GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

© 2021. all rights reserved.

“Science” becomes self-negating


by:

It all started in 2013 when Popular Science disabled its comment section. We laughed. Or, at least, I did. What a stupid idea for a major publication to declare “Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.” As if science was some sort of fragile bird that needs affirmation to flourish in the cold, cruel world of the internet. It turns out that it wasn’t science that needed protecting, it was the “scientific” consensus that was being walled off from criticism or questioning.

Science has gotten really…weird, man!

Eight years later the poisonous fruit of the walled garden continues to infect science publications. Scientific American, the nation’s oldest weekly magazine, has been a proudly leftist pseudo-political rag for quite some time. They endorsed Joe Biden for President in 2020, for example, and they currently have an article headlined “Politicians Don’t Get to Use ‘Science’ to Oppose the Equality Act.” prominently displayed on their home page. But their latest declaration “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So,” takes their bias to a new level.

After declaring that “13,000 scientists agree” that this is an emergency (because what’s more scientific than saying “everybody’s doing it, yo!”), Senior Editor Mark Fischetti sniffs “Journalism should reflect what science says: the climate emergency is here.” In a statement coordinated by Covering Climate Now, an activist project of the Columbia Journalism Review, Scientific American and several major newspapers declare that they will all use the same emergency language going forward. What prompted this call to action? Coverage of COVID-19.

The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model. Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devastating impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).

Got that? There isn’t a sentient being on Earth who thinks the media or the “science” got COVID coverage right. The response to COVID has been as devastating as the disease itself. We have been told to trust the experts, but the experts have lied to us from the very beginning about masks, about the efficacy of vaccines, and about herd immunity. The same “experts” who told us we couldn’t have funerals for our loved ones because of the virus praised last summer’s riots as being necessary and proper from a public health standpoint.

This is an open and direct call for conditioning and propaganda under the auspices of science. To push a radical, leftist agenda major newspapers are coordinating their messaging in order to scare the people into backing their preferred policies. And they’re not even trying to hide it! One look at some of the major players reinforces the one-sidedness of it all. The Guardian, The Nation, La Repubblica (Italy’s foremost leftist rag), and Al Jazeera are all pushing the mass coordination of the emergency narrative.

Science as we once knew it is dead. Cause of death: suicide.

WaPo’s Teeny Torquemada Has Thoughts


by:

The Washington Post’s Philip Bump is a zealot masquerading as a journalist. In today’s “news analysis” he continues to pump the narrative that Georgia’s new voting law is obviously bad because…well because republicans are just bad. That’s why.

“There’s always a reason that legislation is introduced, always some problem that lawmakers say needs to be addressed in the moment. In Georgia, there is no rational motivation for the passage of its new election law other than demonstrating fealty to the false claims elevated by Trump. Why did Raffensperger need to be replaced on the elections board now? Why did the rules governing absentee applications need to be tightened now, only a few months after an election in which repeated review and extensive scrutiny showed no improprieties had occurred?”

The answer is: COVID is (almost) over and the legislature is smart enough to know that the COVID-era loosey-goosey, let’s-mail-a-ballot-to-anyone-even-dead-people policies are generally unpopular and make elections less safe.

Keeping but reducing the number drop boxes, which didn’t exist before COVID is not a restriction, it’s the opposite. In a post-COVID world why would we need drop boxes anyway? Likewise, requiring ID for absentee ballots is exactly the same as states like Washington, Connecticut, and Joe Biden’s home state of Delaware. Since the legislature is making drop boxes permanent, they want to ensure the ballots are secure. That’s as rational a motivation as there can be for a healthy democracy.

But Teeny Torquemada doesn’t see it that way. Any and all relaxing of voting security (even the unlawful kind) must be upheld in the new world order that seeks to ensure republicans never win another election. After the President himself was awarded four Pinocchios for claiming the Georgia law is “Jim Crow in the 21st Century” the zealots need something to justify their their inquisition.

 

 

Humiliation: The Greatest Gift Our Adversaries Have For America


by:

The country of slut and body shaming is about to learn the positive influence of shame. The only question will be, will we learn shame’s lessons? America had its first sit-down with China this week on United States soil. 
The meeting was supposed to get both sides to the table to set the tone for relations between the two under President Joe Biden’s new Democrat administration. It was expected that the U.S. was going to bring up issues involving China, like human rights and its increasing aggression in numerous domains, but what was not expected was that China would mock the U.S. on U.S. soil. Many critics were stunned by the level of aggression that China showed to the U.S. and the weak response of the Biden administration.
A particularly stinging sentiment shared by the Chinese diplomat Yang expressed that America has lost its leverage on the world stage.
So let me say here that, in front of the Chinese side, the United States does not have the qualification to say that it wants to speak to China from a position of strength.

The “patriotic” knee-jerk reaction to raise a middle finger to the commie bastards is one I no longer share. It’s about time we were challenged and our bluff was called. Maybe this will wake up a nation too busy burning down its own cities for Nikes and iPhones but I wont hold my breath.

China was not the only one openly mocking America Inc.. Russia’s Putin took to the stage to debate Biden after Biden had called him a killer in an ABC interview. Putin’s mockery comes at a time where Biden has yet to hold a press conference months into his presidency breaking a 100 year record in the process – big “debate me, bro” energy from Putin. Putin is putting his finger in a wound that none of us can deny – Biden is not cognitively fit for office. Keep poking, Putin.

The Emperors New Clothes

To these moments of American humiliation I say, good. We deserve it. We aren’t a serious nation anymore. During the meeting with China, Yang brought up Black Lives Matter to accuse the United States of violating human rights (has nobody told him we are merely LARPing civil rights?). Yang went on to mock the validity of our judgement of international public opinion or even the validity within the western world.

Yang: “So we hope that when talking about universal values or international public opinion on the part of the United States, we hope the U.S. side will think about whether it feels reassured in saying those things, because the U.S. does not represent the world. It only represents the Government of the United States.”

It’s hard to fight back against such claims when the US Military is now used primarily for endless, pointless wars and to promote feminist propaganda.
Biden: Some of its relatively straightforward work, where we’re making good progress, designing body armor that fits women properly, tailoring combat uniforms for women, creating maternity flight suits, updating, updating requirements for their hairstyles…

China and Russia are doing us a massive favor. They are humiliating us. It doesn’t matter what horrors they are doing at home to their own people. They know we don’t have the moral self confidence or sheer backbone to do anything about it. I have very little hope, but this would be around the time a country in our position starts taking themselves a little more seriously and stops the endless babble over the representation of .3% of the population and flight suits for pregnant women from the office of the President of the United States.

Gay Jokes 4 Progress!


by:

David Marcus in The Federalist writes a keen essay on the more subtle harms that cancel culture (yes, it’s a thing) can do to our shared cultural achievements. It’s worth a read. He hits on a few points that are missing almost entirely from the public debate on censorship in general, and makes one very important observation about comedy: “by laughing about…stereotypes [we can] diffus[e] them.” This is a concept as old as comedy itself, and it has a special place in the history of gay rights and gay acceptance generally, which we should not want to be erased.

In the Nexflix era people who were born in the late 90’s and early 00’s (how is that even possible?) got to discover TV shows and movies older millennials and Gen Xers grew up with. Friends is the most celebrated example, since it had a “moment” in 2017 and 2018. But its resurgence was also met with controversy over the *gasp* problematic jokes, especially insensitive gay jokes that peppered its decade-long run.

The 90’s were a weird time. Pants were too big, hair was out of control, and most of the country thought gay relationships (not marriage, relationships) should be illegal. in 1996 Congress sought “to express moral disapproval of homosexuality” by passing the Defense of Marriage Act by 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. It’s shocking today to even consider this. And in the midst of a national controversy about gay people and civil rights shows like Friends and Will and Grace flourished.

Tensions about cultural norms were high back then as they are now. No one had satisfactory answers about how much the government should be involved in dictating gay rights. Republicans and democrats took the position that the world would end if their preferred policies weren’t enacted. And while the “very political” class was engaged in blood sport, the rest of us did what normal people do: we laughed about it. In an environment where your elected leaders overwhelmingly disapprove of you, just being a part of the culture was liberating and life-affirming. Sure, a fair critique is that we were treated as two-dimensional objects and not three-dimensional subjects, but we couldn’t even discuss this “problem” if we had been left as zero-dimensional non-entities.

“Doesn’t it make sense to place ourselves in the continuum of what came before us and what will come after?” Marcus asks. Of course it does. No society springs fully-formed into perfection. We are, after all, flawed human beings, not demigods. Erasing the culture of the past deprives subsequent generations of guideposts to measure the achievements of a more just society. Acceptance comes as a result of changing hearts not by diktats or censorship that force the changing of minds. If we were to declare a new starting point, a year before which all cultural content would be obliterated, how would we know if we were progressing at all? It would be left to the whims of those who think they are our betters to tell us.

Not every positive change in society needs to be the result of some dour theory cooked up in a faculty lounge or in a Queer Theory seminar. As Aristophanes said “comedy too can sometimes discern what is right.”

2020: The Election That Will Never Die


by:

On February 5, 2020, New York state-certified its election results in the state’s 22nd Congressional District, with Republican Claudia Tenney declared the winner, defeating incumbent Congressman Anthony Brindsi by 109 votes.

This process took 94 days.

If you thought that this was the final race of 2020, you would be wrong.

The last contested Congressional race of 2020 is Iowa’s second congressional district. On November 3, 2020, the race was too close to call between Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, and her Democratic opponent, Rita Hart. After recounts, Iowa’s bipartisan elections board certified the Republican the winner by six votes out of nearly 400,000.

With this certification, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi provisionally seated the Republican Meeks.

Hart formally contested the election results — but not with the state of Iowa, but with the House of Representatives under the Federal Contested Elections Act, which allows the House jurisdiction to settle election disputes for elections to the U.S. House.

On Friday, February 19, the House Administration Committee met to develop its procedures to review Hart’s claim.

What is the procedure? The Committee will set up a task force to oversee an investigation or recount. After the Committee completes its examination of the election, they will issue a report to the full House in a resolution with recommendations. The House then adopts or rejects this resolution by a majority vote. The precedents of the House state that the resolution can:

• dismiss the challenge
• declare which candidate is entitled to the seat
• assert that no one should be seated pending the completion of an investigation
• call for a new election to be held
• refute the challenger as not qualified to contest the election
• provide reimbursement for the contestants from the House’s contingency fund for costs incurred in the contested election process.

Every election cycle has its closest race and has its upset wins, but this process of involving the Federal Contested Elections Act is rare. In the few instances, it has been, the results have been contentious.

In 1996, California Republican Bob Dornan was challenged by Democratic candidate Loretta Sanchez. On election night, Sanchez won by 984 votes and was certified by the California Board of Elections. Dornan then contested the election, alleging that many votes were cast fraudulently by illegal immigrants. Sanchez was seated provisionally, and a 16-month congressional investigation ensued, finding some evidence that 624 votes were cast illegally. California officials also threw out an additional 124 flawed absentee votes. Ultimately, Sanchez was declared the winner (by an albeit) smaller margin.

In 1984, Indiana Democratic Incumbent Frank McCloskey faced Republican Richard McIntyre. McIntyre led on election night and, after a recount, was certified the winner by the Indiana Secretary of State, winning by 34 votes. McCloskey contested the results and brought his case to the House of Representatives. The House Majority (Democratic) refused to seat the Republican. After conducting a recount, the House determined that McCloskey won by four votes. When the House Democrats voted to seat McCloskey, Republicans walked out of the chamber in protest.

Earlier this month, the Democrats took the unusual step of voting to strip a member of the minority party of their committee assignments, removing Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene of her posts. Do the Democrats want to escalate things and now vote to remove a sitting member of the House of Representatives in such partisan and contentious times?

I hope that the committee votes to dismiss Ms. Hart’s suit. We need to put the 2020 election cycle behind us. Like many politicians who have lost a previous race, she can run again in the next election. But if she (and the House Democrats) move forward and ultimately seat her, she will not be deemed a legitimate Congressperson. If Congress overturns these election results, people will lose even more faith in our government, which many already believe is rigged.

American Rocket Fuel


by:

America has stood out from the world as a special place of wealth and opportunity. With only two neighbors and two giant oceans on either side, we’ve known America to be a special place in the world and have boasted about it for a century. Then why do we tear ourselves apart?

America has a great flaw. Great athletes, artists, musicians all know what it is (even if they claim not to). It is success that can tempt a person or a people into complacency, risk aversion, and an over-abundance of resources. A lack of resources is the breeding ground for resourcefulness and innovation. The concept of unearned success is one of the main driving force of left-wing criticism (or at least it was until fat shaming and slut shaming became the next moral crusade for upper class white liberals). Our obsession with “privilege” is a symptom of this way of thinking.

Growing up in the 90s, the message delivered to young people a world struggling outside our borders, especially in places like Asia and Africa (but not exclusively). This may have been true in a lot of ways, but if the intended result was to instill humility and gratitude for what we had, it was a complete and total failure. We take almost everything we have today for granted. At some point, the social benefit of denouncing your own country, and not valuing what you have, became the standard for righteous living in the greatest land on earth.

Our culture is completely self-loathing and self-destructive. As a people, we no longer grapple with the kinds of problems humanity dealt with hundreds of thousands of years.  Over one generation (the hippie generation) the Western World managed to escape the terrors of the natural world through great success. Only a fool would think we were ready to handle such a change in so short a time. It’s seemingly driven us mad as we burn cities for 6 months over one bad cop and a man high on fentanyl, as we celebrate all things ugly like morbidly obese women in Calvin Klein ads, and as we play god with racial and sexual power games. Where is this all headed? Is there hope?

Minneapolis. Protests over the death of George Floyd

America, like the individual, is in need of competition. Without it, we will continue to self destruct. We have been peerless in our endeavors for too long. If we can not teach ourselves to adopt gratitude and drop the shame, it seems like the only cure left is for the rest of the world to catch up. If America can get over itself and realize the world is a competitive place, that is the day America can start injecting rocket fuel into its veins again.

 

 

The Real Problem With Ro Khanna


by:

On Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Tech) made an unsurprising confession: Democrats would rather businesses go under than allow them to pay less than $15 an hour to unskilled workers. This comes after the CBO projects that raising the minimum wage to that level will cost 1.4 Million jobs.

As politically stupid as that is to say out loud, it’s what the likes of Amazon and others have been pushing for since before the pandemic made them “indispensable.” What better way to crush the last vestiges of competition than by getting the government to do your dirty work for you?

But the real threat Khanna poses to America was his supporting argument: “If workers were actually getting paid for the value they were creating it [the minimum wage] would be up to $23.” (Emphasis mine). On its face, this is just typical lefty claptrap. But it’s more sinister than that, and we should pay attention.

But first, a bit of history.

“Man is born free, yet everywhere he is in chains,” declares Rousseau in the opening of The Social Contract. It was, in the best French tradition, a pithy encapsulation of Enlightenment political thought — the same thought that guided our founders. Rousseau makes the argument the only reason man gives up his essentially free (and facially neutral) nature is because the law treats all citizens equally. At least in an ideal world. This argument is a direct refutation of Thomas Hobbes’ belief that man is violent and should be fearful of others — making a strong, unaccountable ruler necessary, and indeed a Good Thing.

Rousseau’s philosophy permeates our system. How many times have we heard about defending the rule of law from every corner of the political spectrum? Our founders wedded Rousseau’s concept of an impartial rule of law to the natural rights doctrine of John Locke when crafting the Declaration of independence and our Constitutions. Locke believed that nature itself was suffused with a law, which he summed up as “no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property.”

Creating a government that would best conform to this law of nature was the primary preoccupation of the men who made this country free. It’s one of the most delicate governmental balancing acts put into practice. Liberty is the inherent mode of our very beings and government must not only protect it, but promote it.  The outcomes are imperfect, but ours is still the greatest experiment in ordered liberty in history.

Ro Khanna fundamentally disagrees with this philosophy.

Karl Marx in his 1844 Manuscripts outlines what is called social alienation. Put simply, Marx believes that man’s freedom is immaterial, shared with others, and contingent. There is no freedom in nature. Rather, man’s essence and indeed his value as a being is subsumed into his labor, which is quantified (unfairly) by his economic output. He is alienated from his essence when the capitalist abuses this nature by directing the labor and not allowing it to flourish naturally for the collective benefit.

While Marx goes much deeper into human nature, Ro Khanna has taken from his philosophy the most facile interpretation: it’s an obscenity to allow a business to exist that “abuses” workers in this way.  For Khanna, the loss of a few million jobs is worthwhile because the moral health of a society is imperiled by the existence of “capitalist exploitation.” Workers are actively harmed by having market wages, which is why “we don’t want low-wage businesses” to exist at all. Man’s essential nature isn’t freedom, or liberty, or even neutral: it’s as a material thing that labors.

This is a sinister, dehumanizing philosophy tarted up as concern for the poor. Khanna and his communist allies know the misery millions will face if they achieve their preferred policy, but that’s a feature, not a bug. After all, if man isn’t born free, who cares if he’s in the chains of poverty?