Mark Citadel, Bullycide, Cuckservatives,& Abortion -or- “Hello! My name is Mark Citadel! You killed Anarchopapist! Prepare to die!”

“Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!”

“Stop saying that! ”

HELLO! MY NAME IS INIGO MONTOYA! YOU KILLED MY FATHER! PREPARE TO DIE!
Offer me money.”

“Yes! ”

Power, too, promise me that.”

“All that I have and more. Please…”

“Offer me anything I ask for.”

“Anything you want…”

I want my father back, you son of a bitch!”

Let’s begin with a trigger warning for Neoreactionaries who are so faint-hearted that explicitly racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic words may prove bothersome to your self-image. I am not a “cultured” man, and I will not use cultured language. If you proceed, do so as an adult prepared to read the opinion of a man who will not mince words so that you may be fed words fit for an infant. Bring your steak knife, and take the cork off you fork.

It’s rare I look check my blog statistics, but I just finished the macro portion of a building design this evening, so I had a few moments to give some thought to this dead blog so I went to take a look.

Nah. That’s a lie. I saw the notification in the upper-right corner of the screen while reading Heartiste and investigated. Adam Wallace, also known as “West Coast Reactionaries,” subscribed to this corpse, and I couldn’t understand why anybody would still be reading. More investigation followed, and I found myself at Mark Citadel’s latest tripe – which may be worse than mine – reading how he’s clearly identified (for himself) somebody as NOT a Neoreactionary based upon that person’s abortion opinions. I suppose this isn’t the first time Mark delineated Neoreaction, and I doubt it is the last.

Eventually, I found where Mark referenced my blog and made me scapegoat for the departure of Bryce Laliberte from the internet. This isn’t the first time Mark’s made this particular accusation, but it beggars the comprehension of any [legal term] reasonable person to assign to the periphery shunned of Neoreaction the power to bully a major lynchpin within the movement to scrub the internet of his presence and remove a presumably revenue-generating (electronic) tome from Amazon. Especially since,

There is a substratum of dissident right thinking (and I use that in the very broad sense of the popular opposition to Conservatism on the grounds of its failures and ideological concessions) that is entryist. This isn’t the active, malicious, and buffoonish entryism that I described when I dissected Kyle Hunt’s views, this is something a little different.

Some may mistake this commentary, and think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. When revelations about some stupid personal blog post that Bryce Laliberte had written ages ago concerning same-sex attraction surfaced, and he was subsequently [the link to my blog] bullycided from [Bryce’s absent blog] his blog, I said that the entire thing was ridiculous. Those who dig into people’s history to find some personal problem with them are frankly the lowest scum that occupy the edgysphere. They aren’t interested in ideas, only personalities.

But, just to take another example at random, when someone underlines his own works with “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs“, and puts forth the virtue of faggotry, that is something entirely different. That has to do with political ideology, not personal morality. The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me in most cases, and others have dedicated considerable time to elucidating such a well-advised position. It is correct to say that we shouldn’t impose a strict ideological dogma upon rightist intellectual circles today. It’s not possible, and it doesn’t serve any concrete purpose. However, when someone strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought be addressed with the utmost scrutiny.

The two things have to be separated, in order that we can address not immorality on the right (which I don’t care about), but amoral counter-signaling on the right, which only serves to tell everyone how edgy you are because anyone who isn’t a nihilistic Nietzschean is of course a ‘cuck’. Those who think that race is the only issue of any significance, are just as bad as those who think the Jewish Question is the only issue of any real significance. Shiksa Goddess, meet Aylmer Fisher.

Read through that again, just so you don’t overlook the major thesis, which is, Neoreaction must “address not immorality on the right [about which Mark Citadel “doesn’t care”], but amoral counter-signaling [and theory and advocacy and badthink] on the right,” and, “when somebody strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought to be addressed with utmost scrutiny.”

Perhaps a refresher is in order so that we’re all signally accurately: what is nihilism? Here’s the “Google” definition.

nihilism, noun: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

in philosophy: extreme skepticism maintaining that nothing in the world has a real existence. [edit: or relevance to reality]

historical: the doctrine of an extreme Russian revolutionary party circa 1900, which found nothing [of which] to approve in the established order.

Compare to Mark Citadel’s definition of himself.

Some may …think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. …I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. …The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me…

So, who wallows in nihilism, and who has belief? Who has rejected a religious principal, and who upholds morality, not in theory, but in practice?

I’ve already linked the blog post that Mark purports proves I’m a nihilist, but all the same, let’s review.

As for signaling, what, in all the writing I’m doing here, makes you think I’m signaling neoreaction? …Ya’ll are out there in your ivory towers, creating metaphysical philosophy as if no man may ever be permitted to apply empirical inquiry to your hypotheses. Only much of what you declare, we already know, and we know your wisdom too well. [Bryce quote inserted.] …Now, at the moment I first read that, I was merely 39 years old. My undergraduate matriculation dates to 1989. My introduction to collegiate insanity was a (sparsely attended) seminar detailing gender stereotypes (against women) in mass media. Fortunately, I was so young I hadn’t yet lost control of my reflexive laughter. Still, all those things Bryce and others observed in 2010 were well and truly established by my arrival at Northwestern University, …So, yeah, I empathize. So do a lot of other men. We’ve felt your new-found pain for two solid decades. When you see me, and others, signaling, consider, dear neoreactionary, that we may be sympathizing, not signaling.

Tell me, Mark, how much more explicit should I be? WHERE DOES THAT SIGNAL NIHILISM?

Let’s make something absolutely clear for all and for the record within this thing ya’ll insist upon calling a school of philosophy, or some kind of meta-something-or-other which isn’t held to account to real-world testing. I lack any sort of power to cause Bryce or any other neoreactionary to take any action, adopt any conclusion, or otherwise speak or be silent except with the power of what I write. Very few people who would read this know me outside the words I’ve written here. I did not publish anything about Bryce he had not already published himself. Neither did I go searching for something that I’d never before read. From the blog post:

[Edit 10 April 2015: It has come to my attention that this post has received more attention than previously according to Bryce Laliberte’s revelation in a long-ago post that he’s experienced “same-sex-attraction.” Regrettably, it was not my intent to “out” Bryce with a quote from his own blog. I presumed the rest of you had completed your reading before class. You know, Moldbug and the guy who wrote the book on Neoreaction seem like required reading to me…

WHY DID YOU NOT READ THE WRITING OF A MAN UPON WHOM YOU RELIED?

If I am not a neoreactionary, if I am an entryist, then you failed a comrade. What’s worse, you have utterly failed to avenge him, rehabilitate him, or otherwise make amends for the errors YOU made. YOU have a responsibility to YOUR comrades, if I am the enemy, and YOU left him on the field of battle with NOTHING to show for it.

If I am not the enemy, then the body count is double.

Besides, Nick Steves himself, of This Week in [Neo]Reaction, wrote that Bryce quit for health or medical reasons (I don’t recall which), so either you, Mark, are a liar regarding my culpability in Bryce’s departure, or Nick’s a liar about Bryce’s reasons. Take you pick. In either case, the responsibility falls upon ya’ll to sort your own qualifications for entry and exclusion: ya’ll certainly made clear I’m excluded, and you did so when I directly addressed the qualifications as you created them.

That’s all old news, of course. You took a swipe at me, thinking I’ve been silent so long that perhaps I’m not reading, but hey, all’s fair in war, and you’re at war with truth, so, “What the hell,” right?

As for your post about abortion, and the half-ass attempted take-down of a soft target, let me show you how this is done, infant.

[Original here.]

To some, [abortion] is akin to murder, …To others, abortion …[is] a eugenic practice… keeping our societies falling into complete idiocracy.

The two sides of this debate are: 1) abortion is homicide, and 2) abortion is a morally neutral medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy. The middle ground is a no-man’s land or amoral ambiguity. Any pro-choice pretense that a 5-minutes-before-birth killing of an unborn child is a homicide begs the ad infinitum argument, “what about five minutes before that?” Let’s be clear about reality here: from conception, the induced death of a conceived human is a homicide. All that remains is the question, “Was the homicide justified?”

 The kinds of people who support abortion access most fervently are those who stand for the things we oppose …legalized abortion is tied to “reproductive freedom,” which has liberated women from the horrible fate of being wives and mothers…

…it is tempting to believe that abolishing legalized abortion would lead to a return to more traditional values, a higher birthrate, and healthier relations between the sexes.

What is meant by opposition to “reproductive freedom” in this context? In this purportedly traditional society, traditional women’s roles include wife & mother. I don’t see ought else. Are traditional roles for men husband and father? Is there anything else?

Ah, but now we get to the thesis. Drum roll, please!

Unfortunately, as our movement gains influence, it is important that we not fall prey to the pro-life temptation.

Bring me popcorn!

First off, the alt Right appreciates what is superior in man, in the Nietzschean sense.

Because neoreactionaries are so clearly fond of Nietzsche!

Second, we …have an appreciation of tribalism and identity. …Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.

Pop quiz! How many neoreaction meetups have you attended? Where do your favorite neoreactionaries live? Are they part of your family, tribe, or nation? Which nation?

Being pro-life flies in the face both of these principles.

‘Cause being for baby-killing is the neoreactionary way! Bwahahahahahaha!

First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic. …In a world with reliable birth control, it is quite easy to avoid an unwanted pregnancy; the only ones who can’t are the least intelligent and responsible members of society: women who are disproportionately Black, Hispanic, and poor.

Nobody wants niggers, spics, or crackers. “Those people,” might vote for Trump! [Never you mind that Trump is a “with exceptions” pro-life advocate.]

A natural experiment in Colorado shows what happens when a state makes contraception and abortion more freely available. …Within a few years, the birth rate of low-income women plummeted. In states where Republican legislatures have enacted a pro-life agenda, the opposite has happened.

Viola, nigger, spic, and cracker infestation averted! More room for diverse immigrants!

The idea that there are capable women out there who are aborting their babies as they delay marriage and climb the corporate ladder is a fantasy.

Because women aren’t delaying marriage or climbing the corporate ladder because abortion is available, they’re fucking AND delaying marriage AND climbing the corporate ladder because contraception, fertility treatments, egg-freezing, and male (and female) fornicators are available, with abortion as a great back-up plan for…

When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion, it is often because the baby has a disease or the pregnancy threatens her health, not because she or her boyfriend forget to use contraception. …there are now 30 percent fewer people with the Down’s syndrome in the United States due to prenatal diagnosis.

‘Cause Down’s is so common in young women! Hurray abortion!

…the pro-life movement dysgenic, [and] its justifications rely on principles we generally reject. …“equality” and “human rights,” especially …The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community.

Father? Grandparents? Siblings? Buehler? Buehler?

…criminalizing abortion means that the state must step in and say that the individual has rights as an individual, despite its lack of connection to any larger social group.

Seriously, really? Is the alt-right, or neoreaction, or whatever [yes, it’s true, I’m ZFG regarding any differentiation among the Dark Enlightenment] really trying to make the argument that individuals don’t matter as a point of public policy, even in theory? This is about the most convoluted expression of philosophy I can imagine. A woman is permitted to abort a pregnancy and homicide an unborn child because the unborn child has no connection to others as an individual, but the woman does have connections as an individual, so she can homicide at will and unilaterally? Puhleeze!

Surely there’s some reasonable middle ground between libertarian-hell and communal-hell? Perhaps there’s a hell where we don’t argue about whether an individual is sufficiently connected to a community to avoid elective homicide? But while we’re talking about mothers killing children and why it should be allowed…

The mother-child bond is the strongest of human relationships, [fallacies omitted] …When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in.

“I don’t want my child, so you have no right to stop me killing it.” How does one arrive at this opinion without 1) assigning ownership rights of children to mothers and 2) thereby making slavery to mothers at conception lawful?

If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the [White] community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality. While it’s true that a blanket ban on abortion would probably increase the White population in there[sic] numbers, it would, no doubt, decrease the overall quality, as well and leave all races stupider, more criminally prone, and more diseased.

There’s much to parse here. Let’s start with this.

If we’re talking theory, then advocacy for race “A” can be stated as advocacy for race “A.” We don’t actually need to get specific unless we’re arguing for specifics. So, let’s assume we’re arguing specifics. I suspect know that abortion wasn’t particularly common during the expansion of Europeans into the entire world starting no later than about 1500 AD. Are you arguing that all that flowering of European civilization was entirely dysgenic? How is that? If it were dysgenic, then wouldn’t all the 1800-1900 civilization about which we are so proud be a cesspool of idiots and cretins burning peat in the skeletons of grand monuments? Gosh, so many questions! From what I know, the evidence does not support your hypothesis.

…the pro-life agenda would give us the worst of all worlds. Those whom we want to have children would continue to find a way to do what they wanted, while the birth rates among the worst members of society would explode. Childbearing among better classes would probably decrease even further under the strain of the inevitable increases in crime and redistributive policies that would follow.

Causation, causation, causation. Here’s reality: British civilization was, for many generations, under heavy downward pressure with little or no abortion. The richest had large families not because the rich could afford large families, but because the children of the rich could survive childhood. Poor medical science and conscription into regular wars probably helped, too. All this stuff happens AFTER birth, when the natural environment of the organism has the best opportunity to act upon the organism. THAT is Eugenic. It’s called natural selection: those who survive into adulthood and successfully mate have offspring that MAY also survive to adulthood and MAY also mate. Rinse in smegma & repeat. Abortion is an interference with natural selection and therefore dysgenic. If you’re a woman having an abortion, the only (eugenic) reason to abort a pregnancy is to conceive another day. All else is reducing competition for your sexual competitors.

It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice …Yet this kind of thinking implicitly affirms the Left’s premise that, when given a choice, women will want to be barren careerists.

Uh… I don’t think you wrote what you think you wrote. The premise is that women will choose to be married mothers, else why bother? Right now, women do not choose. Women try to “have it all:” wife without children until she wants them, children late in life and f her choosing, and a career that fits her imagined schedule for life events. Prohibiting abortion forces a choice which women do not now face. The traditionalist premise is that if women are faced with a choice between career and married motherhood, they choose married motherhood. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

[Blah blah feminism bad blah blah]

Of course, we cannot return to healthier relations between the sexes over night. Doing so is a long-term project, one that would require non-feminized men who can be worthy partners for women fulfilling their destinies. No one wants to be a stay-at-home wife to a man who is needy, weak, or cowardly.

An alt-right writer says men should man-up. I don’t know why any of us bothers reading this drivel.

I’ve written this before, but I suppose I’m obliged to write this again.

Kill your kids, don’t kill your kids: I don’t care. To be more precise, I’ve abandoned caring, sometime in 2000, to be specific. But if you care about the fitness of the species, and if you want to influence the quality of children and adults projected into the future, then you want as many live births as the species can muster, because that’s how natural selection works its mighty magic, and that’s how civilizations are built, not by targeted culling under the direction of “intelligent” people.

Aylmer Fisher, I hope you appreciate the effort.

Liz Mair Cuckservative Checklist

Liz Mair published answers to frequently asked questions and frequent accusations about her politics. I found her list to be very illustrative regarding what many of us have described as the so-called cuckservative phenomenon. For sake of discussion, I’ve reproduced portions of her post in the form of answers to a membership checklist for cuckservatives.

1. Do you have dual citizenship?

Yes. “I am American. I am also British.”

2. Do you support illegal immigrant amnesty?

Yes. “Unless we’re talking gang members or people involved in major financial crimes or sex criminals, no, I’m actually basically for amnesty. I’ll even use the word, unlike a lot of people.”

3. Are you anti-racist, except for white Europeans.

Yes. “I am not a fan of Belgium and have met very few Belgians I like. I have a bias against Belgium and Belgians. But I do like people of Latino, African and Asian extraction, as well as White people — except if they’re from Belgium.”

4. Do you support gay rights? What about marriage?

Yes. “I’m actually a long-time gay rights supporter. I am on the board of the Young Conservatives for the Freedom to Marry. I was on the board of GOProud. I’ve been on the record as supporting same-sex marriage for far longer than the vast majority of Democrats or liberals.”

[See below for gay marriage.]

5. Do you support health care reform, but reserve good healthcare for yourself?

Yes. “…look at John McCain’s health care plan from 2008. Hell, look at Obama’s. You know what’s interesting? Obamacare isn’t what Obama proposed. It’s what Hillary Clinton proposed. If Obama had pursued what he ran on, it would have been better.

Also look at various health care proposals from people like Rudy Giuliani, Tom Coburn and, yes, Paul Ryan (on the Medicare reform front; there’s merit to getting everyone in the country into one system, as opposed to keeping people in something more akin to 3 or 4 systems).”

“…the NHS was my primary source of health care for many, many years. One of the reasons I returned to the US was to get into a better health care system than the NHS. The NHS provides universal, fairly crappy care for free for many people, and at a higher cost than (IMO) is warranted for a number of people who don’t use it much, but pay for it through their taxes.”

6. Is it important for conservative Republican candidates to win elections?

No. “…first of all, I’ve advised winning candidates and parties as well as losing ones, both in the US and abroad. I consulted for the GOP in 2010. I’ve advised foreign parties and individuals who have won elections. I worked for Scott Walker in his recall election in 2012. I’ve also worked for losing candidates and parties and organizations (Carly Fiorina is the one who is usually mentioned). And I’ve worked for people who aren’t up for (re-) election who are generally regarded as pretty successful.

My general attitude where working on campaigns is concerned is that I’ve got to really like and believe in the person, and that their odds of winning aren’t really things I consider relevant when deciding whether I like them and want to work for them. Most consultants want to work only for winners, even if they are wet farts of human beings who frankly no one should be inspired by or want to vote for. So, some of them have more winning records than me. But they also work for wet farts of human beings, so there’s that.

The vast majority of my work isn’t for candidates, committees, parties, etc., though. It’s on issues.”

7. Are you pro-life, but only if there are several reasonable exceptions?

Yes. “I’m pro-gay-marriage and I’m also pro-choice, though I have some very major moral objections to abortion in most circumstances and would never have an abortion myself.”

“I do think abortion should remain legal in the first trimester, or where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. I don’t think abortion should be allowed on sex-selective or disability-selective grounds, although I also don’t think legislation can stop this entirely, only discourage it. ..I think there are huge moral problems with abortion, and that people should abort far, far less. And I would never have an abortion. Above all, I think the best ways to curtail abortion are a) for more people to use better birth control, and more consistently and b) for a cultural case to be made against it, as opposed to seeking to use the strong arm of government to stop it. I’m a skeptic of the effectiveness of big government, and that’s true whether we’re talking health insurance policy or abortion.”

8. Are you pro-adoption whenever you discuss abortion?

Yes. “I don’t think abortion should be allowed on sex-selective or disability-selective grounds, although I also don’t think legislation can stop this entirely, only discourage it. I also think people should look at adoption a lot more than they currently do.”

9. To cover for your apparent homosexuality, do you have a beard?

Yes. “I get that some people think any woman with short hair is a lesbian. I’m actually married to the guy I’ve been with since I was 18 and we have a kid. And yes, my husband was born a man with all the relevant bits, and still lives as a man with all the relevant bits.”

10. Do you dislike and have reservations about conservative Christian politicians?

Yes. “I like a lot of social conservatives. But I am not a fan of Rick Santorum, or his influence on the GOP. Mike Huckabee is somewhat better insofar as I think he’s actually at root a nice guy who cares about people and isn’t just bitter and pissed off all the time, but I obviously disagree with him on some stuff.”

11. If you are a RINO, will you reference Rand Paul as a political fig leaf for your moderate politics?

Yes. “I have worked for, and like, a lot of more moderate Republicans. And I am a social liberal, and a big softie on immigration. So, yes, kinda, but …

“I have also worked for Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Scott Walker, and I like all of them albeit for slightly different reasons. I am very, very conservative on economic policy.”

12. Do you give lip-service to gun ownership rights?

Yes. “I am also extremely pro-2nd amendment.”

13. Are you a lawyercunt and poseur?

Yes. “I’m pretty bad at math, but for what it’s worth, I have an MA from the University of St. Andrews, and an English law degree, and I used to be a corporate lawyer. I also speak four languages, albeit three of them increasingly badly.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Liz Mair Cuckservative Checklist

About the WordPress Rainbow…

Today I opened my WordPress account and found a rainbow at the top.

Be advised this is my last post on this internet platform.

I will attempt a full archive of all posts this afternoon, then temporarily shut the blog until I can identify a non-depraved host.

Please contact me at my yahoo email (which will also soon be closed) if you have any web host suggestions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on About the WordPress Rainbow…

We No Longer Have the Rule of Law

I spoke with a man named Limbaugh today. I thought you might want to read what we discussed.

We No Longer Have the Rule of Law

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here’s Ted in Little Rock. Hey, Ted. Glad you waited. Great to have you on the program. Hi.

CALLER: Hey, thank you. Great pleasure being on the radio with you —

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: — Mr. Limbaugh. To me the meaning of this latest decision of the court, the one regarding what we call Obamacare, is that the court has basically voided statutory law. Voided statutory law then, you know, I don’t need to worry about statutory law. I need to worry about what I think the tyrants, the people with guns might enforce. What they decide is the law today.

RUSH: That’s exactly right.

CALLER: And let me just finish, add one little thing here. Next up, this session of the court is common law. We’re gonna decide whether or not — or the court is gonna decide ’cause all of us individually can decide whatever we please — we’re gonna decide whether man and wife means man and wife or it means something else. And when that’s done, we don’t have statutory law, we don’t have common law. We got nothing. And then it’s everybody for himself and figuring out what the best move is gonna be based on what people who have the power to enforce —

RUSH: Hang on. I want you to emphasize that point when we get back. Hang on just a second.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Back to Ted in Little Rock. Ted, I want you to go the common law aspect of what you said again, but would you do me a favor for people?

CALLER: Sure.

RUSH: Statutory law is pretty simple to understand. Statute is a statutory law passed by Congress. What do you mean by common law? You’ve given marriage as an example but give an example of a common law. For example, what’s to stop the chief? If the court accepts the Second Amendment case, given what happened today, what’s to stop the chief justice from saying it’s clear the framers really meant that only members of uniformed militia should have the right to bear arms. Nothing. Now he’s become the sole arbiter if he can get enough people to join him on the court. That’s still statutory, but what is — as you understand, common law, besides marriage? Give some other examples.

CALLER: Well, I’m a structural engineer. I design buildings. You might jokingly say I protect you from architects.

RUSH: (laughing) I understand that, by the way.

CALLER: I appreciate that. So if I am a structural engineer and there’s nothing in the code that says I should design with a particular factor of safety, then we go to what’s broadly described as customary practice or usual practice. In other words, what everybody else is doing and has been doing for a very, very long time. And hopefully that’s based on some level of reality, though occasionally we discover in my profession that, “Wow, how about that? That doesn’t really work the way we thought it did, so we’re going to change all the building codes in California after Northridge.”

So we got that kind of stuff that goes on in my profession. But, you know, if we are at the point now where that kind of argument is no longer valid, if we can’t say, whether it’s marriage or my engineering practice, “Well, everybody else has been doing it this way,” and we’ve all run under the same set of assumptions for a very, very long time, and we had no reason prior to this to believe anything was otherwise, but suddenly something’s changed, and now I’m liable for the change.

Even though I didn’t know and nobody knew at such and such a time. You might not say the same thing’s applicable to the Confederate battle flag, for that matter. Suddenly this has become a symbol of this, that, or the other. Well, you should have known it was a symbol of racism and hate and divisiveness, and, and, and, and, and. So suddenly everybody has to pull it off the shelves. Having it is proof that you are in fact a racist, and here’s the next step for battle flags as far as you want to go. I own a battle flag, therefore I’m a racist, therefore I cannot have a federal or state or local government contract.

RUSH: Okay. So the term in the example of gay marriage, common law has always said that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s what you meant by a man and a wife. Now all of a sudden, the Supreme Court, despite the fact that we’ve never voted on this, the American people — actually there have been votes in the states. It’s been voted down. Gay marriage has been defeated just like Prop 8 in California was defeated, but here comes the Supreme Court, and they’re probably going to declare that marriage is now defined by whatever they say it’s going to be defined as.

CALLER: Well, again, the statutory law doesn’t matter, so you’re unusually behind. What the people have voted constitutionally or the legislatures of the various states voted in, whether it’s constitutions or laws, are irrelevant, because the statutes, the legislative decisions of the people don’t matter. That’s what this court case says.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: And so now the only thing left is common law, which is custom, which is history, which is the past, which is what we have always done, sans some decision to make the change. Well, the decision to make the change has been pulled out of the hands of the people. It’s been pulled out of the hands of the representatives of the people. It’s been pulled out of, heck, you know, the tyrants that might rule over the people. We’re down to whatever somebody says who has sufficient authority to back it up. And if the common law falls at that point, there’s nothing left. We’re done. [At this point in the transcript, I’m muted.]

RUSH: Wave bye-bye to traditions and standards and the way things have been done. Well, I know. That is one of the direct results of this ruling today. And the chief justice’s own words pretty much say so. He said (paraphrasing), “Look, I’ve gotta interpret this, and I have to use context and intent to interpret this, and it just can’t mean what it says here. I’m just gonna tell you, I mean, it doesn’t mean what it says, and I got five other judges to agree with me.”

So this is the government the left has always wanted, folks. You have an authoritarian megalomaniac like Obama ruling, not governing, ruling like a monarch. The opposition is paralyzed by fear, so they bend over. And then, according to the highest court in the land, which is supposed to provide a check and a balance against just this kind of thing, the Supreme Court comes along and says, “Well, wait a minute. This law doesn’t mean anything. The words don’t mean anything,” like Scalia said, “The words of this law, the words of this statute don’t mean anything. I’m changing what they mean to mean what I want them to mean for whatever reason I want them to mean what I want ’em to mean.”

So, therefore, there is no meaning. And so Ted’s point is that at this point there is no statutory law and therefore common law is next and so now we just have authoritarian rule. Everybody’s free to say whatever they want to say, do whatever they want to do if they have the authority to back it up. And of course people in the federal government have the authority, many ways to exercise it, to back it up.

Look, folks, I, for one, as I’ve told you earlier today, am not surprised. I thought this was gonna happen. But it’s still depressing and shocking when you see it. Knowing that it was coming and expecting that it was coming does not in any way make it palatable.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Yeah, look, I hate to remind you again, but there’s gonna be another whole wave of Supreme Court case decisions announced tomorrow, and probably gay marriage is gonna be among them. You should probably — again, experience guided by intelligence gives you an indication of how that’s gonna be — be prepared just be frothing all over again.

END TRANSCRIPT

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on We No Longer Have the Rule of Law

Just a Little Taste of My Vacation

I may or may not do a vacation post, but this anecdote was worth sharing.

I’m at White Water water park in Branson, spending a cloudy late afternoon poolside, when human entertainment presents itself for my amusement.

An old man is talking with his three grandkids directly before my lounge chair. They’re discussing the next activity, what they’re going to do, et cetera. There’s some good-hearted debate, and the grandfather’s a bit frustrated, though still smiling and laughing, when he turns to me, the audience for this play in one act, and asks, “Would you like some kids? You can have them for free.”

I manage to keep my face completely straight, point at the teenager, and say, “I’ll take the girl.”

The grandfather laughs and answers, “She’s the worst one!” At which point I start laughing, because from this little play so far, the girl has a sharp tongue and I judge the boys are clearly more manageable.

And so the interactive portion of the performance ends.

My wife, lounging beside me, doesn’t chastise me at all.

Thank you, Roissy. It’s a beautiful world, and you prepared me well for my first truly poolside moment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Just a Little Taste of My Vacation

An Open Letter to a Closed-Minded Progressive

“Who is my neighbor?” – a lawyer

I suppose it would be nice to write this missive within a philosophical vacuum, but such vacuum simply doesn’t exist.

Curtis Yarvin wrote a very long missive entitled, An Open Letter to an Open-Minded Progressive. Much within that document is just, but the title fails. He has recently completed the experiment testing the hypothesis: is there an open-minded progressive? The result excludes the existence of such creatures.

Sure, I hear you, “Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence,” but I’m the atheist guy who still believes large portions of the Bible, so most of your arguments – Hell! – your whole ass-fucking chain of thought fails to impress me. Curtis just cold-approached a mediocre girl and got thrown out of the bar. Not a hot girl, mind you, a mediocre girl. I think he needs to read more Roissy – and frequent another bar.

One of the most interesting experiences living in Glasgow was the discovery I could walk unmolested through ANY neighborhood. I can’t do that in Little Rock. Sure, I can walk (relatively) safely through any neighborhood in Little Rock, but I can’t pass unmolested. Glasgow was a different matter. I fit the entire contents of Scotland. I could approach strangers and stranger were comfortable approaching me. Trust was assumed. The closest I came to distrust was entering an “Asian” grocery and negotiating the purchase of a single banana. The man didn’t comprehend how I would only want one. Once he understood I was just hungry and had coin (literally), everybody was smiles. I think the poor guy lived in a neighborhood with bums, and I suppose I can resemble a bum after wandering a city for an afternoon. Nah, I always look like a bum. Which brings me to my other thought. I can’t walk nonchalantly into the Little Rock Country Club or Chenal Country Club without a hard hat – ’cause I look like a “bum,” or, more precisely, because I don’t look like I could pay the membership fees for a country club. [I could.] Sam Ambreen would call my experience intersectionality, but wouldn’t, because I’m white, and we don’t get to be intersection, only supremacist, which doesn’t mean what it appears to mean when you read it.

[Note: I have dined at the country club in Jonesboro, but that’s a matter of the local population’s expectations for attire.]

Curtis, tried wandering into a knitting circle, with knitting-inspected invitation in hand, except he was dressed in drag with a swastika carved in his forehead by Aldo Raine. Curtis doesn’t get to be a human being any longer; henceforth, he is only a freak show for the amusement of information technology dilettantes’. That’s a shame, really, since dilettantes usually… hell, it’s in the definition. What Curtis should do, but hasn’t, is organize his own conference inviting complex thinkers from all walks to present difficult topics that require explanation and thoughtful study to comprehend. One can dream.

The primary reason I abandoned information technology as a field of study was it’s complete and utter divorce from reality. It was only after many years apart from the industry that I realized the impact such isolation from consequence can have upon the human psyche. Imagine, if you will, that you can conceive of a three-dimensional Escher environment where walking down can take you up, ascent is descent, left is right, except when it’s left, or inside. My boy sometimes creates spaces within the confines of a Minecraft model that mimic – but do not accomplish – these feats of geometry. I can accomplish the same by “hearthing” my toon in Wow: one moment I am here, then the next I am here. Wouldn’t it be great If reality were so malleable.

“But it is!” you cry. I hear you. A man can become a woman, a wife can become single, the fat made thin, the wise made foolish, the foolish made wise (all with the assistance of Google). Tunney be praised! Or is it an illusion? Will Jenner ever really be a woman? Does the divorcee ever really become single again? Does that gastric bypass really make you thin, or merely less nourished? Did you really make Dawkins into a fool, or is your Christian or Social Justice deity just as foolish as his atheist love of Christmas Carols? Is Tunney a leader or an opportunist?

“Heresy!” you cry. “Alien! How dare you challenge our authority?” Well. dear progressive, how, will remain my secret, but I will tell you why.

I told you that I quit information technology for a reason. I chose, instead, to work in a field where reality was a the final test, with perhaps a little destructive intervention from human beings: structural engineering. You may know the field because it’s been a relentless signpost in history these last several decades. Round about the time I first started my career, a guy named Tim parked a truck filled with an improvised explosive device in front of a “federal building” in downtown Oklahoma City, then blew tens of people, and a large part of the aforementioned building, to smithereens. He claimed to be ignorant that a day care for young children was present at the building, but he did not regret the young lives lost, because he acted to avenge women and children killed at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco and the so-called white separatist family homestead at Ruby Ridge. I’m inclined to believe a man who fully expected to die for his actions, on both counts.

Not long after, a motley collection of Muslims hijacked four airplanes and killed themselves, all the passengers and crew, and a substantial portion of the occupants of the World Trade Center towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Virginia. [I am aware that there are alternative narratives involving empty planes and explosive charges; my argument withstands these.] I am fairly confident that the men who hijacked the planes fully expected to die accomplishing there goals. These mass killings were also, I should add, in revenge for killing “their” people. [Again, adjust the narrative as you see fit.. and hang with me.] So, we mobilized our “armed forces” and reigned hell upon “their” people – or a close approximation thereof – in response to that event. Or so the story goes.

Of course, a lot of this traces back to that first Gulf War back in ’90-’91, the conflict where infidel troops camped in purportedly holy Arabia and Tim learned much of what he needed to know to become a bomber, but perhaps we need to look a little further, back to when Tim hadn’t yet shipped out to Arabia to serve in Iraq. See, Tim purchased a t-shirt with the slogan “White Power” at a KKK protest of black soldiers wearing t-shirts emblazoned with “black power” while on base. Tim got reprimanded for the purchase, ’cause raciss.  I wonder what happened back in Arabia to the guys who decided to trade further life for the promise of glory in heaven?

Now, all that narrative above has one particular thing in common: I couldn’t do a damn thing to stop it.

Let’s say, for sake of argument, that I design the WTC (I didn’t). Do you think I would have designed the building for an airplane hit? If you said, “No,” you’re mistaken, because it was – just not a BIG airplane. Same geos for the Murrah building. Sure, the various authorities will say things like, “…not design for progressive collapse,” but that’s bullshit: every building is designed for progressive collapse; the question is, “How much progressive collapse?” See, a St. Louis boss inherited the Little Rock office where I worked back in ‘-08 or ‘-09 (I forget). He had a good expression for the extra work that can be got from people: discretionary effort. When I’m designing a building, I am obligated to include a code-mandated safety factor. the factor of safety varies according to materials and circumstances, but it can go as low as about 1.2 for reliable materials and predictable loads. Described in terms of labor, that translates to about 8 more hours discretionary effort that an employee will provide to a reliable employer for a manageable project.

Much of life can be described with this term, discretionary effort. Does your wife cook your breakfast, or do you make it yourself? What about blow jobs? When your daughter flunks a college class and loses her scholarship, do you pay the difference and her summer session tuition, or ship her things to her apartment with a parting gift of one month’s rent? Does your daughter get her tuition paid at all? Do you play ball with your son, or watch “the game” with a beer? When your buddy asks to stay at your place, do you offer him the guest room, or couch? Or $100 for a hotel room? Or nothing? The St. Louis boss wanted to impress upon us the notion that we needed to motivate our subordinates to work the extra that was needed to complete work. He neglected to inspire me, however; so I took another assignment.

I submit to you that you have accomplished the same with Curtis and, by extension to other parts of your lives, other men like Curtis who have dared to challenge your narrative. It may be that you are right and we are wrong; that’s not really the point. The point is that, in the meantime, you rely upon us to participate with you as willing partners in life. You will find many are no longer willing. Tim eventually quit the Army when they discovered he didn’t fit the mental profile for an “elite soldier.” Until today, I always found it confusing that this evaluation did not justify his immediate expulsion from the Army, but I had overlooked a critical truth embedded in the lie: Tim was a good enough soldier. he was good enough for a modest investment and shooting things, so long as the commanders of the Army needn’t rely upon him to not stop and think differently. Tim had already begun to think differently.

Curtis thinks differently. The danger inherent in this difference is dramatic. If Curtis does not believe, as you do, that either

(a) all human beings are born with identical talents and inclinations.

[or]

(b) human beings may be born with different talents and inclinations, but these talents and inclinations are distributed identically across all living populations.

then you and Curtis have reached an impasse. To obtain Curtis’ participation in your schemes for directing capital for the Greater Good, you must obtain his concurrence that there is a Greater Good. Curtis, I suspect, comprehends that there is not a Greater Good, or more precisely, that the Greater Good has very little to do with him. Hence the preamble to his dilemma,

Frankly, I’m actually considering recanting. Who wouldn’t rather be Galileo than Giordano Bruno? But recanting is a serious matter – it’s the sort of thing you need to get right the first time.

To appear at future conferences without my fellow speakers worrying that I’ll enslave them or kick off Holocaust 2.0, it’d be ideal if someone can tell me what I have to believe.

But it goes further than that. Tim didn’t necessarily reject that either a) or b); Tim merely believed that you punished dissent from your narrative, e.g.: black military personnel publicly wearing “black power” t-shirts is ok but whites purchasing “white power” t-shirts is forbidden. It is impossible to reconcile the equality narrative while pursuing a tactic designed to promote inequality. Since Tim’s life ended, you’ve developed your narrative to include concepts such as “social justice” and “institutional racism,” but these merely sidestep Tim’s objections. You are still often reduced to the accusation,

I think you should also consider the possibility that some past emotional experience is driving all these rationalizations.

Which may be stated more concisely as, “Seek help; you’re crazy,” followed by shunning, or in Tim’s case, since he decisively declared his opposition, death.

That, I think is the crux of the matter for personally. I practice a regulated profession. It is conceivable that a sufficiently aggressive progressive could strip me of my earned privilege based upon my opinions unrelated to that privilege. Except, you don’t think my privilege, or my suffrage, is unrelated to my religion. I am confident that you consider these two one and the same. What is freedom of conscience if acting according to conscience is forbidden, if expressing that conscience results in shunning? If you rob a man of his livelihood by requiring that he violate that conscience by expressing agreement with your religion, does he have freedom of religion? This, ultimately, is the natural expression of your religion: dissent falsifies your narrative so it cannot be permitted.

I do not believe that explosive devices were installed in the World Trade Center and exploded; this does not require that I shun people who believe otherwise because the consequence of our disagreement can be mediated by reality, and in any case, our difference of opinion impacts our transactions very little, if at all. You, in contrast, must shun men such as Curtis from discussions unrelated to his religious opinions because your religion relies upon consensus to endure.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I feel for you; I truly do. Here’s another one.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

If you’re a true progressive, it’s likely you’ve abandoned that little fantasy. As Dawkins would say, “You’re an atheist, too. I’ve just gone one more god than you.” What Curtis asks of you is not that you agree with him; that really doesn’t matter. All he asks of you is that you tell him what he must believe. But that won’t work, and you know it, don’t you? If you say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house,” you’d be lying, wouldn’t you? Your religion is more malleable than that, isn’t it? “Believe what we believe, even as we come to believe differently, and you might be saved, you alone, for as long as you are useful.” That’s a bit closer to the truth, isn’t’ it? More likely he’s committed the unforgivable sin: he pointed, and laughed.

I can’t speak for Curtis: he must live his own life and manage the consequences of his own decisions. I can tell you that I am no longer willing to abide by the terms you present for a feeble promise of potential salvation from the sins you’ve invented for profit. I am not a sinner, and if I were, I would determine the scope of my own sin.

I will leave you with one more thought; you may wish to consider it a final warning.

“A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, ‘Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.’

“Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?” And [the lawyer] said, “He that shewed mercy on him.” Then said Jesus unto him, “Go, and do thou likewise.”

If you read that parable as I did for many years, you read an answer to the questions, “Who is my neighbor?” and the plain answer is, “The Samaritan,” but that’s not what’s in the text. The words are, “He that shewed mercy on him.” You’ve got to circle back to the lawyer’s original answer to Jesus question, “What is written in the law?”

The lawyer replies, “Thou shalt love …thy neighbor as thyself.”

Jesus praises, “You are right.”

The lawyer persists, “Who is my neighbor?”

And Jesus replies, “The man who shows mercy.”

Jesus admonition is not to love men that leave you dying by the side of the road. Such men are not your neighbors. Jesus instructed to love men who will aid you when you are in need of salvation. The lawyer wanted to know, “Who is my neighbor?” not so he might expand that category to include all people, but so that he might narrow that category to a reasonable expectation. Jesus supplied that discrimination.

Curtis is lying on the side of the road. Ya’ll passed by him. More: you shunned him. That’s alright. it’s your choice. We all hear you loud and clear. You are not our neighbor.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on An Open Letter to a Closed-Minded Progressive

The Wisdom of Leeuwenhoek, Janitor and Dry Goods Proprietor, Courtesy of Paul De Kruif

Regarding the advancement of science by universities.

The professors and students of the University of Leydon were long ago dazzled by my discoveries; they hired three lens grinders to come to teach the students, but what came of it? Nothing, so far as I can judge, for almost all of the courses they teach are for the purpose of getting money through knowledge or for gaining the respect of the world by showing people how learned you are, and these things have nothing to do with the discovering of things that are buried from our eyes. I am convinced that of a thousand people not one is capable of carrying out such studies, because endless time is needed and much money is spilled and because a man has always to be busy with his thoughts if anything is to be accomplished…

On the burdens of instructing others.

I never taught a [student], because if I taught one, I’d have to teach others… I would give myself over to slavery, whereas I want to stay a free man.

Regarding truth

My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my own ideas but I’ll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown plausible reasons which I can grasp. This is the more true since I have no other purpose that to place truth before my eyes so far as it is in my power to embrace it; and to use the little talent I have received to draw the wolrd away from its old heathenish superstitions and to go over to the truth and to stick to it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Wisdom of Leeuwenhoek, Janitor and Dry Goods Proprietor, Courtesy of Paul De Kruif