implies an anti-abortion theme, which will be reflected in parish activities and also in the homily at Mass. That assumption probably rests on the naive idea that the mainstream pro life movement is actually anti-abortion as opposed to pro choice.
Since we live in the land of lies where every day is opposite day, the homily I heard today was not really about respecting the lost lives of unborn children murdered by their mothers. Very little was actually said about the victims, and nothing at all about the terrible injustice perpetrated against them by their own mothers and their mothers’ co-conspirators. Rather, the entire presentation was designed to generate sympathy for the murderesses as opposed to their victims.
The first half was all about domestic ‘abuse’, in all of its motte-and-bailey indefiniteness. There was an obligatory ‘if you are a woman or a man who is abused’ nod to egalitarianism, but we all know who are the main abusers.
The second half was about how choosing to murder a child is its own sort of victimhood. It was even stated that harm to the mother and harm to the child are inseparable. This is true, of course: the very concept of a murder victim makes no sense without a murderer.
We were assured that the murderess is always harmed by her choice to murder, despite all the denial of this by many secular voices. This of course is also true: murderers like all sinners can find forgiveness in Christ and the Sacraments, but they do terrible and irrevocable things to themselves when they commit murder.
We were treated to a scenario wherein an older woman is depressed and ashamed because she participated in the murder of her own child when she was a young teen, at the behest and encouragement of her parents. This seems perfectly natural to me. People with diminished capacity who are roped into a conspiracy to commit murder by stronger personalities are victims, of a sort. Of course they are also murderers, if they freely chose to carry out the act or to co-conspire in carrying it out.
Perhaps we ought to suggest a homily on how rapists are victims too, at some point in the future. Perhaps we could establish a Respect Chastity Sunday, wherein we will be treated to sympathetic stories about rapists. Men are born with a natural propensity to violence in order to protect their families, and with an intensity of sex drive that women cannot fathom. The rapist is a victim too, and deserves ‘mercy‘: that is, reassurance that it isn’t really his fault that he chose to rape.
Deception paints its cubist distortions of reality from a palate of truths.
So what did you hear on respect for murderesses Sunday?
April 25, 2016 § 153 Comments
It has been pointed out to me that in characterizing the public position of the mainstream pro-life movement as pro abortion, I am being unfair. Some go so far as to suggest, while bravely facing the applause, that this is outright calumny and rash judgment. The dispute is not over the moral status of abortion: it is over the legal status of abortion. The mainstream pro-life movement abhors abortion morally and wants to see the number of abortions dramatically reduced.
Pro-lifers are even willing to do whatever it takes legally to mete out punishment for all of the abortions caused by men who manipulate poor helpless women.
So lets define “pro choice” as the position that a woman ought to be able to choose abortion without any legal consequences to herself.
The mainstream pro-life movement’s position, then, is not pro abortion. It is pro choice.
April 15, 2016 § 41 Comments
Ending political conflict over abortion admits of a simple technical solution. All we need to do is develop and enhance techniques which empower women to carry out abortion themselves, without the assistance of an abortionist. If necessary we can develop technology which has ‘acceptable’ uses – which is to say, non-criminal uses – for other things besides self-abortion, to avoid any objection to the effect that the providers of the technology can be criminally charged. After all, guns don’t kill people: people kill people.
That way – under the principles expounded by all respectable people, including pro-lifers – the law has nobody to charge with a crime. Political conflict over abortion should come to an end.
Unless we listen to the fruitcakes and nutcases who think there should be legal sanctions against women who procure abortion, that is.
But they aren’t True Pro Lifers[tm] or True Conservatives[tm] anyway, so why should we listen to them?
Reader GJ in the comments below provides data to the effect that 20% of all abortions in 2011 were self-administered by the mother taking an abortion-inducing pill. In 2008 approximately 30% of the abortions in Planned Parenthood facilities were performed by the mother herself (taking a pill).
April 15, 2016 § 37 Comments
Someone is pro abortion if he asserts – for whatever reason or set of reasons – that no woman should face any kind of legal sanction or punishment for deliberately choosing to have her unborn child murdered.
It is a pretty big tent. I used to think that many of the folks who literally march under the pro-life banner were well meaning but suffered from a kind of stockholm syndrome. Recent events show that I was giving them too much credit. It turns out that they are just pro abortion after all, and have been so all along.