A World Without Ruth
THE FEMALE sex is in deep mourning. Or so we are told.
The murderous hag, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supposedly the epitome of what women aspire to be, has died after years of appearing on death’s door. She was 87.
The Supreme Court is a decadent institution with a penchant for inverting the natural order of the world with desiccated abstractions. Supreme Court justices are the high priests of the American, Masonic civil religion. Their job is to wipe out the sacred and leave ordinary people to deal with the messy ramifications of their legal jousting and with the sheer ugliness of it all. They often favor big business over the little guy. They do this in rulings from their pompously pillared temple in Washington, D.C. Ginsburg stands out for her role as non-stop activist on the dark-robed Bench of Beezlebub.
“When I’m sometimes asked ‘When will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]?’ and I say ‘When there are nine,’ people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”
Her idea of equality was often not very equal.
“Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation,” she said.
She denied any natural basis for longstanding sex roles and therefore denied that equality is a very complicated matter. After all men supporting women with their lifelong wage labor was indeed taking “responsibility of bringing up the next generation.”
In Gonzales v. Carhart, Ginsburg vehemently opposed a ban on “partial-birth abortion,” saying of the practice “this way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women’s place in society and under the constitution ideas that have long since been discredited.”
It also recalls ancient notions of murder.
She absolutely loved it when men and women committed themselves to lifelong sterility. Men “marrying” men and women “marrying women,” was one of her primary causes and all of the anti-justices, she was the most activist on the issue. Her role was decisive in many court decisions.
“When oral argument for Obergefell v. Hodges were heard in the Supreme Court, the attorney for the state of Michigan argued that marriage was defined as one man and one woman and had been for thousands of years. Ginsburg replied:
“We have changed our idea about marriage is the point that I made earlier. Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.” (Source)
She was a master at distorting the truth with these flat-out false assertions. Male privileges in law and custom were often meant to make up for the many privileges of women, such as the right to almost every dollar men made in work digging ditches, fixing plumbing and building highways, to mention a few of the menial occupations of men.
She made the world safer for women in combat. In United States v. Virginia, 1996, she “wrote the majority opinion that would serve as a milestone moment for women’s rights and university admission policies. The case challenged a policy by the Virginia Military Institute that barred women from being admitted to the institution. Although the state of Virginia said it would create a separate educational program for women for the military institute, Ginsberg [sic] questioned its merits, writing that ‘Women seeking and fit for a VMI-quality education cannot be offered anything less, under the Commonwealth’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection.’ (Source)
She thus prepared the way for removal of the men-only draft.
Women were queens long before they were Supreme Court justices. Modern revolutionaries like Ginsburg did not invent the idea of women having power or doing things other than the dishes. But they want not womanly power, they want masculine power and the sexes to be both androgynes, the complementarities and mysterious attractions that go with their differences distorted.
Ginsburg, we are told again and again, was razor-sharp brilliant.
Really?
When in Obergefell, one attorney argued that marriage was fundamentally about procreation. Ginsburg responded:
“Suppose a couple, a 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions, you know they are not going to have any children.”
She wasn’t smart enough to know that it is the cultural institution of marriage that is fundamentally about procreation? Elderly couples don’t threaten that. Men “marrying” men do.
I think she was smart enough to know that. This wasn’t brilliance so much as manipulation.
She worked to make both men and woman as materialistic, divided and non-procreative as possible, which suits the needs of … powerful people. Think of her as a warrior. The goal is to prevent the enemy from procreating. She only lacked a spear, a breastplate and visible bloodstains. She battled to undermine the greatest power women had, as makers of home and culture, and the immense privileges civilization had granted them. She would never have made a contented domestic matriarch and the Christian world had produced so many beautiful (and I don’t mean physically beautiful necessarily) examples of the type.
Has God found our legal superstar to be as witty and wise as the media is telling us she was?
Let’s just say, she fought for rights for everybody — except for Him.
Even a smart judge is not always wise. (more…)
