Archive | May 2014

Utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide

Well actually, utilitarianism + pretty much anything = genocide.  But let’s talk about White supremacy.

Here’s a progressive syllogism.

  1. utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide
  2. if White supremacy, then genocide
  3. not White supremacy

QED.  Not only is White supremacy false, but anyone examining it is toying with justifying genocide.

What I would like to do is replace it with a neoreactionary syllogism:

  1. utilitarianism + anything = genocide
  2. stuff
  3. not utilitarianism

Because really, White supremacy is an obvious fact of the world, as noted most poignantly by progressives: what is White privilege but the near-universal acknowledgement of White supremacy?

Atheists should also recognize utilitarianism as heresy

Utilitarianism is the belief that there exists some function that we are here to maximize – the glory of God?  No, human happiness.  And what profits the utilitarian to replace God with a function that God only knows how to calculate?

It is profitable because the utilitarian can then claim to have partially computed the function, which the Christian immediately translates into a claim to know the mind of God, and rejects as heresy.  The atheist should also take exception with such a claim.  Rather than unquestioningly accept an idolatry dressed up in sciency cant, the atheist should reply, how comes this?

Utilitarians can’t themselves personally see anything wrong with Jeremy Bentham’s mummified corpse on display at University College.  So they do it.  They also bind books in human leather, declare a new religion of humanity, guillotine everyone they can get their hands on, shoot everyone wearing glasses, and so on.

Shooting everyone wearing glasses

The real danger of utilitarianism is the shooting everyone wearing glasses.  Why do utilitarians do this kind of thing?  It’s quite simple.  Human happiness will be maximized if we destroy the bourgeoisie, and it is morally necessary to maximize human happiness as quickly as possible.

The argument for genocide is even easier.  Whites are more important than Persons of Color.  Persons of Color consume resources that would be better used for Whites.  Ergo, it is morally necessary to genocide the Persons of Color as quickly as possible.

It doesn’t matter if the gas chambers that killed six million Jews ever existed; White supremacists obviously want to create them, because utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide.

But then again, utilitarianism + class warfare = auto-genocide.  Just as Cambodia or Sichuan Province –

Heaven brings forth innumerable things to nurture man

Man has nothing good with which to recompense Heaven

Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

I think I prefer the updated, Haiku version of Zhang’s charming poem – “Earth nurtures humans / humans can not recompense / kill kill kill kill kill”.

Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger was many things – a communist and a feminist, to be sure.  He was also a White supremacist.  According to his diary / manifesto, when he was 9, “I had to adapt.  My first act was to ask my parents to allow me to bleach my hair blonde.  I always envied and admired blonde-haired people, they always seemed so much more beautiful.”  Of course, he wasn’t only a White supremacist.  Before then, “I desperately wanted to get taller, and I read that playing basketball increases height.  This parked my brief interest in basketball… and also I remember lying on the ground in the basketball court trying to stretch my body as much as I could in between basketball sessions”.

Sorry, Elliot, you can’t be White, and you can’t be taller.

We all work to glorify the same God

The Weather Underground asked the question, “Is it the duty of any good revolutionary to kill any newborn White baby?”

Elliot Rodger replies with question, “Is it the duty of any good Person of Color to kill themself?”

If Elliot Rodger had actually channeled his envy into a desire to destroy the White race, he could have taken a political science major and then gone to work on, as Noel Ignatiev said, the deconstruction of the White race, for the one of the many NGOs working on promoting White guilt or refugee resettlement or something.  Instead, he made a purely symbolic attack and then killed himself.  I can almost admire his honesty.

My answer to their questions is the same.  Duty?  Duty to whom?

Duty to the utility function?  This is odious idolatry.

Duty to their own craven envy?  This is also odious idolatry.

Duty to God?  Absolutely not.

I believe that a human life has this intrinsic value: that each human life is an opportunity to glorify God.  Every human life has this value, from the noblest of kings, to the basest of villeins.  Satan refused to bow to Adam, and went to Hell.  Elliot Rodger refused to live as a Person of Color, and killed himself.

I’m not particularly tall, or blond, or sociable either.  The sad thing is, he couldn’t get a girl in his BMW.  In particular, though, he hated himself for not being White.  Does Batman hate himself for not being a Kryptonian?  Jesus Christ is the only perfect man.

White genocide and non-White genocide

The DailyStormer crowd would like to point out that, had a White man given explicitly racial reasons for killing Persons of Color, we would never hear the end of it.  They are right, of course, that to answer that question would be embarrassing to people with as complicated a relationship with White supremacy as progressives.  Elliot hated Whites out of envy of White supremacy; the putative White murderer of Persons of Color is motivated by wrath towards the inferior, and everyone knows that oppressing the weak is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

White genocide is not implied by utilitarianism from White supremacy – quite the opposite.  Instead, utilitarians must studiously ignore and suppress all evidence for White supremacy, which leads to what Bob Whitaker’s group calls White genocide.

Because despite their utilitarianism, they are unable to convince themselves that genocide is okay.  They can convince themselves that books bound in human leather are cool, or that terror, confiscation, and murder on a theoretically small but ever-increasing scale are okay, but they still have an ineradicable conscience squeaking in the back of their minds – after all, utilitarians are human.

Not only is utilitarianism ridiculous heresy, but utilitarians are unwilling to face its full consequences.

Some quotes

I do not think it likely to be denied… that the keen interest which the community takes in looking on, as a body of spectators, at the various activities of popular government, is the chief reason of the general impression that ours is an Age of Progress, to be indefinitely continued. There are, however, other causes of this impression or belief, which are much less obvious and much less easily demonstrated to the ordinary English politician.
At the head of them, are a group of words, phrases, maxims, and general propositions, which have their root in political theories, not indeed far removed from us by distance of time, but as much forgotten by the mass of mankind as if they had belonged to the remotest antiquity.
How is one to convince the advanced English politician who announces with an air of pride that he is Radical, and indeed a Radical and something more, that he is calling himself by a name which he would never have had the courage to adopt, so deep was its disrepute, if Jeremy Bentham had not given it respectability by associating it with a particular theory of legislation and politics?
How is one to persuade him, when he speaks of the Sovereign People, that he employs a combination of words which would never have occurred to his mind if in 1762 a French philosopher had not written a speculative essay on the origin of society, the formation of States, and the nature of government?
Neither of these theories, the theory of Rousseau which starts from the assumed Natural Rights of Man, or the theory of Bentham which is based on the hypothetical Greatest Happiness principle, is now-a-days explicitly held by many people.
The natural rights of man have indeed made their appearance in recent political discourse… but, of the two theories mentioned above, that of Rousseau which recognises these rights is much the most thoroughly forgotten. For the attempt to apply it led to terrible calamities, while the theory of Bentham has at present led to nothing worse than a certain amount of disappointment. How is it then that these wholly or partially exploded speculations still exercise a most real and practical influence on political thought?
The fact is that political theories are endowed with the faculty possessed by the hero of the Border-ballad. When their legs are smitten off they fight upon their stumps. They produce a host of words, and of ideas associated with those words, which remain active and combatant after the parent speculation is mutilated or dead. Their posthumous influence often extends a good way beyond the domain of politics.

— Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government

By now, that theory of Bentham’s has become everyone’s default assumption, so thoroughly that only a major geek is even aware that any other theory exists.  The consequence of the heresy to claim to know the mind of God is some of the worst evil the world has ever seen.

and Carlyle on capital punishment:

Other ground on which to deliberately slay a disarmed fellow-man I can see none. Example, effects upon the public mind, effects upon this and upon that: all this is mere appendage and accident; of all this I make no attempt to keep account,—sensible that no arithmetic will or can keep account of it; that its “effects,” on this hand and on that, transcend all calculation. One thing, if I can calculate it, will include all, and produce beneficial effects beyond calculation, and no ill effect at all, anywhere or at any time: What the Law of the Universe, or Law of God, is with regard to this caitiff? That, by all sacred research and consideration, I will try to find out; to that I will come as near as human means admit; that shall be my exemplar and “example;” all men shall through me see that, and be profited beyond calculation by seeing it.


What this Law of the Universe, or Law made by God, is? Men at one time read it in their Bible. In many Bibles, Books, and authentic symbols and monitions of Nature and the World (of Fact, that is, and of Human Speech, or Wise Interpretation of Fact), there are still clear indications towards it. Most important it is, for this and for some other reasons, that men do, in some way, get to see it a little! And if no man could now see it by any Bible, there is written in the heart of every man an authentic copy of it direct from Heaven itself: there, if he have learnt to decipher Heaven’s writing, and can read the sacred oracles (a sad case for him if he altogether cannot), every born man may still find some copy of it.

It is right that many of today’s first-world governments don’t practice capital punishment.  After all, it is totally indefensible on utilitarian grounds.  One would hope that utilitarians would realize that nothing can be defended or rejected on utilitarian grounds, because the mind of God is unknowable, but, heretics gotta blaspheme.

Any progressives reading this?

Take a red pill; be a redpilled progressive, which is to say, a neoreactionary.  What does utilitarianism do for you?  Does it justify anything you actually want to do anyway?  Do you still need a consequentialist philosophy to feel good?  Then be a consequentialist, for Heaven’s sake – you don’t need to claim to know the mind of God to do anything!  Unless, of course, you want to justify genocide.  Which I know you don’t want to do.  So drop the pretense, and work to glorify God in your own atheistic way.


This is Zippy’s thesis from 2007, I surely read his article.  I hope I expounded on it a bit though.  Of course, this refutation of utilitarianism probably goes back a long way, to when Bentham was named an honorary citizen of France during their revolution.  Anyway, this is a blog, and I’m a cupcake, so I’m not really expected not to plagiarize 🙂 I like Zippy so I’m giving him a link.


NYT calls for Nigerian genocide

NYT calls for Nigerian genocide

One of the factors that correlates most strongly to instability is a youth bulge in a population. The more unemployed young men ages 15 to 24, the more upheaval.

One study found that for every 1 percentage point increase in the share of the population aged 15 to 24, the risk of civil war increases by 4 percent.

That means that curbing birthrates tends to lead to stability, and that’s where educating girls comes in. You educate a boy, and he’ll have fewer children, but it’s a small effect. You educate a girl, and, on average, she will have a significantly smaller family. One robust Nigeria study managed to tease out correlation from causation and found that for each additional year of primary school, a girl has 0.26 fewer children. So if we want to reduce the youth bulge a decade from now, educate girls today.


Of course, as Bob Whitaker’s group keeps reminding us,

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;


Well actually, it’s not genocide unless


…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:


So as long as Nicholas Kristof doesn’t intend to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group – why, yes he does!  He does intend to destroy a religious group.  And him and his do make explicit their intent to destroy national groups.  But as long as he doesn’t intend to destroy a racial group, which has always been the intended meaning of genocide anyway, then he’s in the clear.

So as long as he doesn’t think about it in the wrong way, he’s not guilty of genocide.  Just like anti-Whites when they do the things that Bob Whitaker’s group accuse them of genocide for.

At the Nuremburg trials, following orders was not an excuse.  Today, ignorance is.

That’s also why people like commies more than they like nazis.  Nazis killed people because they were evil.  Commies kill people because they are stupid.

Anyway, progress is dead, and truth and beauty are already reasserting themselves against arrogant politics in subtle ways.

The dam breaks

ImageThe dam breaks.  The two charges NRx levels at progressivism, democracy and HBD denial, are openly discussed in in the beating heart of the Cathedral; how long before the tainted blood reaches every cell?  The long 20th century, from the 1890s to the 2010s, the age of progress, is over.

It is thus time to eulogize.  Progressivism was about the inherent dignity of the individual human person, approached in an age of technological marvels made possible by reductive science, as a unique entity who can be understood outside of any social context.

Its errors are perhaps best captured by this quote from Persona Humana (by the CDF, under Pope Paul VI, 1975):

The people of our time are more and more convinced that the human person’s dignity and vocation demand that they should discover, by the light of their own intelligence, the values innate in their nature, that they should ceaselessly develop these values and realize them in their lives, in order to achieve an ever greater development.

Therefore there can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected. Of course, in the history of civilization many of the concrete conditions and needs of human life have changed and will continue to change. But all evolution of morals and every type of life must be kept within the limits imposed by the immutable principles based upon every human person’s constitutive elements and essential relations – elements and relations which transcend historical contingency.

To get in the mood, let’s tune to the best hymn of the progressive age, One of Us.

White privilege

There are a few NRx responses to White privilege, the most common being the one Moldbug and everyone make, that it is a red herring, that privus lex belongs to Blacks, and that in a world where Jonathan Foster gets murdered with a blowtorch there are more interesting things going on than White privilege.

And yet every White who doesn’t get followed around in a store because they don’t fit the profile of the typical shoplifter knows that White privilege is real.  Privilege ☑

John Derbyshire wrote two years ago following the outburst of sanctimony regarding the shooting of Trayvon Martin in his post The Talk: Non-Black Version that

Unfortunately the demand is greater than the supply, so IWSBs are something of a luxury good, like antique furniture or corporate jets: boasted of by upper-class whites and wealthy organizations, coveted by the less prosperous. To be an IWSB in present-day US society is a height of felicity rarely before attained by any group of human beings in history. Try to curb your envy: it will be taken as prejudice (see paragraph 13).

I can imagine an IWSB agreeing off the record with Derbyshire’s assessment – with the proviso that racism hangs like the Sword of Damocles, or, rather, sleeps like Fenris, waiting to arise with the Jormugandr and destroy the gods.  And look, racism is back.  The 𝖗𝖆ſſ𝖊𝖓𝖍𝖆ß𝖊𝖗𝖚𝖓𝖌 begins.
Nicholas Wade’s book doesn’t just say that race exists and that races have different properties, that was and is known to every serious person.  Progress swept away HBD awareness when it was at that level; Nicholas Wade is smart enough not to resign to simply restate what had been considered.  Instead, it goes much, much further.
Reddit loves to refer to Gypsies as a criminal ethnicity and Gypsies as criminals; the Chantards are fond of saying “niggers gotta nig”.  To the DailyStormer crowd, the Jews are a nation of highly evolved parasitical nation-wreckers.  People say things like, the frog shouldn’t ask the scorpion ‘why did you sting me’, and ‘you don’t give the bears fishing poles.  If they needed fishing poles, they would make them’ – explicitly dehumanizing the lesser races, whence Social Darwinism becomes simply Darwinism.  Perhaps infuriatingly, but correctly, the progressive response to this isn’t to ask if it’s true or not, but to say, give a dog a bad name and you can hang him by it.
I’ve been considering writing a review of The Turner Diaries and its prequel – my working title was The Turner Diaries is Disgusting and Retarded.  Then I came across this trove of documents.  When man has forgotten the theological virtues, how long before he forgets the cardinal virtues as well?  Prudence would have suggested that all copies of The Pale Horsemen would be stolen and burned so that the enemies of White nationalism, such as myself, could not throw them in the faces of the Hitler-worshippers.  But really, a picture is worth as thousand words.
(For those of you who still don’t know this, terrorism spreads chaos instead of upholding cosmos.  It is always and everywhere the tool of the Devil, and only the servants of the Devil can make effective use of it.  I can’t believe I have to say this.)
So there’s a real question as to how can I possibly talk about race, much less justify White privilege, in a world where people say this kind of thing.  White privilege is of course impossible to justify in a world of human atoms.  Everyone knows that an offense to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  But if natural selection did not work at the level of individuals, but at the level of ethnicities – if being White really meant something – then maybe it’s okay to notice that Whites are less likely to shoplift and require less supervision.  Progressives are correct to say that Trayvon was essentially human, carrying the sin of Adam and Eve, seduced and threatened by the same snake.  But maybe their further question, “What if Trayvon was White”, is nonsensical, because very few White children have that problem with drugs, theft, and violence.
One of the big ideas of Catholicism as opposed to Ultracalvinism is the focus on objective reality, as opposed to asking what if and why not and such.  Ceteris paribus and mutatis mutandis are hard to think through fully.  Reality may include things unaccounted for in the just-so stories we tell ourselves.  (Unfortunately, the most relevant part of The Latter-day Pamphlets, Chapter 8: Jesuitism, is not on Project Gutenberg.)  Trayvon could not have been White, because a White 17-year-old would not have been Trayvon. 
The idea that the family and community and ethnicity could also be basic units of society is what Nicholas Wade resigned in order to suggest to us (he resigned for your sins, progressives.  Seek redemption in his sacrifice).
Conservatives are slimy cowards who deserve their failure
The word racism wasn’t invented by Trotsky the hook-nosed Bolshevik Jew to confuse and demoralize Whites.  It appears in translation from Trotsky, and may have caught on in that translation; certainly it caught fire in the ’60s.  But it was invented at the beginning of the progressive century, by Ultracalvinists, to confuse and demoralize Indians (wow, really didn’t expect that of the cute fluffy Ultracalvinists, did we?)
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first use of the word racism was in 1903 in this passage:

“The great American idee / Is to make a man a man / And then to let him be”…

If we can make the Indian a man and get him to the point where he has ability to take care of himself and then let him alone, there will be no trouble…

Association of races and classes is necessary in order to destroy racism and classism…

Remove the restraints and influences that keep him on his reservation in tribal life…

The distribution of money to an Indian tribe is always regarded by those living near the Indians as a contribution to the development of that district. That it harms the Indian is not considered….

It is the greatest possible wrong to prolong their Indianism, whether we do it for humanitarian or so-called scientific reasons. We have a bureau in Washington which gets large sums of money for the alleged purpose of investigating the mysteries of Indian life and discovering their origin…

What the Indian was is past, and cannot be restored…

The ethnologists prefer the Indian kept in his original paint and feathers…

Is it berating Whites for their treatment of Indians?  Or is it a slimy conservative, trying to sneak a bit of red in a sugar pill, not understanding that the active ingredient is the sugar?  This is Bill O’Reilly in 1903.

And he’s scheming, of course, that since Whites outnumber Indians, assimilation will mean more Elizabeth Warren than Barack Obama.  Well, looks like that word racism escaped its context, didn’t it.  Thanks guys.

Well, now that the progressive century is over, this word can be retired.

Deus Caritas Est
Sometimes the progressives like to “steelman” our positions, which means to replace arguments they don’t understand with arguments they can pretend to sympathize with.  Most notably, when they replace the argument that gay marriage is a redutio ad absurdum, a sacrilege against the institution of the family, a blasphemy against human sexuality; with the worry that if corruption is rewarded more people will be corrupted – it’s not really false, is it?  But it’s also not the argument at hand.  Steelmanning is willful ignorance masquerading as charity.
The main thing that they use the word ‘charity’ for, however, is what Moldbug called ‘nonempathic altruism‘ and Jim now calls ‘improbable caring‘: where invidia apes caritas.
However, when the proggies want to talk about NRx’ers – talk, not berate – they charitably ignore our racism, a complicated subject they don’t want to talk about too much, to talk about our royalism.  It attacks them in sort of the same way – in the human atom individualism – but it’s something they can reasonably talk about.  Even without a word for it, they do have an inherent sense of charity, after all, they are human.
They also have an inherent sense of modesty, which they have also lost the word for.  Understanding of human nature cuts both ways, of course.  People on the right have undoubtedly felt the alienation of wage labor that Karl Marx talks about.  Mangan’s hinted at it recently.  Carlyle would say we are put here to work; I am under the impression that Marx would agree.  There is the problem that so much work is meaningless and what is meaningful is thankless and what gets rewarded is dishonorable.  What are we to do?  Marx suggests that we form unions, turn capital-intensive businesses into cooperatives, and so on.  If it comes down to it, yes, form unions!  More people should read Rerum Novarum, the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on capital and labor.  Especially those who would call themselves Christian socialists.
Carlyle would suggest that people would find more fulfillment if it was possible to have a more serious contract than that of wage labor, one that can’t be unilaterally broken, one where people can be seriously considered and rewarded according to what they do; a kind of slavery.  Of course, Marx would put all the slaves in thrall to the State.  Carlyle would allow people to have temporary bondage agreements with each other.
The biggest tech companies are, of course, allowed to break a lot of rules.  They can quietly refuse to hire their quota of diversity, and they’re not allowed to make their highest-level employees sign non-compete agreements, but they have anti-poaching agreements anyway.  Of course, this is to the disadvantage of the employees.  But Japan seems to be doing okay with their tacit model of permanent employment.
But the biggest answer to alienation is democracy.  If the nobles aren’t going to look out for the people – the House of Lords is of course much more in favor of the ethnic replacement of the English than the House of Commons – then the people aren’t going to care what the nobles think either.  The nomos is broken.  Anarchy reigns: power is the only thing that matters, and Alinsky has a book about how to get some while conservatives like me bicker with other conservatives about what is the nature of the good.
Carlyle wrote of democracy that “a meaning it must have, or it would not be here” and of Chartism that, if defeated but left unaddressed, it would just spawn more Chartisms.  So what’s it going to be, guys?  Can we form new lungs?  Can England breathe again?
No market for genius
These, then, are our two careers for genius: mute Industrialism, which can seldom become very human, but remains beaverish mainly: and the three Professions named learned,—that is to say, able to talk. For the heroic or higher kinds of human intellect, in the silent state, there is not the smallest inquiry anywhere; apparently a thing not wanted in this country at present. What the supply may be, I cannot inform M’Croudy; but the market-demand, he may himself see, is nil. These are our three professions that require human intellect in part or whole, not able to do with mere beaverish; and such a part does the gift of talk play in one and all of them. Whatsoever is not beaverish seems to go forth in the shape of talk. To such length is human intellect wasted or suppressed in this world!
–Thomas Carlyle, The Latter-Day Pamphlets
It’s worth noting, at every opportunity, that the art, architecture, and music of our present culture is absolute irredemable garbage.
There are numerous possible contributing reasons why English society and its institutions may have very rapidly become incapable of recognizing genius; all or several may be true, and I don’t know which would be the most important.

These include the rapid expansion of higher education (universities and colleges), the collapse of ‘meritocracy’ (i.e. a system which allocated roles primarily on the basis of functional ability) the transition to a sexually-mixed co-educational workforce, the rise of ‘affirmative action’ in terms of a system of group preferences favouring those groups with the lowest frequency of occurrence of the attributes of genius, and of genius-recognizing capacities; a massive shift of national focus away from social functions and towards sex (i.e. the sexual revolution); the rise of the Mass Media and bureaucracy; and of course the collapse of Christianity as the dominant national religion – accompanied by the collapse of honesty, ethics and devotion to beauty.

Well, I guess I’m not being too charitable anymore, but I really like sticking progressives in the eye over this issue – they don’t need those eyes, considering their preferences in art.  Churches from thousands of years ago are more beautiful than the European Parliament or any modern governmental or non-governmental (lol) building.  There was a time when public statues had angels and animals; now there are twisted heaps of scrap metal and the giant black fist that mugged Detroit.  We all know how it happened that a bearded transwoman wins the Eurovision awards: politics drives art out.  The videogame market can have good stuff because it is not dominated by political zealots.  And there’s Enya, who isn’t as popular as Miley Cyrus, because she’s not photographed half-naked.  Miley’s breakout hit, of course, was actually really good.  Women are still allowed to sing genuinely feminine songs that reflect the beauty of human nature – sometimes.
Progressivism is over
Deus vult.  We should remember the essential meaning of progressivism – the inherent dignity of the human person.  Progressives are full of lies, and the sanctity of life is not one of them.  The next age will, of course, by marked by pride, envy wrath, sloth, avarice, lust, and gluttony; we are no longer progressives, proud believers in atomic individualism, but we are still men.  Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, have mercy on us+

Student Loans are Redistribution

What if the government demanded that middle class parents of kids who want to be scientists, mathematicians, engineers, or work in technology or medicine must pay many tens of thousands of dollars or tell their kids to be plumbers?  What if the government demanded that kids mortgage their future if their parents can’t pay up?  How long would it take for people to bust out the torches and pitchforks?

That’s why, instead of simply having punitive taxation of middle class families and children to pay for government-standard education, we have this industry of semi-private student loans and colleges.  The magic of the semi-free market means that people feel a trunk, an ear, or a tail, and their anger is channeled into harmlessly arguing vehemently about what it is that they feel.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co

Equality of opportunity was the stated intention, but not the meaning, of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.  By 1971, America was ready for mandatory equality of outcomes, the intention and the meaning of Griggs v. Duke Power Co (conservatives who say they like equality of opportunity not equality of outcomes may be saying something fair and true, but they had already lost a decade before I was born).  No test, of intelligence, or knowledge, or anything else, having a disparate impact on a protected class would be permitted, not even for teams of men who walk into burning buildings.

But there was a loophole.  Academic credentials could be demanded.

So any business that wants minimally intelligent workers needs to require a college degree.  Which, purely by accident, means that all future intelligent workers must go get that degree, which means being lectured to in their formative years by – who? – purely by accident, leftists.  Who argue that college isn’t about employment, you Neanderthal, it’s about becoming a well-rounded person, which means, purely by accident, taking lots of classes from leftists.

Meanwhile, in the ’90s, the global world means that Americans need to work smarter, not harder, to stay competitive.  The way to compete with legal and illegal Mexicans is to get degrees.

So what’s a student loan?

It’s one of many structural weaknesses of democracy that voters like bubbles and bailouts.  Unlike the housing bubble, however, bailouts are built in to the student loan and college bubble.

  • Banks are literally given piles of money and told to waste as much of it as they want on student loans.
  • Peter is “given some financial aid”, but needs to “take out lots of loans” as well.  Which he will never pay back with his libel arts degree, but, the banks have those loans guaranteed by the government anyway.
  • Paul’s parents have enough income not to qualify for “financial aid”.  They pay many tens of thousands of dollars.
  • Liberal U gets many tens of thousands of dollars from the government, partly through the bank, and many more tens of thousands of dollars from Paul’s parents.  This money is spent on student unions with unisex bathrooms, diversity consultants, and scholarships for underrepresented minorities.
  • Peter’s brother Andrew also had to “take out loans”.  He takes his Bachelor of Science degree to an engineering firm, and “pays back” every penny before he can buy a house and have kids.

Outside of bizarro world, financial aid is known as price discrimination, but I don’t know of a name for government-backed loans that are in many cases guaranteed to be defaulted on, but can’t actually be discharged in bankruptcy, other than to call it a massive, Kafka-esque, Rube Goldberg subsidy.

“What about poor Peter?  He just did what his friends did at the tender age of 18, QQ”, say the liberals.

“Mua-ha-ha-ha, he should have made better life decisions, like Andrew did”, say the conservatives.

So, as always, the conservatives lose, because it really isn’t fair to Peter (or to Andrew, or to Paul’s parents).  And what is this system in reality?

Massive redistribution of taxes that specifically target the middle class and young professionals.  With lots skimmed off by the bankers, who earn it as a laundering fee.

So now what?

The solution I would favor is for the student loan and college industry to die in nuclear fire.

Failing that, we could at least make it official – this is Moldbug’s solution, or rather, Mencius’s solution.  It would predictably have the effect of pushing the taxes away from the middle class and sparking a national debate about just how much schooling we really need.

Once again, we see that our government is carefully designed to extract the maximum possible from the middle class and Whites, and give the maximum possible to people and things progressives like.  No, really.  The lies are there for a reason, and progressives will in moments of candor admit it and claim to be managing a capitalist economy for the greatest social good.

And really, the only difference I have with them is that I see social good differently.

My Ambivalence about Abortion

Snivel Rights

It had been illegal for some time for a White working as a cop or a judge, or running a school, or some other government service, to say anything insufficiently obsequious about the Negro race to anyone they didn’t completely trust.  The function of the Civil Rights Act was to extend this to anyone employing people, anyone working in an office, or anyone working in a customer-facing position.  For those working in those positions not of the cognitive elite, who would be unable to not say what they think, this meant they would be unable to think hatethoughts.

Legality and Morality

Piously stated platitudes from glibertarians and liberals put aside, most people expect, demand, and assume that only immoral things will be illegal, all moral things will be legal, and most immoral things will be illegal.

Shockingly, to our modern man, marital rape was not illegal until very recently.  However, rape could be accused of a husband if the wife was not cohabitating, and, sodomy was illegal.  Rape could be accused because it could be proven; sodomy could also be accused if it could be proven; consent or its withdrawal between bedpartners usually can not be proven.  But a husband could rape his wife no more than once, and could not do anything that would leave signs of sodomy; thereafter, the wife could leave.  In the age of text messages, consent should be a bit easier to prove or disprove.  Marital rape went from being an immoral thing that was not illegal to an immoral thing that was illegal.

When marital rape was not illegal, it was legal to sell heroin to people.  This is somewhat less shocking – it would have been more shocking 20 years ago, but since then, for some reason there’s a meme that the drug war failed because it couldn’t succeed instead of because people didn’t want it to succeed.  At any rate, selling heroin went from being an immoral thing that was not illegal to an immoral thing that was illegal.

Selling marijuana or (high-quality) amphetamines is less obviously immoral; selling lottery tickets, alcohol, and pornography is also less obviously immoral.  Some of these things have become or will become legal soon; one of them has recently become illegal.

A glibertarian might be excused for thinking that there is a grey area between morality and legality, and thus, pushing for legalization of everything and each individual bearing their choices on their own conscience.  But I brook no excuses for open heresy or leading others into temptation; i.e. doing the work of Satan.

The glibertarian will avoid heroin, or excessive use of alcohol, marijuana, amphetamines, pornography, or excessive gambling, because he is of the cognitive elite.  The man on the street thinks that because it is legal, that means it is safe and morally acceptable (these are one and the same), and is enslaved to heroin, pornography and its view of human sexuality, gambling, and Satan.

At this point most Catholics say, besides their refrain that abortion is murder, that abortion and contraception, and a government that pushes both, suggest a wrong view of human sexuality which leads people into sin.

Aboriton is infanticide, not murder

Many Christians claim that God puts a soul in each  blastocyst, arguing a bit about whether or not the blastocyst has to implant first.  I view this mechanistic view of divinity as heretical: God, if He exists, can do what He wants to, when He wants to.  Moving beyound dualism, we can talk about the hyleomorphic human soul that exists when there is a human, raising the question of when exactly there is a human.

There have been a number of proposals to ban abortions except in the case of rape.  Why?  Because very few people are dogmatic enough to want to force a woman to mother a rapebaby, or to want rape to be a valid means of reproduction.  The sticking point on infanticide is whether it is a licit method of family planning.

Infanticide as a method of family planning exists in a number of other species.  Surely, we are humans, not animals, and we can use contraception instead of resorting to infanticide?  Surely, but where contraception is not used, or used improperly, infanticide is all that is left.  The Romans permitted infanticide up until one year, after which the father still had the right to kill his baby, but it would be recorded as killing.  Of course, we are not Romans.  Most ancient tribes would abandon deformed babies to die; today, many of these can live nominally productive lives.

Legality and morality?

Marijuana and amphetamines are performance-enhancing drugs in my field.  If they were legal, to choose not to use them would be to choose no to work in my field.  Same thing with steroids – not just for athletes, but also for construction workers.

Steroids lead to health problems later on in life, so one can at least argue that a man should not throw his health away for a few years of glory.  Marijuana and amphetamines do not appear to cause health problems, so, perhaps I am being an obstinate luddite when I refuse them.  Perhaps life would be better spent high all the time.  I am perfectly willing not to find out.

Obviously, a human life comes in stages.  There is childhood, puberty and the next few years, young adulthood, middle age, and years of wasting oldness.  White people are supposed to get married and have kids during young adulthood; more recently, it has become possible to have kids well into middle age.

The question we need to answer not whether people will be confused by the legality of infanticide and contraception and seduced by easily available pornography into believing that they can fuck around for their entire life and reproduce on demand when and if the time comes; that they can get married and divorced on a whim and that marriage is just a sterile life-partnership arrangement for tax and healthcare purposes – this confusion and seduction happens right now at a dangerously high rate.

The question is whether enough people are harmed by the legality of infanticide, contraception, and pornography, to be worth banning them from people who could use them responsibly.  This is a judgement call that can not be reduced to a question of natural law.

An individual can choose for himself whether or not to use pornography; a couple or a woman can choose contraception; a woman can choose an abortion.  Performance-enhancing drugs, once legalized, will be mandatory.

Thus I am more inclined to ban marijuana and amphetamines than infanticide.


Perhaps some day, these dangerous things can be restricted to people who can use them responsibly, or, at least, people can be made fully aware of them.  I judge that there are too many lies flying around right now for the average person to be able to reliably come to the right conclusions.

I will add that infanticide should not be banned before contraception is, because that would mean more babies from women who don’t use contraception properly.

Condomistic sex isn’t sex

Orthosphere’s post impressed me enough to drive me back to agnostic Catholicism.  Zippy posted somewhere or other that condomistic sex was sex because people say sobecause it is an intentionally disordered sex act, contrary to human nature; which also deeply impressed me for a while, but not anymore.  Edit: Zippy’s post is

Legend has it, once upon a time, a French kiss was a stronger declaration of intention to have sex than condomistic sex is in certain contexts today.

What does the world look like in the hypothetical where we treat condomistic sex as little more than a kiss?

Celibate.  People in the West have traditionally held off on having sex longer than other peoples; if today, a man can’t have a career stabilized until his ’30s, Plato would think that would be okay, advocating that approximately 30 year old men should marry approximately 17-20 year old women.  Today they would marry 26 to 30 year old women, and fertility can be extended.

For all the pornography our culture is steeped in, we are remarkably celibate.  What can be done about celibacy?  Stop disincentivizing reproduction.  Oh well.

What does a woman think she’s doing when she rides the alpha cock carousel?  She hopes that she’s dating a bunch of successful men and hoping one of them will marry her.  Perhaps she is; perhaps she is just following her bff who is more successful.  Western women are supposed to marry a little late anyway: I’ve heard something like 24 in pre-demotic Germany.

But I didn’t really want to talk about fucking the latex Jew.  The real problem is the problem of evil: why do men choose it?  Envy is rational because when you sabotage the guy right above you then you can take his position; it’s less rational in a large scale society.  The envy of Satan and Cain for God’s love of Adam and Abel is also irrational, because God knows everything, and isn’t going to give the bad guys what they want because they sabotaged their victims.

At some point, the envy of the billionaires for the nobles, and then the politicians, led them to promote communist revolution – that’s where we are today.  The envy of progressives for each other drives them to promote all kinds of nonsense against each other; the Donald Tokowitz affair is particularly amusing because it’s a billionaire getting taken down by progressives he promoted.  Progressive envy for other progressives is especially rational; destroying someone is a good way to get promoted as a progressive.

Anyway, Moldbug wrote to tell his fellow libertarians that anarchy is not liberty.  I’m more of an ethno-nationalist myself, so the anti-natal regime I live under is a problem for me.  Moldbug’s ideal state is pretty close to mine, but he seems to think that drugs and condoms are great, and I’m not so sure.  Zeus never used a condom.  As a ten year old reading ancient Greek literature, I saw the line “the embrace of a god is never infertile”, and thought it was unfair, because everyone knows that you’re supposed to mess around a lot before being burdened with a child.

Everyone who cares to find out now knows that women seek the highest-status man, and men seek the most women.  Does that mean that alphas should mate with  all the women?  No.  Of course they should not mess with the women, that’s behavior of men who think they have something to prove.  The King should exercise forbearance to set an example, the nobles to avoid scandal, the knights because their code forbids fornication.  This for internal harmony and simply to please God.  But it seems that cultures that act like a pack of chimpanzees and permit multiple wives end up having weak leadership.

The Sultans were fat and happy in Constantinople with their harems of White sex slaves, while Moscow, which was contesting with London and later Berlin for the title of Third Rome, had an eye on Constantinople, and fought a war with the a bunch of European countries over not just the Crimea but whether Russia had the right to expand into its moribund neighbor.  “While we’re Britons true, no Russian will set foot in Constantinople”, said the United Kingdom.

It was not until after the great kinslaying of WWI that Constantinople was permanently removed from the ruined Europe through population transfers.  By who?  Blue-eyed Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: their use of White sex slaves was not of no consequence.  Many years later, the UK gets overrun with immigrants; perhaps the Russians can seize Constantinople now.

In China, the 1%ers could have many wives according to their station.  The Imperial court was also filled with eunuchs.  The Ottomans had used castrated White slaves as clerks; Christians only used eunuchs for their special talent at singing (still evil).  The Chinese and multiple wives and their eunuchs slowly lost their technological advantage and found themselves powerless against pirates.

What has envy to do with condoms?  Too many men of my generation who think they have something to prove like to run around “having sex”, while not actually having sex.

Rape culture: progress progresses backwards

Human sexual behavior is pretty complex, isn’t it. Biologists are discovering new things all the time!  There were once sodomites, corrupted by their perverted appetites. Then there were homosexuals, who were mentally ill and deserving of pity (I’m not sure where the story of mental illness replacing moral corruption begins, though it doesn’t begin with homosexuals) . Then there were queers and gays and crossdressers, who just wanted to be humored and left alone. Now it turns out that sometimes a female brain develops in a male body; previously scientists believed that there were no major differences between female brains and male brains. Progress progresses.

Sometimes, progress goes backwards.  The middle of the 20th century was the height of rape culture,

A little bit of rape is good for a man’s soul

Norman Mailer, 1972

in which rape, sexual assault, flashing, and pedophilia, especially as committed by African-Americans, was ignored and treated lightly.  Rape culture continues today; but it is weakening now that it has been named and named a priority by today’s feminists.  See the recent NYT article .

Rape culture may have peaked in 1967, when Eldridge Cleaver could get the following published –

Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women – and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge.

I started out practicing on black girls in the ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day. When I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically.

His book, Soul on Ice, was called “brilliant and revealing” by the New York Times Review of Books. has 107 formats and editions, new hardcovers from $55.58, and is Amazon Best Sellers Rank #90,427.

Perhaps the feminists can, within the next few years, prevent this book from being published again.  God speed, feminists.

To the ancient Hebrews, rape could be remedied by a fine, and marrying the woman raped, with divorce prohibited.  Today’s feminists accuse Christians of having or wanting this law, since it is after all in the Bible (the heresy of sola scriptura strikes again).

To Justinian, who recorded the laws of Christian Rome, rape was to be punished by death, to be carried out summarily by the family of the victim if they could catch the perpetrator; all the rapist’s property was forefeit, penalties apply to any accomplices as well; somehow, rape of a married woman was to carry twice the penalty.


We decree by this general constitution that those who perpetrate it, as well as those who aid them at the time, where they are caught in the act and surprised when committing it, can immediately be killed by the fathers or the blood-relatives, guardians, curators, patrons or masters of the said virgins, widows, or women of any description whatsoever, whether they are freeborn or not. We order that these provisions shall, above all, be applicable to those who have dared to ravish married women, for the reason that they are liable to punishment for a double crime, that is to say, for adultery as well as rape; and it is necessary for the crime of adultery to be punished with greater severity on account of the other offence being added to it…

If, however, after the commission of such a detestable crime, the ravisher should be able to defend himself on account of his powerful influence, or to escape by flight, the illustrious Praetorian Prefects, as well as the distinguished Prefect of the City in this Imperial Capital, as well as the eminent Praetorian Prefects in Illyria and Africa, the Generals of the Army, throughout the different portions of Our Empire, the Eminent Prefect of Egypt, the Count of the East, the Vicegerents, Proconsuls, Dukes, and Governors of Provinces, and Judges of every rank, who may be in those places, shall display the greatest zeal and exert every effort to apprehend the culprit, and shall punish with exemplary severity those who have been arrested for the commission of such a crime, and sentence them to death after evidence which is competent and recognized by law has been given, without permitting any exception to be pleaded. If the defendants should wish to appeal, We, in accordance with the provisions of the ancient law of Constantine, refuse to grant them permission to do so…

If, however, such an atrocious crime should be perpetrated against a woman who is freeborn, all the property movable, immovable, or capable of moving itself, which belongs to the ravishers themselves, or to their accomplices, associates, or followers who have given them assistance, shall be transferred to the ownership of the said ravished freeborn woman by a decree of court, and the efforts of her parents, husband, guardians or curators. When the woman above mentioned is not married, she can lawfully be united in matrimony with any man whomsoever, except her ravisher, and the property of the latter, or as much of it as she may desire, shall be given as the dowry of the woman aforesaid. If she should not be willing to accept a husband, but prefers to remain single, We order that the said property shall belong to her absolutely, and that no judge, or any other person whosoever, shall dare to violate this provision…

The penalties which We have previously prescribed, that is to say, those of death and the loss of property, We decree shall not only be inflicted upon the ravishers themselves, but also upon those who accompanied them, and were present when the crime took place…

When anyone of a servile condition is convicted of complicity in a crime of this description, We order him or her to be put to death by fire, without distinction of sex, as this was also very properly provided for by the Law of Constantine.


It was alarming to many that rural Mississippi in the ’50s seemed to have laws closer to Justinian than Moses.  Emmett Till was murdered by a woman’s husband and her father for what we would now call sexual assault, though feminists at the time were cowed into saying that it was mere flirting.  While the culture of rural Mississippi is now mostly gone, our culture has changed a bit too: today’s media would not deny a woman’s report of sexual assault.

It was fortunate for Eldridge Cleaver that after ambushing and getting in a shootout with the police, he went to France, and not the Byzantine Empire.  While in France, he designed a line of pants; rape culture seems to have failed him there; he was unable to find a manufacturer.
The Western gender binary

Ten years ago, the notion that there are such things as male and female brains would have been an example of the cultural dominance of the Western gender binary as a paradigm.  Today, women’s souls are born into men’s bodies, though, if pressed, the smarter genderqueer activists will admit to seeing themselves as True Individuals, neither male nor female.

In 1972, when Western civilization was at it zenith, and White men dared to walk on the moon, the chemist Isaac Asimov, also one of the most prolific authors of all time, published The Gods Themselves, a story about contact with aliens with three sexes (and an evil technology that promised cheap energy at the cost of destroying the world).  The West is observably more willing to consider other attitudes towards sexuality than any other civilization; this is why feminists blame basic facts of biology on the West and call it uniquely evil.

There are a number of cultures with ancient recognition of crossdressing men; the most civilized is probably some parts of India.

Western culture has more recently begun serious investigation into ethology, putting aside moral thoughts and simply observing animal behavior.  Sometimes an effeminate looking salmon male or cuttlefish sneaks into a egg pile guarded by a stronger male. There’s a species of goat that separates into male herds and female herds for most of the year, recombining during mating season.  Some males develop female characteristics and wander around with the females – for reasons that are obvious as long as we’re not talking about humans.  Since we are talking about humans, we have to accept the Scientific Fact™ that most crossdressing men are gay, meaning that they do not intend to use their right to enter female safe spaces inappropriately.

Today, some feminists, called Trans-Exclusive RadFems or TERFs, are battling it out with other feminists, who we know are the mainstream faction since they don’t have a specific name, over whether or not crossdressing perverts are allowed in female safe spaces.  Unisex bathrooms have been under discussion since the ’80s, and are now being installed at Dartmouth; a pointless gesture, since crossdressers do not want that half-measure any more than sodomites wanted civil unions.  Keep fighting the good fight, TERF warriors, you do not know it, but in fighting for the truth, you fight for Jesus.

Current law in a number of jurisdictions permits crossdressing children to use the opposite sex’s bathrooms and locker rooms.  We will see how much sexual advances by perverts and “accidental” groping it will take before crossdressers are returned to their own sex’s facilities.


Rape and flashing weren’t the only behaviors that were thawed out in the Sexual Revolution.  Long after NAMBLA was flushed down the memory hole, the Catholic Church is accused of not being more selective in its priests.  There’s also the matter of Harvey Milk, who had his way with troubled teens.  His subsequent murder was called an anti-gay assassination, and has been the subject of a number of films.

Pedophilia was never going to be really accepted, though.  Harvey Milk was shot in 1978 – and it was a good thing for the gay agenda, because he was going to be an embarrassment, but now he was a martyr – the same year that NAMBLA was founded. From the early ’80s to the ’90s, satanic pedophiles running your child’s daycare would sexually abuse your child, and by the mid ’90s NAMBLA was expelled from some gay rights organizations.

Today, some people, probably half of them children, will say on the Internet that “pedosexuality” or whatever is another sexual orientation of equal status to homosexuality.  They’re not entirely wrong: there’s no proof that homosexuality exists in any sense that pedosexuality doesn’t.  This reductio ad absurdum is studiously ignored by all sides while it comes to our attention briefly every so often that some gay activist or movie star or whatever has been kiddydiddling.
Rape culture ends
The Godfather was released in 1972.  The movie is tied together by a guy who asks the mafia don for a favor and has to do him a favor towards the end; this is a guy the audience of 1970s Americas is supposed to sympathize with if not necessarily agree with.


Don Corleone: We have known each other many years, but this is the first time you’ve come to me for counsel or for help. I can’t remember the last time you invited me to your house for a cup of coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let’s be frank here. You never wanted my friendship. And you feared to be in my debt.

Bonasera: I didn’t want to get into trouble.

Don Corleone: I understand. You found paradise in America. You had a good trade, you made a good living. The police protected you and there were courts of law. So you didn’t need a friend like me. Now you come and say “Don Corleone, give me justice.” But you don’t ask with respect. You don’t offer friendship. You don’t even think to call me “Godfather.” You come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married and you ask me to do murder – for money.

Bonasera: I ask you for justice.

Don Corleone: That is not justice. Your daughter is alive.

Unlike Justinian, the mafia don doesn’t think extrajudicial murder is necessarily an appropriate punishment for rape.  What the movie tells us is that 1970s Americans think suspended sentences for rape happen, and that they are unjustly lenient.  The fact that it got put in a popular movie as something the audience is supposed to feel sympathetic to meant the writing was on the wall for rape culture.

In 1975, Susan Brownmiller wrote her famous book <i>Against Our Will</i>, which argued that rape is something all men do to all women, in order to be allowed to talk about it as an issue.  Professional Black woman Angela Davis predictably called her discussion of rape and race an “unthinking partnership which borders on racism”.  But it was out there –  rape is evil for communist-approved reasons, and rape is not something the average man is interested in.  That meant decent men and women could take a stand against it.  By 1989, the Clery Act forced colleges to disclose information about rape on campus.

In a sense, rape is something that White men do to women, since if we wanted to, we could suppress it.  It isn’t expressed in those terms by the young White women who talk about rape culture, but, people have a way of understanding things without explicitly knowing.  When I got to college about ten years ago, two of the young White women I met on my first day there would be raped by African-Americans within the year.  The fact that so much rape is tolerated is rape culture.  But tomorrow, it won’t be.  Regress.