True to Self

A copy of the alumni magazine for the University of Washington, a school which I did not attend, reached my hands the other day.  Thumbing through it I said to myself, “surely I will find something to object to in here.”  And sure enough, page 18, was a full page spread followed by an article all about the so-called transgender students who are attending UW.  This sort of article is a growing phenomenon with the advent of Mr. Bruce Jenner’s recent change of appearance, and I have written extensively about our collective gender-confusion in the past.   Allow me to belabor some points.

The title of the article was “True to Self,” with the word “True” given in extra large type.  The cover picture for the article is of a Mr. Hoy (real first name unknown), who is rather ludicrously photographed from above wearing a bow in his hair and a white skirt, with a rather fetching purse.  Apparently lost on the writer and editor of the article is the fact that there is nothing true at all about the picture.  A young man presenting himself as a female is being exactly the opposite of true, namely false.  Actually, I suppose this point isn’t lost at all, but rather, the word “true” was selected and emphasized particularly to emphasize that in our time, night can be day, black can be white, and men can be women.  They use the word again in the text of the article, referring to another confused youth, this time a male impersonatrix, who “changed his name to reflect the truth of his gender identity.”  The truth of this young lady’s gender identity is that she is, in fact, a woman.  But the goal of this entire movement is to further the destruction of objective reality, and thus the constant use of the word “truth” in reference to an obvious falsehood.

Sorry honey, you aren’t pulling it off.

Meanwhile the magazine tells us that many poor transgenders are denied “medically necessary” transition money.  As if it is ever medically necessary to jack oneself up with hormones and then lop off one’s penis and get breast implants.  What exactly is “necessary” about that?  This same male impersonatrix, apparently trying to calm people’s minds about her mental imbalance, says “I haven’t fundamentally changed.”  Well, of course not!  You can put on men’s clothes, lop off your breasts, and call yourself by a man’s name, and not really change anything “fundamental.”  Listen sister, fundamentally you’re still a chick.

The entire article refers to these poor souls by the incorrect pronoun, which means that the authoress is lying to her readers.  Lying means saying something the opposite of what you know to be true.  She knows who is a boy and who is a girl, and is willingly stating the opposite of what she knows to be true.

This entire movement has grave practical consequences beyond these troubled individuals.  When a female impersonator gets hired in your office and you are told to call him “her”, you are going to be forced to accept the lie, and lie yourself, or else lose your job.  And God forbid your wife or daughter gets stuck with some dude-in-a-dress when she goes to the ladies’ room.

But beyond the practical, there is simply the dementia of our age, the same dementia which asks us to believe that two men can be married, that people can be divorced and remarried, and that sex isn’t for procreation.  When the very idea of truth is obliterated, and people have lost touch with reality, then you can lead them to do anything you want.  And that’s the truth.

Chapel Hill Moslems

The recent murder of three Moslems in North Carolina produced the predictable outrage and hashtags.  The killer was a militant anti-theist, so it is possible that he was motivated by a hatred of religion in general, although it didn’t seem his anger was directed any more at Moslems than Christians.  The police have also given a parking dispute as a possible motive.  I really have no idea what set him off, nor do you, nor do the hashtaggers, nor does anyone really, except the killer himself and possibly the police.  However, there are two interesting elements to this case that seem to have evaded discussion.

1.  What is a family of head-scarfed Mohammadens doing in Chapel Hill, North Carolina anyways?  The articles coming out from the New York Times and other sources are trying to portray this as totally unremarkable.  This sort of thing:  “A bitter pang ran through the heart of Mr. Sajaad when he hear the daily call to prayer at Chapel Hill today…”  Or, “Mr. Barakat was just an upstanding citizen, doing charity work…”  They are even referring to the “Chapel Hill Muslims.”  Who knew?

In my own small town I see several women in hejab every day.  If this were September 12, 2001, I wouldn’t see a single one.  Not one.  But, interestingly enough, if this were September 10, 2001, I wouldn’t see a single head-scarfed woman either.  They have all been let in post 9-11.  That’s right, after Moslem terrorists blew up two buildings and destroyed part of the Pentagon, they are now flooding small town America and being welcomed with open arms.  It’s hard enough for traditional Catholics to fight the battle against our own corrupt society and Church, now we have to deal with an influx of adherents to a militant and Satanic false religion.

The reason, incidentally, they are in Chapel Hill is because there is a university there.  In America, at least, universities have raised their rates to a level that Americans cannot afford them even with student loans.  So the universities are turning to the Arabs and their wealth.  Oh, and one more thing about the hejab-women:  they are always pushing baby carriages.  America is dead.

2.  The wife of the murderer in this case came to his defense, claiming he was a great guy and an upstanding citizen.  Why, she says, he even supports gay rights and abortion!  What a strange time we live in when support for sodomy and baby murder is considered proof of one’s good character.

Look at the above picture if you can bear it.  This is the head of a little girl who was dismembered and yanked from her mother’s womb.  Quite a sign of character, supporting this.

Look who has a Ph.D these days

I haven’t read any modern fiction in over ten years, but I remember a trend from a few years back that is probably still ongoing.  When the author wants to give himself a voice, he creates a character who is his mouthpiece and gives the character a Ph.D. from some impressive university, like Harvard or Stanford.  For example, in The Da Vinci Code, the main character was a “symbologist” from Harvard.  This supposedly gives the character instant credibility, even though the author himself may only have an A.A. from his local community college.  Let me begin this piece by saying that, when I read someone has a doctorate from the Ivy League I immediately assume the opposite.  It takes a lot for someone with a Ph.D. from one of these schools to regain credibility in my mind.

Case in point:  One Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, “doctor” of Harvard’s economics program (2013), has just published an article about sex.  Of course, if you are an economist, actually writing about the economy isn’t always the best way to gain fame (or notoriety), but academics often don’t see themselves confined to their discipline anymore.  An economist really just means a “data cruncher”.  In fact, I doubt “Dr.” Stephens-Davidowitz could tell you a thing about how the economy actually works, since most of his CV consists of items like “How Many Americans are Gay?” and “How Racist Are We?”  Now maybe these articles weren’t getting him the attention he wanted, so he decided to write about sex, which probably got him more hits than ever in his on-line writing career.

I won’t link to his article, and I don’t recommend you read it.  It is an occasion of sin.  I did not read it in its entirety myself, but only glanced at it briefly, and even that was probably a venial sin.  However, I was startled by the opening, which is probably one of the stupidest things uttered by a human being in history:  “ARE you confused by sex? I certainly am.  One of the many reasons sex is puzzling is that we lack reliable data.”

Stop and think about that for a minute.  Imagine you are a Harvard Ph.D. economist in the 1920’s and you are applying for a professorship.  You show them an article that begins with those sentences.  You would shown the door.

His article goes on to present various pieces of data collected from Google searches on sex.  Ah, the great joy of the quantification of our life.  We find out, inter alia, about the kind of insecurities men and women have regarding their genitals, how many people are actually having “unprotected” (sic) sex, and so forth.

Firstly, if you live a moral and upright life, the first time you will show anyone, other than a doctor, the private regions of your body is on your wedding night.  If you go through your life faithful to your husband or wife, assuming you die at a natural age, that spouse will be the only person to have ever seen your body in a sexual context.  Assuming you haven’t gotten into Christopher West or some other theology-of-the-body-type writers, you will only have normal marital relations, and won’t be trying to force your spouse to commit unnatural acts.  If that’s this case, you will never have to worry about what they think, except perhaps for a little apprehension on your wedding night.

If, however, you are about to go into the bedchamber with a girl who “has sex” every weekend of her life, who has seen hundreds of men naked, and hundreds of male parts, of course you are going to be competitive and concerned about how she perceives you.  The moral and upright girl has nothing to compare you to.  The slut has a whole database of male parts in her head!  Of course, the same goes if the genders are reversed.

To summarize my first point:  All of this “data” really has no relevance in a morally upright society.  It only has relevance in our morally corrupt society.  People are misusing their bodies and committing grave sin and unnatural acts,  and this fills them with insecurities.  They look to our Ph.D., data-crunching overlords to provide them some sense of security, safety in numbers.

Now, onto my second point.  This is a larger issue that will need some more space at a later date.  This man’s epistemology is totally flawed.  In the modern world, and this keeps getting worse, we are convinced that we can only know something if we have collected data on it.  Notice he says he finds sex confusing.  There is nothing confusing about it.  It is a physical act by which (a) the human race is fruitful and reproduces itself, and (b) has the effect of unifying the husband and wife who practice it.  We can grasp the essence of it quite easily, and people have for thousands of years.  However, in the modern “big data” world, we can only know a thing if we have numbers about a thing.  Instead, this has the opposite effect:  it chops a thing into little pieces that may or may not be relevant at all.  Most of the time, it actually hinders us from knowing a thing.  It’s a bit like if I used an industrial shredder to turn a washing machine and a dishwasher into little tiny pieces.  Good luck telling them apart.

I don’t have a Ph.D. from Harvard, but at least I will never say sex is “confusing” because I don’t have enough data.  Goodness.  “Dr.” Stephens-Davidowitz, email me if you are still confused and I will try to explain it to you.