A wonderful, bubblegum/pop-psych crossover song:
The great Chris Squire, founding member of Yes, and one of the greatest rock bassists of all time, has passed at the age of 67.
In 1975, Squire put out an underrated solo album titled “Fish Out of Water”, which sounds like a lost Yes album, and showcases Squire’s own vocal prowess. Here, from that album, is the song “Hold Out Your Hand”:
In Time magazine, Rod Dreher writes: “Orthodox Christians Must Now Learn To Live as Exiles in Our Own Country”:
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?
For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal.
For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.
Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages. Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.
And, right on cue (alongside calls to expand the Constitutional definition of ‘marriage’ to include polygamy, and also in Time magazine is a piece by a NYT-regular entitled: “Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions”.
Remember, though, there is no such thing as the ‘slippery slope’.
That’s just a concoction of conservatives’ feverish imaginations.
In Counter-Currents, the always-excellent Greg Johnson discusses the Charleston shooting:
As a white person, I look down upon the criminals among us. I do not reflexively defend and glorify them. This was a terrible act, an act that was illegal under slavery, illegal under Jim Crow, and illegal today…
Roof and people like him may be nothing more than canaries in a coal mine: the first to sense the presence of a threat to the survival of us all. Roof may have just been abnormally sensitive to the terrible psychic consequences of losing control of our society to aliens: stress, alienation, anger, hatred, rage, etc. This heightened sensitivity might also go along with a whole suite of other abnormal traits. But we dismiss people like Roof at our own risk. For in the end, all of us will feel the same effects — unless we heed the warning signs and turn back the rising tide of color.
In Politico is a piece titled “America’s Unexpected Civil Rights Champion”, the subtitle of which reads: “Nikki Haley’s leadership reminds us how change happens.”
So, how is it exactly, that being in favor of taking down the Confederate Flag makes one a ‘civil rights’ hero? There’s no ‘civil rights’ legislation in play. That was passed in 1964.
The article doesn’t say.
The important thing is it’s the MSM portraying a Republican who capitulates to emboldened P.C. Mob Frenzy as a ‘civil rights champion.
A must-read from Kevin MacDonald on “Charleston, cognitive psychology, and media influence”:
It’s worth thinking about some basic psychology in relation to the Charleston events. Cognitive psychologists study heuristics that people use to make judgments about the likelihood of events that are complexly determined — things like airplane crashes or shark attacks. A heuristic relevant to Charleston is the availability heuristic, where people make judgments and form attitudes based on their memories of past events. Such memories are greatly influenced by media coverage…
My jaw dropped when I saw this. The crass opportunism of it. Obama ‘acting blacker’ than black. Stunning. Absolutely stunning. The instincts of the community organizer never waver.
It’s increasingly hard to tell liberal arguments from parody. Enter Fredrik DeBoer with the lead Politico banner: “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy”:
In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”…
Conventional arguments against polygamy fall apart with even a little examination. Appeals to traditional marriage, and the notion that child rearing is the only legitimate justification of legal marriage, have now, I hope, been exposed and discarded by all progressive people. What’s left is a series of jerry-rigged arguments that reflect no coherent moral vision of what marriage is for, and which frequently function as criticisms of traditional marriage as well.
ABC News reports that “US Radicals Bigger Terror Threat Than Jihadis in America“… in case you were wondering.