A few days ago I said the big winner of the gay “marriage” debate will be Caesar

You can read about that here.

Now comes Michael Flynn to link to some of the plans Caesar (in union with Mammon) has for breeding Lower Orders once an atomized society has lost the capacity to resist due to the destruction of the family.  Here, for instance, is a quote from one of the Huxleyan gods, looking forward to a whole breeding stock he can… do things to:

The buzzword among cognoscenti is “post-person,” defined in a much-cited 2009 Philosophy and Public Affairs paper by tenured Duke professor Allen Buchanan, as those “who would have a higher moral status than that possessed by normal human beings” (emphasis original). Buchanan admits crafting chromosomal übermenschen “might be profoundly troubling from the perspective of the unenhanced (the mere persons) who would no longer enjoy the highest moral status, as they did when there were only persons and nonpersons (‘lower animals’).”

“Divide and conquer” is the current strategy of hell, posing as “freedom from archaic morality” but boiling down to the dissolution of all social bonds in the acid bath of relativism.  Once that is finished, then the state and the corporation move in to do… whatever the hell they want.  You got a problem with that?  Well, pal, in the post-Christian pagan world, the strong do as they like and the weak suffer what they must. Your fetish about “personal freedom” and “consent” was cute back in the Teens when people went on about the sort of thing. But our civilization has moved past all that sentimental crap about freedom and dignity. Now you do as you are told and like it. And pretty soon, our genetic engineering programs will make sure that your kind is incapable of questioning or disliking it.

O brave new world, that has such people in’t!

  • Seth Davey

    No, the big winner will be the divorce attorneys. Think about it: The instability of gay so-called marriages, lots of money, gay domestic violence etc etc. It’s fertile ground for the legal profession.

    http://tinyurl.com/theIdealCitizen

    • Kenneth

      Jobs are jobs these days. The Blackwater “consultant” market ain’t what it used to be, and we need to diversify a little beyond foreclosure processing.

    • Niemand

      The evidence supporting your claim appears to be weak. In the US, at least, gay and lesbian marriages appear to be more stable than straight marriages. Perhaps straight marriages should be banned since it appears that straights have unstable relationships.

  • http://www.cappadociainlowell.blogspot.com Renee

    Seth, But people do not get married any more and people who are married can not afford divorce.

    Consider what is happening in Rhode Island, they already lost there middle class. All they have are rich and the dependent poor. 70% of children living in poverty in Rhode Island are from single parent homes. There are fewer children and they are the children that are there are more likely to be poor. Rhode Island answer is more social services, that don’t even address the father. One group (the rich) controls government, another group (the poor) is completely controlled by government.

    From the Diocese of Rhode Island, “Rep: Colleague trying to bargain on gay marriage issue”

    “Rep. Doreen Marie Costa (R-Exeter, North Kingstown) says she was approached on the House floor by fellow freshman Rep. Teresa Ann Tanzi (D-Narragansett, South Kingstown) with an offer to become a cosponsor of legislation that would make several changes to the state’s existing early release law in exchange for her support—as a member of the House Judiciary Committee—for same-sex marriage legislation. As of press time, the House Judiciary Committee has heard testimony on a bill seeking the legalization of same-sex marriage, but has not yet taken a vote on it.
    “She (Rep. Tanzi) asked me if I would vote it out of committee,” Costa said in an interview with Rhode Island Catholic of Tanzi’s wish for her support of a same-sex marriage bill.
    Costa said that when Tanzi approached her, she was holding a folder with the paperwork for her to sign that would make her a cosponsor of a bill.
    “She smiled and said, ‘I hate to do this, but I have to horse trade. You can sign here if you vote gay marriage out of committee’.”
    Costa said she was astounded at what she was hearing.
    She said she responded, “Are you kidding me?”
    With that, Tanzi simply walked away, she said.”

  • Seth Davey

    That sounds about right. And Trial Lawyers give a lot of money to the Dems

    • Kenneth

      They do. And the predatory lenders got the GOP covered. Everyone gets paid. Well, except for the other 99% of us. But hey, at least our replacements in China and South Asia are getting a leg up into a middle class….

      • Dale Price

        Countrywide Chris Dodd nods, hoping you don’t check for the partisan tag behind the curtain.

      • Mike

        Which institution had and still has the power to force/”encourage” private lenders to lend money to people who can’t afford it? Hmmm…what was the policy of the Dems on that one? Hmmm…oh yes now I remember: force lenders to lend to people who can’t afford it; then insure the loans using your money ala Fanny/Freddie. The DEMS and their policies had the perverse effect of distorting the market and causing the wreckage that we are just now getting into the middle of.

        • Newp Ort

          It was those darn poor people who caused the crash. Nevermind that lenders were tripping over their own feet in the rush to give out those loans. Or the rich mega-trading banks took loans they knew to be bad, mixed em up and sold them as AAA rated securities.

          • Mike

            Poor people? What do they have to do with any of it?

            I am talking about people with jobs who could qualify for a $150M loan on a smallish house who were given $450M for a 4 bedroom house!

            Why were the lenders rushing? Do you know how risk is assessed by lenders? If you have a crappy rating, lenders are not rushing to you EXCEPT, if they can get your loan insured by a gov. agency, which are of course backed by/guaranteed by your tax dollars. Why do you think F. Dodds/B. Frank were so popular with the banks and with the insurance agencies?

            The banks were not innocent but it was not of their initial doing. They were forced in many ways to lend and then got stuck with bad paper that they then to protect their shareholders i.e. you and me and millions of so-called poor people tried to move into the market. The ratings agencies were also at fault.

            But make no mistake, DEM policies distorted the market and caused this big build up of subprime loans. This had initially very little to do with so-called greedy banks.

            DEM policies were good in principle but stupid in practice and ended up doing more harm than good. DEM policies have a strange way of rewarding bad behaviour and hurting the very people they’re meant to help. There’s no such thing as a free lunch!

  • Kenneth

    Flynn’s bill of indictment employs the same airtight logic as John Nash’s nest of newspaper clippings and red string connections when he had his first “setback” in “A beautiful mind.”

    We have one Russian magazine editor who personally wants to re-tool marriage ideals, but Flynn assures us she’s in fact the Padishah Emperor of all gays, so we can be confident what They have in store for us. We have the fact of a long-standing internal debate within the feminist movement to come to term with trans-women (they have, by and large). Nothing to do with any of us, but it just sounds skeevy and degenerate, and it’s something we should have known those queers would have afoot. We have the musings of loony tenured futurist academics who talk about eugenics because whacky futurists get published and interviewed for talking about whacky stuff.

    We have examples of neuroscience that tries, and often fails, to predict behavior (Satan’s favorite hobby, I guess.) We have some very sensible research trying to figure out why pedophiles are pedophiles so we can fix them, or at least head off their crimes. But we know it’s just a pretext for celebrating pedophilia, because that’s just the sort of thing queers and their marriage allies are looking to do, given half an opening.

    They’re all just data points, but when you put them up on the bulletin board and read the hidden code and pin up the string, it all traces back to The Queers and the society that indulged them with legal rights. When we’re all shipped off to the gulag the week after next, we can’t say we weren’t warned….

    • Dale Price

      Translation: “Never, ever listen to thoughts from gay people which haven’t been vetted or filtered by their Official Designated Representatives, Press Flacks or Apologists.

      There are no unpleasant gay people who wish social conservatives ill or seek to tear down their values and institutions.

      And if there were, the backward H8r anti-science, anti-equality homophobes would deserve it anyway.”

      • Jmac

        I think this is more of a “The Westboro Baptist church isn’t the lens through which Christianity should be interpreted” than anything else, dressed up in a lot more sarcastic language.

        Though I must say, I seriously enjoy the phrase “Padishah Emperor of all gays.”

        • Dale Price

          Except, of course, that kenneth is no stranger to sweeping damnation of, say, the Catholic Church (see, e.g., the Galileo thread). In the meantime, he practices a “no enemies on the social left” policy. He dutifully poo-poohs as no-true-Scotsman fringe-y anything that might cause his side of the spectrum to experience the hairy eyeball while hyperbolically-broadbrushing everyone to his right as anti-science, etc.

          The schtick is getting pretty clapped-out.

          • Kenneth

            If we’re going to take the opinion of one LGBT writer in one interview as being The Real Agenda of gay people over 40 years of a movement, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for some evidence of that – a poll, mission statements or court briefs of PFLAG or Lambda Legal – something. As for the Galileo thread, I made a careful distinction to say that the Church is not anti-science by temperament, but that it has painted itself into that corner on the LGBT issue as a public policy debate.

            I don’t know that Masha Gessen gives “my side”, whatever that is, the “hairy eyeball.” I don’t think what she said was all that scandalous or dangerous. It’s one person, with no great cultural authority and no legal authority saying that traditional marriage is inadequate to contain the realities of her family and many others. The same argument can and has been made for a long time by various hetero factions – step families, families by adoption, IVF, surrogacy etc.

            She’s hardly the first to say the institution of marriage “should not exist.” That’s been in circulation for a long long time among some branches of feminism, and among playboy male bachelors, and pretty much anyone who ever survived a divorce. In fact, more than a few social conservatives will frankly admit that “traditional marriage” was killed, butchered, roasted and eaten, by heterosexuals long before gays ever joined the fray.

            Her message seems to boil down to an assertion that “we should quit pretending everyone is going to do the Ward and June Cleaver bit, because it’s just not so.” I didn’t read her advocating to get rid of marriage so that we can finally get the traditional couples onto the train for a one-way trip to the countryside. In any case, I still see no evidence to show that her view is generally held by gay people, or Caesar, or that either party even has the time or interest in trying to force some ultimate disposition of “the institution of marriage.”

            • Mike

              “we should quit pretending everyone is going to do the Ward and June Cleaver bit, because it’s just not so.”

              Who’s pretending that?

              I think there are many people who say we should try to get to as many Wards and Junes as possible so that children are raised by their moms and dads and so that they grow up in intact families and rely as little as possible on government social programs, which tend to sometimes make things worse by rewarding or mitigating bad familial decisions.

              Also, don’t forget that at some point, people will say ok if you don’t want to be a June and Ward family you don’t have to BUT if you are going to criticize it, THEN eventually, we will force you to pay for it yourself. At some point people will say ok, you know what, fine, advocate new familial structures, but don’t expect me to pay for them. It will be done just as sweetly as this radical new structure is being imposed from up top.

      • Kenneth

        There are plenty of unpleasant gay people, and no doubt some anti-institution radicals among them. We could, no doubt, find a few who openly advocate a French Revolution-style housecleaning of social conservatives and Christians generally. That falls a damn way short of establishing that “that’s what gay people wanted all along.” We shouldn’t use any standard of evidence that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves. The Westboro Baptist example is as good as any. They are the most notorious, but far from the only extremist loons with a Christian ideology. One could easily string together a series of radical statements from the religious right and cast that as “Christianity’s ultimate plan for us.” That doesn’t make it so anymore than this string of conspiratorial musings.

  • Mark R

    Would gay marriage not have to be more widespread to be beneficial to Caesar…I care for neither at all…heteroi keep the coffers of the attorneys full enough.

    • The Deuce

      Not really. It’s not the creation of same-sex “marriage” that Caesar is after per se, but the destruction of the actual family, which resists the totalitarian impulse of Caesar. The point of same-sex “marriage” is simply to define marriage further into oblivion for legal purposes, which provides Caesar with more pretext to undermine the natural family.

      • Mike

        It’s to transform marriage into something unrecognizable from any other relationship…and then to open it up to more than 2 people and eventually to people related to each other…in the name of ‘equality’.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    No gulag necessary. Each one to the gulag in his head.

    It might seem as if human beings tire of, or are frightened of, or despise the status of human being. It is very hard work for seemingly little reward, to grow in empathy, compassion, self-giving.

    I think they might in the end give curiosity, a sense of beauty, and a feeling for the transcendent a pass.

    But the post-humans will not be good cooperators with one another, and they will inevitably devour or de-nature one another. Each to his own stronghold. A war of all against all, because none will trust the others.

    They will descend into high-tech savagery, paranoia and death.

    • Kenneth

      “….But the post-humans will not be good cooperators with one another, and they will inevitably devour or de-nature one another. Each to his own stronghold. A war of all against all, because none will trust the others….”

      In other words, we’ll be as human as ever.

      • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

        The term “human” becomes gratuitous and meaningless.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    COLD FIRES

    The secular god to rule us
    Not on a throne, in a wheelchair,
    Not numinous, not luminous
    Just there

    There to control the thoughts
    Of the lesser, of the base,
    In world of ones and naughts
    He sits God’s place

    He comes, he says, of the random
    Then he by a chance would be
    The ruler of all kingdoms
    Just he

    For he counts what is fitting and good,
    It is what the god desires,
    And how the submissive should
    Approach his cold fires

    Pavel
    April 18, 2013

  • Newp Ort

    Start stockpiling Soma, then, I guess

  • Bryan

    Wow, even MORE progress?? That’s funny because I still think of myself as a “pre-person.” I’m about to be like Charlie the Australopithecine in this Oh-So-Brave New World.

  • A Philosopher

    You didn’t actually read Buchanan’s paper, did you? A few pages further in, one finds the following:

    “I will argue for six conclusions. (1) In a world in which some are enhanced and some are not, the concept of human rights, far from being obsolete, would be even more important than it is now. (2) The idea of a moral status higher than that of persons is dubious, given a plausible understanding of the notion of moral status; so the prospect of enhancement does not present a serious threat to the Moral Equality Assumption. (3) Even if we grant the dubious assumption that the emergence of beings with a moral status than that of persons is possible, the emergence of post-persons would not extinguish whatever rights the unenhanced have by virtue of being persons. (4) Given the history and persistence of racism, there is a serious risk that the enhanced would treat the unenhanced as if they had a lower moral status, even if they do not. (5) Even if enhancements did not create beings with a higher moral status, or a mistaken perception of unequal moral statuses, they might result in a conflict of legitimate interests between the enhanced and the unenhanced, and a just accommodation of these conflicting interests might involve restriction of some of the rights of the unenhanced. (6) The possibility that enhancements could mandate such a two-tiered system of rights is a serious moral cost that ought to be taken into account in our decisions regarding the pursuit of enhancement technologies.”

    • Dale Price

      And the ultimate conclusion is…what?

      • A Philosopher

        The sixth one, I suppose. Anyway, the point is that the paper argues more or less the direct opposite of what Mark calumniously suggests.

        • Dale Price

          If it suggests that we can still proceed down the road to engineered post-humanism, so long as we do so with a long face, then that just makes the predictable results wilful and wanton.

          In other words, I don’t see how that is all that much better.

          • A Philosopher

            So, you didn’t read Buchanan’s paper, either, did you?

            • Dale Price

              No, I didn’t.

              * HENCE THE QUESTIONS.*

              There are only so many hours in the day. If you’d rather play coy, fine. I’ll draw my conclusions accordingly.

              • A Philosopher

                I quoted the six conclusions of the paper above. None suggests that “we can still proceed down the road to engineered post-humanism, so long as we do so with a long face”; the sixth conclusion is pretty close to the opposite of that. Surely it’s not all that unreasonable to suggest that people actually read a piece of work before attacking it or its author?

                • Dale Price

                  “(6) The possibility that enhancements could mandate such a two-tiered system of rights is a serious moral cost that ought to be taken into account in our decisions regarding the pursuit of enhancement technologies.”

                  Perhaps there’s some rhetorical convention I’m not aware of in modern philosophical writing, but in plain English, that’s not “pretty close to the opposite.” He says that this concern is a factor–and a serious one–that must be taken into account. But that’s it. In the final analysis, it’s just a cost-benefit analysis. He does not say that such efforts should not be made. He doesn’t even recommend against it. He just says “keep it in mind in the decisionmaking process.”

                  If we come to a different conclusion, so be it.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    The change is inevitable, but resistance is not futile.

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    The question of questions is this: Whatever form this species takes, will individuals be receptive to the grace of God and the beauty of creation? Or not?

  • Marthe Lépine

    One question comes to mind, but I think it has no human response. Since we do believe that each human being is created by God, while being also the product of human sexuality, could there be a point where God would not accept to create a human being out of genetical or chromosonal experimentation? Sure, scientists can create test-tube animals and even babies, but could there be a level of experimentation or “enhancement” that God would no longer recognize as being part of the humanity He created? Or God could also not allow such experimentation to succeed. Then we might have such post-persons who no longer would be “created in the image and likeness of God”, but in reality would be man-made robots with no soul, not better than extra-efficient computers…

  • http://chicagoboyz.net/ TMLutas

    Sigh. Ultimately your thesis fails on one point. Christianity is strong which is how we got the whip hand in the first place. The cleanup of the pagan interregnum will be messy and probably painful but please don’t just assume we will lose. We won’t.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X