One Jew’s Red Pill Journey – Part 5 of ?
It was like a Batman punch. Of course it was human!
THAT FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH
GAY MARRIAGE AND MORE
GAY MARRIAGE BECAME “A THING”
THE RULES ARE IN OPPOSITION… FOR A REASON
© 2018, NITZAKHON
* I’m not excusing rape, but I am going to allow for the possibility that a single rape accusation could be because a woman changed her mind, or an outright false accusation, and is now crying RAPE! to get the man; after all, we know that there have been post-coital regrets that turn into accusations of rape. But if a man is convicted of a second, and especially a third, rape against three different women? Sorry, the chance you are falsely accused or convicted is nil by the third one. Say “Bye bye boys!”
** Back when I was an atheist, a staunch Catholic friend once observed that in how I treated others I was “more Christian than most Christians”. High praise taken in the spirit of what was intended, and I’d like to hope I’ve only gotten better since then.
I do hope you’re finding these retrospectives worth reading. At the risk of sounding egotistical I’m hoping that by publicly airing my own political (and personal) evolution, if nothing else, I’m showing others making similar journeys that they’re not alone.
Two classical Left/Right topics on which I’ve made a true 180 flip, which I haven’t really touched on in depth, are pro-choice ---> pro-life, and for gay marriage ---> anti-gay marriage. Let me discuss each in turn.
A side note: I get very wary when someone is referred to as a “flip-flopper”. To me, a person who changes their mind and can point to the events, facts, etc., that caused them to do so is most-assuredly not flip-flopping; they had an opinion, learned something new, and changed. Holding your finger in the air to gauge the wind’s direction, and saying you align with it – as most politicians are wont to do – is flip-flopping.
PRO-CHOICE TO PRO-LIFE
It’s rare that a mere bumper sticker truly changes a person’s views, but one did – or at least planted the seeds of a change. Like many things that strike you emotionally, you remember it forever. I was at the post office and saw a bumper sticker that said:
If it’s not a child, you’re not pregnant.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Right. Except, like a proverbial earworm tune, that meme kept rattling around my brain. I found myself wavering but undeterred from being pro-choice… yet I couldn’t dismiss it outright. So, a few weeks later, in the course of a discussion with someone who was also pro-choice, they said “So what’s the big deal? It’s not like a fetus is human yet!”
It was like a Batman punch. Of course it was human!
Understand that at that time I was an atheist; I retained vestiges of my Jewish upbringing but had precisely zero belief in a deity. Nor was I actually aware, except peripherally, that anyone in my family had perished in the Shoah (Holocaust). But it was, as I said, a punch in the face – precisely what I needed: the pro-choice people denied the humanity of the baby in the same way the Nazis denied the Jews’ (and others’) humanity. The better to overcome the natural human instinct against murder.
As I observed in A Very Personal Opposition to Gun Control:
One of the concepts of which I’ve become aware in the last year or so is the idea that the “common man” actually has strong inhibitors against mass murder in most societies - and overall, I believe it. Although there were, obviously, conscienceless persons who saw the enrichment and power opportunities and went for them whole-hog without regret *cough cough* George Soros *cough cough*, the vast majority of people – were a person in power to suddenly come out and announce an unprecedented pogrom against a specific demographic, or a sudden switch from an open government to a tyrannical one – would not accept this.
In the case of the Shoah in particular, though from my readings this seems to be a general pattern, there needs to be a years-long, perhaps even decades-long, drip-drip-drip of propaganda venom slowly turning that target from valued to pariah. For example, the Jews were changed from valued members of society to an evil that had to be eliminated. Once people believed that Jews were behind their Weimar-hyperinflation suffering (and, doubtless, myriad other "crimes against German people"), their elimination became seen as a moral good and national necessity.
A large part of this is the dehumanization of the intended target demographic. So when a pro-choice person says “It’s just a clump of cells” what they’re really saying is “It’s not really human”. They might as well be saying untermenschen. Analysis: True:
Just as Hitler initiated his "final solution" for unwanted groups of people by propaganda, which degraded and desecrated their humanity, so we have over the past five decades witnessed prominent politicians, judges and academics seeking to dehumanize a child growing in utero as merely a non-human fetus. And some activists have even gone so far as to assert that a pre-born baby should be viewed as a sexually transmitted “disease” - a parasitic growth in a woman’s uterus, which, if allowed to grow, will become part of a serious world “pop-pollution problem”.
When my wife was pregnant with our first child, that “clump of cells” had a heartbeat that pulsed beat-beat-beat with a few grains of static that moved in time with the audio speaker’s broadcast.
I’m not a terribly emotional person. Sure I’ve got emotions, but I’m not prone to weeping. I wept. I wept, tears running down my face, utterly overcome as I looked at and heard the heartbeat of my first child. That sight changed me, forever; I was going to be a father. The word “fetus” never entered my vocabulary as I thought about that nascent life, nor did “clump of cells”. Baby! We’re gonna have a baby! And I’m gonna be a Daddy!
Only by denying that fundamental truth, that inside a mother is a child, is abortion possible. And only someone with no soul could look at such an image, see that pulsing heart plus hear it, and not feel twin cloaks of love and responsibility settle on them… which is why abortionists are so dead-set against showing such images. That’s why they fight, tooth and nail, to tell pregnant women that it’s “just a clump of cells”. Because it’s how that nascent life is dehumanized that sets the stage to be able to kill it.
[1st Trimester Surgical Abortion: Suction (Aspiration) D & C / 3:24]
[2nd Trimester Surgical Abortion: Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) / 4:12]
[3rd Trimester Induction Abortion: Injection and Stillbirth / 3:39]
The words we choose to define things matter. A “fetus” vs. a “baby”… because I guarantee that pretty much everyone nobody reading this did had their mother say “Hey, I’ve got a fetus inside me!” but rather she told her (presumptive) husband “We’re gonna have a baby!”
ONE GREY AREA
I still wrestle with a rape-induced pregnancy. On one hand, that child has done nothing to warrant a death sentence – IMHO the one who needs such a death sentence, or at a minimum castration for someone convicted of multiple rapes*, is the rapist. On the other hand, I can understand how being forced to carry the product of such an act could be considered “cruel and unusual punishment”. So, too, is the question: do we really want a known rapist’s genes to be carried forward… but again, that child is an innocent, and given a good home and proper upbringing, is not a captive to their genes. I would argue for birth and then adoption, but I can at least see the other side on this one.
Ultimately, when someone says “It’s a woman’s right to choose” my response is “Yes, and she can choose to not participate in an act that could get her pregnant; it’s called personal responsibility”. (Many years ago in grad school I was arguing with the “Wymen’s Center” people on one of their forum boards; although pro-choice at the time I was still bothered by the so-what attitude they had. We were talking about how women who get pregnant can leverage that to get 18 years of financial support – and they said “Well, if you don’t want to get a woman pregnant, keep it in your pants”. Fair enough, but what’s good for the gander is good for the goose; I replied, playing Devil’s Advocate, “Well, if you don’t want to get pregnant, keep your legs shut”. The howls of outrage were impressive as I implied they might need to exercise restraint on their animal rutting, and I was banned from commenting on that site within 24 hours.)
A short coda on this. The standard refrain is that most women are responsible, pregnancies are failures of birth control, etc. That begs the question, though: If women are so responsible, why are STD rates – supposedly prevented by “responsible / safe sex” condom use – rising? And my personal experience disagrees too: one woman I knew had multiple abortions – she simply didn’t like using preventative birth control. Several women at college got pregnant; I later found out through the grapevine that they forgot to use condoms, or were drunk and hooked up (in one case she didn’t know specifically who the father was, as she’d been with several guys in a gang-bang in which she was – scuttlebutt said – an enthusiastic participant), or they weren’t on the pill… a girl I briefly dated in college revealed her first college *ahem* experience was sans protection because “She’d gotten caught up in the moment”. Heck, my first time the girl I was with asked, as I searched my desk for a condom, “Do you really need one?” (If I’d gotten her pregnant her parents would have had to stand behind mine to kill me – yes, I had a condom.)
And when I read this piece I was nauseated at the entire article but was close to hurling over this:
'I've had 5 abortions because I love getting pregnant but just not ready for kids': One Whisper user shared her own shocking revelation
One of the things that I keep lecturing my children about is the need to rise above the animal. The divine soul (super-ego) needs to be in charge, not the animal self (id). The above statement is a sign that person is ruled by the animal: I-want-I-want-I-want. Call me vindictive but I truly hope that person finds, when the time comes, they cannot have children because of the abortions they did.
When I was growing up there were two elderly women who lived down the street. Very friendly and open, they’d welcome little me in; my parents knew them – heck, in those days pretty much everyone knew everyone in my neighborhood – so there were no concerns. To me, in those tender innocent years, I thought they were just roommates. I do remember one time someone referred to them as “that lesbian couple”, but I quite literally had no understanding of what that meant. I didn’t care. They were nice in general, they were nice to me; they’d let me play with their cat as my parents didn’t want pets. (They also let me try the dry cat food, which I found I liked… some might say that explains a lot! LOL!)
In my teens, well after they’d left the area – I think one died and the other went to an assisted-living place – I finally made the connection. OK, so they were lesbians. So what?
Through my college years I knew gay people; pure gays as well as a couple of bisexuals. There was one young woman who was, taking her statements at face value, completely asexual. Again, so what?
Now let me be clear: in the Torah it says that gay sex is a sin, and I believe it. I also know that we have free will. Those who participate in such acts have that choice. I don’t approve… but so long as those participating in it are consenting adults, that’s their choice. And at the end of their lives, though, that will be placed in the negative column.
When the whole gay marriage thing arose, I was for it. Why not, I thought? If two people love each other and are willing to commit to each other “for better or worse”, and so on, what’s the harm? In modern parlance, “love is love” – right?
Aside: Even now, I agree with the idea of some kind of legal contract that could bind people, benefits, etc. IMHO simple human decency demands that. Vestiges of my Libertarian leanings, perhaps, still holding on. Just don’t call it marriage.
But as the gay marriage movement gained strength I started to notice how obnoxious, indeed tyrannical, they were. A florist, who had provided flowers to gay people since forever, was sued because she wouldn’t provide flowers for a wedding. Note: it’s not that they refused to serve the gay person at all, just not for the wedding. The same thing for bakers and wedding cakes… and it’s not like there were no other alternatives either – these people were targeted, specifically, to make a point (Mao is reputed to have said “Hit one, teach one hundred.”) Memories Pizza, destroyed because a reporter on an ideological mission asked a hypothetical question. I started to understand that this was not about tolerance, but societal sanction, and the silencing of opposition. It also fit with the theme of my prior Red Pill Journey essay; i.e., the enemedia’s deliberate attempt to steer the culture – to remake America:
[Hollywood Wants Your Money...and Your Mind / 4:49]
I looked at what was happening in Europe. Far more Left – libertine – than America, marriage in general (and child-bearing specifically) was declining. I also started to predict that polygamists would begin using the same language to get their lifestyle into the mainstream, and then legalized. And I was right, Politico: Has not the time come for polygamy, social liberals? (bolding added):
Lawrence opened the door to polygamy; Obergefell merely laid out the welcome mat. We’ll see how long it will take for the court to use this cultural jurisdiction to declare prostitution and adult incest a protected area of human expression on the basis of informed adult consent.
Not long at all; Adult incest and the law (links in the original):
Father-adult daughter incest is in the news again; apparently incest among adults is not a crime in New Jersey (though incestuous marriages are void), and a father-daughter couple is planning on moving to New Jersey for that very reason. According to New York Magazine (Alexa Tsoulis-Reay), the daughter, who is now 18, grew up almost never seeing her father (except for weekends between ages 3 and 5). When she was 17, she got back in touch with him, and they quickly began a romantic and sexual relationship.
See also Incest a 'fundamental right', German committee says. Don’t forget the Left looks to Europe for social policy inspiration.
And in talking with a friend fairly recently, we discussed how his college-age daughter related how pedophilia “P” is being added to the LBGTQ “alphabet soup” at school; there’s certainly a push to normalize “intergenerational love”, We Are On the Road To Normalizing Pedophilia (link in original, bolding added):
The unfortunate truth is that pedophiles and their sympathizers are using the homosexual rights playbook. The same arguments Anthony Kennedy (and I have no evidence that Kennedy is a pedophile) made in deciding Lawrence vs. Texas and hammered home in Obergefell vs. Hodges can be applied directly to pedophiles. The fact that we already allow 13 and 14 year old girls sufficient agency to decide to take birth control pills or get an abortion without parental consent is a de facto death blow to state age of consent laws. Once consent is taken as something that is inherent in one’s humanity, ephebophilia (or pedophilia-lite) will be all the rage and it will just be a hop-skip-and-jump to full blown legalization of pedophilia.
The slide is not stopping with humans either, and what starts in Europe will doubtless move here; Bestiality brothels are 'spreading through Germany' warns campaigner as abusers turn to sex with animals as 'lifestyle choice':
Bestiality brothels are spreading through Germany faster than ever thanks to a law that makes animal porn illegal but sex with animals legal, a livestock protection officer has warned.
It’s already on this side of the pond; Canada Legalizes Some Bestiality:
For those of you who have read the Bible and wonder how a culture could descend into such sexual perversion as sodomy and even bestiality, you need look no further than our own culture. However, on Thursday, The Supreme Court of Canada shockingly ruled that some bestiality is just fine.
Animal husbandry is going to take on a new meaning, and it’ll be legal. It’s just a “lifestyle choice”, after all. </sarcasm>
In what I consider one of – if not the – best movie scenes evah, Al Pacino plays the Devil in The Devil’s Advocate and, at the end, rants about G-d and how He sets the rules in opposition to human nature:
[Al Pacino's speech about God (The Devil's Advocate) / 1:51]
Art imitates life! In a keystone book in my religious reawakening, Twerski on Spirituality, the author describes that the key difference between humans and animals is precisely what Al Pacino’s devil is describing: the overcoming of the animal in favor of the divine. I came to understand that liberalism is all about reversing that elevation process and embracing the animalistic I-want-I-want-I-want.
When my soul is freed from its earthly abode it will go to be judged. I once read that the Jewish tradition holds that when that happens the soul is shown two histories:
1. The life the soul actually led
2. The life the soul could have led had it lived a G-dly life
And the soul will cry out in anguish, seeing all the times it chose to embrace the animal, or to otherwise act opposite G-d’s laws.
Am I the world’s best, most observant Jew? Not even close. Am I a good person? I’d like to think so**, but again, I’m nowhere close to being what I want to be. But at the end, when I pass to that borne from which no man ever returns and see those two films, I truly hope that I will be able to say that as those two reels move forward in time, from the start of my life to its end, the differences between the two will grow smaller.
Liberalism rejects that effort to separate the animal from the divine and progress towards the latter. Liberalism embraces the animal, it embraces sin (to borrow from the Catholic concept of the Seven Deadly Sins, Lust, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Vanity, Sloth, and Greed – consider whether anything that Liberalism promotes does not rely on these), it embraces the profane and enjoys mocking the Creator. In embracing abortion, liberalism is really legitimizing child sacrifice, an abomination to G-d. In embracing gay marriage, it is legitimizing deviancy contrary to both the weight of distilled human experience across countless generations, as well as G-d’s law itself.
Ultimately, liberalism rejects morality, it rejects enlightenment, it rejects self-control. In embracing the animalistic I-want-I-want-I-want, liberalism shows it spurns the divine in favor of that animal – thus showing itself to be incompatible with G-d Himself. I choose to be on His side.