…But Some Kangaroos, and Courts, are More Equal Than Others


Mike Ward responded to the verdict on Twitter, declaring that he refuses to pay the fine, and plans to take this fight to the Supreme Court. “In a ‘free’ country, it shouldn’t be up to a judge to decide what constitutes a joke on stage.”

Ward’s only mistake here is in thinking that Canada is still a free country. In critical ways it, like Britain, haven’t been “free countries” for some time now.

Two of three judges ruled Mike Ward’s comments regarding Gabriel were not justifiable in a society where freedom of expression is valued. 

Logically self-negating ironies such as this, pronounced with furrowed brows and straight faces, are a fundamental aspect of what constitutes that which we call “Orwellian,” and certainly something utterly lost on the sanctimonious totalitarian prigs within the equally Orwellian “human rights commission” who’s job it is to fawn over special classes of human beings that have been exempted from many of the laws, rules, norms and self-responsibilities of general citizens in an open, free society, including the expectation of legal sanction and crushing fines for being boorish, insensitive or hurting other’s feelings. The idea that Ward’s joking about Gabriel somehow harmed him or, in classic multiculturalist legalese, infringed “his right to equality” (as if any vague “right to equality” could in any coherent sense be “infringed” by a joke told by a comedian) is itself among the most dangerous precedent’s that could be set in an open, free society, and we here in America are in no sense behind Canada or Britain in dismantling our liberal-democratic institutions in this regard.

Ward’s speech was “discrimination against Gabriel and his parents”? And? So?

Our unalienable rights and liberties are among those pesky, stubborn black/white, either/or, on the one hand or on the other principles of the Book of Mormon, in political as well as in personal spiritual matters. Once we start to dismantle them, chewing away at the periphery and around the borders, if not immediately contained, the tendency moves inevitably towards the standard default state of humanity since Adam: tyranny, despotism and runaway statism.

A sane, truly “liberal” society would perhaps put such “judges” in stocks in the town square and pelt them with rotten vegetable matter, followed by stripping them naked and banishing them from the realm. But the larger point of such nice facetious fantasizing is that such anti-liberal, Leninistic institutions never should have been created in the first place, and all those who created them, and who inhabit them now, should be given a pink slip and never allowed near government power of any kind again.

Not even dog-catcher.



Alas, Political Correctness (Let A Hundred Flowers Bloom at BYU)

The idolatry of ideology – the idolatrous worship of humanity and the human and the unfettered moral hubris and callow infatuation with moral self-congratulation and peer affirmation otherwise known as being “woke” – has begun, in recent years, to take a heavy toll among members of the Church.  We may (as we should), look at this as a what and tares dynamic as prophesied among the ancients and present throughout our scriptural record, but the toll is still all-too real, and all-too consequential.

Black Americans are, as always, perhaps the single group most victimized, defrauded, and intellectually swindled by this idolatrous worship of the modern gods of the progressive faith, a faith, not in God, but in the “arm of flesh” and which, in essence, claims that God “hath given his power unto men” (2 Nephi 28:5).  “Cursed,” however, says Nephi, “is he that putteth his trust in man, or maketh flesh his arm, or shall hearken unto the precepts of men, save their precepts shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost”(2 Nephi 28:31).

This is the faith in the power of academic learning “social science,” grandiose theoretical abstraction, a pure, unconstrained, selfless, lofty, focused human will, and politics as a religious calling to reshape, reconstruct, redesign, and redeem humanity from the Fall.  The eminent political scientist Eric Voeglin termed this the “imminantization of the Christian Eschaton,” and saw in it a kind of modern gnostic seeking for transcendent if fundamentally secular or secularized knowledge – saving, redeeming, transforming knowledge.

The Salt Lake Tribune report analyzed here, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, is an outstanding textbook example of the manner in which identity politics corrupts and decomposes everything it touches, or which stands even in close proximity to it, as well as the way in which so many minorities and sub-groups within the American melting pot (not to mention standardized “indigenous peoples” of the Global South) have become, as Thomas Sowell has observed, the “mascots” of the political and cultural Left.

The first thing one will (or should)  notice about this article is that it is, in most ways, nothing more than a prose listing of formatted bromides, shibboleths, and stock leftist cant cobbled from the intellectual tombs of progressive race ideology and black power movement racialism; a kind of intellectual and cultural graveyard of ideas, concepts, and ideologically-bathed (but rarely questioned critically) preconceptions about America, white Americans, blacks, and the nature of culture and the human condition that bespeaks, in many ways, very much the zero-sum vision of the world the same Left clings to in the realm of economics.

“Johnisha Demease-Williams,”  we are told, underwent a “culture shock when she arrived at Brigham Young University last fall.”  This culture shock, at the outset (and this is the point) might lead a reader to think that being black, or in some underlying, metaphysical sense, “blackness” as a genetic and biological phenomena, is indelibly imprinted and associated with a certain kind of culture.  We all know this progressive drill.  Virtually all black Americans are assumed, unless otherwise specified (and marked) to come from the following social/cultural environment and manifest the following cultural attributes:

1.  Urban/inner city
2.  Working poor or underclass
3.  Speak a distinct, urban English brogue with certain kinds of phrases, terms, inflection, and slang.
4.  Listen to and appreciate specific genres of music, art, and cinema, most having strong connection to “hip-hop” culture.
5.  Hold certain political, social, and cultural views and perspectives.
6.  And, like the two cousins on the old Patty Duke show, laugh alike, walk alike, and talk alike.
7.  Even if middle or upper middle class, any given black American is expected to express his racial authenticity by manifesting at least some of these cultural stereotypes.

This is neither natural nor inevitable in an open, free, melting pot society like the United States, which is not, and can never be, while retaining its character as a free, open, rule of law-based society, a multicultural society, but which has flourished as a multiracial and multiethnic society of Americans sharing the same fundamental civic values, ideals, and sense of Americanness (not whiteness, blackness, Hispanicness etc.).

This state of affairs (the concept of blackness being the sine qua non of one’s ontological racial taxonomy, as opposed to one’s individual humanness and Americanness) is what happens when race, as with other aspects of the human condition, become politicized and politics replaces culture or, perhaps, become culture, and displace the core institutions of civil society: family, home, church and the local community as the central organizing principle of civil and individual life

“In her Texas home,” Stack writes, “many members were converts from other religious traditions whose backgrounds were understood and celebrated. They seemed more aware and accepting of cultural differences, she says. They knew about world and national events like the police killings of unarmed citizens. Whether or not they embraced Black Lives Matter, they understood what drove the movement.”

Now, while the term “culture” may surely be deployed to conceptualize the social environment from which Johnisha comes, the core beliefs and claims of the BLM; its wholly fictional narrative of a nation teeming with murderous police officers hunting innocent black men for no other reason than fiendish racial animosity, and a white society that looks idylly on in disinterest if not support of such a practice, is an  ideology, an ideology with a cultural and intellectual pedigree and history that is known and can be well understood by anyone willing to do the homework.

This is, in other words, wholly about politics, race as a vector through which to acquire politic power, and political ideology, and an authentic political ideology understood to be held – as a cultural requirement and fundamental assumption of cultural and racial legitimacy – by blacks qua blacks, with whites looking on in slack-jawed stupefaction as young, college age blacks “educate” them on “what its like to be black in America.”

Given that some two thirds to three quarters of American blacks now live within the middle to upper middle class, not the urban inner city, and given the large number of black CEOs, entrepreneurs, and highly successful blacks in the entertainment, political, legal, and professional realm, and given what we know, empirically, about the economic and personal condition of blacks who follow the same principles of success and development as whites, Asians, Hispanics, or any other American group, being black in America has no bearing at all upon one’s life circumstances…unless.

Unless one allows oneself to come under the  influence of progressive doctrines of “structural inequality” and “institutional racism” and succumbs to the progressive cult of permanent victimhood, inflamed racial paranoia and cynical suspicion that has driven a substantial subset of black America in roughly fifty years into a cultural, moral, and civilizational abyss from which it is not at all clear it can recover and from which the Left and the vast, entrenched poverty industry that thrives and gorges itself upon the very misery it has been so active in creating and sustaining, has no interest in such recovery.

“By contrast, BYU’s 325 blacks account for fewer than 1 percent of the 33,000-strong student body, according to spokesman Todd Hollingshead.”

The inference here being…what?

“Because blacks make up such a tiny minority at BYU, Demease-Williams says that produces a kind of cultural indifference to their needs.”

What are the special “needs” of American blacks at BYU that are not required of other groups?  It appears there are “challenges” encountered at BYU not encountered by others.  What might these be?  Johhisha’s YouTube video, ““The Black Student Experience – BYU,” is apparently an attempt to answer that question.

“In the independently made video, Demease-Williams and a couple of other interviewers pose questions to white and black students about hurdles, perceptions, racism, white privilege and dating.”

One notes the standard begged questions, pre-assumptions, and unquestioned axioms the film seeks not to analyse but only to expose.  Is there white racism at BYU, and even enclaves of white supremacy?  Of course.  Is there “white privilege,” a cultural Marxist/critical race theory ideological construct that it would be interesting to study to see if it exists at all in some broad, overarching sense, but which this film takes as an assumed given.

“Most of the Anglo students interviewed deny that “white privilege” exists, but they do recognize that donning “blackface” is “not chill.””

Note two things here, (1) the white students probably deny “white privilege” because they’ve never psychologically, culturally or in their personal life circumstances ever experienced any such thing (perhaps they actually had to get good grades to get into BYU?) or because, being drenched in racial false consciousness, they have never taken a course in black studies, multicultural studies, critical race theory, whiteness studies, oppression studies, post-colonial studies, or Hip-Hop pedagogy, and (2) the inner city underclass slang, which, on the Left, functions vary much as white racial stereotypes in a long vanished era once functioned (such as that blacks have rhythm), as a way to collectivize an entire group of  human beings and erase their individuality – the essence of socialism, a concept which extends far beyond mere economics.

“Coming from more diverse places and Mormon congregations, BYU blacks feel “disconnected from their community,” says Smith, co-author of “Diary of Two Mad Black Mormons,””

Again, here is what forty years of relentless indoctrination in K-12 schooling, college, the mainstream news media, and countless hours of the consumption of Hollywood product has generated: American blacks have a “community” separate and tribally insulated from the “white” community and from the core, main currents of American life.  All blacks, virtually by definition and by ideological requirement, come from or are at least umbilically connected to this “community” by the very reality of their skin color.  No individual uniqueness or individual, personal, self-determined, let us say it, individual diversity of culture, belief, values, speech, mannerisms, tastes, predilections, or self-concept – as with all collective conceptions of the human subject – can be allowed even the slightest manifestation against “the community” and its sociopolitical structures, totems and taboos.  The individual, within progressive ideology, is not an individual at all, but only black, or white, or Hispanic, or a “person of color,” or gay, or “working class” etc.

As in medieval times, when a person’s trade or craft were their  identity (baker, cooper, smith etc.) so now, in the modern progressive city of politically correct man, one’s individuality is swallowed in one’s identity in racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, and,s still lingering, class lumpen masses from which exit can be difficult and even wrenching.

The the progressive scythe swings wide.  Indeed, Stack has used this particular story to highlight some of the other pet preoccupations of the NOM counterculture within the church, including the church’s essay on the priesthood ban, which she says that the film “doesn’t probe” and which, according to the article, “explained that the priesthood-temple ban was formalized during the presidency of Brigham Young and influenced by society’s racism at the time.”

No, actually, the essay says no such thing.  What was influenced by the racism of the time were the opinions and explanations promoted to explain it, not the ban itself, which still stands as a divinely instituted policy, albeit still a poorly understood one.

And of the rest?  The standard calls for “education,” more talk, discussions, dialogue and focus (i.e., endless sessions, seminars, teach-ins, conferences, and an entire department dedicated to leftist indoctrination and public Caucasian self-criticism and self-flagellation on maters of white privilege and structural racism) on race and the horrors black students “endure” at the BYU campus, and open cheerleading for the viscerally racist, anti-American, neo-Marxist BLM.
























Let Not Your Hypothalamus be Troubled

Notice this, for all those interested in the “signs of the times” and how far we are into them: the mad and those who collaborate with the mad to ensure, enable and affirm the madness of others, have now legally told the sane that they have no custody over their own mad children and no legal hope of providing their mad children with therapy, healing and a path back to sanity.

The inmates are now truly running the asylum, and as good is evil and evil good, as war is peace and light is darkness, now madness is sanity and sanity is pathology.

I don’t know how long we now have as a society, but we are rapidly becoming spiritually, morally and intellectually nonviable as a civilizational structure.

Wickedness never was happiness, or can madness ever be sanity. All that’s left, Nietzsche taught us, after all values have been revaluated, found wanting and been discarded, is the bottomless abyss of nihilism, and the only alternative to that is the will to power.

When both are combined, we have the Left.

That’s what we are seeing here.


Homework and Serious Thinking First, Virtue Signaling Later

Conversion therapy is based on pseudoscience and can cause extreme harm to those who are subjected to it. We can and should stand opposed to its dangerous practice. An announcement from Salt Lake does not inherently establish scientific legitimacy or morality.



The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Tuesday opposed a proposed rule that would ban Utah-licensed mental health professionals from using <a href=”https://www.sltrib.com/news/mormon/2015/10/03/conversion-therapies-dont-work-experts-say-so-why-do-gay-mormons-still-seek-them-out/&#8221; target=…”


In point of fact, there has long been substantial evidence that “conversion therapy” (a term created by opponents of sexual orientation change therapies, not by those involved in its actual theory and practice) is quite effective and beneficial when applied to and among those for whom homosexual/homoerotic feelings, attractions and desires are unwanted and perceived and lived as undesirable (but the “lived experience” of those who do not conform themselves to progressive orthodoxy will soon find their experiences denounced as self-delusion or as a kind of identity group traitorism, but only in that case).  It is of no use to those who have no desire to alter those feelings and desires, and is not claimed to be.

Purveyors of the theory of the irreducible and organic innateness of homosexuality (and, from this, virtually all other sexual predilections, desires or philias) such as Jaxon Washburn (who also, as a progressive LDS thinker, is now committed, as are many other leftist LDS, to the proposition that, not only is homosexuality et al innate in a biological and neurological sense, and solely the product of genetic factors (a claim for which no scientific evidence exists), but that it is also an ontological absolute – there were homosexual, bisexual and transgender children of our Heavenly Parents in the preexistent state, and all of these conditions will transcend the grave into the resurrection, including into the celestial kingdom), are calling “pseudoscience” a therapeutic practice for which there is, contra Mr. Washburn, a well-established body of positive evidence, the actual pseudoscience being, to be sure, the long-discredited “born this way” argument of biological essentialism and the larger ideological Kinseyism to which Jaxon and sexual revolutionaries long predating Jaxon rely on for core justification.

Much more concerning than this, however, is the way in which Washburn, following closely in the footsteps of the generational “social justice” movement in which he is  now well rooted, has now adopted much of the authoritarian, totalitarianesque mentality of the broader Left and is now calling for the banning of an entire psychotheraputic modality on the basis of no reason other than ideological dyspepsia and that he, like so many other progressives, wants to forcibly deny to others the right and freedom to seek therapeutic help for their suffering and to have access to professionals who specialize in such an area.

Jaxon, the “woke” neo-LDS apologist of the future, now drops his mask and emerges as just another totalitarian social justice brownshirt of the chair, for whom individual discomfort or disgust with one’s homosexual feelings, if allowed to remain unchallenged and accepted at face value as legitimate human feelings and perceptions (and only, of course, feelings and perceptions that fall within the realm of orthodox politically correct feelings and perceptions – what one should feel and perceive in the realm of human sexuality if one’s feelings and perceptions have not been polluted and corrupted by unorthodox, devaionist thinking (such as social conservatism or church teachings) will count here) would imply (and this can never be allowed even the slightest whiff of possible legitimacy lest the entire present sexual revolution/gender ideology movement take the final path of Humpty Dumpty) that homosexuality is, like many other similar human dynamics, an accretion of the mortal condition and is not “who we really are” but, at best, what we can become within the limited context of that mortal condition given certain psychological, family and social dynamics and under the influence of specific biases, predilections and variables, some of which, yes, can be biologically innate but which also requires a certain degree of human complicity and acceptance.

Those who do not accept their homosexual feelings and desires are, for Jaxon, as for so many on the historic Left, clearly in the grip of a kind of “false consciousness” in which, like the proletarian workers of old or women who would not accept the dogmas of second wave feminism, do not correctly perceive their own internal authenticity, best interests or need for “liberation” through the fog of ideological self-delusion that keeps them from supporting the revolution (or from becoming “woke”).

A homosexual who does not want or is not comfortable with his homosexual feelings and desires is, of course, like a black conservative, a woman who would rather be a wife, mother and homemaker than a corporate executive, or a tradesman who does not want to join a union, someone who has internalized their own oppression and psychologically accepted the bigotry, stereotypes and hatred of the surrounding society, absorbing it and psychologically transforming or rectifying it into a kind of neurotic self-loathing in which one’s natural, indivisible, inherent, and authentic selfhood is actively opposed and one becomes a divided self, battling internal demons that in fact do not exist, but have been turned into pathologies by the knuckle-dragging bigotries of the gawking troglodytes we know as “conservatives” and those who seek to defend and support traditional values respecting human sexuality and the family, two core elements of a viable civilizational framework.

Such homosexuals require the insights of woke, gnostic progressive intellectuals like Jaxon, of course, to bring them to themselves and place them back on the straight and narrow path of celebratory self-authenticity.  This is required, and has always been required within all collectivist/socialist mindsets and social systems because the presence of one, just one deviationist, Kulak, heretic or unique individual who does not fit the mold, does not present with the proper body of accepted, approved, orthodox thoughts, beliefs, values, party lines and identifying slogans becomes a critical existential threat to the entire ideological, political and legal card house of political correctness and the kultursmog that supports it.  The very idea that homosexuality, as to its etiology and development, is actually a complex phenomena with multiple paths of origin and complex, subtle multiple variables conditioning its development, or if it develops, for each individual, is a lethal threat to the Left’s narrative of innate, biological and, indeed, metaphysical elementalism and the justification, from this, to cast all principled criticism of and dissent from the present phase of the sexual revolution as bigotry and hate and then to move from public excoriation and moral shaming to criminalization of such dissent, speech and expression; the end of the 1st Amendment, but only for them.

Jaxon has now emerged, with so many of his comrades on the Left (and particularly his generational cohort), as determined and vociferous enemies of liberty, choice and individual self-determination in a free, open, pluralistic, heterodox society (and hardly only on this subject).  But for Jaxon, as for his many likeminded social justice warriors, all forms of human diversity are to be cultivated and celebrated, save for only one.

Diversity of thought.

But if some who feel themselves same-sex attracted, but who do not want to feel same-sex attracted, desire to access modes of  psychotherapy intended to address their needs and desires for change, to even approach admitting that such a thing as homosexuals who are ambivalent about or uncomfortable with their feelings is tantamount to a silver bullet piercing the heart of the entire gender ideology movement and the gay rights/marriage movement that made it viable.  One, just one counterrevolutionary who does not march in lockstep with the rest of the progressive band is more than enough to send the entire movement into disarray and self-immolation, if such ideas – dangerous, dangerous ideas – are allowed to be spoken in public or if any homosexual, suffering as they must be from pathological internalized homophobia, is allowed to seek help for their suffering and to heal psychologically and emotionally, and why shall some not have the right and liberty to seek help and healing for their suffering in the manner that they and they alone perceive a need to seek (and who is Jaxon, or anyone else, to say to them “No!  Suffer or not, you are not going to be allowed to upset the politically correct apple cart!”)

And newsflash for Elder Jaxon: a substantial portion of clinical psychology and its several hundred varied modalities and theories of personality and behavior is pseudoscience anyway, and always has been, and Jaxon’s casting of the questions of homosexuality as a strictly scientific one, or as amenable to empirical scientific analysis and conclusion is naive at best and a retreat into rank positivism at worst.  Clinical psychology and psychiatry have been a deeply mixed bag, from their very inceptions, and continue to be, and doubtless, always will be.    Both APAs have long been prone to follow changes and alterations in the cultural and political landscape in a rather sycophantic manner, the recent change in the view in the DSM manual regarding gender dysphoria to bring the manual into conformity with modern ideological shibboleths of the Left being only the most recent.

The American Psychological Association, on the other hand, long ago admitted the efficacy of sexual reorientation therapy for those who desired it and were internally motivated to apply its principles.


Another Take on The Progressive LDS “But.”

Just found this while surfing around and I can’t help but add a little here and there to what started out as very promising but requires a bit more contemporary relevance (i.e., stirring of the pot):

download (4)

BUT don’t tell me that secular biblical and historical scholarship is not the measure of and lens through which we should approach the scriptures and the teachings, counsels and shibboleths of the living oracles.

BUT don’t tell me that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

BUT don’t tell me that marching in gay pride parades is a questionable practice for “faithful” Latter-day Saints.

BUT don’t tell me that homosexual sex is a serious sin…unless homosexuals are married.

BUT don’t tell me that the world is not going to end due to human-caused global warming even though the scriptures say its going to end due to wickedness, debauchery, cultural decadence and abomination (and despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that this is or ever could possibly occur).

BUT don’t tell me to oppose Prop 8

BUT don’t tell me not to support the ERA.

BUT don’t tell me that a woman doesn’t have the right to choose.

BUT don’t critique government welfare/entitlement programs and prate on and on about “the evils of the dole.”

BUT don’t tell me the priesthood ban didn’t originate in white supremacist racism.

BUT don’t tell me women shouldn’t hold the priesthood.

And don’t tell me that if I call fellow church members who voted for Trump, or who voted Republican racists, bigots, fascists and xenophobes, that I’m being unchristlike.

BUT don’t tell me socialism isn’t the United Order.

BUT don’t tell me that class envy makes me unfit for the kingdom of God (Mosiah 5:29)

BUT don’t tell me that the poor who are greedy, covetous, carnal and selfish will not find it just as difficult to crawl through the eye of that needle as a similar rich person.

BUT don’t tell me that the Book of Mormon is really, actually and literally a historical record, and not inspired fiction.

BUT don’t tell me that the Book of Abraham was really on that papyrus Joseph had.

BUT don’t tell me that the Brethren don’t make mistakes; lots and lots and lots and lots of mistakes.

AND, whatever else he does, he’d BETTER NOT question my self-authenticity, lived experience, or who I really am.




The Anti-Zion Cometh




NYC now has a ban on saying “illegal alien”

New York City Bans Wrongthink

In time, New York and other municipalities given to this kind of totalitarian hostility of the First Amendment and an open marketplace of ideas – the core reason for the First Amendment at all – will also have to outlaw the terms “fascist,” “Nazi” and “communist” as, increasingly, these three grand forms of anti-democratic, authoritarian statist leftism that seek to concentrate and totalize state power and to erase any dissent from party doctrine are coming to define the modern Democratic Party at all levels, and most acutely, at the now psychosis-driven national level, and many Democrats who would, in public and with face straight, support such a broad daylight attack on the very nucleus of American liberal democratic political and cultural exceptionalism and success as a model of human liberty, opportunity, individual self-determination and human potential across the sweep of five thousand years of known history (and upon the fundamental idea of natural, inherent, unalienable rights and liberties outside the realm of state mediation and which, within each individual, preexist and transcend the state) are going to have to get ever more used to being described in these terms.

When The modern Democratic Party began its long march towards neo-Fabian/neo-Marxist progressivism from the early seventies on,  it made a pact with The Man in The Red Suit that it now, or so it appears, cannot renounce, even if it desired to do so.  It signed away its soul in blood (mostly of the innocent unborn), poverty, serfdom, decline, disorder and relentless, gnawing worship of concentrated, unaccountable state power that is leading it, year by year, month to month, and now, virtually day by day, towards the congealing totalitarianism that is at the very heart of all forms of leftist or “progressive” thought, philosophy and overarching vision and which is bereft of any internal ideological or ethical brakes that would allow it to apply any kind of internal impulse control to its always expanding utopian ideals of a “fair,” socially just society cleansed of its “deplorable” elements and “reactionary” bigotries.

That the modern Democratic Party is intellectually and morally bankrupt should  not be cause for raised eyebrows, but is should be cause for a healthy alarm within those who still jealously value and cherish their constitutional and divinely-ordained liberties and individual rights and who will not let them slip away with a mere whimper.

With leftist Democrats now openly and in broad daylight raising the politically correct iron fist of thoughtcrime across the nation, from New York and on to other municipalities who now have made it a crime to alert ICE to the presence of illegal foreign nationals – made it a crime, in other words, to honor, sustain and obey he law and assist legal authorities in enforcing it – to confederate “sanctuary cities” in flagrant violation of federal immigration law, a realm in which neither states nor cities have the slightest jurisdiction ( but just let any state or city declare null and void any provision of Roe, Obergfell, the ESA, the wetlands provisions of the Clean Water Act, EPA rules relative to CO2 emmisions, CAFE standards, federal income tax, or statutorily outlaw transgender reading hour, and watch the kicked ant hill react).

New York, now having become, alternatively, Germany in the 1930s or Russia under Lenin in the 1920s, is free to begin pursuing reactionaries, counterrevolutionaries, wreckers, deviationists and Kulaks from pillar to post in an effort to cleanse New York of its vermin and create “the new New York men and women of the future.”

How long it will be before conservatives/libertarians in New York, California, Oregon or Seattle will have to wear armbands or receive a mark in their foreheads I don’t know (it appears that in many places controlled by Democrats, such as Chicago, it is ICE, not Antifa, that is considered a criminal terrorist organization), but any quasi-facetiousness aside, we are now living in a time when something approximating this is not out of the question.  The public trashing of one’s reputation, loss of job and career, financial destruction through weaponized, ideologically-driven litigation, or even the ability to eat out, or wear a political t-shirt or ball cap expressing ideas the “woke” don’t like, with a reasonable assurance of physical safety, is now no longer an assumption one can make as a conservative, at least not as a conservative with any public notoriety, nor as any conservative in the present corporate environment in which “diversity” ideology has driven deep wedges between Americans who don’t quite look the same.

The primary failure of modern conservatism over my lifetime is that, although it won all the intellectual arguments long ago, it allowed the Left to march triumphantly to virtual complete victory in the culture wars, on issue after issue, and to gain overwhelming if not total dominance of the most critical institutions of society, including the media, the foundations, K-12 public education, American higher ed, and the entertainment industry.  The reasons for this are multiple, but conservatives, at their general core, are not a deeply political people, nor a politicized people, and generally despise the politicized souls of the Left for whom politics and the pursuit of political power are a militant, fundamentalist religious calling and whose major goal in life is the politicization of everything else.

Conservatives rise and fall, periodically, and move into activism when galvanized by a particular issue, such as abortion, the ERA, sex education in the schools, Common Core, gay marriage, or other issues that come and go over generational time, but one element always remains constant: the Left always wins these battles in the culture wars, and their victories are permanent.

Leftists, on the other hand, are imbued with and driven by “the vision of the Anointed,” an “unconstrained vision” of human redemption, perfectablility and transcendence of all the vicissitudes and limitations of mortality; in a gospel sense, progressivism seeks to overcome the effects of the Fall and return us to Eden, but without Christ, without the gospel and through solely human political, economic, educational and technological means, programs and social reforms.  This vision requires the suppression and, ultimately, expunging of all alternative or dissenting visions from the universe of discourse and, ideally, from consciousness (hence, the war by and for control of language that is political correctness), and hence requires, in the end, the criminalization of speech, expression, ideas and, if possible, thought and perception itself inconsistent with “the party line.”  Leftism is politics as a religious calling and a political religion.

It is what I have long termed the idolatry of ideology.

What has become of our colleges and universities has now spread into corporate America and come to infuse an entire American political party at the national, state and local municipal level.

We were warned that “perilous times will come.” (2 Timothy: 3)

They have.




As We Approach Ripeness…

The shameless mind rape of children, through which the ideological animosities and hatreds of their parents are expressed, continues unabated.  The creepy, affectually flat and vaguely psychopathological Greta Thunberg is not alone in being used as a pawn in an adult game of total political war.

The Left has always done everything it does “for the children” and it has always used what it sees as the superior moral authority of the child as a club to beat down rational discourse and debate.  The Left has always had a deeply Rousseauian view of the child, and was very instrumental in creating the cult of youth that has dominated the pop culture for several generations.  The core idea seems to be that the less knowledgeable, educated and experienced one is, the greater should be their intellectual clout in the marketplace of ideas.

We were once told not to trust anyone under thirty.  Now, it seems that anyone beyond puberty is suspect.

On Politically Correct Virgins and Borrowed Light: A Cautionary Tale


Some things are simply true. The arbiter of truth is God—not your favorite social media news feed, not Google, and certainly not those who are disaffected from the Church.

– President Russell m. Nelson


In a talk delivered on September 17, 2019, President Russell M. Nelson said the following, to set the stage for a detailed explanation of the recent policy reversal respecting the children of married homosexual couples:

Sometimes we as leaders of the Church are criticized for holding firm to the laws of God, defending the Savior’s doctrine, and resisting the social pressures of our day. But our commission as ordained Apostles is “to go into all the world to preach [His] gospel unto every creature.  That means we are commanded to teach truth.

In doing so, sometimes we are accused of being uncaring as we teach the Father’s requirements for exaltation in the celestial kingdom. But wouldn’t it be far more uncaring for us not to tell the truth—not to teach what God has revealed?

The railing accusation long brought against the church vis-a-vis its traditional and unchanging teachings regarding homosexuality and all forms of sexual practice inconsistent with the principles, laws and conditions governing the plan of salvation and the requirements of exaltation, that it is cruel, insensitive, traumatizing, psychologically assaultive and productive of deep psychological and emotional scarring, to the point of inducing suicidal thoughts and ideation, has gestated and matured for many years now within the broadly progressive LDS subculture or, more properly, counterculture (freely borrowed from the term as used to denote the varied factions of the New Left of the late sixties and early seventies that transferred their values and beliefs to later generations, among whom are some among the saints whose members came to hold virtually identical views over time, albeit with LDS frosting and powdered sugar overlaying the the underlying progressive cake itself) otherwise known as the “NOM” or “New Order Mormon” mutation of LDS theology and moral/social philosophy.

NOMism is progressive; it is, deeply and, for all intents, uniformly of the Left and partakes of pretty much the entire smorgasbord of leftist concerns, values, interests, activist causes and philosophical assumptions, though (as has also happened within mainline Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and parts of evangelical Protestantism) embedded within the social, cultural and religious environment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and in that capacity, it functions, as all forms of Leftism or “progressive” political/social movements have functioned throughout its roughly two century presence as a major feature of the human experience, as a subversive, insurgent element within any traditional, established institution, sociocultural or sociopolitical system, including in our case, the church.  Its purpose, in whatever era or form it takes, is always radial; it aims always to overturn and at some form or manifestation of the idea of revolution (or emancipation or liberation) from and in reference to some established body of claimed truths, principles and settled assumptions about things.

Progressive philosophies always make claims to the possession of higher truths (and higher forms of morality or consciousness) than those possessed, if possessed at all, by whatever established tradition or edifice those within the realm of higher gnosis
(known today by the present generation as being “woke” and by the baby boomers as having achieved a “raised consciousness”) seek to purify, redeem and lead to a variety of promised lands, depending upon the sectarian focus of the particular ideological foundation upon which any specific progressive movement has erected in liberational project (which itself is not always bad or inappropriate.  That depends upon the nature of that which is overturned as well as the nature of that which seeks to overturn).

For many of the Millennial generation, a least for those who, in their youth, find  meaning and self-concept in progressive cause activism and in the heady, and often intoxicating savior psychology in which oneself and one’s specific generation come to be understood as chosen and called to perform world-historical feats of human salvation (and always, there are only “ten years left” to “save” this and that and make right that which past generations had, in their paleozoic ignorance, bigotry and mindless hatred of  “the other,” turned from gold to lead.  The mission of the NOM counterculture is to undo all the myriad “mistakes” of the apostles and prophets of the past since Joseph Smith, and these mistakes range from the statements and opinions of individual church leaders, to church policy, to fundamental church behavioral, social, and cultural standards, to core doctrinal propositions), the Book of Mormon prophesy about some in the latter days teaching that “God has given his power unto men” is a point of departure less a prophetic warning of latter-day hubris.

For me it is important – critically important – to understand that when Jaxon says to his mission President that “I presently cannot accept the various reasons and justifications for the inherent sinfulness of non-heterosexual relationships, for the complicated and undefined space they take part in within the Latter-day Saint Plan of Salvation, or for the current and past rhetoric, policies, and doctrinal positions espoused by the Church and its leadership whom I sustain,” he is not just walking doctrinally, intellectually and psychologically away from a distinct, fundamental and express particular of the law of chastity in relation to homosexuality and other distortions or perversions (known to Miriam-Webster as “to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right”; (to corrupt or disrupt the normative, known today as the “queering” of things, particularly in modern academia); “to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted”; and “to divert to a wrong end or purpose.”) of human sexual relations, but from the law of chastity in its entirety as a central and inextricably interconnected aspect of the plan of salvation.

Why do I say this?  Because, as is the case with all truths, the core truths of the law of chastity are one, just as all truth is one.  All truths are connected systemically, logically and in interconnected ontological unity to each other, not only in the sense that one truth presupposes and lends structural integrity to all other truths, but because any particular truth, having the property of being true, partakes of what one might call truthness, or what I will call an underlying ontological state of actuality.  That which is true exists (that which is, was and will be) and is embedded within a vast, logically and conceptually interconnected cosmic matrix of all that which is true, or truthness as a property of anything which is, was and will be.  This is truth in a deep, interpenetrative metaphsical or metaperceptual sense, a sense in which all other discreet phenomena and/or principles in the cosmos are phenomena manifestations, or, in other words, anything that is true, representing, in gospel terms, things which are, which were, and which will be, is representative or a manifestation of a deeper substrate of that which is, or, in other words, a representation or instantiation of Reality qua reality.  Truth, being the actuality or non-actuality of all phenomena, conditions, laws, principles and states of existence at all times and in all places in the universe, is in unity with all other truth.

It is the same with the law of chastity, as with all other gospel principles.  To extract or separate one core principle from the entire systemic whole destroys the whole by negating a critical aspect, necessary condition, consequence or unavoidable implication of the whole, in our case the gospel itself, of which a particular gospel principle is a fundamental component part.   In this sense we can see that terming homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and other forms of “queer” sexual predilection “perversion” is not isolating and attaching special opprobrium to non-heterosexual forms of sexual deviation from eternal law if we understand that heterosexual transgressions of the law of chastity, including pre-marital sexual relations and adultery, are also very much perversions of the proper purpose and role of human sexual powers and relations in mortality.  In a heterosexual sense, the perversion lies in the twisting and misuse of sexual relations under conditions in which such relations are morally and spiritually impermissible; or, in other words, legitimate sexual feelings and actions are diverted and channeled into illegitimate sexual behavior, meaning and purpose.  Outside the heterosexual arena, the perversion of gender roles, gender identity and psycho-sexual self-perception is fused with sexual relations outside the boundaries of the conditions and purposes established within the restored gospel, and while we may certainly say that this is not worse, in some absolute sense, than heterosexual transgression, there is yet a strange and haunting alienness about homosexuality, varied forms of gender confusion and many of the gay personae and sub-personae cultivated within gay culture (which many saints have, doubtless, as I have, palpably felt when encountering (especially for the first time) members of or places and environments related to the various forms and sub-forms of “queer” sexuality (which is the Holy Spirit witnessing and impressing upon one’s mind and spirit that this is not of God, and radically so).

Heterosexual sexual transgression perverts the appropriate use and purpose of human sexuality.  Homo/bi/transsexual behavior and culture perverts and deforms this as well but under conditions in which a perversion/distortion of one’s sense of gender identity and/or a cloud or fog of gender confusion or pathological fixation is appended to the misuse of human sexuality, or becomes a feature of that very gender distortion/confusion.

We cannot, then, as Latter-day Saints, say that we reject the component part of the law of chastity that teaches the “inherent sinfulness of non-heterosexual relationships” without, as a matter of logical consistency and conceptual coherence, essentially rejecting the entire law of chastity as a fundamental gospel axiom.  This is the case for the elemental reason that all forms of human sexual expression outside of and inconsistent with the divinely ordained rules and laws governing human sexual relations whatever fall under the same umbrella of sexual sin, or transgression of the Lord’s laws of human sexual relations.  It may be hetero, it may be homo, or it may be trans (or whatever form of “queer” sexuality is in view), but if it lies beyond the bounds, conditions and parameters of eternal law and the conditions and requirements of salvation, it is serious sin by any gospel measure.

Singling out homosexuality, or any other form of sexual orientation or philia, for an exacting, surgical removal from the law of chastity and from one’s own sustaining acceptance as a legitimate, core gospel truth claim, and casting it aside as a “mistake” of the church is not possible because the entire law of chastity must logically follow such careful picking and choosing into the same cosmic waste basket.  This can easily be observed and studied by taking note of the trajectory of the sexual revolution, from the middle sixties (really, since the early fifties) to the present time, in the surrounding secular world as well as the same trajectory followed by progressive NOM critics who either still remain in the church or who have moved to its periphery or left it entirely.

What began as heterosexual “liberation” from the suffocating bondage of traditional Judeo-Christian sexual mores and norms morphed quickly into a general interest in and movement of the promoting of the acceptance, embracing and sociocultural hallowing of ever more outre forms of heterosexual practice (threesomes, group sex, “swinging,” and festishism, all making a rapid comeback in the mainstream popular culture, including among certain LDS and ex-LDS psychologists and social activists) and then to “gay liberation” which then became, after the seventies, “gay rights,” and then, from about the middle nineties, became the gay marriage or “marriage equality” movement, who’s final triumph in Obergfell then opened what one can only understand as the proverbial floodgates to the present trans/gender ideology movement that now preoccupies much of the Left, the academic environment, and popular media (what may with propriety be termed an ideology of pansexual gender solipsism fused with an ever-escalating militant moral relativism and a shrill, strident, volcanically intolerant anti-democratic ideological dogmatism), and the natural logical and ideological extension and maturation of the formative sexual revolution of the sixties) and which has, in recent years, bled into and affected a number of church members and infected them, to one degree or another with the “failure to follow Christ” that is “political correctness.”

What we then often see is an odd combination of “railing accusation,” name-calling and the easy flinging of virulently toxic moral and characterological slanders at faithful members of the Church – and the Brethren themselves – by the  “woke” (or, as Dr. Thomas Sowell has long termed them, “the Anointed”) by some among us who consider themselves more Christlike than thou (and this term “Christlike” is deployed, quite often, in tandem with a wagging finger of moral scorn against church members who “hold fast” to the core teachings and doctrines of the kingdom and who disdain political correctness and generational ideological and political fads of any kind for what they are and who will not waver in their support and defense of those teachings and doctrines, even at the expense of being cast by the “woke” within their own faith as moral derelicts riddled with every species of character defect and, equally often, personality disorder or mental illness (various “phobias” or, in other words, the pathologization of principled dissent from certain present ideological vogues centered in acceptance, support and uncritical celebration of certain behaviors and modes of life).

The manifestation of such attitudes and ideological totemism within the church is virtually, as I have observed and interacted with those given to it, over several decades, identical with its manifestation among those outside the Church in the surrounding secular/pagan world with which the church contends during the mortal phase of earth life, albeit it manifests itself in a particular Mormonesque way as a “progressive” refining, purifying, cleansing influence and call for the church membership in general and the Brethren in particular to “catch up” with the woke among that membership, the “woke” understood, indeed, as the same way as many among my generation were understood to be the “hip” or “enlightened” among us) as a kind of vanguard or harbinger within the church  – often, as in the World, associated acutely with LDS intellectuals, scholars, academics and those with advanced formal education – of a future church that has divested itself of its shibboleths (as Stephen Smoot would have it), bigotries, and lingering philistine nostrums about much in the world (and the World) that it has long claimed to be of doctrinal import, including doctrines from which church standards are derived.  This vanguard (of an LDS proletariat that is not economic in nature (although this is never far behind, because, we must remember, the Left within the Church is, in all essential ways, the same, if Mormonistically particular, as to some core philosophical notions we encounter and can study in the surrounding secular world, but based in identity collectivism and a boundlessly expanding notion of “equality”) is now understood by many to be centered in the rising Millennial generation (just as my generation, the baby boomers, were understood by a substantial subset of that generation to be a called and chosen vanguard that was to “liberate” America and the world – to “change the world” – from thousands of years of fallen human nature, weakness, foible and “sin” (a notion rejected by many of that same generation) due to some indelible, ineffable, and yet concrete anointing this generation had received due to little more than having been born at a particular period of human history  (the rest of the “anointing” is and continues to be understood, for all intents, as an ordination that comes with advanced education and the bestowal of academic degrees, which education brings the “enlightenment” that characterizes “progressive” or “woke” individuals and is alleged to explain most of the social, political and philosophical views to which they adhere).

Political correctness, it must be remembered, is not a philosophy per se, but a tactical and strategic mode of cultural warfare, struggle and contest for hearts and minds in which, in our modern context dominated by identity politics has taken the place of the old traditional class struggle  (but is never wholly divorced from it) as the locus of the battle for social justice which is itself in fundamental ways a placeholder for identity politics as well as for a redacted, expanded and diversified concept of class struggle or “economic justice.”

The gender ideology movement is both an expansion of the sexual revolution and a highly focused instantiation of the doctrines of multiculturalist cultural relativism and identity politics centered in that area of the human condition in the last days in which the Adversary has spent an inordinate quantity of time in his project of corruption, dissolution and destruction, the family.

The problem with the LDS Left mirrors the same dynamics found in the Left outside the Church: the Left asserts as a core principle that no one’s behavior, conduct or manner of life can be judged, and most of its members do not want to be and will not tolerate being judged (their ideas, beliefs, values, feelings, assumptions, lifestyles and behavior subject to inspection, analysis, critique and scrutiny); it is rooted in a relativistic ideology of nonjudgementalism (from which perch it often hurls scathing, blistering judgments of others with whom it disagrees).  Often, a few New Testament verses regarding human judgement are wrenched out of context (like money being the root of all evil) and used as a club to beat those who understand that, if human beings cannot make judgments, not only of other’s behavior and character but of the propriety of entering into relationships with certain people, then productive – not to mention spiritually, psychologically and even physically safe – human life and relationships would be impossible, not to mention its implications for civil society itself.  I won’t belabor that old dog ear here, but it is the idea, culled from the secular progressive Left and absorbed by the NOM counterculture, of unconditional and indiscriminate tolerance (not love, which involves the telling of even the hardest truths to those we love) which, in the hands of the Left becomes a kind of universal ideological solvent that dissolves everything, including the most critical, elemental concepts and doctrines of the restored gospel into the stomach-knotting soupy mass known as inclusion and, in its most perverse manifestation, love, a mallable concept that functions, with the idea of inclusion and tolerance, in actual individual and ideological application as ideas essentially interchangeable with what is at its core a rigorous moral neutrality and diffidence that supports the acceptance of an indeterminate number of human behaviors and the extent to which they can be pursued, which is then transformed, in short order, into the concept of celebration.  Soon after this development, celebration of “diversity” begins to close its fist and become mandatory, first in a sociocultural sense, as found in progressive moral shame culture, and then, when inevitably politicized, enforced by state coercion.

Jaxon’s near obsessive preoccupation with the LGBTQ issue, a preoccupation of longstanding but not at all different than the same preoccupation found suffusing the psyches and lives of many progressives, both within and without the church, as well as within the critical institutions under, for all intents and purposes, the complete domination of the progressive Left – the mainstream media, K-12 education, academia, the foundations, and the entertainment world – still seems, to many faithful members of the church, including specifically much older and more spiritually and psychologically mature and experienced (in life as well as in living and experiencing the gospel) members, both unnecessarily self-tormenting and more of a solution looking for a problem than a door for which the church holds the key (and it is that too).

What I mean here is that Jaxon has been clear, most starkly since his return from his mission, that he has already decided upon the solution: a future “inclusive” church in which open, practicing  (and married) homosexuals are accepted into and wholly integrated with the church and its blessings, promises, covenants and privileges of membership on an equal basis with faithful, covenant-keeping heterosexual members, including a future church in which male and female homosexuals are sealed for time and all eternity in the temple.  That this would require the radical deracination, dissolving, reconceptualizing and reconstruction of the entire doctrinal foundation of the plan of salvation and the core religious truth claims of the church, from the ground up, Jaxon, as recently as just prior to his mission, seemed to have understood and which understanding seems to have provided him with some internal brake or sense of caution when fielding his perspectives on the matter.  His immediate post-mission statements, however, made on his own Facebook wall, indicate a substantial radicalization and hardening of his underlying position during his mission in which such caution was thrown, and let us not indulge in cliches beyond necessity, but “to the winds” in the proverbial sense.

It no longer appears to be the case that Jaxon cares, or is cognizant of, the sheer extent of the doctrinal and philosophical razing of the church to the equally proverbial ground such measures would entail, and the depth of the doctrinal and logical contortions it would be necessary to impose on the church and its membership to achieve this lycanthropic metamorphosis.  What seems to be most important now is Jaxon’s status as one of the woke, and the peer accolades that come to those who can stand on the Rameumptum of the Woke and cry: “we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children…O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief that church doctrine never changes, that the laws of God are eternal and that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God…And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a woke and progressive people. Amen.” (paraphrasing mine, of course)

Now, let me just respond to a few points Jaxon made in the course of his essay.

Just like that, a policy that had been the source of so much heartache was reversed. Gone. As if nothing had happened. 1,247 days was the shelf-life.

The idea that this policy created vast and tear-streaming “heartache” among huge numbers of “LGBTQ” members and/or youth, is a claim, like so many that have emerged from the NOM activist social media world, really little more than assumption masquerading as fact spread by endless repetition to become a settled social media trope among true ideological believers, no longer open to serious intellectual inspection.  No empirical evidence of which I am aware supports this contention, and empirics aside, the idea that homosexual members who have married a member of the same sex, an act and a relationship in such extreme conflict with the core doctrines and standards of the gospel and church as to be spiritually suicidal on its face and indicative of a depth of unconcern for membership in the church or serious interest in its teachings that would be difficult to overstate, requires a suspension of disbelief that neither I nor many other members of the Church who do take those teachings seriously are willing to countenance.

Like others, I found myself asking in the aftermath, “Which policy was inspired?”

Both, and for reasons I will not go into here at the moment (no reason to scare the horses at this time)

“How could they both be inspired as President Nelson claims?”,

Because the policy, and its alteration, were as as much about the responses and reactions of the membership to it as it was about married homosexual couples and their children.

“What does this say for those who spoke out against it and those who sought to justify, defend, and silence them?”


  1.  At a bare minimum, it says that those of us who supported both policies were not in thrall to a deep internal need to be popular with and friends (allies) of the World, or to “virtue signal” to the world that we were more than willing – because we are “Christlike” and because something we call “love” trumps all other principles and eternal verities – to be “Mormons building bridges” across the gulf of filthy water to the Great and Spacious Building.  Other things could be said, but this is fundamental.

2.  No one was “silenced.”  This is standard NOM boilerplate promulgated in a nation and time in which free, open, unlimited discourse and expression exists to a greater and more expansive degree than any time in history.  Excommunication “silences” no one, nor is that its purpose.

 “Is there a place for me to represent the Church as a missionary on almost everything except their stance on LGBTQ issues?”

“Almost everything?”  You see, the LGBTQ subject isn’t the only doctrinal space in which Jaxon finds he cannot stand, but the LGBTQ issue, due to its fundamental relation to and inextricable link with the entire law of chastity and plan of salvation, and the complete unraveling of that law and plan if “LGBTQ” conduct, behavior, practices and lifestyles were to be extracted and separated from the law of chastity and given a special dispensation independent of it, allowing it acceptance by and integration with the church and its people, is far to central to the gospel and church and the fundamental mission and purpose of the church – to exalt families in the celestial kingdom – to be placed aside by a missionary with the special mantel and ordination of a missionary, let alone the average members, in whatever capacity her or she serves.

The answer to Jaxon’s question then, is no (and his early release is indicative of the fact that this answer was known to Jaxon long before I penned this essay).

Likewise, while acting on homosexual feelings is still defined as a “serious transgression”,

Note here how Jaxon leaves open, by passing implication, that acting on homosexual feelings – engaging in homosexual relations/relationships – may some day not be defined as serious transgression.

 in that process of research, contemplation, and interacting and befriending dozens of LGBT persons whose lives are directly impacted by the Church, I presently cannot accept the various reasons and justifications for the inherent sinfulness of non-heterosexual relationships, for the complicated and undefined space they take part in within the Latter-day Saint Plan of Salvation, or for the current and past rhetoric, policies, and doctrinal positions espoused by the Church and its leadership whom I sustain.

This, for me, and I will make no bones, tendons or ligaments about it, crosses the Rubicon of heresy well into the territory of apostasy.   The doctrinal depth, foundational importance and implications of such as statement for the entire law of chastity, exclusive of LGBTQ considerations (really not possible, as I argued above, but for the sake of argument), due to its inextricable linkage with the very core and meaning of the plan of salvation, makes this a radical departure from the tree of life to the GASB.  Jaxon has here attempted an Olympic pole vault across the river of filthy water, not a mere long and laborious building of a bridge.

I struggle to accept such on moral, scientific, scriptural, and theological grounds, which is a current position I have reached by undergoing all the advised components of seeking answers to questions and revelation from God. 

No, I don’t think so, and I will stand on that perception of things until either the fat lady sings (sorry for the political incorrectness here) or Jaxon enters a new phase of his life in which this kind of statement can be taken without the many grains of salt necessary at present.  This is just to say that, despite Jaxon’s plea here, something is missing; something critical and pivotal.  Something “just doesn’t add up” (and there is no “scientific” basis on which Jaxon can make such a value judgement such as that homosexuality is either “normal” or, reaches far beyond that, acceptable in a metaphysical sense).

Further, insinuating, if not claiming by direct logical implication that the church’s core teachings on LGBTQ behavior and manners of life as a fundamental component of the law of chastity is immoral is, well, a good bit over the top.

And over that top lies a yawning, bottomless abyss.

Jaxon is still quite young, and I hope and pray he never finds it.

This has gone long, and some other of Jaxon’s statements here deserve analysis and critique, which I will attend to in another post.


















































Not Feeling Relief in Relief Society – but Should we Expect Leftism to Find any Solace or Place to Rest its Head in the Lord’s Restored Church?

What happens to the mind – and the soul, in a deeper sense – when one forges on into the nighted realms of the Left or, what we have, in a cascading mountain of misnomers, come to call over time “progressive” or, even worse, “liberal” philosophical positions on many of the key questions of politics, culture, ethics, moral philosophy and, then finally, church doctrine/teachings? Well, in the first instance, we begin to play fast, loose and recklessly with the truth, and even easily ascertained truths.

The current dialogue in our country in regards to abortion has me shocked and reeling. And as I see comments from members of our Church it becomes clear that many don’t even understand the general positions the Church has taken since before I can remember. There has always been room for abortion consideration in regards to the health of the mother, non viable fetuses, and in cases of rape/incest. Taken from LDS.org: “Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.” Regardless of our opinions around such a sensitive topic, what saddens me is how strong (and not even doctrinal) opinions that lean to the “right” are generally more accepted in our church settings than those that would lean to the “left.” Not to mention, that those who tend to have strong opinions about “pro-life”… have quite different opinions when it comes to constitutional autonomy rights about not being forced to donate blood, kidneys, bone marrow, etc. for people who are losing their lives in our hospitals as we speak.”

The first thing of serious note here is that the traditional question of “viability” originally promulgated within second wave feminism is never mentioned by the church, and has never been an aspect of its “exceptional circumstances” caveat in some fifty years. The reason is that the “viability” principle has nothing to do with anything exceptional at all; its simply a euphemistic term for any child born, in otherwise normal physical condition, that is not “viable,” or, in other words, cannot sustain its own life outside the womb without substantial (and President Lange et al would add “heroic”) medical intervention. Most, if not all “preemies” would fit this description. Indeed, literally all newborns fit this description quite well, even when “heroic” medical intervention is not needed, any infant, left alone for any substantial length of time and just ignored, would quite soon expire.  One must be clear here that Natasha is temporizing a bit here.  The traditional viability argument of second wave feminism and the cultural Left generally speaking, makes no mention and takes no cognizance of “survival beyond birth” in any kind of carefully demarcated medical perimeter, but simply lays down a blanket standard in which any newborn, no matter its medical condition, if we can say that any kind of substantive medical attention is necessary (and for what newborn, no matter how healthy, is this not the case in one sense or another?) for survival beyond birth, is not then viable.

One must note again that this is, ultimately, not a moral consensus but a strictly utilitarian principle that, as has always been the case on the cultural and political Left, cleanses such procedures, and their motives, of their moral attributes and implications.

The church was and remains clear that “when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth” is the exception in question, not the radical feminist concept of “viability,” a broad-brush term which covers not just “severe defects,” but any infant whatsoever that cannot survive outside the womb without substantial medical care. Again, the vast majority of otherwise physically normal preemies would fit this description.

Secondly is that there is a “dialogue” afoot in America that is or ever has tended in a direction that would remove most of these exceptions from present abortion policy.  The vast majority of Americans – including conservatives – support exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest.  The church caveat (not an absolute one-size-fits-all-situations one, to be sure) regarding severe deformity usually doesn’t come up, but be that as it may, there is little clamor to remove the primary three exceptions from modern abortion policy.

Of the four state legislatures that have recently supported substantial restrictions on abortions, two of them already contain the generally accepted exceptions.  Two others, including Alabama, remove exceptions for rape and incest, but this, as any politically literate adult should be aware, was never designed to remain as actual statute law, but was inserted to provoke a very public legal battle whose larger aim is to take a long, hard look at Roe at its very core, something that would be, yes, long overdue.  Even Wikipedia admits that such severe measures in a few of the state bills are not intended to remain law, but to provoke a legal showdown:

Heartbeat laws in Iowa, Kentucky and Mississippi have been struck down by courts.[5] According to CNN, heartbeat bills “may be unenforceable [under Roe]. But abortion opponents are hoping that [legal challenges] will serve as a vehicle for the Supreme Court to eventually overturn the Roe ruling.”[6]

Why long overdue?  Because second and third wave feminist ideology, and that general position of the Left over the last half-century, has been unlimited abortion on demand from the moment of conception until the end of the third trimester, including minutes or seconds before live birth.  The authors of the essay linked to, Natasha Helfer Parker and a church member named Brittney Hartley, certainly must know this (or, we should assume of if they are going to go into social media and engage the abortion question in the marketplace of ideas), and yet they attach themselves to the recent legislation in a couple of states (she only mentions Alabama) while ignoring other states that contains the standard exemptions (Ohio contains the church’s final exemption as well, that of serious deformity) as well as the vastly more important point of the recent backlash against Roe, which is, over the last third of the 20th century, we, in America, and the West, developed and embraced what is essentially a culture of mass in-vivo infanticide (with a number of leftists and Democrats now moving into post-live birth infanticide, probably, given the Left’s underlying philosophical foundations, virtually inevitable given the general trajectory of our nation and people over the last fifty years or so) and “culture of death,” or, as a systemic whole, a vision of easy, consequence-free recreational/modular sexual activity supported by a post-sixties cult of eroticism and pansexual hedonism (the Frankfurt School’s sine qua non of cultural warfare long before the sixties) that has generated a sociocultural attitude of “throwaway life” that must be morally neutralized by linguistic sanitization and careful sophistries such as “viability.”

Feminism, in its early instantiation as strong proponent of the sexual revolution, also had deeper ideological reasons for supporting unlimited abortion on demand, all having to do with the desire to subvert, minimize, delegitimize and ultimately dissolve the traditional intact, nuclear family and the institution of marriage as understood in a Judeo-Chrstian and classical liberal Western context.  Unlimited abortion on demand strikes at the heart of “the patriarchy” by striking at the heart of  what is, within feminist ideology, men’s primary vehicle of female subordination and oppression: marriage and motherhood, while at the same time, striking also, as a kind of shrapnel effect, at fatherhood (most effectively deployed by the Left among American blacks by the Great Society welfare state and apparatus).

Without children, home and hearth, relations between men and women need be neither 1) committed, lifetime relationships, 2) long-term, to any substantial degree, 3) sexually monogamous/exclusive, and 4) involving a vision, time-window or sense of purpose beyond the emotional/psychological/sexual/economic needs and sense of “self-fulfillment” of the core dyad.

I’m sitting in the hallway now after being in Relief Society where the discussion went to praising Alabama for their abortion laws and the courage that they are showing. I thought about commenting about how Mormon theology does not declare there to be a “spirit” upon conception, which is why we allow for procedures like IVF that discard embryos. I thought about saying how even the Church allows for abortion in cases of rape and abuse. I thought about having the ethical debate of how an old person doesn’t have full rights when they are not of sound mind or independent body and how families can decide to let them go to reduce suffering. I thought about saying how no women wants to have an abortion, and the many women I’ve talked to say they did it in order to prevent a child coming into a situation of intense suffering and need. I thought about saying no woman sets out to have an abortion, and instead of punishing her we can prevent abortions by looking at access to health care and birth control.But as I looked out at the room of all these women who were praising Alabama, women who voted for Trump here in Idaho, women who support patriarchy…I knew I couldn’t say anything that would allow them to make space for me. Usually I can always find a human connection, something praiseworthy, something inspiring. But today I couldn’t find a space for myself in Relief Society. I take courage that even though no one left with me, many of you would have seen the woman who left (for whatever reason) and gone out to talk to her because so many of you have been that woman too.

1.  The fact that there is or is not a spirit present at the moment of conception is only one aspect of the deep moral and ethical problems with abortion as a form of birth control.  There are other very compelling socio-civilizational issues involves here.

2.  No LDS of which I’m aware supports blanket bans on abortion in cases of rape or incest.  Virtually no one.  This first straw man stands up and takes a bow.


3.  “I thought about saying how even the Church allows for abortion in cases of rape and abuse.”

No LDS I know, or with whom I am aquanted, supports a blanket ban on abortion in cases of rape or incest.  No one.  Second straw man takes a bow.

4.  “I thought about having the ethical debate of how an old person doesn’t have full rights when they are not of sound mind or independent body and how families can decide to let them go to reduce suffering.”

Which is precisely the problem with unlimited abortion as a form of birth control and arguments such as “viability” offered as a morally neutered, utilitarian justification for it: that in time in can and will probably lead to convenience euthanasia based upon the same modified viability claim.  Is it justifiable to “pull the plug” on mom or dad when they have slipped into a permanent coma, and all medical measures have been exhausted?  Ethically, we can say yes.  However, we are in an area that is far from an exact science with clean, black or white, exact answers.  How easy it also is for siblings or progeny to become disenchanted with the physical, emotional and financial care of a deteriorating parent, and to begin playing with a “viability” concept at a much earlier date.

How easy can it be to cling to a “quality of life” augment that we are really projecting from ourselves onto the loved one laying in the hospital bed?  How much easier is it when tens of millions of completely healthy, normal children have been destroyed in the womb for “quality of life” reasons, and when, even now, progressive politicians are seriously discussing “having a discussion” with a mother or with parents about whether a normal newborn child should live or die (after making it “comfortable,” of course)?

5.  “I thought about saying how no women wants to have an abortion, and the many women I’ve talked to say they did it in order to prevent a child coming into a situation of intense suffering and need.”

Old leftist rationalizations that barely warrant attention.  The desire for adoption is now, as it has always been, massive, undeserved and needlessly expensive and complicated.  There is a huge need and desire among Americans for “unwanted” children; the problem is getting to those children before Planned Parenthood does.

And for all those women who “don’t want an abortion,” amazingly, well over fifty million of them (not counting multiple abortions by the same woman) have taken advantage of the law under Roe.

“I thought about saying no woman sets out to have an abortion, and instead of punishing her we can prevent abortions by looking at access to health care and birth control.”

Another old leftist shibboleth.  Access to birth control (and notice the veiled plug for socialized  medicine?  Yes, Rush Limbaugh has been right all along: leftist are, in general, leftists first, and proponents of any specific ideological activist concern second), as well as generations public school sex ed, have done little if anything to curb convenience abortion, and a negative (although, not really to the Left) side-effect of sex ed has been, and is empirically arguable as, a massive, intergenerational upsurge in non-married and promiscuous sexual activity, including among adolescents, since the early seventies when such education began, an outcome the Left has long celebrated and which it continues to extol, while at the same time desiring to circumvent the natural and inevitable consequences of such sexual activity (if one wants to extol the circus, one must then provide the bread, ideally at public expense, making virtually everyone complicit in the lifestyle choices of others).

“But as I looked out at the room of all these women who were praising Alabama, women who voted for Trump here in Idaho, women who support patriarchy…”

The “patriarchy” is, of course, an abstract theoretic construct of ideological feminism, and need not concern us here, as this is going long, save to point out that retreating into progressive ideological arcana is pretty much as telling as its going to get, especially for a church member (and what on earth does any of this have to do with Trump (who was pro-choice most of his life and who as given no reason to believe that he would support any such draconian rules as found in the Alabama legislation)?).

“But today I couldn’t find a space for myself in Relief Society.”

The light shineth in darkness.

And then?




We’ve Only Just Begun

This is something I have been only marginally aware of over the years (leftist/communist anti-Semitism and holocaust minimizing, although some noted progressive academics have indulged in it here in recent decades) and I fully intend to pursue the two books cited in the essay (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230524507_13 and  https://www.amazon.com/Auschwitz-New-History-Laurence-Rees/dp/1586483579/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=auschwitz+a+new+history&qid=1561225448&s=gateway&sr=8-2)

As ever most scholarship arises out of the ashes of the Soviet Union and the East Bloc nations, the closer and more intimate the sibling relationship between socialism and National Socialism becomes and will become, until the “Left” becomes, not a spectrum, but an ideological and political family tree with all its main and tributary branches reaching out towards the ever intensifying, ever gathering the darkness of that which we know as “the Left,” of the economically, culturally and spiritually dismembered human trunk it continually tells us can be made into a new heaven and new earth.

There’s much, much yet to learn – and unlearn, for many.

On Monday, June 17, and again on Tuesday, June 18, freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated that the “authoritarian and fascist” Trump administration “has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.” “Concentration camps are an institutionalized practice in the home of the free … a presidency that creates concentration camps is fascist.”

I was a teenager the first time I visited Auschwitz. I grew up with one foot in New Jersey, and with one foot, through my parents’ heartfelt stories, songs, recipes and reminiscences, in Poland and Slovakia. I met anti-Nazi and anti-Soviet resisters, victims of torture and rape, all members of my own family, when I was fifteen. I sat around the table and watched my strong, resilient, subsistence farmer aunts’ and uncles’ faces melt with shame and terror as they recounted Nazi, and then Soviet, occupation. I watched my mother, a monument to strength and stoicism, cry when she heard, firsthand, of the fate of her beloved Jewish neighbor who had saved her from drowning in the River Nitra. She had long known he was among the millions. She had read of his fate in letters. Now back in her village for the first time since her departure as a child, she just couldn’t take it when they told her to her face, as she stood in front of what used to be his home.

After the visit to Auschwitz, I met both survivors of the camp and Polish citizens who had hidden Jews in their homes. These rescuers radiated a quality I can’t quite capture in words but I can say that sitting in front of them and listening to them speak was comparable, for me, to sitting in front of Yosemite’s Half Dome. These Poles, senior citizens in Soviet-era rumpled clothing, who spoke few and humble words, not lush vocabulary out of any epic saga but rather monosyllabic words focused on how to dispose of human waste without detection or how to manage to cadge enough calories while living under a genocidal occupation, conveyed the aura of massive natural wonders. These rescuers’ souls seemed to have outgrown their human flesh and have already transcended to the ageless, the mythic.

It’s the hardest country I’ve ever visited, but I kept going back to Poland, both in the flesh and in my publications. Several people whose parents had been in concentration camps became part of my day-to-day life. Some of these children of camp survivors are Jews, some are Poles, and some are Ukrainian. Another close friend is the son of a Nazi soldier who fought in North Africa with Rommel as well as on the Eastern Front, winning two Iron Crosses. Please forgive what I am about to say. People whose parents were in concentration camps are not easy. There is a raft of symptoms that all these friends, including the son of the Nazi, display. Touchiness. Paranoia. Outrage. Tilting at windmills. Self-sabotage. A terrible loneliness that can never be slaked. I love these people, I owe them much, and my life would not be the same without them. But they are not easy people.

All the survivors, rescuers, witnesses and children of survivors I know care about the suffering of immigrants. They care because they were all immigrants, of one kind or another, themselves. They all know hunger, bruises, humiliations, frustrations, and exclusion. They all, also, know hope and working hard toward a better future for the next generation.

I grew up a child of immigrants, and, inevitably, I went on to be an immigrant myself, living and working in Africa, Asia, and Europe. I held my mother’s hand as she died, seventy-two years after her forced migration to America, and I can say that she never got over the trauma of that passage. She told me about walking to school along railroad ties because the ties hurt her bare feet less than the gravel between the tracks. She was barefoot so the “cardboard” shoes she received from the “Poor Board” would not disintegrate in her walk to school. She told me about being beaten by a nun who spoke Slovak but wouldn’t speak it to her because it was her job, as a child immigrant, to sink or swim. She told me about the first time she ate that most American of foods, peanut butter, out of a half empty jar encountered while foraging in a garbage dump.

“Get me a Hunky; I need a donkey,” was the refrain my father heard when showing up to be selected to tunnel his child’s body into the narrowest passages of coal mines. “Hunky” was the word for immigrants like him. Beatings? Discrimination? Abuse? Tuberculosis? Unjust incarceration? Yes, all of those were part of my father’s life, before he turned fifteen. Death? He witnessed death. His own father’s death. I won’t tell that story here; it’s too hard, and it belongs to my cousins as well as to me, and I don’t want to violate their memories. Let’s just say that things were so bad, and his family was so hungry, that he joined the Army under someone else’s papers when he was still underage. He fought in the Philippines and New Guinea and insisted that America was “the greatest country in the world.”

So, yes, those of us familiar, even though handed-down stories from our elders about the Nazis, are also familiar with the burdens of immigration. This much we know. A decent person does not steal the vocabulary of one horror to discuss the discomforts and inconveniences, or even the heartbreaks and tragedies, of the other. As horrific as the black lung, the police chases, the incarceration, and the death all were, they were not those horrors as lived in Auschwitz, which was an experience so cursed you don’t use the same vocabulary when speaking of the one about the other. You just do not do that.  

The term “concentration camp” existed before the Holocaust, and pre-Holocaust governments have set up what were called, at the time, concentration camps. During the 1899-1902 Boer War between Boers, or Dutch-speaking South Africans and the British Empire, the Empire drove Boers into concentration camps. Approximately 28,000 Boers, that is 25%, of Boers in these camps, and 10% of the overall Boer population, died of hunger and disease. Twenty thousand black South Africans also died.

No one objects to the use of the term “concentration camp” for discussion of the Boer War, or other pre-Holocaust atrocities. Why, then, do we express such revulsion when Ocasio-Cortez claims “concentration camp” to discuss facilities to house illegal immigrants?

The answer is obvious. The answer is history. In the same way that the word “apple” is heard differently in the post-Steve-Jobs world, the term “concentration camp” is heard differently in the post-Auschwitz world. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. And to pretend otherwise is to camouflage a very real leftist agenda.

The left itself has a doctrine that should, if followed, obviate this lie. It’s the doctrine of cultural appropriation. You do not take the cultural inheritance of another group and claim it as your own. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez knows about this doctrine. She was blasted for violating it on April 5, 2019, when giving a speech to Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Ocasio-Cortez, in an attempt to curry favor with her mostly African American audience, adopted a faux Ebonics rhythm and syntax. All leftist cultural appropriation stories are ridiculous; it’s difficult to pick which is most exemplary of the trend. Perhaps Lena Dunham fretting over Oberlin college students’ sushi consumption. Perhaps the height, or depth of cultural appropriation sermonizing took place after Keziah Daum, a Utah high school student, wore a Chinese-style dress to her prom and posted the photo on social media. In a frequently retweeted twitter post, Jeremy Lam accused 18-year-old Keziah Daum of colonizing Asians.

Since leftists preach against cultural appropriation, why are leftists now trying to appropriate the term “concentration camp” to talk about immigration? One of the most disturbing, and obvious, trends in today’s Democratic Party is anti-Semitism. Not all Democrats are anti-Semites, but Congressional Democrats surrendered to the anti-Semites in their midst when, on March 7, 2019, they failed to sanction freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar for her frequent and egregious expressions of anti-Semitism. Ocasio-Cortez made it a point to support Omar in the midst of that controversy. Ocasio-Cortez was also happy to mouth anti-Semitic tropes, tropes she clearly did not understand and could not support when exposed to questioning. In a July 17, 2018 appearance on PBS’s Firing Line, Ocasio-Cortez said she objects to “the occupation of Palestine” and a “humanitarian crisis.” When questioned what she meant by these terms, she collapsed, laughing, acknowledging, “I am not the expert on geopolitics … Middle Eastern politics was not exactly at my kitchen table every night.” Why the Democratic Party is currying favor with anti-Semites is a topic for another piece, but that toadying is on display for all to see. Ocasio-Cortez’s attempt to claim the term “concentration camp” for her very own is part of that agenda.

And there’s more. Leftists have always lied about the Holocaust. I saw those lies firsthand, during my visit to Auschwitz. In those Soviet days, visitors were shown a film. I watched the Polish language version of the film. I listened for the word “Jew” – “Zyd.” I never heard it. What I do remember hearing, over and over, was the term “victims of fascism.” I recognized that I was being propagandized. I wondered how many viewing this film would not recognize that. “After the war internal politics led the Soviet leadership to erase the Holocaust from historical memory,” writes historian John Klier in “The Holocaust and the Soviet Union.” Soviet Russia and its satellite states systematically lied about the Holocaust from the end of the war till its toppling in 1989. Communists inflated the numbers of those killed at Auschwitz. They did so in order to minimize the number of Jews murdered there. Soviet Russians called Auschwitz “the ultimate capitalist factory where the workers were dispensable.” “One of the least appealing aspects of the Soviet analysis of Auschwitz, now and later, was the downplaying of the scale of suffering endured by Jews.” This downplaying constituted “a rift in historical interpretation between East and West concerning the operation of the camps that would not be resolved until the fall of Communism,” writes Laurence Rees in Auschwitz: A New History. This downplaying of Jewish suffering occurred throughout the Soviet Empire. Thomas Haury writes that East Germany, “emphasized the workers, the party, and the Soviet population as having suffered most from National Socialism. The genocide of the European Jews was only one crime among many, to which the GDR hardly paid attention.” Jews were also accused of crimes said to be “just as bad as the Holocaust.” “Not only Holocaust deniers but also communists used Holocaust Equivalence early, aiming at Jews. In 1953, the Soviet Union’s daily Pravda published alleged information about a conspiracy of mainly Jewish doctors to kill communist leaders through wrong diagnoses and sabotage in treatment,” writes Georg von Rauch. Romanian textbooks emphasized Romanian suffering and downplayed Jewish deaths. People often criticize Poles for their apparent lack of awareness of Holocaust history. After all, Poland was the site of many concentration and death camps. But Poles, too, were taught a Holocaust history consciously distorted by Communism, and it is only post-1989 that Polish historians have been able to tell their own country’s story without that distortion dominating their work. When perusing a Soviet-era history book about WW II, or watching a Soviet-era film about the liberation of Auschwitz, or listening to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s justifications for using the term “concentration camp,” one must remember this core principle: “The truth is that which serves the party.”

Czeslawa (ches WAV ah) Kwoka was a 14 year old Polish Catholic girl. She was murdered in Auschwitz. Wilhelm Brasse, as his name suggests, had some Germanic ancestry. But he was born in Poland and he self-identified as Polish. After the Nazis invaded, the SS “invited” Brasse to identify as German. He declined, and he was sent to Auschwitz, where he was forced to photograph prisoners. Later he was ordered to destroy those photos. Through subterfuge, he saved many of the photos.

Brasse took the photograph we have of Czeslawa Kwoka. He described the process to an interviewer, who said that Brasse trembled while speaking. “She was so young and so terrified. The girl didn’t understand why she was there and she couldn’t understand what was being said to her. So this woman Kapo took a stick and beat her about the face. This German woman was just taking out her anger on the girl. Such a beautiful young girl, so innocent. She cried but she could do nothing. To tell you the truth, I felt as if I was being hit myself but I couldn’t interfere. It would have been fatal for me. You could never say anything.”

I do not begrudge anyone the compassion they feel for immigrants. I do not begrudge anyone for actually extending aid to immigrants. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her leftist allies are not expression compassion, and they are not helping anyone, by appropriating the term “concentration camp.” Rather, they are appropriating cultural material that does not belong to them, and that no decent person would want. They are doing this as part of the left’s current and growing anti-Semitic program. Stalin, we are told, said that one death was a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. If the deaths of the eleven million leave Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her allies cold, I ask them to look into the face of Czeslawa Kwoka, who was murdered at 14 because she was the wrong ethnicity.