America's Borg

by

Gadfly

“You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.”  This was a declaration heard by the crew of Star Trek’s Enterprise.  The declaration also revealed “the Borg” would absorb “biological” distinctiveness into the collective.  Once assimilated race and gender become irrelevant.

 

We all know Star Trek was a highly successful science fiction series.  Yet, how “fictional” is it?

Sexual orientation conversion therapy has been outlawed in numerous states, to include most recently, Colorado, where a homosexual governor signed the ban into law.  Parents now would be breaking the law by seeking therapy for a child that thinks he or she is anything but heterosexual.  The Colorado political elite has declared to parents: “You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.”  To amplify the effect, a Democrat-controlled legislature also advanced an educational bill to indoctrinate children in different sexual orientations and to begin as early as possible by funding full-day kindergarten.  Both are now signed into law by the Colorado governor.

With the left’s penchant for declaring contrary views as “extreme,” the Colorado Democrat-controlled legislature advanced a “red flag” bill that the governor signed into law.  The Second Amendment is very clear in establishing the inalienable right to bear arms.  Unfortunately, this right is an “extreme” view because it is contrary to those who believe in gun control.  Without due-process, individuals can now have their legally owned arms confiscated because someone accuses them of not being safe to possess them.  The burden of proof, along with the cost of legal representation, rests on the person who has been alleged to be unsafe.  Not only is the “red flag” law a violation of the Second Amendment, it further confirms the power of Colorado’s Borg.

Recently, South Bend (home of the University of Notre Dame), Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg, a fresh Democratic presidential candidate, attacked Vice President Mick Pence for his Christian views.  Although Pence never publicly said anything derogatory about Buttigieg or his lifestyle, the latter declared that if Pence had any issues about his homosexual lifestyle, he needed to take it up with his Creator.  In other words, God made him gay.

            Really?  What makes Buttigieg believe a homosexual orientation is an exception to other behaviors such as pedophilia, rape, adultery, masturbation, watching pornography, murder, robbery, and so forth?  Could not a thief argue that he was born to be a thief?  Buttigieg was a proselytizing pontificator when he demeaned Pence.  To be clear, in order for Buttigieg to consummate his relatively recent “marriage,” he and his male partner likely engage in sodomy with absolutely no possibility to procreate.  His Creator must be so pleased.

            My guess is that Buttigieg could care less.  He is counting on America’s Borg-assimilated drones to defend his sexual orientation by rallying in support of his candidacy.  The pool of potential drones is growing with many of our youth now “confused” about their gender.  The left encourages it because it makes them more vulnerable and malleable.

            Aside from the symbolism of the Cathedral of Notre Dame as a manifestation of Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundation, there is great irony in the unfortunate fact that it was consumed by fire yesterday.  Till yesterday, Notre Dame symbolically resisted the insidious and ubiquitous ambitions of the French Enlightenment and endured for centuries despite the atrocities of the French Revolution and the ravages of two World Wars.

 

With the tragedy and its implications of yesterday’s burning, it is further ironic to witness a Harvard- and Oxford-educated intellectual at the tender age of 37 beat his chest[1] as being morally superior because even though he claims to be Christian, he is truly a progressive secular humanist that is focused on “perfecting” humankind in his own image (even though God created us all in His image).  Because they believe “reason” and “science” are superior to “faith,” they can manufacture canards such as man-made climate change to rally their Borg-assimilated drones to achieve political power.  I love asking secular humanists to prove time, since it is so fundamental to our understanding of natural science.  Even when they understand they cannot prove an a priori truth, they still cannot admit to having “faith” in its a priori nature.

 

The author of Ecclesiastes was not Harvard- nor Oxford-educated.  Yet, he understood that inflated pride in oneself is not a generational infliction: “Vanities of vanities!  All things are vanity.  What profit has man from all the labor which he toils at under the sun?  One generation passes and another comes, but the world stays forever” (1:  2-4).

I watched Clint Eastwood’s movie, The Mule, last week.  He played the lead, 80+-year old character (Earl Stone) who served as a mule for a drug cartel.  He was eventually caught and tried in court, which was the most important scene in the movie.  Despite the good intentions of his lawyer to have him absolved of any crime, Earl interrupted the proceedings to plead guilty.  At his age, accountability and redemption were more important than vanity.

      

In her book, The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Ayn Rand made this observation:

 

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology (1999, Penguin, p. 8).

            The left is relentless with slogans about those with contrary views.  For now, there remains a substantial population of Americans who believe in liberty, the rule of law, and justice.  Because they hold firm to Judeo-Christian values, they will be called homophobes and Islamophobes, for they resist the absurdity of views contrary to natural law and two to four millennia of tradition.  They will be called racists and xenophobes because they believe in legal immigration.  They will be called misogynists because they believe in the sacredness of human life and motherhood.

 

For now, America’s Borg has a healthy and active opposition.  This opposition will resist; it will not be assimilated into America’s secular humanist Borg.  Ideally, the opposition will provide an alternative to the vulnerable and malleable members of our society.

---

[1] Note:  C.S. Lewis might argue that Buttigieg has no chest, as discussed in his chapter, “Men without Chests,” in The Abolition of Man.

A Progressive Republican?

AM (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Gentlemen, I just read where New Jersey Governor Christie signed into law a ban on gay conversion therapy (the only other state to enact such a law is California).

IM:  According to Christie, a Roman Catholic, gays are born gay and that therapy to convert them from gay to heterosexual can lead to depression, suicide, and so forth.

Old Gadfly:  Is there evidence to support this claim?

IM:  No.  The claim is based on anecdote and speculation.  But there is evidence that a gay, lesbian, or bisexual orientation can lead to mental disorders and suicide.  A study in The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, involving a nation-wide sample, concluded

The findings from our study show that they [gay men, lesbians, and bisexual men and women] are more likely to have mental health problems and to attempt suicide.  Although not specifically examined in our paper, these findings may be one manifestation of minority stress.  Regardless of the etiology, sexual minorities are clearly a population vulnerable to severe and, in some cases, life-threatening mental health outcomes.[1]

Old Gadfly:  If this is true, then I can appreciate why some parents might be inclined to encourage conversion therapy for their children.  However, the conclusion in the article you just quoted says sexual minorities are “more likely” to attempt suicide.  Isn’t this finding based on “self-reporting” by those who participated in the study?

IM:  Yes.  And your question relates to a controversy regarding a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer.  Who is Dr. Spitzer?  Spitzer, a psychiatrist, led the campaign in the 1970s to remove homosexuality as a disorder from the psychiatric Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, used for diagnostic and treatment protocols.  At the time, Spitzer believed homosexuality was a genetic predisposition and thus should not be treated as a disorder.  Years later, he conducted a study to see if it was possible for those who voluntarily sought reparative (or conversion) therapy to change from a homosexual to heterosexual orientation.  He concluded that there is evidence that change can happen.

AM:  I can imagine the study offended the politically active gay community.

IM:  Absolutely.  Critics claimed “self-reporting,” which served as the basis for collecting data in the study, doesn’t prove anything.

Old Gadfly:  Then, since most psychotherapy is based on self-reporting, it could follow that any form of psychotherapy is a pseudo-science.  Didn’t Spitzer issue an apology for the study?

IM:  Yes, supposedly, a pro-gay nonprofit called Truth Wins Out, received an exclusive copy of the letter of apology, which served as the basis for a highly spun New York Times article.

Old Gadfly:  What’s your take on the apology?

IM:  According to the Times article, Gabriel Arana, a gay man who was nominated for Spitzer’s study but did not participate, visited Spitzer to confront him about the study.  At the time, Spitzer was very vulnerable himself.  He was turning 80, suffered from Parkinson’s disease, and had lost his icon status within the field of psychiatry, especially stemming from the barrage of criticism about his conversion study.  Arana emotionally converted Spitzer, resulting in a letter of apology.  Here is a link to Arana’s testimonial about “ex-gay therapy.”  I read it and concluded that Arana struggled more with “choice.”  Also, I found it strange, yet profoundly significant, that none of those individuals who actually participated in the study later confronted Spitzer to challenge the results of the study.

AM:  If Arana and his anti-conversion therapy cohort believe their orientation is genetic and not a matter of choice, then perhaps pedophilia is also a genetic predisposition and such behavior by priests in the Catholic Church should be defended by the gay community.

Old Gadfly:  The Catholic Church scandal is an example of a potentially distorted narrative.

AM:  Why do you say that Gadfly?

Old Gadfly: In the summer of 2002, according to former 25-year CBS newsman, Bernard Goldberg, a CNN producer explained to him that while there were a couple of high profile cases of pedophilia (a couple of men raping an eight-year old), the situation was overwhelmingly about “gay priests molesting fifteen- and sixteen year-old boys.  Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.  It’s just amazing how people around here are not getting it.”[2]   In other words, the media chose to spin it as pedophilia to shield the overwhelming gay component.  Goldberg went on to document how individuals who do not support the gay agenda are targeted.  For example, Dr. Laura Schlessinger was punished for her position on same sex unions and adoption.[3]     

IM:  Earlier today, Fox News reported another punishment case for views contrary to the gay agenda.  In New Mexico, a same-sex couple approached a photographer to take photographs of their civil union ceremony.  The photographer declined the request due to religious views.  While the same-sex couple immediately arranged another photographer, the choice by the first photographer was apparently too offensive.  So, the same-sex couple filed a discrimination complaint, and won a human rights ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court, forcing the first photographer to pay $7,000 in legal fees incurred by the same-sex couple.

Old Gadfly:  The Schlessinger and photographer cases are examples of Hayek’s argument about the end of truth as a condition of totalitarianism.  But, let’s get back to actual science and evidence.  Is there any evidence on suicide rates for gay, lesbian, and bisexual men and women?

IM:  Unfortunately, yes.

AM:  Why unfortunate?  Because the evidence does not support the Canadian study that gays, lesbian, and bisexual men and women are more vulnerable to suicide?

IM:  No, because this population is in fact more vulnerable, even without conversion therapy.  There is a lot of research seeking to understand this phenomenon, and the evidence indicates youths within this population are five times more likely than heterosexuals (21.5% versus 4.2%) to attempt suicide.  Yet, despite evidence contrary to his notions, Christie still banned conversion therapy.

AM:  Christie is not a stupid man.  Why would he do this?    

IM:  I read a Huffington Post article on this topic, where Christie was quoted to say, “I also believe that on the issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards. . . . I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate."  Therefore, these notions justified government intervention to deny individuals the freedom to make their own choices.

Old Gadfly:  I agree with your assessment, IM, on the impact of Christie’s decision.  However, it may be more difficult to answer AM’s question as to why Christie made this decision.  Most likely, he made it for political capital in upcoming elections, as opposed to the actual science behind conversion therapy.  If true, then this vulnerable population is a mere pawn in a political chess game.  More broadly and strategically, however, Christie’s behavior is dangerous because it reflects a progressive orientation that sees government as more knowledgeable in how individuals should behave within a society.  Ayn Rand cautioned against this progressive rationale in her chapter on the “Nature of Government” in The Virtue of Selfishness.  Here is an important excerpt:

Now consider the extent of the moral and political inversion in today’s prevalent view of government. Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats; instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim—so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

            AM:  I did not appreciate Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness when I was first exposed to it in a philosophy course at the United States Air Force Academy in the late 60s.  Now I do.  As a young girl, Rand actually witnessed Lenin’s centrally planned government take control of her father’s pharmacy business.  The Soviet collectivist government believed Rand’s father “did not build” his business—it belonged to the people.  Now, we hear the President of the United States make similar proclamations.

            IM:  Add to this an Administration that slow rolls Congress in trying to figure out what happened at Benghazi, in Fast and Furious, in the IRS conservative targeting practice, in targeting journalists, and so forth, and we clearly see a government that is free to do anything it pleases. 

AM:  This week, the Justice Department brought suit against Texas for their voter ID legislation.

            Old Gadfly:  In a way, Holder and his lieutenants are sending a message that they must provide permission for the way American citizens express their most fundamental right, even though 71% of American citizens favor voter ID. 

AM:  Rand’s prophesies about the dangers of progressivism may be the reason the progressive media elite ignored the recent movie productions of her book, Atlas Shrugged.  The theme is all about “the ultimate inversion,” where the government does anything it pleases.

Old Gadfly:  Do you think there is an attempt to use brute force to keep Obamacare alive?  There is nothing voluntary about it, unless you are part of a privileged class that has been exempted from compliance, in other words, granted permission not to comply.

AM:  Perhaps Christie’s coziness with Obama explains the progressive ban on conversion therapy.

          

---

[1] Bolton, S., and Sareen, J.  (2011).  Sexual orientation and its relation to mental disorders and suicide attempts:  Findings from a nationally representative sample.  The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 56(1), 35-45.

[2] As cited in Bernard Goldman, Arrogance:  Rescuing America from the Media Elite, (New York, NY:  Warner Books, 2003), p. 166.

[3] Ibid, p. 169.