The Orbital Model of Political Philosophies and the Myth of Right and Left (by ContraSuggest)

For centuries, students and laypeople alike, have been led by pundits and educators to envision a deeply flawed model in an attempt to explain the various political philosophies of the world.

This model, characterized by false dichotomies of "left" and "right", has been used by the intelligencia to glorify politicians, and others of public notoriety, that they define as “moderates”, those who fall in the middle of their counterfeit spectrum.  But before we go further into explaining the falsehoods of the linear model evoked by the terms left and right, first a brief word on how these terms came into use.   

During the bloody French revolutionary period in the late 1780s, the terms left and right, originally used as pejoratives, referred to those who supported the radical principles of the revolution, who sat to the left of the speaker's podium in the National Assembly chamber, and those who were skeptical of those principles, who sat to the right.  Although no longer referring to the relative seating arrangements in legislative chambers, the descriptive terms caught on, and have been used in the media and the halls of academia ever since.  As will be explained shortly, these distinctions, as they have long been applied, are almost completely fallacious. 

Let’s begin with a depiction of the false linear spectrum described above (see figure 1).  It must be noted that, although this linear representation is fundamentally unsound, I have made an honest attempt to accurately position political ideologies and forms of government in terms of where the model's advocates have traditionally placed them.  As with all models, relative placement is approximate.  This will make for a sharper comparison, when I unveil what I believe to be my alternative, far more accurate model.

Relative positioning along the continuum is based upon the subjects' perceived resemblance to either “far-left” or “far-right” ideology.  If an expressed view or policy (stated or implemented) resembles what is perceived as fascist, it is placed closer to the extreme right side of the spectrum; if perceived as being consistent with communism, it will be closer to the extreme left.  The main justification for desiring moderation is the belief that tending too far to either extreme is equally deleterious to liberty.  But this presumes an invalid premise by drawing false distinctions between tyrannical ideologies, in some cases placing them at opposite ends of  the spectrum, when in reality they belong near one another, due to their manifold similarities and only superficial differences.   

The distortions offered by the political experts do not end there.  For while they caution us to avoid so-called extremism "on both sides", they simultaneously lionize those on the left (those with whom they share political kinship), and demonize those on the right.  This is done by positioning anyone who is not a leftist on the extreme right; placing liberals toward the center, and casting a nebulous shadow over the left end of the spectrum. The result?  It has become the height of intellectual and political sophistication to be characterized as a moderate.

One of the convenient results for the leftist, or statist, in furthering this perception, is the easy ability to marginalize or demonize any conservative or even conservative-leaning individual as a fascist.  So, the GOP is recast as the party of segregation, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are akin to Adolf Hitler, the radical chic of the revolutionary murderer Che Guevara is celebrated, the USSR is portrayed as an honest broker during Cold War nuclear arms talks, and America's pullout in Vietnam, precipitating the worst mass slaughter of the second half of the 20th century, is hailed as a triumph of liberty.       

However, in truth, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Liberalism/Progressivism (from here on referred to as the "six isms") are socio-economic and political cousins that must be depicted in close proximity when placed on any ideological spectrum.  This fact throws the entire perceived balance of the linear model out of whack.  The six isms are, to varying degrees, all tyrannical, totalitarian, extremist ideologies of what is perceived to be the left.  That means that they have no opposite but equal dark reflection on the far "right."  There are simply no more “isms” remaining to juxtapose with the six listed on the so-called left.  Can conservatism be the opposite number of the six isms?  Most certainly not- for conservatism is not a political ideology; it is a way of life: life lived by the acknowledgment of the natural law, and the teleological; exercise of reason, prudence, faith, objective morality, and ethics.  Individual conservatives can, and often do, get it wrong, but only when they violate the core conservative principles.  Conservatism itself is unimpeachable.

Perhaps one could suggest capitalism as their opposite number, but this would propose that capitalism is equally flawed (or extreme) in its “rightist” precepts as the other isms are in their “leftist” precepts.  This notion turns to dust under closer scrutiny, for the societies in all of world history that have had the highest success rate of lifting people out of crippling poverty, are systems that incorporate capitalism.  Its critics often confuse it with what is called crony capitalism (itself a misnomer); failures attributed to capitalism are most often the negative result of infusions of socialism into the mix.  And wherever the precepts of the six isms have been applied, characterized by varying degrees of centralized government control over citizens' lives, they have failed.  To varying degrees, these systems and their champions have been responsible for the full gamut of human stagnation and suffering-  from violations of  basic freedoms and poor economic growth-  to torture, unjust imprisonment, mass starvation, great depressions, collapsed economies, and mass murder.  In the 20th century, collectivist ideologies (the six isms) have been responsible for the deaths of well over 150 million people.  This of course doesn't mean, for example, that American liberals are responsible for Stalin-magnitude crimes at home; there is no false conflation of the six isms.  However, from a theoretical standpoint, American liberalism and Soviet communism are ideological cousins.  They often acknowledge  similar premises and share similar stated goals, but differ regarding approach and implementation.  A prime historical illustration is the many American liberals who engaged in dark Cold War accommodationism of the treasonous, anti-American Communist Party (CPUSA), and therefore of the totalitarian Soviet Union itself; while at the same time some liberals, like Presidents Truman and Kennedy, did all they could to check Soviet expansion. 

So, in reality, the entire right side of the linear model is essentially an empty set, with the six isms constellated on the left, and no opposite number on the right.  The much laudable center of the linear model must be represented by something other than a hazy and ever-changing Golden Mean (aka- disguised statism).  The only remaining thing that could possibly populate the moderate center would be conservatism; but again, a linear model, built on falsely juxtaposed negative extremes cannot accurately place conservatism.  With the model now in full collapse, it must be discarded and replaced with a more reasonable, accurate and workable model.         

The New Orbital Model:         

In light of the inaccuracy of the traditional conceptions that evoke a false linear political model, I propose here an entirely new model, using an orbital diagram, similar to that of Earth’s solar system, as a general template (see Figure 2.).

The center of the diagram, where the sun would normally be positioned, represents the positive extremes to which all reasonable people aspire.  This is represented by the natural law (defined as man's participation in the divine law), prudence, faith, reason, objective morality and ethics, just-law, orthodoxy, time-tested tradition, freedom, and liberty.  The diagram is both elegant and accurate in its simplicity: the closer a subject is to the "sun", the more it embraces and emulates truth; the farther from the sun, the less it emulates truth.  Therefore, one can easily judge the relative merit of a subject based upon its proximity to the true center.  The noble effort of the American founders, distilling the best time-tested institutions of the great world societies of the past, and fusing them with select Enlightenment philosophy, tempered by Judeo-Christian principles, are in the first orbit, depicted closest to the light of truth.  In stark contrast, the six isms orbit in frozen depravity at the farthest reaches of the model, to depict their retrograde values and the evil they have wrought in the world.  Other notable political movements are placed in various orbits to indicate their status relative to the positive extreme around which they orbit.

The Orbital Model may be simple, but it's also dynamic enough to accurately represent so-called mixed ideologies.  Individuals, ideologies, or regimes that have drawn from varied political philosophies to either explain their beliefs or to govern, leaning "left" in some regards and "right" in others.  Such cases are easily and accurately represented by an elliptical orbit.  For illustrative purposes, figure 3., depicts those who label themselves both fiscally conservative (traditionally defined as a right-leaning view) and socially liberal (traditionally defined as a left-leaning view).  An elliptical orbit allows closer proximity to truth when the subject expresses fiscally responsible views, while the same subject can be depicted  farther away from truth when expressing irresponsible and destructive social views, all in the course of the same orbit.

Misunderstanding political philosophies allows easy mischaracterization of the intentions and actions of historical and present-day administrations and regimes, theoreticians, politicians, and heads of state, adding additional further misunderstanding to the already muddled views of the public.  Due to the fatal flaws of the traditional linear inspired depictions, I urge educators, pundits, and everyday citizens to seriously consider the use of the far more accurate and dynamic Orbital Model.

Why Catholics Cannot Practice Yoga (by ContraSuggest)

Most Catholics who practice Yoga don't think they're practicing anything contrary to the dictates of their faith.  "Don't be stupid," they tell me, "what could possibly be wrong with stretching and breathing exercises that have been around for thousands of years and have been proven to aid in maintaining good health?"  OK.  So why is the practice of Yoga a bad idea for Christians in general and specifically for practicing Catholics?  First of all, Yoga is a Hindu spiritual technique, nothing more, nothing less; any physical or mental health benefits are secondary to the spiritual objective.  Secondly, Hindu spiritual aspirations are simply incompatible with Christian doctrines.  

Hinduism is polytheistic (belief in multiple gods), while Christianity is monotheistic (belief in one God).  Hinduism is also pantheistic (the belief that everything is either God, or that everything is divine). Conversely, Christians believe in the doctrine of creation, which holds that only God is divine and that everything else (people, nature, the universe) are His creatures.  Despite the Hindu belief in multiple gods, the spiritual goal is to ultimately recognize the unifying divinity in oneself, which is called Brahman. Therefore, Hinduism teaches an inward quest to discover one's own divinity, or "true self," who is god,  and Hindus are taught to see past the so-called illusions of existence to discover this truth.  The express stated purpose of Yoga (or path, of which there are several forms) is to alter consciousness to meet the goal of Hinduism, which is to attain a higher state of consciousness in order to discover one's divinity.  Hatha Yoga attempts to achieve this aim by making use of the physical manipulation of the body to help create an altered state of consciousness which occurs as the result of the effect of the exercise on the central nervous system.    

Properly trained Yoga instructors understand all of this and subtlety teach their students Hindu spirituality through the visualizations and meditations that accompany the forms and exercises practiced during Yoga sessions.  The walls of Yoga studios are often adorned with the images of Hindu gods and spiritual figures; these images are not just for show, they are an integral part of Yoga.  While I do not doubt Yoga's physical health benefits and the calming effect on the mind, surely faithful Catholics can find alternatives to Yoga that do not lead them down counterfeit spiritual paths.  For instance, it is possible to adopt the stretching exercises of Yoga, detached from the overtly Hindu spiritual aspects, as part of a good health regimen.  Still, many objectionable Hindu spiritual teachings and techniques have worked their way into the Catholic mind through the allure of the New Age Movement.  For example, too many Catholics have jettisoned prayer in favor of meditation without understanding the negative implications of that decision.  To wantonly dissolve one's identity through meditation can lead us away from Christ and leave us vulnerable to malevolent occult forces.  It's akin to a short-term sugar high, seemingly good for the body and mind in the short run, but bad for the soul in the long run.  While I'm sure that the world is full of Hindus and Yoga instructors who are noble, well-meaning people, it's simply reckless for Catholics to practice authentic Yoga, as it is a clear violation of our faith.          

In closing, I would be remiss not to mention reincarnation, the Hindu spiritual principle that is most widely believed by non-Hindus, including many Catholics and many who practice Yoga .  In a nutshell, the teaching of reincarnation has to do with karma, the supposed journal of good and bad choices that carry over from life to life.  We allegedly learn lessons of the soul through living multiple, successive lives, until we get it right and realize our divinity.  This clearly denies Christian teaching that tells us we only have one life, followed by the judgment, and it also denies the necessity of Christ, by teaching that we can reach God on our own merits.  While it is undoubtedly desirable for Catholics to celebrate shared values with non-Catholics, we must draw the line at discarding our own non-negotiable, deeply held beliefs when doing so. 

The Venti Socialist: Starbucks Founder Howard Schultz (by ContraSuggest)

Editor's Note: No fair trade coffee was harmed in the writing of this article.

Can you imagine a world in which people wished for social improvement while advocating empty panaceas?  A world in which exists an ever-changing, make-believe decency, cut off from the source of true decency?  A magical place where the hungry are fed, the homeless are housed, all is free, and everybody frolics around amidst the butterflies and daisies, sipping four dollar cups of latte?  Unbeknownst to most people, there actually exists such a world: the world of Starbucks founder Howard Schultz (here forward referred to as Howie).

In the interests of full disclosure, I need to divulge a few things before continuing.  I love Starbucks products.  I continue to spend long hours sitting comfortably in my local Starbucks, sipping tea, reading, writing, and talking to friends.  I am a Starbucks Gold Cardholder since 2011.  In my experience, Starbucks baristas are generally well-trained, hardworking and courteous people, making their coffee shops a comforting refuge from a stressful world.  So it isn’t Starbucks's products or employees that I object to, it’s Howie's endless spewing of empty leftist platitudes, forever cloaked in a manufactured, condescending righteousness.  His obedient devotion to, and advocacy of,  the full range of leftist shibboleths is well known.  From Obamacare, to same sex marriage, to snake oil environmentalism, there isn't one loopy left policy that this crony capitalist hasn't supported.  Despite all of this, Howie's java giant has been responsible for some laudable actions, such as charitable giving, and I would never presume to take that away from him.  This of course does not justify his full throated support for every toxic socialist scheme that comes down the pike.

You see, Howie always phrases all of his political statements very, very carefully, so as to sound sensible, dispassionate, and inoffensive to the average coffee drinker.  He bears the key hallmark of a first rate demagogue, the ability to sweet talk people into agreeing with his radical opinions.

Most recently, Howie expressed outrage at President Trump's executive order shutting off the issuance of all new immigrant and non-immigrant visas for 90 days from a mere seven unstable, terrorist  producing nations: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya.  Was Trump's move a sensible one?  Sure.  Constitutional?  Check.  Will it make us safer?  Likely.  So what's Howie's beef?  His response was one designed to create a straw man, attributing the plight of refugees worldwide to Trump's EO, which applies only to a portion of the refugees that terrorist organizations have vowed they would infiltrate in order to attack us.  Howie stated that he won't "stand by, nor stand silent" for this, and that he's "...developing plans to hire 10,000 of them (refugees) over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business."  Well gee, that's all fine and dandy, but exactly how does Starbucks plan to conduct standard employee background checks on those he plans to hire from the countries on that list?  Is he going to check with ISIS's human resources department?  Maybe he can call Bashar al-Assad for references.  Or could it just be that Howie is a mere nattering propagandist with a political axe to grind?       

In his usual patronizing, sanctimonious style, he continued to admonish Trump's agenda by decrying the proposed overturn of Obamacare and the building of a security wall on the US's border with Mexico.  No matter that Obamacare has been an utter and complete disaster for Americans, causing businesses to curtail employment, millions to be dropped from their policies, fines charged for violating mandatory participation, millions pushed onto government welfare rolls, soaring premiums, increased co-pays, loss of choice, and a half a billion dollars cut from Medicare.  Howie would have us believe that the only laws that shouldn't be enforced are our immigration laws.  That the US federal government does not have a right and an obligation to protect the American people from actual and potential external threats, and that the US border should be nothing more than an imaginary line on a map.

In the future, the Starbucks CEO should be a little more mindful that us low-brows who voted for Trump because we couldn't bear the thought of President Hillary, make up a fair number of the people who patronize his establishments.  So perhaps he should think twice before spewing forth another nauseating, cliché-filled lecture disguised as a press release.  Not all of us who drink your overpriced coffee are interested in being preached to by an arrogant uber-liberal know-it-all.  Oh, and have a nice day.

The Shape Of The Cultural Counter-Revolution (by Contrasuggest)

Over the course of the last 60 years, the left has taken near total control of the societal mechanisms that shape our reality and perceptions; consider that they now firmly control the following:

• pop culture and the entertainment industry
• corporate industry and the workplace
• most Christian churches, including the Catholic Church
• the traditional news media
• all branches and institutions of the federal government (including the bureaucracies)
• nearly all educational institutions and the textbook industry
• the television networks, public broadcasting, museums and other public depositories of information
• most of the Internet, including all social media
• the Boy Scouts (who, after a long desperate struggle, were the last to fall)

Have I missed anything?  Likely, I did.  The power and influence of the left is nearly without limit.

Thoughtful parents who carry even some small vestige of traditionalism in their hearts, and a desire to impart it to their children, are doomed before they begin.  When pressed, most of them are unable even to explain their views, much less defend them in the face of the withering and ubiquitous ridicule coming from their brainwashed coworkers, friends, and family, and the onslaught coming from every corner of the greater smut-culture.  The left's victory has been so thorough, and their scorched earth policy so complete, that there is no longer any fertile soil anywhere in America where morality or reason may take root.  Things once considered radical have now long been deemed normal, and anyone who dares publicly express traditionalist sentiments is branded with a kind of scarlet letter- marginalized and demonized as a "hater", "racist", "homophobe", "denier", or some other ad hominem, denigrating misnomer.  Reputations are smeared, fines are levied, careers are destroyed, and some are arrested, with no recourse to the law or even to once commonly held decency.  America has become a soft police state, pursuing an ongoing pogrom against traditionalists, capitalists, and western religionists.

The loss of the culture war in America is analogous to the loss of a conventional military war.  I am confident in the strength of that simile.  Consider that two sides (American statists and traditionalists) went to war over disputed territory (our politico-cultural institutions); one side has routed the other in every major battle (the statists have overcome traditionalist influence everywhere), the disputed territory has been forcibly  taken and occupied by the enemy (leftists now control all politico-cultural institutions). Traditionalists and conservatives eke out lives of quiet desperation in a country that they barely recognize, waiting for a hero to lead them out of the wilderness.  That is the very definition of defeat.  Why is it of utmost importance to admit that this war has been lost?  Because some of the conservative forces survived the struggle and have gone to ground; we still have a small, capable army comprised of some brilliant people.  But no potential future offensive by conservatives can be fought on the old cultural battlefields, using the old failed tactics and strategies.  If we repeat those mistakes, and continue to engage the enemy on territory that they firmly control, pretending that they do not control it, the remainder of our forces will be wiped out and we'll lose this country, possibly forever.  The only alternative open to us, furthering the military simile, is to wage a political/cultural guerilla war against this enemy, an enemy that has become the new establishment.

Conservatives must steal several pages out of the enemy's playbook, and the most essential strategy from those pages is a covert effort to Infiltrate America's socio-political organizations in order to take them back, quietly, from the inside.  Yes, we must employ similar strategies used by the leftists to take them from us in the first place.  There are many out there who have already begun to fight back in this vein.  From men like Glen Beck and Mark Levin, to organizations like the Heritage Foundation and websites like Brietbart.com; these conservative culture warriors are on the offensive each and every day, employing equal measures of truth and sarcasm to bombard the enemy and set the record straight.

Another shining example in this insurgency to take back the culture is the movement to inaugurate an Article V convention of the states, an effort designed to culminate in amendments to the constitution (bypassing most of the compromised cultural institutions, and doing an end-run around the feds) that will reinforce the Founders' intended curtailment of federal powers.  A wonderful organization called The Convention Of The States Project has quietly been providing information and advice to various state legislatures around the country.  Legislatures in several states have formed exploratory committees to get the ball rolling.  Most recently, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has begun a determined effort to rally support for a convention in the TX legislature, which includes coordination with legislatures of other states.  Governor Abbott, the articulate former attorney general of TX, is extraordinarily well-versed in the legal aspects of the process, and we're blessed to have him fighting for us.  The movement is slowly gaining ground, and I believe it will continue to grow vigorously, as more Americans begin to reject the overreach of Moscow on the Potomac.  I just pray that there are enough of us to make a difference.

There are precedents in history, during the final years of the Cold War, for other successful cultural counter-revolutions: the Solidarity Movement in Poland, and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Both are examples of successful non-conventional efforts at weakening the power of tyrannical central authority.  However, in the America of 2016, it's become clear that the slide towards chaos is no mere trend, but a hideous mutation undergone by the American collective psyche.  I think there's great doubt as to whether or not we can reverse what we've become and halt the high degree of social entropy that's so deeply imbedded in our national soul.  At this point it may be as impossible as returning an already fired bullet back into the chamber of a revolver.  Be that as it may, it's incumbent upon us to try; the alternative is to resign the posterity of the American Founders to destruction and, as a result, condemning future generations of Americans to Hell on Earth.

Donald Trump: The Latest Strain of Political Cancer (by ContraSuggest):

The American people are a lost breed with no identity and no real legacy.  Our children's cultural inheritance is nothing more than a scorched earth.  You can be anything you want to be, we tell them.  But in a country where we have allowed objective morality and ethics to die of neglect in order to justify our own libidinous urges, we've put our children on a collision course with emptiness.  We've essentially taught them, since they're nothing more than apes with iPhones, that the fulfillment of their impulsive whims is limitless.  And so we continue to gleefully swim in the direction of the undertow flowing towards the secular/socialist black hole along the Potomac River.

Nature abhors a vacuum: enter Donald Trump.  There are so many phonies running around pretending to be things that they are not in these biblically inflected end times.  Donald Trump is the consummate, archetypal phony.  His political opinions are all over the board.  For the better part of the last 40 years he has expressed the views of a Progressive Democrat; then experienced a supposed conversion to conservatism on the road to capture the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.  In reality, he continuously shoots from the hip with the bad aim that comes from a lack of core principles, so his policy positions are a muddled hodgepodge of contradictions.  It's painfully obvious from listening to his nasty, cacophonous, and empty blather, that he understands neither the Constitution nor conservatism.  Since most Republican voters don’t understand those things either, Trump enjoys wide support within the party.  His loathsome personality, and perception as a political outsider have endeared him to the ignorant.  Half of what this insufferable gasbag spews contradicts the other half.  If Trump's knowledge of American history and politics were chocolate, it couldn't fill an M&M.  However, it would seem that Trump's zombie-like supporters are impenetrably ignorant, as he continues to rack up the lion's share of delegates in the Republican primary race.  And so, this political flim-flam man, empty suit, and dangerous cult of personality, who stands for absolutely nothing, marches ever-closer to the presidency.

Arrayed against the presumptive Republican nominee are a self-styled socialist and a progressive, (as if there's any real difference between the two).  If by now you don't recognize these as euphemisms for tyranny, then you're probably already backstroking toward the event horizon of that black hole.  But where does all of this leave conservatives in terms of the choice that we're most likely going to have to make at the polls in November?  Personally, I am well acquainted with choosing the lesser of two evils in presidential races.  Let's review; below are all the presidential races in which I've voted, the blue highlights denote who I voted for.  Particularly note the nose-holding done in 1996, 2008 and 2012, where I was forced to vote for inarticulate big-government technocratic Republicans in order to avoid bigger problems.               

1984: Reagan v. Mondale

1988: Bush 1 v. Dukakis
1992: Bush 1 v. Clinton
1996: Clinton v. Dole
2000: Bush 2 v. Gore
2004: Bush 2 v. Kerry
2008: Obama v. McCain
2012: Obama v. Romney


Why did I cast those votes?  Because, although there weren't huge differences between the candidates, there were enough differences to vote for one over the other.  I assessed that my choice would result in the country doing slightly less terrible than if I had selected the alternative.  Now, let's play a game.  I'm going to list a bunch of political policy positions and statements, and I want you to figure out which current presidential candidate has held or said them all.  Ready?  Here goes: supported TARP, the bank bailouts, single payer health care (expressed great admiration for the Canadian system, and wanted to abolish Obamacare because it didn't go far enough); supports private property seizure, supports and wants to expand federal Ethanol subsidies, favors a massive increase of tariffs, supported Putin's military incursions into Syria, believes George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11, has hired illegal aliens, claims to always have had a great relationship with Nancy Pelosi, gets along great with Harry Reid, and is in many ways very close with (Senator Chuck) Schumer, but has said that Ted Cruz is a guy that nobody likes and nobody trusts and that he’s a nasty guy who is sick and is a liar.  Donated campaign cash to Harry Reid; in 2008 said that Hillary Clinton would do a good job as president and donated a large sum to her campaign. 

So who has held all of these positions and said all of these things?  Donald Trump.  This begs the question, what the hell is the difference between Trump and the Democrats?  In the end not much.  At least we know what Bernie Sanders (aka Methuselah) will try to do as president; with Trump it will depend on his mood, making him the most unpredictable man to ever occupy the oval office.  This voting for the lesser of two evils thing is becoming untenable now that evil has taken on so many different faces.  For the first time in my life I'm considering not voting in a presidential election.

Gender Bending and Doctor Who: The Ruination of a Sci-Fi Legend (by ContraSuggest)

The British Sci-Fi television show Doctor Who has been an enduring cultural phenomenon for the last 50 years.  Beginning as a children's serial back in the early 1960s, producers engineered a clever way for the show to continue when its original lead actor became too ill to continue in the role.  The character of the Doctor, an alien scientist and explorer who travelled the universe in his time machine helping those in need, was able to regenerate his body when it became worn out or damaged.  So thorough was this regeneration, that it even affected his personality, facial features, height, weight and outward age.  This allowed the producers to cast new actors in the lead role at semi-regular intervals, allowing the show to go on potentially indefinitely.  The show had the distinction of being the longest running sci-fi based TV program in history.  Finally, after nearly 30 years, the BBC chose to stop producing the show.  Then in 2005, to the delight of heartbroken fans the world over, the show was revived by the BBC, proved to be immensely popular, and continues going strong to this day.

While harkening back to the spirit of the original series, the new series also blazed a trail of its own with new concepts and storylines.  Some of these changes were well-received by fans; others were not, but overall there was much enthusiasm for the reboot, which brought in high ratings thanks to a whole new generation of fans.  For the first several years the storylines were mostly fresh, bold, and interesting, but the show has long since lost its edge, descending into a sad mediocrity, despite its continued popularity.  Seemingly grand storylines are often convoluted, forgettable, and ring hollow as the closing credits role.  Amid all of this trite, worn-out fare, has been an almost ubiquitous radical social commentary, continuously glorifying many precepts of radical cultural chic.  As a huge fan and defender of the show for 35 years, I have been relegated to hanging on in quiet desperation, patiently waiting and hoping for the show to improve and recapture at least some of its former glory.  But now the unthinkable has happened; it seems that the dreaded rumors are true.  Current show runner Steven Moffat, perhaps using the foil of regeneration as a means, appears to be leaning towards changing the gender of the Doctor.        

Let’s put aside for a moment the show’s aforementioned blind acceptance and eager embrace of nearly every socio-cultural aberration that comes down the pike.  Let’s put aside for a moment that the show has long since abandoned some of the roots of the original series, those roots which successfully endeared it to millions of fans worldwide, and made the character of the Doctor into a legend.  If the gender change rumors are true, Mr. Moffat appears to have run out of creative ideas, and is attempting to fill that void by fundamentally changing one of the foundational pillars of the show.  To the original show’s creators, the Doctor’s gender was not an accident, nor did the various creative teams that worked on the show ever dream of changing it; nor would the show’s millions of fans have wanted them to.  However, in the “Lady Gaga culture” of 2014, it's considered vogue (and the pinnacle of sophistication) to see men and women as no different from one another.  Gender, once immutable in all but rare cases, is now freely interchangeable and can be chosen by people (even children) like picking out a flavor of ice cream, regardless of nature’s determinations at conception.  The influential  managers of the entertainment industry either agree with this deeply flawed notion, or go along with it, out of fear of reprisals from the radical cultural mafia.  In fact, men and women are essentially different from one another, and those differences have everything to do with why writers chose particular genders for their characters.

The Doctor’s “maleness” is just as much a part of his character as femaleness is part of any great female character.  The Doctor has always been a strong, reliable, protective male role model; throughout the years he's been alternatively cast as a wise grandfather, favorite uncle, and protective big brother; ever respectful, loyal, and ethical.  Mr. Moffat has reportedly said that he has been easing his audience into slowly accepting this absurd change because he recognizes that part of that audience is conservative.  That's no doubt true.  But does he believe that only so-called conservatives will object to this insanity?  How would fans of the X-Files, Buffy The Vampire Slayer, or Star Trek: Voyager have reacted to gender changes in the female lead characters of those shows?   What if the producers of those shows had used some sci-fi-fantasy-based plot device to transform Dana Scully, Buffy Summers or Captain Kathryn Janeway into men?  The women's lib community, hardly conservatives, would have been up in arms, and rightfully so!  This proposed move doesn't just violate tradition, it violates basic common sense, which is shared by most fans up and down the spectrum of opinion.       

Before the advent of the current series, the Dr. Who universe shared a rich history that spanned nearly 40 years, which included well over 150 storylines worth of material (between TV installments and full length feature films).  While it is the prerogative of any producer of the current series to add to the show's lore, there's clearly been a wonderful tradition of using the original series as a touchstone when doing so.  That tradition has proved popular, as evidenced in the exuberance of fans and the increased viewership that accompany the occasional return of any of the original series' legendary villains.  Fans have always griped over actual or perceived violations of continuity in the storylines.  Transforming the Doctor into a woman would be the single biggest continuity flub in the history of the program.  There is simply no precedent anywhere in the show's wide-ranging mythos that points to timelord regeneration effecting gender change.  The only precedent in the new series was Moffat's  own disastrous recasting of the Master as a woman.  There was apparently no good reason for this move, other than its cheap shock value.  Imagine the disappointment of a long-time fan who thought this woman might be the Rani until it was revealed to be the Master (oh, the pain!).  It seems that the current series' producers are more concerned with infusing the show with radical socio-political commentary than they are with emulating the imaginative excellence that brought the show to its past heights.

In closing, I implore Mr. Moffat to reconsider the direction in which he's purportedly going.  I believe him to be a thoughtful, talented man, but if his creative well is running a bit dry in terms of a fresh direction for Dr. Who, then he should pass the baton to a successor with fresh ideas.  Confusing innovation  with changing the lead character's  gender would be a lamentable mistake.  If this much talked-about change comes to pass, this diehard fan of 35 years will be permanently tuning out.  And I would ask my fellow fans to seriously consider this issue.  I obviously disagree sharply with those of you who support the proposed gender change.  But I have a message for those of you who do not: don't be bullied by the forces of social conformity who claim to be champions of inclusiveness while they attempt to exclude you from the debate.  We must present our opinion cogently and respectfully, but also with tenacity.  The integrity of a science fiction legend hangs in the balance.

America's Last Best Hope: An Article V Convention Of The States (by ContraSuggest)

In the end, only the truth matters, and I'm going to continue to tell the truth as I understand it, no matter the resistance I encounter.  None of the conventional methods and instrumentalities will be effective in saving the American people from the tyranny that our founders feared.  That tyranny is here now.  The old methods have been used over and over and over again, while the situation just gets worse by great orders of magnitude.  And if something effective isn't done soon to counter the powerful forces arrayed against us, the country will devolve into a primordial stew of decadence, decline, and irrelevancy.  We're no longer at the precipice; we've slipped over the edge of the cliff and are on the way down to destruction and oblivion.  However, even at this late hour, we still have one chance to pull ourselves back, but we do not have much time.  There is only one last card for constitutional conservatives left to play, and if we don't draw it soon, our Constitution will unravel completely and all will be lost.  This isn't exaggeration, disinformation, pessimism, alarmism, negativity, deception or doomsaying - it's the God honest truth.  There's no room in the conservative movement for the weak-kneed; we're not a bunch of porcelain dolls who will simply shatter when faced with the hard, cold truth.  If you can't handle the heat of the truth, then get the hell out of the kitchen.  Sugarcoated fantasies have no place in this war for the heart and soul of the nation. 

 Electing more Republicans is not the answer. 

 The Republican Party is not the party of conservatism.  That's not to say that there are no conservatives in the party, but rather that conservatives amount only to a small minority.  Most of the GOP is made up of big government technocrats who have been, and continue to be, complicit in the loss of our liberties that comes with a massive expansion of federal power.  This group remains in firm control of the party, and instead of shielding the American people from the abuses of a rapacious federal government, it willingly colludes with the Democrats to obliterate what's left of our liberty.  The Republican establishment shares the same goals as the Democrats, they just aim to achieve them at a slower pace.  That's why the establishment Republican's hearts are not in the fight against Obama; they eventually want most of what he wants.  The Walking Dead have just finished electing overwhelming majorities of Republicans to both houses of Congress.  Many who are concerned about Obama's unlawful executive actions and his continued expansion of Mordor's power are rejoicing.  On the eve of the election I predicted that a Republican victory would do nothing to halt Obama's dictatorial advance.  Was I correct?  In a word, yes.  Once again the Republican leadership has rolled over for our half-a-commie president and handed the Democrats, who they just crushed in the November election, everything that they wanted in the form of a pork filled, waste laden Omnibus bill that will spend your money through September of next year!  Hear this- Republicans have just annihilated the Dems, yet have allowed them to decide the budget for the next nine months!  If that's not incomprehensible and idiotic enough, the Republican leadership has unilaterally disarmed Congress by relinquishing its constitutional power of the purse, allowing Obama to illegally legalize millions of illegals.  Name one aspect of Obama's agenda that has been curtailed by the election of Republican majorities in Congress.  You cannot name one.  Remember, over the course of the past 25 years we have had some periods of Republican majorities in Congress, as we have had Republican presidents.  Where has it gotten us?  The government now spends more, taxes more, regulates more, and is in more debt than it has ever been in our history, and Mordor is becoming more and more powerful, regulating and micro managing every single aspect of our lives.  Yes, I would rather have a wishy-washy Republican in office rather than some outright socialist Democrat, but in the end the difference is negligible.  Let me finish this point with the following analogy: a Democrat Party victory is like the nation getting a pancreatic cancer diagnosis; a Republican Party victory is like the nation getting a colon cancer diagnosis.  They're both cancer; one is just more treatable.  How sad that our elected officials are so contemptuous of our constitutionally granted liberties that they can accurately be compared to a cancer.                  

 How An Article V Convention Would Work

Our Constitution provides two methods for amendment.  In the 227 years that document has been in effect, one of those methods has never been used.  It was purposefully conceived by the Founders so that the states and the people would have a peaceful means of recourse in the event that the federal government became oppressive.  Embedded in Article V, this provision allows for the state legislatures to call for a convention of the states to discuss and propose amendments to the Constitution.  In the event that two-thirds of the state convention delegates agree to the proposed amendment(s), then the 50 state legislatures would vote them up or down; if three-fourths agree, the amendment(s) are automatically ratified as part of the Constitution.  It's important to note that the federal government, (the president, Congress, and the courts) are shut out of this process and can only observe as it unfolds; they are not in any way legally empowered to intervene.  With a lawless president in office, the federal government carrying out unconstitutional acts on a daily basis, and a majority of state legislatures in the hands of Republicans, the time for an Article V convention is now!  An organization called The Convention Of The States Project is laboring hard to start the process by providing legal informational council to state legislators who're committed to the process.  Legislatures in several states have formed exploratory committees to get the ball rolling.  I know that some feel that this process is too much of a long shot, that it could be co-opted by leftists, that it's too risky.  My answer to those fears is that this is the only option open to us, short of unconstitutional actions and open, armed rebellion.  Since the alternative is a massive bloodbath, I chose the Article V convention process.  Put simply, we cannot save our Constitution by violating it.

Thanks to the great Mark Levin, who taught me most of what I know about this subject, I hope I haven't misrepresented his wisdom.