Amos's River of Justice

Our Season of Creation

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    I”m not sure what Curtis White had in mind with his recent article for Salon Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and the Real Reason Why Change Never Seems to Come. Salon, Jan. 30, 2016). https://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/this_is_an_oligarchy_not_a_democracy_donald_trump_bernie_sanders_and_the_real_reason_why_change_never_seems_to_come/I agreed with his argument against regime change which is carried out through the back door of democratization, but after that he plummeted into a fatalistic downward spiral.

    “Among the conspicuous realities of social life in the United States, this reality should be the most conspicuous: we are not one and never have been. There is no We. There are no Americans.”

    He argues that regardless of whether you’re talking to a social conservative or a follower of Bernie Sanders, if they refer to the electorate as ‘we’ they’ve hit the ‘high-water mark for political naiveté’.

    This is bad enough, but if we keep reading we still have a ways to fall before we bash our brains out on the bedrock below. We soon learn that it’s not really naiveté that worries him at all. It’s the secret stealth of those who appeal to ‘the people’.

    “Beneath the call to communist solidarity and the reign of the people’s Party Congress, Stalin understood that there is no “we,” no “people,” no “everyone” and got on with the execution of “right-Trotskyite” plotters, and generally on with egg breaking for his invidious omelet. What Stalin understood that we try to keep hidden from sight is the certainty that the bedrock of every form of mass social organization—including democracy, including our democracy—is force.”

    White presents this as the first of democracy’s three ‘fatal ironies’. If you’re wondering how he ended up at Stalin, he got there by assuming that we will eventually flock to strongmen. We flock to strongmen because we believe that we need a strong guiding hand.

    We might want to inquire as to how on earth Stalin became a democratic archetype—or an archetype of any kind. Stalin seems to have been squished together with 1. the idea that the use of force is inevitable and 2. that all force is Stalinesque. Until we get a clarification on these points I think we can safely ignore this part of the argument except to note its common sense disguise. It didn’t get past us this time but unfortunately, the sheer volume of ‘common sense’ in this article could lobotomize any unwary reader. On second thought I guess it’s necessary to talk about the strongman after all.

    He first mentions the strongman when talking about non-democratic governments.

    “We often hear it reported that in some benighted countries the people believe that “Democracy is a nice idea, but it’s not for us. We need a strong guiding hand.” So convinced of this are these people that, given the opportunity, they will in fact vote for this strong hand and all that comes with it, making democracy an oxymoron.

    We tend to think that these foreign skeptics just don’t understand, and so some of us think that we ought to help them to understand. As my representative, freshman Republican Darin LaHood, said during a recent visit to a local high school, “The goal of our foreign policies is to try to make the world more like us.” (LaHood, son of Ray LaHood, was elected to the seat vacated by disgraced Republican Aaron Schock, he of the Downton-red office walls.)

    A default neocon, LaHood wants to bring democracy to the heathens, an even worse idea than trying to convert them to Christianity. The appeal to democracy, coming from the lips of politicians like LaHood, is a paternalistic fraud—at the best! At the worst, it is no more than what it was in the colonial Middle East after World War I: the preparation for a “great looting.”

    Again with the inevitability! So he’s saying there are countries where ‘the people’ reject democracy and vote for strongmen. Or is it that they start with democracy and throw it away? It’s not clear. And who are ‘the people’, I thought there were no people? But either way we’re told that Americans do the same thing. Hence Stalin.

    Okay, I think we can dispense with the fiction of inevitability. Our electoral process is based on Plato’s premise that ‘the people’ can’t be trusted to rule themselves. One answer to Plato is America’s electoral college. This is not inevitability! This is a purposeful solution to a supposed problem—the problem of a self-ruling population.

    Next, I think we can dispense with the notion that there is no ‘us’ or ‘we’. In Plato’s scheme ‘we’ are the ones who can’t be trusted to elect the candidate of our choosing. So either Plato was delusional, or ‘we’ really do exist. I think the real delusion is the belief that our needs and priorities are so opposed that we must each elect a different representative. We should be asking ourselves what we can do about that. I think most differences come from artificial divisions created by the ruling class, as well as a poor understanding of our political responsibilities.

    Now on to the second of democracy’s fateful ironies—the ‘fooled again’ syndrome. This is White’s term for what happens after the election is over and we find that our candidate has become one of ‘them’.

    First, I don’t think that’s quite how it happens. Take the example of reining in the corporations. Even if they’re cooperative, which they won’t be, the biggest ones are tangled up with foreign policy. So if a president is determined to shake things up, he’ll have to shake very carefully. The whole world is connected, and anything we do will affect everyone else. And don’t forget the hostile Congress and all the unelected people with their own agendas and influence.

    If Bernie is elected, we will have already accomplished something important by electing someone who isn’t owned by the oligarchs. At that point we can work on reforming campaign finance so that we can elect more people who will do what we want them to do. I think it can be done, but if you’re expecting the miracles to commence next January you’ll be disappointed.

    White gives us examples of candidates who became one of them: Greece’s Alexis Tsipras, Putin, and the candidates who have failed to satisfy the Tea Party, but he talks as if these people are all free agents who could have done whatever they want to do but chose to betray the voters instead. Talk about naive! Our representatives are constrained by the system. Yes, even the representatives who aren’t corrupt. The most we can hope for is someone who will listen to us rather than the oligarchs. Once we accomplish that we’ll need to make sure we understand how the system works so we can be part of it. That should at least keep us from flailing around and wailing when things don’t go our way.

    The third fateful irony is White’s claim that any change will have to be bloody and in the end the oligarchs will win anyway. Really? I’m sorry but this is just not an option. It’s not an option because lives are at stake. Our country is on the rampage as we speak. People are dying. Natural resources that belong to all of us are being squandered by criminals who never had the capacity to really appreciate them, and never will. It would be bad enough if this agenda had a beginning, a middle and an end, but it doesn’t. These people will continue to go from one terrible thing to another for as long as we let them. So I’m gonna have to call BS on this whole stream of self-indulgent sophism.

    Is change going to be hard? Yes, but I can promise you that if we do nothing it’s going to be much worse. This election is only our first step. It’s natural to be overwhelmed by a fight like this but it’s far too early to go sit in the corner and sulk. By the way, doesn’t it make you the least bit suspicious that a Democrat would write an article like this before we’ve even seen the results of the Iowa caucus?

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    Source: Hillary Clinton: The Bride of Frankenfood

  • Reading Time: 5 minutes

    For many of us the data scandal scenario that was being presented to us in which Bernie Sanders was the offender and Hillary Clinton the innocent victim had an aura of unreality. But then we were told that the behavior of Sanders’ staffers was even worse than we knew. Heck, even Greg Mitchell tweeted that considering what happened, it made sense for Wasserman Schultz to shut Bernie out of the voter database. Even so, I still had nagging doubts, never mind the terribly calm and reasonable way in which Mitchell phrased his argument. For one thing, it was all too convenient coming as it did after Bernie received two important endorsements, not to mention right before the Democratic debate. And strangely, Mitchell didn’t mention that Wasserman Schultz violated her contractual obligations which include among other things the obligation to give the offending party time to correct the problem.((Ralph Ruchiano, DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Unfairly Attempts to Damage Sanders Campaign? Engineering Evil, Dec. 18, 2015. Available: http://engineeringevil.com/2015/12/18/dnc-chair-rep-debbie-wasserman-schultz-unfairly-attempts-to-damage-sanders-campaign/)) Are we to understand that Greg Mitchell thinks the Democratic Party’s violation of its obligation to a candidate ‘makes sense’? Surely he can’t think that! We should probably delve a little deeper, don’t you think?

    At the center of the whole crisis is data technician Josh Uretsky, who has said that he was only trying to assess the security breach and that there was no way the campaign could benefit from anything he did. Uretsky believed his actions were appropriate, and he has not been contradicted by those close to the campaign. Ted Devine, senior advisor to the Sanders campaign said Uretsky was fired because he hadn’t immediately reported the problem to top staffers.

    Uretsky’s Philadelphia friends and associates are also finding the story hard to believe. Adam Bonin, a Philadelphia election-law attorney, said “It’s just impossible for me to imagine that he would be looking at this situation and say, ‘Let’s figure out how to exploit it for the campaign’.”

    Dan Fee, a political consultant who runs the Echo Group in Philadelphia said that Uretsky has dedicated his life to trying to implement things that he believes in. Fee got to know Uretsky when Fee was managing a successful campaign in 2009 for District Attorney Seth Williams. Fee calls Uretsky, who was a field worker in the race, a man of ‘integrity’.

    Kati Sipp, director of Pennsylvania Working Familes has worked with Uretsky on voter targeting efforts on various races over the past six years. Uretsky was Pennsylvania data and targeting manager for America Votes from November 2011 until September, when he left to join Sanders, but before that he was co-chair of Philadelphia for Obama, a grassroots group that formed separate from the Obama campaign apparatus. Sipp said she has always trusted him with important data. ((Maria Panaritis, Fired Sanders Staffer With Phila. Ties Not a Cheat, Associates Say. Dec. 19, 2015. Available: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20151220_Philadelphian_Uretsky_at_center_of_Dems__data_breach.html))

    If this drama can’t be explained by questioning the character of either Bernie Sanders or Josh Uretsky, perhaps we should pursue another line of inquiry. The DNC would probably be the next place to look for answers.

    The Sanders campaign has accused the DNC of favoring Clinton. Their evidence is the limited number of debates, as well as timing of those debates. Some of them have been held on weekends, assuring that many people won’t be watching them. The most recent one was held on the Saturday before Christmas and although it was supposed to begin at 8:00 at the last moment it was moved back to 8:30. And now we have the DNC’s curious handling of the data breach which resulted in a shut down of the Sanders campaign for an entire day.

    There’s good news here and there’s bad news: The good news is that Sanders was probably right; the bad news is we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the shady dealings of the DNC in this campaign.

    1. Wasserman has also been accused of rigging debate audiences to be friendly to Hillary Cliinton. It was Tom Fiegen who leveled this charge at the DNC after the second debate.

    2. The Clinton campaign rented a campaign office within the local Democratic Party office in Nevada, a crucial early primary state. This was revealed by Pete Voelker in a recent VICE News report. According to Voelker, the walls are papered with Hillary Clinton signs but there are no signs for the other two Democratic candidates. Of course Clinton campaign spokeswoman Joan Kato denied there was any ‘co-mingling’ going on. However, the address of the campaign office is the same as the address of the local Party office. The campaign has also opened an office at the Carson City Democratic Party headquarters.

    3. In New Hampshire, Democratic Party staffers rushed to join the Clinton campaign before Hillary announced her candidacy. According to WMUR, Mike Ollen, Gene Allen, and Liz Wester left their positions at the state party to join the Clinton campaign in early April 2015.

    4. The DNC supposedly operates under strict rules of remaining impartial during the primary process until the nominee has been selected, but one top DNC official was just caught raising money for the Clinton campaign—Henry R. Muñoz III, who used to be a top fundraiser for President Obama, became the chief of the Party’s finance operations in 2013. He was caught fundraising for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is directly responsible for this ethical (legal?) lapse, however she didn’t reprimand Muñoz;

    5. The DNC lined up superdelegates, or party bosses, for Clinton before the first debate. This means they subverted the democratic process in an attempt to preemptively win the nomination before all 50 states have held their primary election. Superdelegates are typically DNC leaders and current and former elected officials ranging from governors to members of the US Congress. In August, before the first Democratic debate had taken place, the Clinton campaign reported that she had one-fifth of superdelegates already committed to backing her at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. According to Wikipedia, roughly half of the 700 + superdelegates have already committed to backing Hillary Clinton. ((Amanda Girard, 5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton. USuncut.com, Dec. 20 2015. Available: usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/))

    And finally, we can’t forget NGP-VAN, the company that hosts the Democratic Party’s database. The following information comes from Anthony Brian Logan at Greaterunderstanding.net. ((Anthony Brian Logan, Bernie Sanders Sues DNC in Federal Court, Follow the Rabbit Hole. Greaterunderstanding.net, Dec. 19, 2015. Available: http://www.greaterunderstanding.net/video-bernie-sanders-sues-dnc-in-federal-court-follow-the-rabbit-hole/))

    The cofounder of NGP-VAN is Nathaniel Pearlman, who was the chief technical officer of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. At that time his company was called NGP Software, but it merged in 2010 with Mark Sullivan’s VAN (Voter Activation Network). Nathaniel Pearlman also has a graphic design Company, Graphicacy.

    In the 2008 campaign Nathaniel Pearlman supervised Brian Pagliano, the guy who set up the server in Hillary Clinton’s house. He’s the one who pleaded the 5th in the Benghazi hearings. Pearlman also went to school with David DeCamillis, director of business development for Platte River Networks. Platte River Networks employs David Goodfriend of PR Company Dovetail Solutions. Goodfriend is a lobbyist and friend of John Podesta, Chair of Hillary’s 2016 campaign. He’s also chair of Center for American Progress and a client of Graphicacy.

    At this point I think we at least have an explanation for why audit the documents relating to the data breach were provided to the Clinton campaign and not to the Sanders campaign. However, Logan provides some additional information which might be grounds for additional research.

    There is a donation form online for the Clinton campaign powered by NGP VAN. Is this company processing donations and therefore taking a fee? What else is this company doing for the Clinton campaign? Is it designing the website and campaign material as well as printing and direct mailing?

    The fact that the name of the head of NGP VAN is Aharon Wasserman is also a concern. It is not known if he is related to Wasserman Schultz.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    I’m reading Patrick Cockburn’s article about the U.S. teaming up again with Al Qaeda and at the same time listening to Obama’s news conference. I’d like to know why they differ so much on the situation in Syria. Obama says it’s all about Assad’s treatment of Syrian protesters. Cockburn says the U.S. has been trying to destabilize Assad’s regime since 2006. ((Patrick Cockburn, A Special Relationship, Harpers, January 2016)) It gets worse:

    “Syria’s first and only democratically elected government was overthrown by a CIA-instigated coup in 1949 at the behest of American oil interests who objected to Syria’s request for better terms on a pipeline deal.”

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

    The big question after the Paris Attacks has been whether we should escalate the conflict in Syria. The task of voters, assuming they have a say in this matter, is to decide which facts are relevant to making a decision. There’s no question that ISIS represents a serious threat, and not just to the Middle East. Likewise, there’s no question that something must be done. But what? Some emphasize the need for a political solution. Others focus on military strategy. I think the first thing we need to understand is that the conflict in Syria has become a civil war between Shia and Sunni Islam. Next, the U.S. has taken sides in the civil war. Finally, the U.S. doesn’t really have a solution for the threat posed by ISIS beyond getting rid of Assad. These facts may not tell us what the solution is, but I think they definitely tell us what the solution is not: the solution is not military escalation on the part of the United States.

    Patrick Cockburn wrote in October about ‘the failure over the last year of the US air campaign. ((Patrick Cockburn on the state of the Syrian war: Too Weak, Too Strong, London Review of Books, Oct. 23, 2015.))He said that this failure is political as much as military. The US “needs partners on the ground who are fighting IS, but its choice is limited because those who are actually engaged in combat with the Sunni jihadis are Shia. This includes Iran, the Syrian army, Hizbollah, and the Shia militias in Iraq. The US can’t offer them full military co-operation because that would alienate the Sunni states, the bedrock of America’s power in the region. As a result the US can only use its air force in support of the Kurds.”

    We now know that the U.S. air campaign against ISIS hasn’t been working as well as we thought, and that the administration has manipulated the intelligence to make it seem that it’s been more successful than it has. Now we know why. As Cockburn explains, the US had a similar problem after 9/11. It was known when George Bush declared the war on terror “that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi and the money for the operation came from Saudi donors, but the US didn’t want to pursue al-Qaida at the expense of its relations with the Sunni states, so it muted criticism of Saudi Arabia and invaded Iraq; similarly, it never confronted Pakistan over its support for the Taliban, ensuring that the movement was able to regroup after losing power in 2001.”

    This is now a huge problem in Syria because over the last few months the civil war aspect of the conflict has become more apparent. Basically, the problem with a military approach led by the U.S. is that ISIS is a Sunni force, which means that, thanks to our alliance with the Saudi’s, we’re on the wrong side of the fight with ISIS.

    Which brings us to the problem with the political approach. According to Cockburn, Shia leaders have never believed in the West’s assurance that there is a moderate, non-sectarian Sunni opposition willing to share power in Damascus and Baghdad. Shia states across the Middle East, especially Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, understand this as a fight to the death with the Sunni state of Saudi Arabia and it’s local allies in Syria and Iraq. Although Shia are outnumbered by Sunnis in the Muslim world at large, Shia interests in this region are significant. There are more than a hundred million Shia in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon who believe their very existence depends on Assad staying in power in Syria. Yet this is our big political solution—that Assad must leave and the Shia states must negotiate with the supposedly moderate Sunni opposition.

    There was more hope for the military approach when Russia entered the scene. Just as the U.S. bombing campaign was most successful when the Kurds were coordinating things on the ground, the Russian bombing campaign benefits from coordination with the Syrian army. Maybe this is why after the Paris attacks France’s President Hollande proposed a European alliance independent of NATO and why he seems so willing to work with Putin. On the other hand, if ISIS is only part of a civil war between Shia and Sunni, the conflict is bound to continue without ISIS. Which brings us to something like Andrew J. Bacevich’s predictions of a generational war. ((Who’s Ready for the Next World War? The Nation Magazine, Dec. 4, 2015. Available: http://www.thenation.com/article/whos-ready-for-the-next-world-war/)) In his scenario, our army would have to grow by a factor of five. Therefore, the draft would have to be reinstated… If that happens you can forget about the conversation. Who needs a conversation when all the really important questions—in particular questions about spending, but also questions about human spirit and potential—have been decided?

    As the world’s governments move toward escalation, I think our first step should be to understand the dire nature of this situation–that there are no quick fixes. While it’s obvious that the center of the problem is Saudi Arabia, the Saudi’s are not going anywhere. And because of their alliance with the United States, the U.S. is part of the problem. So long as this alliance lasts, increased U.S. participation will never lead to the end of ISIS.

    But it’s important to point out that we’re not the only ones who are deluded. I suspect those fighting for ISIS are helping the very people they think they’re fighting, and this isn’t limited to the Saudis. I’m beginning to suspect ISIS fighters are helping organizations like the IMF and World Bank. Not that the IMF and World Bank caused the crisis—I wouldn’t know about that—but take the refugee crisis–the World Bank was promoting immigration long before the Syrian crisis began and it’s been the leading advocate for allowing Syrian refugees into Europe. Now ISIS is making that dream come true. Think about it! If ISIS really wants a caliphate, why would it terrorize its own population?

    It seems we’re all being led in one direction or another. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just refuse to be led?  I admit that’s not very likely, but I think this has reached the point where we can choose to talk or we can choose to fight, but we can’t do both.

  • Reading Time: 2 minutes

    I disagree with analysts who say Hillary wasn’t being clear about her platform in the second debate. Hillary was being very clear about what kind of president she’ll be.

    She was reminded that as Secretary of State she underestimated the threat of ISIS:

    So you’ve got prescriptions for the future, but how do we even [know] those prescriptions are any good if you missed it in the past?

    Clinton’s answer was that the United States doesn’t bear the bulk of the responsibility for the problems in Iraq. They are the fault of the Iraqis and the region itself, which was a mess before Iraq. And the problem with Syria is Assad’s determination to hang on to power with the support of Russia and Iran.

    She does admit that her vote on the Iraq War was ‘a mistake’ but provides no assurance she will do it differently in the future. And when asked why they had no post-Gaddafi plan for Libya after seeing what happened in Iraq, she said they did have a plan. Then rather than explaining what that plan was, she defended the decision to take Gaddafi out.

    How could anyone say she’s not being clear about what her approach will be as president?  As for how she came to this approach, that’s another question. Her own words may provide a clue.

    CLINTON: I think with this kind of barbarism and nihilism, it’s very hard to understand, other than the lust for power, the rejection of modernity, the total disregard for human rights, freedom, or any other value that we know and respect.

    This isn’t the first time I’ve heard the word ‘modernity’ used in ways that don’t make sense to me, usually by people who would like us to believe that Enlightenment reason is a trouble-free concept.  Surely she knows that Muslim extremists are not the first people to object to aspects of modernity, and that the visible manifestations of it are not the worst of it.  Historians have observed that modernity itself exerts a subliminal effect on people, causing them to exhibit patterns of thinking and behavior that lead to disaster.

    Now compare Hillary’s use of the word modernity with a phrase Bernie used later in the debate, ‘modern society’.

    Dickerson was trying to get the candidates to say whether they use the term ‘radical Islam’.

    SANDERS: I don’t think the term is what’s important. What is important to understand is we have organizations, whether it is ISIS or Al Qaida, who do believe we should go back several thousand years. We should make women third-class citizens, that we should allow children to be sexually assaulted, that they are a danger to modern society.

    And that this world, with American leadership, can and must come together to destroy them. We can do that. And it requires an entire world to come together, including in a very active way, the Muslim nations.

    My interpretation of his use of the term modern society is that Bernie isn’t thinking about this crisis in ideological terms. He’s grounded in reality.

    My point?  The Paris attacks should not be seen as justification for putting an ideological hawk like Hillary Clinton in office.  Quite the opposite.

  • Reading Time: 4 minutes

     

    Germaine Greer is now being criticized for saying that trans women are not women. Although demand by trans women that the world call them women makes many women uncomfortable, it’s the women rather than trans women who have to defend their position. Same-sex marriage also presents problems for women. In my opinion it may be even more threatening. It is becoming increasingly clear that transgender rights, same-sex marriage, and women’s rights, are connected.

    Must Women Defend Their Territory?

    Often women defend their territory by talking about the difficulties of being female as opposed to the privileges. Discrimination and humiliation seem to be the only proof we have of a unique right to call ourselves women.

    This is not Greer’s fault but it’s pretty sad. Worse, it doesn’t stop the intrusion. Trans women answer that they’ve experienced all the same trials and therefore, they are women.

    Women counter by saying that the ability to bear children makes them women.  This doesn’t seem to impress trans women, but I think the women on to something. The child-bearing role of women is relevant to both categories, same-sex marriage and transgender rights. It’s also relevant to heterosexual relationships, but this is not acknowledged in a way that benefits women.

    Terms and Definitions

    There are many other sources of confusion here, not least of all the terms.  But at least it’s easier to agree on terms and definitions. If there are differences, most people are willing to accept correction.

    A transgender individual who has transitioned, whether or not surgery was involved, doesn’t want to be called a transwoman because this would indicate that he or she hasn’t transitioned. The term ‘trans woman’ is preferred to transwoman because trans is being used as an adjective describing a specific kind of woman. However there are some who prefer to just be called women.

    I was surprised to learn that none of these terms refers to sexual orientation. Also transgender people are not necessarily interested in same-sex marriage.

    How Does Same Sex Marriage Affect Women?

    Even though same-sex marriage is different from the transgender issue, I run into a similar problem when trying to argue its effects on women. My first piece of evidence is pretty straight forward—same-sex marriage was legalized at a time when female reproductive rights were under attack. Subsequently, same-sex marriage has competed for attention with reproductive rights.

    Reproductive Rights

    And now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. There is no comparison between the issue of same-sex marriage and reproductive rights. That’s also true between gender rights and reproductive rights. Compared to reproductive rights, same-sex marriage and gender rights are vanity issues. Women know this, but childbirth is treated as trivial to the point where they don’t quite believe it themselves. Instead, the focus is discrimination and misogyny. That situation should be more remarkable than it is. What it’s really saying is that  the place of women has been turned  upside down. They should have more privileges, but they don’t even have the right to claim their own unique identity.

    Bride Wealth

    The importance of the role of childbirth was once recognized in the custom of bride wealth, but bride wealth has never been practiced in the United States. Therefore, it’s impossible to argue that it’s threatened by same-sex marriage. However, it would be if it still existed. That is meaningful.

    Child Custody

    The other problem that same-sex marriage ignores is child custody. The irony here is that it was only the payment of bride wealth that made men equal to women in custody matters. Now even custody is in question.

    Childbirth as a Moral Obligation

    We may not like to hear that the childbearing role is our only claim to superiority, probably because this idea is now used against us. Conservative men insist that women are privileged, usually with the purpose of increasing the birthrate. But this is an anachronistic claim–the value remains but we have no memory of the privilege. Patriarchal lip-service is not now and never has been an element of social organization.

    Background Noise from Right-Wing Traditionalists

    After I wrote about Hermes in India I tried for quite some time to discuss my concerns about Hermetic influence in the United States. People aren’t really concerned that Hermes can morph into, say, Jesus Christ, or that he has taken over our medical system. I worry that the LGBTQ issue remains under the radar in the same way.

    Often, same-sex couples are unaware of the ideological meaning behind transgender manifestations. Ellen Degeneres for example is baffled by the fact that Caitlyn Jenner is Republican and not particularly supportive of same-sex marriage.

    I don’t know Jenner’s affiliations, but the possibilities are endless. I found a movement while researching this article, the North American New Right, and this movement has taken an interest in Jenner. She’s been interviewed on the Counter Currents website. This article is no longer available, but here is a book by the same interviewer, James O’Meara.

    To this way of thinking the only true homosexuality is the type practiced by those mythical bands of men who roamed the earth before the birth of human culture. A modern example would be the Nazi männerbund. This movement thinks same-sex marriage is irrelevant if not silly, and it mocks what it calls the ‘Fake Left’ for insisting that homosexuals are just like everyone else in their desire to be married and raise children. Homosexuality should be an escape from marriage, they say, rather than a reason for it.

    Rene Guenon and Baron Juius Evola

    The vogue of using a mythical past in pursuit of political aims was popular in Europe before and during the world wars. Rene Guenon represented this type of Traditionalism (denoted with a capital ’T’). Thanks to Guenon’s influence, so did Albert Gleizes. The North American New right acknowledges Guenon’s influence, and, surprisingly, it also acknowledges the Traditionalism of Baron Julius Evola.  Evola was a Traditionalist of another sort.  His ideas are more closely associated with Nazism than those of Guenon.

    Gender Rights are enshrined in law

    In the United States same-sex marriage is water under the bridge, and compared to the ideological aspects discussed above it may prove to be relatively harmless. But I doubt it. When was a smoke screen ever harmless?

    It’s only when you consider the casual nature of marriage and the fact that the only real criteria for it is ‘true love’, that it becomes outrageous to deny same-sex partners the right to marry. If you ignore all of these factors, legalizing same-sex marriage seems progressive. True love has become a substitute for the economic necessities that acknowledge these realities. And these realities are inseparable from the role of women. Without the appropriate economic arrangements, married life, while it’s marginally better for women than single life, is a cynical proposition.

    Elizabeth Stoker wrote a helpful article for the New Republic on Traditionalism from the Catholic point of view, Francis Agonistes, New Republic, March 1, 2015. (It’s no longer available on the same website but you may be able to find a copy.)

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    I agree with Pope Francis that Kim Davis has a right to follow her conscience. However, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding the Davis affair that I’m having a very hard time with, the main one being that she, personally, risks nothing by her actions. All the costs will fall to the residents of the county.

    Since she is an elected official the only way she can be removed is to be impeached, and this isn’t likely to happen in Kentucky. In addition, she won’t face another election until 2019. You can bet she took stock of this before she chose to defy the court. She’s far too accustomed to that nice salary of hers, not to mention the salary that her office now pays to her son.

    I myself don’t think that same-sex marriage makes sense on a policy level, but I accept it as the law. At the same time I couldn’t agree more that it’s important to follow one’s conscience. In my opinion, it’s now up to the people of Kentucky to make an honest woman of Kim Davis by impeaching her for breaking the law.

  • Reading Time: < 1 minute

    I’ve been wondering if the determination to control the message might explain the White House guest list for the Pope’s reception. ((Vatican pushes back over White House invite to Catholic Dissidents, Catholic New Agency, September 18, 2015. Available: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-pushes-back-over-white-house-invite-to-catholic-dissidents-51001/))

    I say this because I’m getting tired of the same-sex marriage issue taking over the conversation.  In fact, I’m tired of the LGBT issue, period.  I ended up writing this blog because of Wikipedia’s misogyny–women’s rights were my focus and with good reason–but instead of making headway on this problem women have been blindsided with legislation limiting reproductive rights, while in the same period the same-sex marriage initiative has been a great success.

    It’s not hard to make the case that fighting misogyny is more important to our society than same-sex marriage.  Half the U.S. population of 319 million is female while Americans identifying as gay or lesbian make up only 1.6 percent of the population, and those who consider themselves bisexual represent only .7 percent. Yet the LGBT issue vaults ahead, both in the media and in the courts.

    Many thought it was surprising that the Supreme Court approved this measure, but considering the character of these justices this should have made us suspicious about the potential uses of this issue.  What has happened here, besides the drowning out of women’s issues in the media, is that women have finally been made irrelevant.  Now men can marry and adopt children, while single women continue to lose their babies to adoption.  

error: Content is protected !!