In 2002, the British Broadcasting Corporation polled its viewers for the names of those they believed were the greatest Britons of all time. The BBC compiled the feedback and came up with a list of the top 100 greatest men and women in all British history. One of the names on that list, at number 73, was Aleister Crowley.

Crowley polled ahead of Robert the Bruce, J.K. Rowling, Chaucer, Henry II, J.R.R. Tolkien, Sir Walter Raleigh, and Richard Burton, among others. So, who is Aleister Crowley and why should we care?

There is no doubt Crowley had a significant impact on Great Briton, even the world. It is difficult to see, though, how anyone could view the impact he had as being great.

Crowley was born in 1875 to a wealthy English family. His father, an evangelist, raised Crowley as a Christian. If his father had not died when Crowley was 11, things might have turned out differently for Alister. Following his father’s death, Crowley became unmanageable for his mother. He began questioning Christian teachings and he completely turned away from his early moral upbringing. He started challenging his teachers, took up smoking and began to frequent prostitutes. He became so unruly his mother called him “the Beast,” a nickname he proudly retained for his whole life. After having a child, he insisted that his daughter call him by that name, and she did.

Crowley’s parents had named him Edward Alexander Crowley, but at 20 he changed it to Aleister since he loathed the nickname, Alec (in his biography Crowley spelled it Alick), that his mother called him.

While Crowley attended Cambridge University he engaged in torrid sexual relations with both men and women, was introduced to the occult through an organization called the Golden Dawn and became captivated by the practices. And he became involved with magic and with the ritual use of drugs.

Crowley later became disillusioned with Golden Dawn because the leadership found him to be too hedonistic. After graduating, Crowley travelled the world. He climbed mountains in Mexico and later in India. While in India he developed an interest in yoga and meditation.

After two years abroad, Crowley returned to Europe, to Paris, where he joined a friend from Cambridge, Gerard Kelly, who eventually became a famous painter. During his time in Paris, Crowley met and fell in love with Kelly’s younger sister, Rose. He married her initially to save her from an arranged marriage she did not want, but later they fell in love with each other.

Rose enthusiastically shared Aleister’s beliefs and bizarre sexual preferences. They traveled together and she helped create and develop Crowley’s new Religion, Thelema, which had been partially inspired by Golden Dawn. They wound up having two daughters, one of whom died of typhoid. Apparently because of grief from this loss, Rose started drinking heavily. A few years later, Crowley and Rose divorced and by 1911, Rose was institutionalized.

Crowley continued to develop his religion.

Around 1920 Crowley and several followers traveled to Sicily and set up his Abby of Thelema at Cefalu. He and his acolytes remained at the Abby engaging in their depraved sexual and occult practices until Benito Mussolini caught wind of what they were doing. Mussolini was so disgusted he ordered Crowley and his followers all deported.

After travelling in North Africa for a time, Crowley eventually returned to England where he concentrated on writing. In his books and articles he promoted the occult, sexual excess and sexual liberation, and a no limits anything goes lifestyle. Crowley believed in and engaged in unfettered sex with same and opposite sex partners, even with children and teens. His followers followed suit.

It was about this time that the British press labeled Crowley the “wickedest man in the world.” That’s pretty bad considering all the evil going on in the early 20^th century—the rise of organized crime, the emergence of Fascism, the slaughter of the Russian Revolution . . . the horrors perpetrated by the architects of World War I.

Undaunted, Crowley continued to promote his religion, Thelema, and pleasure seeking lifestyles that recognized none of the boundaries of civilized society. His followers were encouraged to do whatever they wanted which was the first principle of Thelema: “’Do What Thou Wilt’ is the whole of the law.” The original list of foundational obligations for Thelemites were:

• To discover and express one’s own Will.

• To abstain from knowingly restricting others from discovering and expressing their own Will.

• To attempt to eliminate those forces that restrict the discovery and expression of Will (i.e. Tyranny, Superstition, and Oppression).

There are dozens of Thelemic orders throughout the United States and Europe today. “Do What Thou Wilt” remains the first principle, but over the years the original “obligations” have been expanded and clarified as follows:

• Each individual has a Will (or ‘True Will’ to distinguish it from one’s wants, wishes, and desires), their purpose on Earth, a Nature to fulfill, and each person’s sole right and duty is to find that Will and to do it.

• Each individual is Divine, the center of their own universe. This is one central meaning of the phrase ‘Every man and every woman is a star.’

• Each individual therefore has their own unique Way in the world, with their own unique ‘good’ and ‘bad’ suitable to their Nature.

• Each individual has the right to be who they are, especially in terms of sexual and gender identity. There is no ‘preferred’ gender identity in Thelema except the one that is the best fulfillment of your nature. As it is said, ‘Take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will?’

• Thelemites engage in various spiritual practices, often those of Magick (sic) and Yoga, to try to deepen their understanding of their true nature and Will.

Prominent people took an interest in Crowley in increasing numbers after he died at age 72 in 1947. One of his admirers was Alfred Kinsey. After publishing his two earth changing books, “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male,” and “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female,” Kinsey traveled to Crowley’s home, to locations of the orders of Thelema, and to the Abby of Thelema in Sicily. He was looking for original material on the sexual practices Crowley engaged in, especially for Crowley’s diaries on sex magic. Kinsey was unsuccessful.

Others, too, became enamored with Crowley’s teaching. The Beatles included a photo of Aleister Crowley on the cover of their album, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” and John Lennon said the Beatle’s philosophy was the same as Crowley’s, asserting “[t]he whole Beatle idea was to do what you want, right?  To take your own responsibility.” David Bowie, wrote Crowley into his song, Quicksand,

“I’m closer to the Golden Dawn, Immersed in Crowley’s uniform, I’m not a prophet or a stone age man, Just a mortal with potential of a superman”

Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin bought Crowley’s former home in Scotland, and Timothy Leary was inspired by Crowley when he encouraged his 60’s followers to “turn on, tune in, and drop out.” Leary believed he was carrying on what Crowley started.

Even Jack Parsons, a rocket scientist who founded NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab was a devoted follower of Crowley. So it was not just members of the counter-culture who were enamored with Crowley’s vision of a hedonistic lifestyle.

Many of Crowley’s  books remain available on Amazon today. And his philosophy has become infused throughout Western culture.

Does this make him a great man? There is no objective measure by which he could be considered great. Yet he has had a profound influence on us, starting with the counter-culture of the 60’s and 70’s and extending right into the 21^st century. The occult, the new age religion, the bondage to pleasure, the desire to ever expanding sexual boundaries, his shadow envelopes it all.

No. He was not great. Evil is the more appropriate term.

But what does this say about us? How can a man go from being considered the wickedest man on earth, someone so depraved Mussolini couldn’t allow him to remain in Italy, to being considered one of the greatest men in the history of Great Briton, a nation whose empire once spanned the entire globe? How did this happen?

Darkness is now viewed as light. Evil is now seen as good.

Where is the church?

If you ever doubted that we wrestle against spiritual forces of evil who call good evil and evil good, then please watch these two videos of brief statements made on the floor of the Illinois House on Wednesday.

First, watch this video of one of Illinois’ finest lawmakers, the always gracious Tom Morrison (R-Palatine), who civilly expressed his views on the injustice of eradicating public recognition of sex differences, including in women’s private spaces and sports.

Then watch this video of Illinois’ worst lawmaker, the sanctimonious, arrogant, and venomous lesbian Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), who, in response to Morrison, hurled indefensible lies at him, refusing even to use his name.

I urge you to watch these videos because how each Illinois House member spoke is almost as important as what they said. But for your convenience, the transcripts of both statements are set forth below, beginning with Morrison’s. Please read it carefully, so you are able to discern whether Cassidy’s response was justifiable:

For these past several weeks, we’ve been hearing facts about women’s history month, and I’m sure that we’ll hear more facts today and this week. When we hear those words, we think about our own mothers, wives, daughters, other notable women throughout history. We objectively know what a woman is, but it’s become increasingly common now to pretend that we don’t know. This is becoming George Orwell’s 1984. It’s Newspeak. It’s gaslighting. It’s activists pounding the table to declare that two plus two equals five. And that does not make it so. Demands that society accept lies as facts in the name of tolerance, inclusion, and justice is anything but. It’s not right, compassionate, or just.

This past weekend, the NCAA allowed a man to become a national champion in women’s swimming. This action was months and years in the making, and it denied that rightful place of honor to actual female athletes, several of whom were denied being named All Americans because their place was taken by University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas. Anyone who thinks that fairness in sports competition is the only issue here is missing the point.

Months ago, teammates of Lia Thomas complained to school officials that Thomas had exposed male nudity repeatedly in their locker room. This should have been a clearcut case of indecency and harassment, but university officials ignored the women’s concerns and discomfort. “Listen to women.” In this case, hardly.

Parents in Los Alamitos, California last month sent their fifth-grade girls on a three-day overnight school science field trip. After the weekend concluded, the girls told their parents that three male counselors who identify as non-binary shared those cabin quarters with the girls for each of the nights. Schools in Illinois already have similar policies. And most parents don’t even know, nor will they be told by school officials, less they be accused of discrimination.

In several states, including California, Washington State, and even here in Illinois, hundreds of male inmates, many of whom are serving time for sexual crimes or other crimes of violence are self-declaring as female or non-binary. And they’re getting a transfer to a women’s-only facility. There’s no requirement for surgery, no requirement for hormone therapy. Even if that did make the policy less bad, any sane person realizes how outrageous this is, but the practice continues and is expanding as more individuals realize what they can get away with.

According to a press report, President Joe Biden is now reportedly planning or considering I should say an executive order modeled after the California law, which would allow federal inmates to self-identify their gender and choose between a male or female prison.

Ideas have consequences. It is a minority of vocal activists who continue to push this ideology on all levels of society, including to young school children. It’s an ideology that is at war with reality, and we must stop blindly going along.

We can and should be kind to individuals who suffer from gender dysphoria, but we can do so without completely and irrationally upending society, which is already happening at lightning speed. If we really believe in the protection of women and women’s rights, we must acknowledge the harms being done and bring a stop to this, including the silence and passive acceptance about what’s really going on.

I imagine that here in this body, and perhaps beyond this chamber, there will be some who will try to condemn me and my words, but I’d like to close with these words by columnist Selwyn Duke: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”

Thank you.

Now read Cassidy’s statement:

Last week, my constituent Elise Malary was pulled out of Lake Michigan. Elise was a shining example of what we want people to do and be in our community. She was part of our community on the North Side. She was dedicated to uplifting the people that she lived and worked with every day. She is one of too many black trans women whose lives mean nothing to the man on the other side of this room. She is one of many transgendered youth who are at increased risk of suicide because of the actions of people like the man that just spoke.

We are watching around the country as right-wing politicians take aim at trans youth and their families picking on the least of these. I’ve watched for years as my colleague has tormented trans youth in his community. And the brave young woman who stood up to that behavior is now my constituent as well. And to every trans youth out there listening,  to every parent who loves and affirms their children as God gave them to them, that’s not happening here in Illinois.

We will not follow in the footsteps of states that are tormenting these families and driving them away. We will embrace our youth. We will protect our youth and we will work together to solve the epidemic of murders and suicides among trans women in our community because we actually love and care for people as God made them. I don’t want to hear any more hate speech on this floor, not from anyone. And if we can only do one thing to honor Elise Malary’s memory, it’s to do that. Hate speech does not belong on this floor, not now, not ever.

For those who don’t know, “Elise” Malary, was a 31-year-old man who identified as a woman. He was not—as Cassidy implied—a “youth.” His age doesn’t make his death less tragic. Rather, his age reveals how misleading and manipulative Cassidy is.

To summarize, Morrison believes it is unjust for women to lose sports awards and records to biological men. He believes it is unjust for adult men to room with young girls. And he believes it is unjust for female prisoners to be housed with male criminals.

So too do feminists from the other side of the political aisle, including the Women’s Liberation Front, Naomi Wolf, Kara Dansky, the Women’s Declaration International, and J.K. Rowling. In Cassidy’s view, are all these left-leaning feminists—including many lesbians—guilty of hate speech for expressing their belief that sex-based rights exist and that denial of them is unjust? Does defending the sex-based rights of girls and women constitute the tormenting of gender-dysphoric boys in Cassidy’s distorted view?

I have seen and heard a lot of repugnant things spewed by the unscrupulous demagogue Cassidy, but nothing as repugnant as her exploitation of a tragic death to smear of one of Illinois’ finest public servants. In her vitriolic diatribe, she trembled with unrighteous rage as she falsely accuses Morrison of not caring about the death of a “black trans youth.” What is her evidence for this allegation?

What evidence did Cassidy provide for her malignant claim that Morrison doesn’t care about the deaths of “trans”-identifying youth or that his words about the reality and meaning of objective, immutable biological sex causes the suicide of “trans”-identifying youth?

What is Cassidy’s evidence that Morrison hates and “torments” trans people? What is her evidence that Morrison (or the millions of men and women who share his beliefs on gender dysphoria) hates those who identify as “trans”? Does Cassidy hate everyone who believes differently than she does on gender, sex, and “sexual orientation”? If so, then she must hate a huge swath of people, including many Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims.

What is her evidence that God “made” gender dysphoria? Did God make Minor Attraction? Zoophilia? Genetic Sexual Attraction? Did God make body dysmorphia? Did God make schizophrenia? Did God make cleft palate or spinal bifida? Or does God make humans in a world corrupted by the fall that results in disordered bodies, minds, and hearts?

In Cassidy’s view, does “loving and caring for others just the way God made them” include loving and caring for Christians just the way God made them? Does such love demand she affirm all their desires, beliefs, and actions? Does caring for and loving pedophiles or hebephiles require affirming their feelings and identities?

Is Cassidy aware that many in the medical and mental health communities believe that gender dysphoria and “trans”-identification may be symptoms—like depression and anxiety—of underlying causes, including autism, trauma, abuse, and psychosocial experiences?

Is she aware that hospitals in Sweden and the UK have stopped providing hormonal “treatment” to minors? Are they hateful? Should they be prohibited from speaking? While children and teens with gender dysphoria need compassion and treatment, the disputed question is what kind of treatment is best. Disagreeing with Cassidy on the best path forward does not constitute hatred of gender-dysphoric youth.

Cassidy concludes with an astonishing display of arrogance. Cassidy arrogates to herself the right to define “hate speech” and then arrogates to herself the right to ban it from the House floor? Unbelievable hubris.

Word to Cassidy, Christians think her assumptions about gender, sex, and “sexual orientation” are false and destructive. Many Christians feel uncomfortable and even marginalized by what they view as her hate speech and her attempts to silence dissent. They find her words as intolerant and bigoted as she finds the words of Rep. Morrison.

Why did no Republicans respond to Cassidy’s intemperate, uncivil, indefensible statement? Are there no Republicans with the integrity and courage to speak publicly as Morrison did on this issue of profound importance? Are there no Republicans willing to call for Cassidy to be censured?

Republicans who said nothing following Cassidy’s calumny should be ashamed.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Kelly-Cassidy-Hits-New-Ethical-Low.mp3

One of the more grotesque demonstrations of leftist non-sense and hypocrisy was demonstrated a week ago following an episode of the wildly popular Disney show The Mandalorian when “Baby Yoda” eats the unfertilized eggs of a Frog Woman who is transporting her eggs to her husband so he can fertilize them thereby preventing their species’ imminent extinction. Fans of Baby Yoda freaked out, incensed at the lighthearted treatment of what they deemed genocide by the beloved Baby Yoda.

The moral incoherence and hypocrisy should be obvious. In the Upside Down where leftists live, when a human mother hires someone to dismember her own fertilized human egg—aka human fetus/embryo/baby—they demand that society affirm, celebrate, and shout the execution of those tiny humans. In fact, the voluntary dismemberment of fertilized human eggs at any gestational age is so morally innocuous and such an unmitigated public good that leftists think all Americans should pay for the executions of humans in utero.

In the Upside Down, the genocidal killing of all fertilized human eggs with Down Syndrome is at best morally neutral if not morally good, but the fictional devouring of unfertilized Frog Critters’ eggs is morally repugnant. Just wondering, if fertilized human eggs are parasites so devoid of personhood as to render them morally legitimate objects to kill, if it’s okay to dismember them because they’re imperfect non-persons, would there be anything wrong with eating their remains?

Leftists views on the slaughter of fertilized human eggs is just the most grotesque of their many morally incoherent views. Here are a few more:

• According to leftists, concerns of conservatives about possible 2020 election “irregularities”—including via computer malfeasance and malfunction—are evidence of paranoid conspiracy theories, but when leftists express such concerns, they’re sound, reasonable, and legitimate. In 2019, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden proposed an amendment titled “Protecting American Votes and Elections Act” to the “Help America Vote Act of 2002.” His proposed amendment was signed by 14 co-sponsors—all Democrats—including a who’s who of presidential wannabes: Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Duckworth, Brian Schatz, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, Maria Cantwell, Kamala Harris, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, and Patty Murray. Wyden provided a summary of his amendment that includes the following:

Votes cast with paperless voting machines cannot be subjected to a manual recount, and so there is no way to determine the real election results if they are hacked. H.R. 1 …  mandates paper ballots.

In order to detect hacks, this bill requires election bodies to conduct audits of all federal elections, regardless of how close the election, by employing statistically rigorous “risk-limiting audits.”

There are currently no mandatory standards for election cybersecurity, which has resulted in some states operating election infrastructure that is needlessly vulnerable to hacking. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sets voluntary standards for voting machines, but states can and do ignore these standards. There are no standards at all for voter registration websites or other parts of our election infrastructure.

• Leftists heartily endorse bodily damage and disfigurement as sound “treatment” protocols for those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their sexual embodiment as male or female, but bodily damage and disfigurement of those who experience a mismatch between their internal feelings and their whole or healthy bodies (i.e., those with Body Integrity Identity Disorder who identify as amputees or paraplegics) are considered barbaric and ethically prohibited.

• Leftists condemn conservatives as “science-deniers” for disagreeing with them on the degree to which climate change is caused by human action or on how to respond to climate change. At the same time, the purported science-worshippers claim that men can menstruate, become pregnant, and “chestfeed,” and they claim that the product of conception between two persons is not a person. Anyone who refuses to concede to such nonsense is mocked, reviled, de-platformed, and fired. Just ask Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling or Wall Street Journal writer and author of Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier.

• Leftists claim that marriage has no connection to either sexual differentiation or reproductive potential. They vociferously claim that marriage is solely constituted by love, and that “love is love.” And yet most leftists don’t think two brothers in a consensual loving relationship should be able to legally marry.

• Leftists claim there’s no story behind or within Hunter Biden’s emails and texts that prove Joe Biden straight up lied to the American public, and yet they claimed there was a story of such magnitude and enormity within Christopher Steele’s imaginative “dossier,” that it necessitated 24-hour coverage for years.

• Leftists claim that eliminating the Electoral College and filibuster and packing the U.S. Supreme Court constitute necessary changes to enhance “democracy,” but implementing legal processes to ensure an election was fair undermines democracy.

• Every gathering of leftists, including mostly violent protests, a takeover of six city blocks, trips to hair salons (Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi), a post-election street celebration (Lori Lightfoot), a holiday boating excursion (attempted by husband of Michigan Governor Christine Whitmer), restaurant dining (California Governor Gavin Newsom, CNN narcissist Chris Cuomo), a funeral/Democrat campaign event (i.e., John Lewis’ faux-funeral) are COVID-immune and justifiable. But an Orthodox Jewish funeral, an entirely peaceful protest of draconian COVID restrictions, and a march in support of a transparent and fair election are denounced as super-spreader events.

• Serial killer of senior citizens, Andrew “Quietus” Cuomo, commands citizens to “admit” their “mistakes” and “shortcomings” with regard to how they responded to the Chinese Communist virus even as he refuses to apologize for his policies that killed scores of elderly.

• To leftists, social science is the god that determines all moral truth, and yet despite social science demonstrating repeatedly that children—especially boys—need fathers, the left refuses to discuss how fatherless families may be contributing to the anti-social behavior that is destroying our cities.

• Leftists claim to value free speech, religious liberty, inclusivity, diversity, tolerance, and unity while condemning not just the beliefs of those with whom they disagree, but also the persons themselves. Many leftists share an uncharitable, presumptuous, ugly, tyrannical, oppressive, and scary desire that those who believe homosexual acts are immoral, who believe marriage has an ontology, who believe biological sex is immutable and meaningful, and who believe bodily damage and disfigurement are improper treatment protocols for gender dysphoria should be unable to work anywhere in America.

To create the illusion that they’re not hypocrites and to defend their intolerance, exclusion, divisiveness, hatred of persons, book banning, speech suppression, demand for ideological uniformity, and efforts to circumscribe the  exercise of religion—which for Christians extends far outside the church walls—leftists resort to fallacious reasoning. The fallacies they employ are too numerous to list, but two of their faves are the ad hominem fallacy and the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Ad hominem is an informal fallacy in which an irrelevant personal attack replaces a logical argument. It proves nothing about the soundness, truth, or falsity of a claim. Instead it appeals to emotion and silences debate through intimidation.

The fallacy of circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion presumes the premise (i.e., the initial claim) is true without proving it true. So, for example, leftists–ignoring their purported commitment to the First Amendment–argue that homosexual acts are moral acts and, therefore, there is no need to tolerate the expression of dissenting views. But the intolerance they are trying to defend is based on the truth of their premise that homosexual acts are moral—a premise they simply assume without proving is true.

Here’s another: Leftists assert that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings, and, therefore, the government has no reason not to recognize unions between two people of the same sex as marriages, because such couples can experience love and erotic desire. But the premise—i.e., that marriage is constituted solely by subjective romantic and erotic feelings—hasn’t been proved.

And here’s yet another claim about marriage based on circular reasoning: Leftists argue that the reason government is involved in marriage is to grant public legitimacy or provide “dignity” to erotic/romantic unions and, therefore, the government has an obligation to recognize homoerotic unions as marriages. The problem is that those who make this argument fail to prove their claim that the reason government is involved in marriage is to recognize, provide, or impart “dignity” to unions. Those who make this argument just assume their premise is true.

After employing fallacious circular reasoning and hurling ad hominem epithets at their opponents, leftists sanctimoniously wipe the dust off their dirty hands and assert that their hypocrisy isn’t really hypocrisy after all.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ideological-Non-Sense-and-Hypocrisy-of-Leftists.mp3

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust. 

IFI is supported by voluntary donations from good people like you.

In their pursuit of replacing culture with anti-culture, the spanking new 21st Century culture Reformers are going to be very busy. Rather than nailing 95 theses on a church door, they’re going to tear down 950,000 monuments and place names honoring imperfect and altogether yucky colorless people and replace them I guess with the names of perfect colorful people. This provides yet more evidence of the silliness of Barack Obama’s out-of-context quote, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” It also provides evidence of the truth of Dr. Martin Luther King‘s use of the quote, first spoken by 19th Century pastor Theodore Parker:

Evil may so shape events that Caesar will occupy a palace and Christ a cross, but that same Christ will rise up and split history into A.D. and B.C., so that even the life of Caesar must be dated with [Christ’s] name. Yes, “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Neither Theodore Parker nor Dr. King was making the point that history moves always and ineluctably toward justice. They were making the point that ultimately Christ will redeem history. Christ has already won. It’s interesting that leftists have adopted BCE and CE in order to no longer refer to Christ. No matter, Christ still wins.

In the meantime, the devil roams the earth lying and destroying.

Now, after decades of canceling conservatives through a thousand tiny cuts and an occasional deep slash, the Reformers smell all that yummy human blood and are mercilessly cannibalizing their own.

The cannibals at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art forced out their curator, Gary Garrels, “[c]onsidered one of the country’s most prominent curators,” for the sin of saying he “would not stop collecting work by white men lest the institution take part in ‘reverse discrimination.’” The cannibals leapt on him. First, he tried futilely to stop the attack by groveling, saying,

I want to offer my personal and sincere apology to every one of you. I realized almost as soon as I used the term ‘reverse discrimination’ that this is an offensive term and was an extremely poor choice of words on my part.

His groveling delayed their devouring by seconds. The Cannibal Reformers responded, yum yum eat ‘im up. He’s gone, baby, gone.

The Cannibal Reformers have been noshing on Lin-Manuel Miranda, the beloved leftist author of the beloved musical Hamilton, for being insufficiently Reformed.

Homosexual, slightly conservative and now former New York magazine writer Andrew Sullivan was nibbled on for writing in ways about the protests that “triggered” “sensitive junior editors.” He resigned before being eaten alive.

And on social media and in her former place of business, writer Bari Weiss, who describes herself as  “center left on most things … and … socially liberal,” was gnawed on mercilessly. When the Cannibal Reformers, with blood dripping from their ghoulish mouths, paused to catch their breath, Weiss fled and used her best weapon to try to stop the cannibalization. She wrote and posted a resignation letter that exposes the intolerant, bigoted, ideologically non-diverse work environment at the New York Times:

[T]he lessons that ought to have followed the [2016] election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. …

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist. … Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned. …  [S]ome coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. …

[T]he truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. … Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Weiss’s resignation echoes what leftist journalist Matt Taibbi wrote in June:

It feels liberating to say after years of tiptoeing around the fact, but the American left has lost its mind. It’s become a cowardly mob of upper-class social media addicts, Twitter Robespierres who move from discipline to discipline torching reputations and jobs with breathtaking casualness.

I worked with such Robespierres and experienced firsthand their bigotry and hypocrisy at Deerfield High School on Chicago’s North Shore. Ironically, some of the most vicious bullies were those who most vigorously claimed to honor all voices and to value diversity even as they promoted only one set of assumptions on how to think about race, sex, and erotic attraction. All views with which district oppressors disagreed were designated “hateful” and  their imperious judgments justified silencing—through bullying if necessary—all dissenting voices. While proclaiming that everyone should “Speak” their “Truth,” they ostracized anyone who expressed truths they hated.

Seeing the cannibals eating their own, ethics (or panic) seized 153 men and women who work in journalism, academia, and the arts—mostly leftists—and penned an open letter in Harpers in which they “raise their voices against” the “new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.” The signatories include Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Todd Gitlin, Garry Kasparov, Damon Linker, Steven Pinker, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, Jonathan Rauch, J.K. Rowling, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, Randi Weingarten, Garry Wills, Matthew Yglesias, and Fareed Zakaria.

After first taking potshots at conservatives, as is their wont to do, they wrote this:

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. … [C]ensoriousness is … spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters.

But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. … the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.

Some of the most bloodthirsty cancel culture cannibals live and move and have their anti-being in the “trans” cult, and when Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling said men can’t be women, the Cannibal Reformers came for her with bared fangs and unsheathed drag queen talons. Fortunately, Rowling has an impenetrable armor made of gold bricks. Unfortunately, few Americans have such armor. Maybe AOC, Bernie, and Biden can provide some to each and every American—oh, and while they’re providing free stuff, I’d like my fair share: a Martha’s Vineyard mansion just like the Obamas’.

While this letter is a good start in undoing the damage done to the Republic by leftists, seeing the name of the president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, undermines trust in the sincerity of the signatories in that teachers’ unions are at the forefront of leftist politicking, including using schools to advance their leftist ideology.

Not surprisingly, when the letter was published, the Cannibal Reformers lost what was left of their minds, beginning with Todd VanDerWerff, whose “trans” alter ego is “Emily” VanDerWerff. To be clear in the miasmic ontological fog created by the noxious exhalations of the “trans” cult, “Emily” is a biological man—forever.

He, like Harper’s letter signatory Matthew Yglesias, is a writer at Vox, and VanDerWerff laughably claimed that upon seeing Yglesias’ signature near the signature of J.K. Rowling, he felt “less safe working at Vox.” And the Cannibal Reformers were off and terrorizing.

Leftist stormtroopers unaccustomed to pushback kicked up a Twitter storm, and fearing for their professional lives, a handful of Harper’s letter signatories bailed. Three days later, a racist counter letter appeared, griping that many of the Harper’s letter signatories were “white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms.” Of course many were wealthy and endowed with massive platforms because only those with wealth and massive platforms can survive the Cannibal Reformers’ Purges.

What we need now is massive pushback against ideological Robespierres, storm troopers, and Cannibal Reformers. Don’t let their tactics intimidate you. Don’t be manipulated. Don’t be deceived. Don’t hold your fire. And don’t send your kids to their re-education camps.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Leftists-Canceling-and-Cannibalizing-Their-Own_audio.mp3

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. As always, your gift to IFI is tax-deductible and greatly appreciated!

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

In a shocking U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch voted with the axis of evil—that is, with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the axis of evil decided that in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the word “sex” includes “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”—both subjectively constituted conditions. As a result, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin,” now prohibits employers from firing employees who self-identify as homosexual or as the sex they are not and never can be.

The crux of the argument goes something like this: If a company that allows a woman who gets breast implants and wears lipstick, stilettos, and dresses to work fires a man who gets breast implants and wears lipstick, stilettos, and dresses to work, the company has discriminated against him based on his sex and, therefore, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Not only are “trans”-cultists eradicating all public accommodation of real sex differences, but they’re also eradicating every cultural convention that recognizes, honors, and reinforces sex differences. They’re saying that not only are they permitted to reject cultural conventions regarding hairstyles, jewelry, clothing, and makeup, but everyone else must. Further, even biological reality as a signifier of biological sex must be rejected by everyone. So, as the very liberal author of the Harry Potter series, J.K. Rowling, has learned, no one may say that only women menstruate.

The tyrannical Supremacist Court of the United States has declared from on its high horse that no employer with over 15 employees may fire an employee who decides to cross-dress at work. For those who remain blissfully unaware, there are efforts afoot to make such a view apply to companies with fewer than 15 employees too.

What if the owner of an independent toy store with three locations in neighboring towns employs 15 people and one of those employees announces he will henceforth “identify” as a woman. Now he cannot be fired—not even if the store where the cross-dressing man works will be destroyed because parents will no longer bring their toddlers and young children to an establishment that will require them to explain perversion to children who are too young to understand it and may be disturbed by it.

Many obstetrician-gynecologists staff their offices with only women—including only women nurses. Now imagine that one of those nurses announces she will be socially, chemically, and surgically “transitioning” and hopes to look like this biological woman one day (yes, this is a woman):

Is it just for doctors to be prohibited from firing her?

In their dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito issued a stinging rebuke of the hubris of the majority opinion:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on any of five specified grounds: “race, color, religion, sex, [and] national origin.” … Neither “sexual orientation” nor “gender identity” appears on that list. For the past 45 years, bills have been introduced in Congress to add “sexual orientation” to the list, and in recent years, bills have included “gender identity” as well. But to date, none has passed both Houses. Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would amend Title VII by defining sex discrimination to include both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” … This bill remains before a House Subcommittee.

Because no such amendment of Title VII has been enacted in accordance with the requirements in the Constitution … Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of “sex” still means what it has always  meant. But the Court is not deterred by these constitutional niceties. Usurping the constitutional authority of the other branches, the Court has essentially taken H. R. 5’s provision on employment discrimination and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall.

The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of “sex” is different from discrimination because of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.” And in any event, our duty is to interpret statutory terms to “mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written.”

Alito and Thomas preview the deleterious effects this decision will have on American life and liberty:

As the briefing in these cases has warned, the position that the Court now adopts will threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety. No one should think that the Court’s decision represents an unalloyed victory for individual liberty.

While churches and other religious organizations, including religious schools, will probably be allowed what is called a “ministerial exception”—at least for a time—for those involved in teaching the tenets of their faith, it is unlikely that exemption will apply to those employed in other positions. For example, a private Christian school will be prohibited from firing any math, science, Spanish, or P.E. teacher, secretary, custodian, cafeteria worker, playground supervisor, or crossing guard who decides to identify as the opposite sex, cross-dress, take cross-sex hormones, and surgically disguise his or her sex.

For those churches, Christian schools, and parachurch organizations that reassure themselves that such events are unlikely, just remember what’s happened to Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who has been relentlessly sued by “LGBT” persons. Sexual subversives are going to specifically target Christian institutions.

Alito and Thomas warn that this pernicious SCOTUS decision will likely be used force the sexual integration of bathrooms, locker rooms, and women’s shelters; to force people to use “gender” obliterators’ “preferred pronouns”; to force employers to cover “costly sex reassignment surgery”; and to force colleges to assign dorm rooms based on the sex students wish they were rather than the sex they are.

This pernicious decision will be used too as a precedent when challenges to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 appear before the U.S. Supreme Court. How could the Court now conclude any way other than that the word “sex” in Title IX includes “gender identity.” When the axis of evil decides that, women’s sports are destroyed, and eventually all women’s records from high school, college, the Olympics, and professional sports will be broken by men.

Good job feminist supporters of the “trans” cult.

In Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate dissent, he emphasizes the violation of the separation of powers that the decision represents:

Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court. … [W]e are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.”… If judges could rewrite laws based on their own policy views, or based on their own assessments of likely future legislative action, the critical distinction between legislative authority and judicial authority that undergirds the Constitution’s separation of powers would collapse, thereby threatening the impartial rule of law and individual liberty. …

Both common parlance and common legal usage treat sex discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination as two distinct categories of discrimination—back in 1964 and still today. As to common parlance, few in 1964 (or today) would describe a firing because of sexual orientation as a firing because of sex. As commonly understood, sexual orientation discrimination is distinct from, and not a form of, sex discrimination. The majority opinion acknowledges the common understanding, noting that the plaintiffs here probably did not tell their friends that they were fired because of their sex. That observation is clearly correct. In common parlance, Bostock and Zarda were fired because they were gay, not because they were men. …

Who likes this SCOTUS decision? The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), that’s who. GLSEN’s raison d’être, is to use schools to normalize sexual deviance, which, of course, means eradicating theologically orthodox views on sexuality. GLSEN tweeted,

[T]oday’s landmark SCOTUS ruling will help to protect the many LGBTQ educators in K-12 schools who have faced harassment or job loss for simply being who they are. It also underscores the need for Congress to pass the Equality Act.

“Who they are” is a convenient bit of Newspeak to conceal what “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” really are. According to cultural regressives, “sexual orientation” is constituted by subjective, internal romantic and erotic feelings and volitional erotic acts. “Gender identity” is constituted by subjective, internal feelings about one’s maleness and/or femaleness or lack thereof. Now that SCOTUS includes conditions constituted—not by any objective criteria—but by subjective sexual feelings, all that remains is for sexual anarchists allied with other anarchists to expand the definition of “sexual orientation” and the job of sexual wokesters will be done. #CultureDestroyed.

So, in the service of “inclusivity,” they will work like the Devil and for the Devil to include polyamory, Genetic Sexual Attraction (i.e., consensual, adult incest), Minor Attraction (i.e., pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia), infantilism, zoophilia (i.e., bestiality), and every other sexual philia in the list of sexual orientations.

Then once that is accomplished, laws will protect celebrants of sexual disorder from being fired and schools will teacher kindergartners that love is love. Poly “love” will be called good. “Love” between two adult brothers will be deemed equivalent to interracial love. And teaching that “love” between humans and animals is wrong will be condemned as ignorant bigotry based on the hateful ideology of speciesism.

By the way, those naively depending on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to protect their religious liberty can forget about it. The Equality Act, which eventually will pass, explicitly guts RFRA.

This SCOTUS decision is not a victory for the country or for freedom. It’s another tragic defeat for the constitutional separation of powers, self-government, morality, truth, speech rights, and religious liberty. Conservative Christians, you’ve been warned—again.

Listen to this article read by Laurie: 

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Shocking-SCOTUS-Decision-Shockingly-Written-by-Gorsuch.mp3

We take very seriously the trust you place in Illinois Family Institute when you send a gift.
We understand that we are accountable before you and God to honor your trust.