23 December 2015

The Modern Vice

Is it wrong to call someone who steals a "criminal"? 
In a recent thread on NextDoor, a group of neighbors living in the Noe Valley-Glen Park area were engaged in a discussion around the city's crime and debated whether labeling a person who commits petty theft as a "criminal" is offensive. 
In the site's Crime and Safety area, where residents share strategies for fighting crime, Malkia Cyril of S.F. suggests that her neighbors stop using the label because it shows lack of empathy and understanding. 
Cyril pointed out that instead of calling the thief who took the bicycle from your garage a criminal, you could be more respectful and call him or her "the person who stole my bicycle." 
"I [suggest] that people who commit property crimes are human and deserved to be referred to in terms that acknowledge that," Cyril, who's the executive director of the Center for Media Justice in Oakland, writes in the thread. 
"I think we should think twice before speaking in disparaging terms about 'those criminals,'" she adds later in the thread.
This posturing is nothing more than moral hedonism, wherein one seeks to gain a feeling of moral superiority (and status) by publicly displaying one’s empathy and understanding.  Of course, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being empathetic and understanding, and I see no particular reason to be inhumane to thieves, but I would suggest that it would best to simply practice one’s morality privately and quietly.


Much like the Pharisees in Christ’s day, there are those who put on displays of piety and morality in order to receive the praise of men.  Like the Pharisees, they undoubtedly have their reward.

22 December 2015

What’s The Point?

At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker. 
Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also “were on the terrorist watch list.” 
“Back in August, we did an investigation—the inspector general did—of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security,” Lynch told Boston Public Radio.
I guess my main question is this:  Just what the fuck is the point of the DHS?  How in the hell is it going to keep the homeland secure if it can’t even keep itself secure?

Frankly, I lack the vocabulary to describe how astonished and perplexed I am by this.  It’s simply incredible that our government is being infiltrated like this in spite of its massive surveillance abilities.  The entire justification for expanding government spying was security against foreign terrorists.  The entire point of expanding the federal security budget was to increase security against foreign terrorists.

More to the point, how does no one catch this?  You’d figure job applicants’ names would be checked against the internal watch list.  Has non-discrimination policy become so completely ass-backwards that federal government feels it would be unfair to discriminate against people on the basis of their terrorist associations?


Either the DHS is staffed by moronically incompetent retards, or it has completely castrated itself with political correctness.  Either way, it is simply has no reason to exist anymore.

Love and Hedonism

When an American man says that American women aren’t worth marrying, what does it mean?  Dr. Helen, at A Voice for Men, lists some salient reasons:
2. You’ll lose out on sex. Married men have more sex than single men, on average – but much less than men who are cohabiting with their partners outside of marriage, especially as time goes on. Research even suggests that married women are more likely to gain weight than women who are cohabiting without marriage. A Men’s Health article mentioned one study that followed 2,737 people for six years and found that cohabiters said they were happier and more confident than married couples and singles. 
3. You’ll lose friends. “Those wedding bells are breaking up that old gang of mine.” That’s an old song, but it’s true. When married, men’s ties with friends from school and work tend to fade. Although both men and women lose friends after marriage, it tends to affect men’s self-esteem more, perhaps because men tend to be less social in general. 
4. You’ll lose space. We hear a lot about men retreating to their “man caves,” but why do they retreat? Because they’ve lost the battle for the rest of the house. The Art of Manliness blog mourns “The Decline of Male Space,” and notes that the development of suburban lifestyles, intended to bring the family together, resulted in the elimination of male spaces in the main part of the house, and the exile of men to attics, garages, basements – the least desirable part of the home. As a commenter to the post observes: “There was no sadder scene to a movie than in ‘Juno’ when married guy Jason Bateman realized that in his entire huge, house, he had only a large closet to keep all the stuff he loved in. That hit me like a punch in the face.” 
… 
8. Single life is better than ever. While the value of marriage to men has declined, the quality of single life has improved. Single men were once looked on with suspicion, passed over for promotion for important jobs, which usually valued “stable family men,” and often subjected to social opprobrium. It was hard to have a love life that wasn’t aimed at marriage, and premarital sex was risky and frowned upon. Now, no one looks askance at the single lifestyle, dating is easy, and employers probably prefer employees with no conflicting family responsibilities. Plus, video games, cable TV, and the Internet provide entertainment that didn’t used to be available. Is this good for society? Probably not, as falling birth rates and increasing single-motherhood demonstrate. But people respond to incentives. If you want more men to marry, it needs to be a more attractive proposition.
Assuming that the above list is actually representative, a healthy chunk of the reasons why men don’t want to get married is pretty hedonistic.  In essence, it’s like overpaying for a bad hooker.
The single lifestyle is cheaper, the sex is more frequent (and the partner is hotter).  Worse still, your new live-in hooker will take all your house space, and demand more time, taking you away from your friends.

It seems to me that the complaints about marriage stem from some frankly ridiculous assumptions about the nature of the beast.  In fact, it seems as if the complaints men have about marriage are based on the assumption that the point of marriage is lots of sex with an eternally hot live-in maid.  And women are the demanding ones…

Gay marriage didn’t kill marriage—if anything it was a nail in the coffin.  No, marriage died when men viewed it as an economic pact for the satiation of hedonic desire.

Within this lens, marriage just isn’t worth it for any man, especially in lieu of how cheap hookers are and how ubiquitous internet porn has become.  The issue, though, doesn’t lie with the institution of marriage but with the participants.

Men and women alike are less inclined than ever before to view marriage as a holy, sacred union between a man and a woman, united together in God to fulfill their primary purpose of producing Godly offspring, raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.  As such, marriage is now viewed as simply a contract for commencing carnal copulation instead of a covenant for creating Christian children.  Consequently, there really is no logical reason to oppose homosexual unions, easy divorce, polygamy, incest, or any other possible configuration of consenting adults.  Even the Muslims have figured out that this line of thinking justifies legalizing prostitution as well.

Thus, the lamentations for declining marriage rates, and the repeated proclamations that marriage just isn’t worth it is really a complaint that marriage has been utterly debased.  What was once viewed as the primal spiritual covenant is now viewed as an economic contract.


A spiritual journey is a noble cause, worthy of lifelong commitment; a contract is only worth the effort if it is profitable.  A Man may fight and die for love, but he will not inconvenience himself for hedonism.

21 December 2015

Bad or Evil

There is one thing which, in the presence of average modern journalism, is perhaps worth saying in connection with such an idle matter as this. The morals of a matter like this are exactly like the morals of anything else; they are concerned with mutual contract, or with the rights of independent human lives. But the whole modern world, or at any rate the whole modern Press, has a perpetual and consuming terror of plain morals. Men always attempt to avoid condemning a thing upon merely moral grounds. If I beat my grandmother to death to-morrow in the middle of Battersea Park, you may be perfectly certain that people will say everything about it except the simple and fairly obvious fact that it is wrong. Some will call it insane; that is, will accuse it of a deficiency of intelligence. This is not necessarily true at all. You could not tell whether the act was unintelligent or not unless you knew my grandmother. Some will call it vulgar, disgusting, and the rest of it; that is, they will accuse it of a lack of manners. Perhaps it does show a lack of manners; but this is scarcely its most serious disadvantage. Others will talk about the loathsome spectacle and the revolting scene; that is, they will accuse it of a deficiency of art, or aesthetic beauty. This again depends on the circumstances: in order to be quite certain that the appearance of the old lady has definitely deteriorated under the process of being beaten to death, it is necessary for the philosophical critic to be quite certain how ugly she was before. Another school of thinkers will say that the action is lacking in efficiency: that it is an uneconomic waste of a good grandmother. But that could only depend on the value, which is again an individual matter. The only real point that is worth mentioning is that the action is wicked, because your grandmother has a right not to be beaten to death. But of this simple moral explanation modern journalism has, as I say, a standing fear. It will call the action anything else--mad, bestial, vulgar, idiotic, rather than call it sinful.
In keeping with my review of Cuckservative, I think it worth pointing out that the main failure of modern conservatism—and perhaps even protestant Christianity—is that it is utterly ill-suited to the task of discerning good from evil, of separating wheat from chaff.  To wit:  observe how often Islam is portrayed as violent, or as misogynist, or what have you.  As is often the case, the argument against Islam is doesn’t attain the ideals held by the Modern Man, the modernist.  In essence, conservatives accept the modernist, progressive premise that violence is bad (or, more accurately, undesirable), as is misogyny.  In doing so, they must accept as right the fundamental underpinnings of progressive philosophy, which is where they ultimately go astray.  For, if one accepts ones opponents’ premises, all that really can be argued is whether the logic is sound.  Thus, the conservative finds himself in the position of arguing that the stated goals of modernism/progressivism will be more easily attained by other means.  Cuckservatives are basically haggling over price.

What’s disturbing to me is how very few people seem willing to say that the real issue with Islam is that it is evil.  While it is undoubtedly true that Muslims are violent and misogynist, it’s also true that God himself is rather violent (and uses threats of violence to keep Man in line) and would also be labeled a misogynist based on the teachings of the New Testament.  By this line of reasoning, God and his children should be as repulsive to modernism and progressivism as Allah and his followers.  Since the logic of modernism would call God evil (or at least undesirable), it should be obvious that the philosophical underpinnings and assumptions of modernism are completely rubbish, and are fit only to be ignored.

To get back to the point at hand, the issue with modernism, as Chesterton points out, is that it is utterly lacking in moral clarity.  Violence is bad to a modernist, but it is not by its nature evil to God, for God himself uses violence as a tool.  A modernist, then, can only oppose Islam on the grounds that it is violent, and never on the grounds that it is evil.

The fundamental issue with Islam is that it dishonest.  Satan is a liar and the father of lies, and all liars are of Satan.  As such, Islam is completely and utterly Satanic.  The fundamental lie of Islam is that it denies the death and consequently burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of the father.  In this regard, Islam is not any different than Atheism.

Because Islam denies the most fundamental purpose of Christ’s purpose on earth, its purported respect for the teachings of Christ is disingenuous or satanic.  For example, if Islam takes Christ’s stated purpose for existence as sincere, then it has failed to respect his authority as evidenced by their elevation of Muhammed above Christ.  If Islam takes Christ’s stated purpose as insincere but respects him anyway, then Islam respects a deceiver and reveres deceit.

Since Islam clearly cannot be by its nature anything other than evil, it should come as no surprise that those who belong to this religion are evil as well.  Thus, the issue with Islamic violence isn’t the violence, it’s the motive:  violence for its own sake, administered against the innocent and defenseless.  Moreover, Islam’s domineering misogyny is wrong, not because of its dominance or even its misogyny, but because of its utter disrespect, and perhaps even downright hatred, of the weaker of God’s creation.  Evil pervades every fiber of the Islamic world, and it is to be opposed because it is thoroughly rotten, corrupt, and evil.

That cuckservatives are unable to identify the problem with Islam is itself a serious issue, in that cuckservatives have the same moral blindness as the progressives toward whom they claim to stand in opposition. As such, they are not to be trusted any more than leftists.

Book Review

Cuckservative: How “Conservatives” Betrayed America by Vox Day and John Red Eagle

This book is easily one of the best books I’ve read this year.  It is extremely easy to read, quickly paced, and extremely informative.  Moreover, the sheer amount of historical perspective this book provides is very hard to beat.  As an added bonus, this book is extremely relevant and timely.

Vox starts off by addressing the myth of the melting pot, and brings some extremely fascinating history to the reader’s attention.  Among other things, he quotes Ben Franklin at length on the issue of whether Germans would assimilate into Anglo culture and then points out that even today, some 260+ years after Franklin originally voiced his concern, there are still a couple hundred thousand American citizens that communicate in Pennsylvania Deutsch, and this in spite a prolonged, dedicated attempt at large-scale assimilation in the early twentieth century.  Moreover, Vox points out research that indicates assimilation isn’t really occurring under this current wave of immigration.

From there, Vox addresses the concept of Magic Dirt (a phrase I believe was originally coined by Steve Sailer). Put simply, the magic dirt theory is that “certain beliefs, behaviors and values somehow appear in particular geographical areas…rather than being carried around from place to place by groups of people wherever they happen to be.”  This is absurd, of course, and rather reminiscent of prohibitionists who tried to pin the problems of alcohol addiction on the alcohol instead of the addict.

The most fascinating and useful part of the book is chapter 4, wherein Vox traces the history of the modern conservative movement.  In a nutshell, conservatism is rather vapid and kind of sad.  In Vox’s words, “From their very beginning the principles of conservatism were subordinate and defensive and nature, or less charitably, they were submissive and passive-aggressive in their relation to the left.”  That explains a lot, I would say.  Moreover, the conservative movement has also been characterized by its willingness to disassociate itself from its more fringe members in order to win the respect of the left. Strangely, the left doesn’t seem to respect it much.

Vox also takes the madness of open borders to task.  Longtime readers of his blog won’t be surprised by the arguments made.  The most obvious case against open borders is that it necessarily destroys nations, and moreover is a tremendous disfavor to the people who actually make a nation prosperous and peaceful.  In short, it rids a successful nation of its birthright.

Vox also makes the economic case against open borders, and it’s mostly a distilled version of Iain Fletcher’s work.  Some have apparently complained that this is the weakest chapter of the book.  I think it would be more accurate to say that this is the least accessible chapter of the book since Vox has to explain the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage in order to refute it.  Given how ineptly complex the Ricardian theory is, it’s pretty easy to see why many readers would simply skip over it.  More to the point, the entire crux of Ricardo’s theory is that, every possible thing being equal, it is better for one to focus on producing what they are best producing.  This near tautology is both banal and irrelevant.  For starters, it’s always been known on an individual, micro, mezzo, macro and national level to focus on doing what you do best in order to come out ahead.  No 5’3” guy is going to spend a lot of time, say, trying to make it to the NBA, especially if he has a knack for programming.  Banality aside, Ricardo’s point doesn’t make for a good principle upon which to make policy simply because everything else is almost never equal.  Ever.  (And even if everything else magically becomes equal, the equality is never permanent, but rather temporary.)  Thus, the economic case for open borders and free trade is built on the fantastical and outlandish theories of an “economist” that few economists take seriously these days.

Finally, Vox also addresses the prevalence of cuckservatism among nominal Christians.  In many ways, Churchian cuckservatives are worse than their secular counterparts simply by virtue of believing that they are doing the Lord’s work.  Vox spends a lot of time debunking their doctrine of welcoming invaders with open arms.  Overall, his points are very well made.


Overall, I’d say this book is a very important book at this current point in time.  It highlights just how backwards and dishonest the pro-immigration crowd.  Their hatred of the concept of the nation is simply abominable, and their self-destructive desire for foreign invasion is defended with falsehoods.  They hate their neighbors and appease their enemies, and are utterly lacking in wisdom, and knowledge of history.  This book deftly and succinctly exposes them for who they are.

Strength or Defect?

I'm not gonna engage in the same tactics SJWs do when it's their tactics that make me dislike them in the first place.

NOTE:  The tactics are what make him dislike SJWs. He apparently has no problem with their ideals or objectives.
Mr. Scary Cell @gameragodzilla
If I "punch back" in the exact same manner, then there is no functional difference between me and "the enemy".
Chesterton (surprise, surprise) dealt with this very mindset some hundred-odd years ago, in his essay “Conceit and Caricature.”  To wit:
A man will plume himself that he is not bad in some particular way, when the truth is that he is not good enough to be bad in that particular way.
To illustrate this, he continues:
You are not bloodthirsty, not because you would spare your enemy, but because you would run away from him.
And:
Are we without the fault because we have the opposite virtue?  Or are we without fault because we have the opposite fault?  It is a good thing assuredly, to be innocent of any excess; but let us be sure that that we are not innocent of the excess merely by being guilty of defect.
In a nutshell, the moderate mindset is one that attempts to rationalize a defect as a sign of moral superiority.  It’s akin to a homeless man bragging that he is not weighed down with unnecessary worry about material goods.  While the homeless man may be indeed far from materialistic, it hardly makes the laziness and drug addiction that caused his homelessness a cause for celebration.


Likewise, a moderate who lacks the intestinal fortitude to resist evil isn’t superior to those who get their hands dirty; he is merely a weakling and a coward.  Thus, while it could be true that Vox and others are perhaps a little more aggressive in their attacks of SJWs than is merited, it doesn’t follow that the man who is too weak to counterpunch is morally superior.  He is merely too weak and cowardly to put up a fight; and, ultimately, that’s a much graver defect than being too tactically aggressive.