Groups of Teenagers

We learned during the Covington Catholic affair that, if a group of mostly white teenagers are involved in some altercation, even if they were not at fault, the media will put the entire white race on full blast, invoking blatantly racist terminology such as white privilege, an implication that whites have some unspecified but unfair advantage in life, and must be given a handicap. Here are just a few snippets from the flood of mainstream commentary which identified the boys who had allegedly committed a hate crime.

• "Dozens of mostly white teenage boys" - The Daily Beast
• Salon spoke of the boys' "White victimology, white privilege"
• The Atlantic said the boys were "nearly all white"
• The Washington Post described them as "white, MAGA-wearing schoolboys"
• CNN described them as "mostly white"
• The New York Times described them as a taunting "group of white teenagers"

On the other hand, when there is an epidemic of violent, anti-social behavior by non-white teenagers, even when the video and photographic evidence makes clear the crimes and the perpetrators, the media absolutely refuse to specify the race, instead using generic terms to describe them, just as "teenagers" and "youth." Here are a few examples currently or very recently in the news.

• When 60 black teenagers ran amok and looted a Philly Walgreens "group of teenagers (CBS, ABC, Breitbart)
• When Chico police arrested a group of black teenagers causing trouble at a city park. (local CBS & NBC affiliate)
• When one adult and four underage Hispanics shot randomly at cars (2News)
• When black thieves ran rampant in the Seattle area (KIRO7)
• When blacks stole $30,000 in merchandise from a North Face outlet (Insider)
• When black teens were beating random strangers on the street (DailyMail)

Not included are numerous recent examples from Europe, where everyone inherently knows who is being referred to, but all photographic evidence, and even the names of adults who may have been arrested along with the legally protected minors, are kept hidden from the public. As a rule of thumb, if the media reports on some miscreant behavior by teenagers or youths, and does not somehow identify them as being white, it can be assumed that they are not. The mainstream media reports on incidents differently depending on the race of the culprits, because they are racist.

Morning Grab Bag

Just rounding up a few things not worthy of their own posts.

Buttigieg Taking the Lead?

Nearly 3 months ago, in Social Gospel Movement, I predicted Buttigieg as the eventual Democratic nominee.

This Buttgay fellow is a similar deal. A gay progressive Christian! The left will simply adore this open mockery of the Christian faith. He's just the kind of degeneracy the left is looking for. And, the first gay president beating Literally Hitler...it's a story arc that's hard to resist. [My prediction, at this point, is Buttgay wins the Dem nomination, but loses in the general because blacks and Latinos are not going to turn out strongly for a homosexual.]

I've not retracted that prediction, nor offered a replacement. Today, Styx reports that Buttigieg raised more money in Q2 than the other Democrat candidates, including Biden. He is becoming the corporate-preferred candidate and, as we learned a couple years ago, the establishment always wins in Democrat primaries. Progressives, to their credit, have only shown lukewarm support for Sellout Sanders. They seem to realize - although they'll rarely admit it in conversation with a Trump supporter - that he shilled out to the corrupt, establishment candidate because of a media propaganda narrative that Trump was literally Hitler except way worse.

Riots in Israel

World Israel News reports on widescale rioting in Israel after police there inadvertently executed an Ethiopian Jew when a warning shot fired into the ground ricocheted and killed a suspect. This is after months of friction between Ethiopian Jews and Israeli police, as we reported on in February in Canines in the News.

In regards to the revolt against the Israeli state by Ethiopians, I can offer them only one piece of advice: diversity is Israel's strength. I would advise that they tear down their border walls (which are racist) and build bridges instead. It's time for the ruling Ashkenazi Jews to acknowledge their white privilege and cease their racist, anti-Semitic behaviors towards Ethiopian Jews. 😂

It would be easier to evoke some sympathy if Jews would spend some more time in maintaining internal security in their own nation-state and less in destroying ours.

Tommy Robinson Begs for Asylum

Tommy Robinson, who just received what may amount to a death sentence for exercising what in American would be called his Freedom of the Press, has begged for asylum in the United States. As Vox Day points out, Tommy has never referred to himself as an American patriot or nationalist, but has called himself a Zionist. Perhaps he should instead ask for asylum in Israel. 

Epstein Arrested

Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has been arrested in New York after a police raid on his Manhattan home. The media and Wikipedia have been working to suppress all record of Epstein's involvements with the Clinton cabal and instead associate him with Trump. This is the closest we've come yet to seeing some actual swamp drainage. It has long been alleged that Epstein is at the center of a vast blackmail ring that keeps various factions of the ruling elites bound together. While the actual evidence collected in the raid will likely not see the light of day - because by nature it is pornographic - it may be an effort by white hats to break up the corrupt ruling cabal. On the other hand, details are skant about who actually is running the operation here. We've lost trust in both the DOJ and New York state prosecutors. It could actually be an effort by black hats to secure the damning evidence to protect the cabal.

Theories of Defeat

The first job offer I accepted out of college was from Ridgecrest, California. I visited China Lake - the naval base there, did some interviews, and got a job offer. Ultimately, I retracted my acceptance to remain in Missouri, but my ears still perk up when I hear something about the area, and I often wonder if I should have taken the job. (I surely wouldn't be able to write with the candor that I do today on this blog.) Further, one of my favorite websites, Science Against Evolution, is written by a China Lake veteran out of Ridgecrest.

Last week, Ridgecrest was hit with a 6.4 earthquake, the largest in SoCal in over 20 years. Interestingly, just that morning Suspicious0bservers had put out an earthquake alert for the west coast. The next morning, proprietor Ben Davidson cautioned that there was no reason to believe that seismic pressure had been adequately relieved and to expect more activity in the area - which was shortly followed by an even stronger 7.1 earthquake. To the second prediction, he wasn't entirely accurate. His comment was that there was no reason to believe that the slipping fault near Ridgecrest, which runs primarily east-west, would relieve pressure on the much larger San Andreas fault, which runs north-south. If so, then the situation has not changed, and California is still at risk for activity on its major fault line.

How was Suspicious0bservers able to make its successful predictions? They have two theories. First is the belief that cosmic electrical activity affects earth's weather and tectonic systems. They believe that a combination of two events - (1) the weak solar output of the sun at the low-point of an already weak solar cycle, and (2) Earth's weakening and shifting magnetic field - will have the following effects:

• increased cloud cover
• cooler temperatures
• weakened jet streams, leading to more chaotic weather
• increased seismic activity
• increased volcanic activity, to the point of even further lowering Earth temperatures
• stronger electric storms
• a shift towards climate patterns more similar to what was seen several hundred years ago in the Maunder minimum

The second theory was that the elevated snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, which compressed the plates under its weight, has melted, leaving room for rebound movement which might trigger earthquakes. That is why they were able to focus on the US west coast as a place of exceptional risk, even though their primary theories for "space weather" have a more global impact.

Compare the success of the unorthodox space weather promoters to the hyper-establishment doctrine of global warming. Global warming has failed as a theory. How do we know? Because they changed the name! Global warming theory had some supporting evidence, but lots of contradictory evidence. For example, global warming does not predict global cooling. Global warming predicts warming. The recent heat wave in France was taken as evidence of global warming. However, cold snaps like the record-breaking arctic blasts that hit the the interior US last winter must either be ignored, or imagined to have been caused by warming. In reality, there was very little localized cooling predicted by global warming. They did predict that the melting Greenland glaciers would expel so much frigid water that it would disrupt the Gulf Stream current and turn Europe into a snowball. They certainly didn't predict that Greenland glaciers would actually be growing!

When they renamed Global Warming into Climate Change, it was an admission of defeat. It was an admission that results had not matched predictions, and amounted to a re-branding to stay relevant. It was a poor re-branding at that, as no one besides Bill Nye ever expected the climate to be static, so now they're shifting to Climate Chaos as the new slogan. Climate chaos is a more fitting term. The climate is becoming more chaotic. Record cold, record heat, record floods...it would be a tough chore to argue against climate chaos right now. But what have they changed? Only the name! Nothing has actually changed in the theory, at all. It's the same proposed process: human-produced CO2 causes a slight increase in temperature, which causes the atmosphere to absorb more of the biggest greenhouse gas (water vapor), which causes more warming, which causes more vapor, thus more warming, etc. The theory is still that the Earth is just a big water-powered heat bomb waiting to explode, and humans are lighting the fuse on it. When observations don't match a theory's predictions, there are two ways to go about it. Change the theory, or keep the same theory but change the things it predicted. Climate alarmists have done the latter by keeping the same theory but changing the name.

There has been a similar re-branding in evolution. Under Darwinism, there was supposed to be slow, gradual change that led eventually to new species. This hasn't actually been observed. Now, if you were to debate an evolutionist on the subject, they'd probably claim you were wrong and the slow gradual rate of change is exactly what the record shows. Fortunately, you don't have to engage on that particular thorny subject, just refer them to renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, the evolutionist who developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium to account for the lack of gradual change in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium is an admission that the fossil record is not as predicted. Even more, punctuated equilibrium should imply that evolution can be seen relatively quickly if strong artificial selective pressure was applied to a species (such as is done in horticulture and animal husbandry). And yet, we've never seen a new trait evolve, never seen a new gene or chromosome evolve, and certainly never seen a new species evolve. Punctuated equilibrium is proof that the theory of evolution is broken.

Finally, in astrophysics, the theories of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc, all should be taken as admissions that the theories are broken. "There's magical voodoo that can't be observed" is hardly a scientific theory. It's likely that similar Theories of Defeat exists in many other domains as well, so long as you know to look for them.

Contrabang! Bye Week

After last week's two-for-one deal of Contrabang!, we now are treated to something of a bye week. For the most part, Starts With a Bang! did not delve into the subjects with which we take issue. Most articles seemed to be reasonable, as best as I can tell. The closest it came was in Meet the Largest X-Ray Jet in the Universe, which described the jet as being powered by a supermassive blackhole. However, we covered that topic pretty heavily last week, so there's little need to revisit it now.

To offset this week's science deficit, I'll try to work in an evolution post. I've been sitting on a couple for a while now.

How do you feel about your verdict?

The words of this title - How do you feel about your verdict? - are enough to get you imprisoned in the tyrannical nation of Great Britain. According to Ezra Levant of Rebel Media, the utterance of those words to convicted Pakistani child gang rapists outside of a courthouse was one of three reasons given for Tommy Robinson's re-conviction today of "breaching the peace" and of contempt of court for violating a "reporting restriction." In England there is no freedom of the press; all facts must come via sources approved by Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. [As of yet, there has been no statement of condemnation against the outlandish ruling issued from Elizabeth II - the worst monarch of all history - nor will there be one.] In true irony, Robinson faced much more intrusive haranguing from BBC and other approved journalists outside the courthouse of his own hearings.

It has been reported that the court heard from a former police officer that the British government had effectively banned all investigations into Pakistani rape gangs, informing police stations that the girls were fully aware of the sexual reality of the world they were entering. It can't be repeated enough: in England, foreigners who operate child prostitution rings are permitted to operate, while citizen activists who cover a rare instance of actual prosecution for the crimes are imprisoned.

There are several reasons the government might behave this way, none of which are mutually exclusive. Most obvious, the government is trying to save face. They don't want the reality, that the British government has eagerly imported the foreigners who are now turning British children into sex slaves, getting too much publicity. In a sense, Robinson really is breaching the peace, because there is a fear that if the British people really knew what was going on in their country, they would revolt against the government. That fear is largely unfounded, though. Where are the riots now that it was revealed the government was actively suppressing investigation of child rapists? There are none, and anyone with a rational mind suspected that was happening already. The British people are not going to revolt; they will meekly accept their fate as a captive nation. I suspect that the British government is not only wasting its time by prosecuting Robinson's unauthorized journalism, because nothing will happen anyway, but they risk making him a martyr for the increasingly disenchanted populace to rally around. That is, they are more likely to bring about the result they fear most (popular revolt) by making a big public spectacle of their miscarriage of justice than they would if they just let Tommy continue reporting to the small portion of the British population who will listen. They are, it seems, attempting to rule by fear, discouraging any future rogue reporters from piping up.

A second reason for the government to be more concerned with guerrilla journalism than the organized sexual exploitation of minors is that the upper branches of British government have a history of pedophilia scandals going back to the 1960s. It may simply be that the old cliche of "foreigners are doing the jobs that the whites won't" is proven true again. The Paki gangs supply children to the perverts in Parliament, and are granted semi-official immunity in return.

The reasons grow even more grim from there. It may simply be a milestone of the transition of England from a free, Christian nation to one enslaved by Sharia Law. And it may be that the government of Great Britain hates its own people and works singularly towards the goal of seeing the citizenry enslaved. Call it a wild-eyed theory, but there is really no evidence to counter it, only evidence to confirm it, such as what was seen today.

Contrabang! #12 Two-For-One Deal

This edition will be the largest one yet, as it encompasses the entire latter half of June because I fell behind while on vacation. As usual, it will be divided up into a section for each Starts With a Bang! article that was deemed to justify some scrutiny.

Ask Ethan: What’s The Real Story Behind This Dark Matter-Free Galaxy? (link)

I read a study that said the mystery of a galaxy with no dark matter has been solved. But I thought that this anomalous galaxy was previously touted as evidence FOR dark matter? What’s really going on here, Ethan?

He begins by explaining how astronomers determine the mass of a galaxy. There are two approaches. One is to analyze all the observable light from the galaxy to approximate the mass. Another is to analyze the relative motions of components within the galaxy.  Presumably, the two approaches should yield similar results.

In most galaxies, the two values for the measured/inferred matter content differ by about a factor of 5-to-6, indicating the presence of substantial amounts of dark matter. But some galaxies are special.

Think of other realms where there are two methods of measuring something. For instance, the police have a couple different ways of determining how fast a vehicle is moving. From the air, they can use markers on the highway, a known distance apart, to determine the speed by measuring the time it takes to travel from one to the next. Or, more commonly, they use a doppler radar from a cruiser. If using the two techniques resulted in wildly different measurements - by a factor of 5-to-6 - we'd assume that at least one of the approaches was faulty. Because the aerial approach is so simple, we look first towards the doppler approach as the likely source of the discrepancy. In astrophysics, no such assumptions are made. It is assumed that their theoretical understanding of the universe is sound, thus they invent enormous dark clouds of theoretical exotic matter to explain away the difference.

He goes on to explain that, in 2008, a team from Yale discovered a small galaxy whose measurements indicated a lack of dark matter - which was taken by some as proof of the existence of dark matter. Later that year, another team found a measurement twice that of the Yale team - contradicting their results. The Yale team them used another approach that confirmed their original findings. Now, a team from Spain has found that the galaxy in not 64 million light years distant, as previously believed, but 42 million light years away, changing the analysis to indicate a dark-matter ratio of around 50%.

All in all, we get a situation of shifting sands, where the conclusion of whether the galaxy has dark matter or not varies almost monthly, and the question of which result would actually support Dark Matter Theory seems to vary depending on who is being asked and what the current result appears to be. The Spanish team thinks a dark-matter-free galaxy refutes Dark Matter Theory; Ethan thinks it proves it.

The one takeaway, if you learn nothing else, is this: this new result resolves nothing. Stay tuned, because more and better data is coming. These galaxies are likely extremely low in dark matter, and possibly entirely free of dark matter. [...] The discovery of a dark matter-free galaxy, if that result holds up, is an extremely strong piece of evidence for a dark matter-rich Universe.

Ethan, perhaps becoming a skeptic himself, suggests that the current results can't really be trusted. He is correct. Unfortunately, his motivation is to hold out for the particular results he desires. But, it's one step closer to realizing that the vast inconsistencies coming out of experimental data arise because their basic assumptions are invalid.

How Did This Black Hole Get So Big So Fast? (link)

It’s not impossible according to physics, but we truly don’t know how this object came to exist.

Other things not impossible according to physics: unicorns, alchemy, and leprechauns. Calling something "not physically impossible" does not make it realistic. In this article, Ethan grapples with a recently discovered galaxy, dated (with redshift theory, of course) to be improbably old in light of the Big Bang Theory model of galactic formation.

It has a mass of 800 million Suns, an exceedingly high figure for such early times. Even if black holes formed from the very first stars, they’d have to accrete matter and grow at the maximum rate possible — the Eddington limit — to reach this size so rapidly.

Finding such a galaxy at the theoretical limit is something like a Major League baseball player batting a thousand for a season. Sure, it's technically possible, but no one actually believes it to be realistic. How does Ethan handle this contradictory evidence?

Is this problematic for cosmology? More data will eventually decide.

This is how so-called scientists with pre-conceived conclusions handle evidence. If it supports their theory, they call it "proof" of the theory. Otherwise, they just wait for different evidence.

This Is What Will Happen To Our Sun After It Dies (link)

In this one, he catalogs all the ways different ways that our sun might meet its inevitable fate. This is all based on a theory of stellar evolution of which there is no direct evidence. Many different star types are observed; it is assumed that a star transitions though different states and then dies. This is all based on the assumption that stars are fueled by internal fusion processes, which is not a confirmed theory. In fact, nearly all the observable features of our own sun would seem to refute the theory.

What we see here are the psychological maladies that plague these people. That existence is futile. That there is only a material existence. That they must cling on to the least-worst theory, rather than admit that most things are still a mystery to we humble humans. This is not the first time Ethan has delved into the stellar demise subject since Contrabang! began running about three months ago. Why does he revisit the subject? Is this hyper morbidity? I don't think so. I'd suspect he realizes that there is something awry in his worldview that life is random and meaningless, which is why he finds himself re-examining the most despairing conclusions.

No, The Universe Cannot Be A Billion Years Younger Than We Think (link)

One of the most surprising and interesting discoveries of the 21st century is the fact that different methods of measuring the expansion rate of the Universe yield different, inconsistent answers.

We've already ridiculed Ethan before for insisting that both techniques, which give different estimates for the age of the universe, can be correct. Here, he goes into more detail. The gist of it is that, if we scale the ratio of dark matter to dark energy in the universe just right, then we'll find that both approaches actually yield a similar number, around 13.8 billion years. This is just the kind of answer we'd suspect. As usual, dark matter and dark energy are the magical fudge factors that make all apparent discrepancies go away. Just stick generous amounts of the undetectable, hypothetical forms of matter in the right places. Here, Ethan has actually managed to combine the both, in a sort of two-for-one deal for galactic fudge factors.

He continued on with the subject a few days later in Ask Ethan: What Could Solve The Cosmic Controversy Over The Expanding Universe? where he reviewed some other exotic solutions that scientists are proposed for the problem of the universal age discrepancy. In that article he concludes with,

It’s time to seriously consider the fantastic: maybe this really is an omen that there’s more to the Universe than we presently realize.

Typically, the word omen holds a religious connotation, which makes it especially fitting. Also, "there's more to the Universe than we presently realize" is another way of saying "we don't actually understand the Universe all that well." Which is true.

No, Black Holes Don’t Suck Everything Into Them (link)

[The extreme mass of black holes] has led to a picture that most of us have in our heads about black holes that’s prevalent but incorrect: one where black holes suck all the matter from outside their event horizons into them. We think of black holes as cosmic vacuum cleaners, consuming everything that dares to approach their vicinity. Even though NASA itself has released videos illustrating this effect, it’s a complete falsehood. Black holes don’t suck, after all.

This is true, and it's good for him to set his readers straight on the subject. The way to think of a black hole is not like a drain in a bathtub, sucking everything nearby into the abyss. There's no reason for a black hole to act any differently than any other massive object. The sun, which is supermassive in regards to our solar system, does not suck our planet towards a fiery death. We orbit the sun, and it orbits the galactic center.

If you’ve ever seen Cookie Monster get his hands on cookies, you’ll know what I’m talking about. Sure, every cookie in the nearby vicinity will find its way into the area near Cookie Monster’s mouth. The cookies get funneled inside towards it. But the overwhelming majority of the cookie matter that approaches the mouth of Cookie Monster won’t wind up getting devoured; instead, it gets spit out in all directions, having been accelerated by a variety of chaotic forces. If you’ve had a child (or been one) since the 1970s, you’ve probably seen it in action for yourself.

This has to be one of the stupidest analogies I have ever read, and is not worthy of any further consideration.

He then goes on to give an explanation for the vast jets of x-ray emitting particles that are often expelled by galaxies and were never predicted by general relativity. Gas particles are accelerated by the gravitational field to such high temperatures that they disassociate into ions and electrons. The rotating charges set up an enormous magnetic field, which tends to propel particles in a perpendicular direction. This is similar to the Electric Universe theory for galactic dynamics, only the magnetic field is established from internal dynamics rather than external forces. However, the are problems with this formulation.

• How are the gases so heated? The whole point of this article is that black holes don't suck in material, yet he then refers back to the standard depiction of black holes "feeding" off accretion disks. The reason people mistakenly believe that black holes "suck" in material is because that's exactly what the accretion disc theory he believes in says they do.
• If the particles disassociate into complementary ions and electrons, how is a magnetic field generated? Since there will be a positive charge for each negative, they should all cancel each other out.
• Why do particles ejected remain at x-ray emission levels for hundreds of thousands of light years?

Ethan has run into a paradox. No, black holes don't suck in matter like a vacuum. But scientists must act like they do for their models of accretion disks - credited for everything from black hole x-ray emissions to Type I-A supernovae - to function.

This Is Why Every Galaxy Doesn’t Have The Same Amount Of Dark Matter (link)

The actual reason that every galaxy doesn't have the same amount of dark matter is that dark matter is a fudge factor for an incorrect model of galactic dynamics. If all galaxies required the same ratio of dark matter to normal matter, it would imply that the models were basically correct, save for perhaps some constant or scaling factor. Because the models are wrong, each galaxy requires its own unique fix. The same would be true for any hare-brained scheme. Perhaps you believed that the speed of a car is determined by the amount of fuel in the tank. You might test your theory by observing cars on various roadways using a police radar and a camera with a telephoto lens to view the gas gauge. You'd find that the observations don't appear to match expectations, but if you assign "dark fuel" as needed, you can make the formula work. The amount of dark fuel for a given car would depend on its circumstances. A car traveling very fast while running on E would require a tremendous amount of dark fuel to fit into the the model; a car with a full tank crawling along in a traffic jam would require none. Then, for any observed car, you simply add the required amount of dark fuel, and proclaim that its velocity was, in fact, predicted by your Fuel-Velocity Theory.

Before we get into the article, it is probably worthwhile to re-examine why dark matter was invented. In our solar system, the orbits of the planets comply with Newtonian physics. The inner planets move very fast compared to the outer planets, as seen here. [Best played at 2X speed, and keep in mind it looks funny because the distances aren't proportional. Saturn is actually twice the distance from the Sun as Jupiter is, for example.] In galaxies, however, all bodies rotate at roughly the same speed. This has lead scientists to propose that there must be great amounts of unseen matter - five times the visible matter, and much further out. These are the vast clouds of dark matter that surround galaxies.

Ethan begins,

There are two assumptions that everyone makes about the Universe for extremely good reasons, but they might not necessarily be true. The first is that the laws of physics that govern the Universe are the same everywhere and at all times. The second is that the Universe was born with roughly the same properties everywhere. The full suite of observations that we’ve taken — of stars, galaxies, gas, plasma, dust, and all forms of light — are consistent with these two assumptions being true, but we cannot know for sure.

Actually, that's not true. They dismiss the first assumption as necessary. They say that singularities - such as black holes and the entire pre-Big Bang universe - are places where normal physics breaks down. And they permit dark energy, which allows for violations of the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of motion.

He then spends a number of paragraphs building the case that dark matter is not subject to many of the same forces that normal matter is - such as electromagnetism. Thus, it should be expected that normal matter might be ejected from a parent galaxy, while all the great clouds of dark matter more or less stay put. Thus, there should be small galaxies out there, formed from the ejected material, with little or no dark matter.

If you’re clever, [...] you should be able to form galaxies that are either low in dark matter, or contain no dark matter at all.

Well, of course. If you're clever you can also concoct a working model that maps vehicle fuel levels to velocities.

The big question, of course, is where are these galaxies without dark matter? Because they only form in environments that also contain much larger, more massive galaxies, they may not live for very long. The majority of galactic interactions and mergers have already occurred long ago in the Universe’s past, billions of years prior to the present day. As soon as a large galaxy pulls these dark matter-free galaxies back into them, they’ll cease to exist.

Typical. If the galaxies are found, it proves dark matter theory. If not, that's okay, it does not count as evidence against. The article continues by describing how there is surely evidence out there that will be found of galaxies without dark matter. That will be taken as proof that dark matter is real! And if they're not found? Well, then all the galaxies contain dark matter, which is proof that dark matter is real! In all scenarios, the evidence supports dark matter. The real question to ask Ethan is: how could dark matter be disproven?

Parent Pride Begins

It's the first of July, which means that Gay Pride Month is officially over. Does that mean we go back to the other eleven months of the year where we celebrate the nuclear family? Currently, there is only one day a year for Parent Pride. Mothers, who suffer greatly to give the gift of life to a new generation, get a day. Fathers, who toil endlessly to provide for families, also get a day. Homosexuals, who engage in a listless lifestyle accumulating hundreds of anonymous sex partners, get a whole month. Nearly a third report having over a thousand sex partners. This is celebrated. Where is the day for monogamy, for the people who actually go through life with a single partner? They get no month, day, or even a mention. We really do need to start recognizing such increasingly rare couples.

Gay Pride Month might as well be called Anti-Parent Month. In fact, we should start referring to it as such, or some similar moniker. It is the month when young men are encouraged to engage in aimless self-indulgence rather than building stable households. It is the month of selfishness. Those who were given the gift of life by their parents, who enjoyed the advanced, stable civilization built by their fore-bearers, reject the notion that they should shoulder any responsibility for maintaining what they have inherited. I, for one, will celebrate gay pride when they start putting their duty to nation first, and indulgence in their particular sexual inclinations second. All these claims about gays being brave are such a joke. Nothing could be easier, in today's climate, than becoming gay. You get your victimhood card and a pass to shirk normal societal expectations all in one go. It would be much braver to commit to family life despite natural inclinations that make doing so even harder than for normal people.

As the sun sets on Gay Pride, it rises on the next eleven months of Parent Pride. Just remember: it is brave to take on the difficult and voluntary task of child rearing, rainbows are for children, the anus is not a sex organ, and increased promiscuity is correlated to decreased happiness. All the traditional families I know are very happy. We are actually, as it turns out, the gay ones.