Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Origins of Leftism

Sunday, October 28th, 2012

Bruce Charlton, who is usually wise except when his religion gets in the way of reality, argues that the origins of the left are not in Christianity, but rather in secularism, that Christianity became corrupted into leftism by becoming secular, rather than secular because corrupted into leftism.

He is wrong.  Christianity really is to blame.  First Christians became leftists, then, being leftists, became secularists.

Christianity became corrupted, then became secular because corrupted.  It did not become corrupted because secular.  It was corrupt when it opposed New Testament style marriage, slavery, and supported the emancipation of women. (more…)

The Dark Enlightenment

Monday, September 24th, 2012

The fundamental realization of the Dark Enlightenment is that all men are not created equal, not individual men, nor the various groups and categories of men, nor are women equal to men, that these beliefs and others like them are religious beliefs, that society is just as religious as ever it was, with an official state religion of progressivism, but this is a new religion, an evil religion, and, if you are a Christian, a demonic religion.

The Dark Enlightenment does not propose that leftism went wrong four years ago, or ten years ago, but that it was fundamentally and terribly wrong a couple of centuries ago, and we have been heading to hell in a handbasket ever since at a rapidly increasing rate – that the enlightenment was dangerously optimistic about humans, human nature, and the state, that it is another good news religion, telling us what we wish to hear, but about this world instead of the next.

If authority required me to believe in Leprechauns, and to get along with people that it was important to get along with required me to believe in Leprechauns, I would probably believe in leprechauns, though not in the way that I believe in rabbits, but I can see people not being equal, whereas I cannot see leprechauns not existing.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,”

Well obviously if they were not created equal, which plainly they were not, then they were not created with certain inalienable rights either.  Rights are quite alienable.  If men were created, they were created by a God that wrathfully ordained Monarchy for sinful people who were unwilling or unable to govern themselves (first book of Samuel), a God who similarly also approved slavery. And if instead men are the product of the blind forces of natural selection, are risen killer apes, rights come from fire and steel, or the threat thereof, the second amendment being the father of all of the others, in which case you can rightly be enslaved individually for individual fecklessness, or collectively for collective stubborn but incompetent war making.

Rights and equality sound very nice, but it’s all fake, and we are being destroyed.

A lot of people do not want, and cannot competently exercise, real rights.  So “equality” means you start giving them such “rights” as “freedom from hunger”, meaning that someone more competent and thoughtful than they are has to provide them with food that they are too feckless to obtain for themselves, so the superior person’s real rights are destroyed to provide the inferior person with fake “rights”, the right to hay and a barn for human cattle – that being the only way that naturally unequal people can be rendered equal.

Rights and equality are fundamentally incompatible.  If you want rights, cannot have equality, because some people do not deserve, do not particularly want, and cannot competently exercise, real rights.  You are not going to make a below average IQ person with short time preference into a real citizen, independent, free, self sufficient, and property owning.  If some people are going to be free, they are going to be more free than such people.

And if you let such people, inferior people, vote, they will always vote against other people’s rights and other people’s property, being themselves incapable of exercising rights, and themselves too feckless and destructive to have nice things.  If they vote, they vote to drag everyone down to their own subhuman level, a desire politicians are eager to fulfill.

And if God created woman, he created woman to be a help meet for man. And if the blind forces of natural selection shaped women, they shaped women to function in a role profoundly unequal to her husband and her father, for in the ancestral environment, women were completely dependent upon men, resulting a female psychology that is apt to produce bad results for independent women, as is readily observable as one walks past a fertility clinic and looks at the clientele going in and out.

Religion and reaction.

Wednesday, September 12th, 2012

Fosetti criticizes Bruce Charlton’s claim that

there are only three sides: Christianity, Islam and secular Leftism

Obviously most Christians are secular leftists, in that they have chucked the Gospel overboard because of all those horribly reactionary bits commanding patriarchy and commanding toleration of all sorts of things that progressives are not supposed to tolerate, and in the process they have demoted Christ the redeemer to Jesus the community organizer.

See Dalrock’s wonderful blog for its magnificent condemnation of actually existent Christianity.  By and large, if we consider the actually existent mainstream churches to be Christian, Christians are leftists.  Not only are today’s militantly atheistic progressives the ideological descendents of the 1940s Christian left, today’s Churches are being frog marched along the same path the progressives have already walked.  They are just lagging a little, and on the issues that matter most to progressives, such as the destruction the family and fatherhood, they are not lagging in the slightest.  Dalrock reports that you will get the same demolition of fathers and fatherhood in the sermons as you get on prime time television.

If we define Christianity by its willingness to socially enforce the politically unacceptable parts of the Gospels, which is most of what Christians were supposed to socially enforce, then Christianity is dead except for a remnant, and heavily outnumbered by Randians, anarcho capitalists, atheistic monarchists in the mold of Moldbug, and the rest.

It is simply ridiculous for churches to oppose abortion and gay marriage, when they have already abandoned fatherhood and traditional heterosexual marriage.  Having conceded everything that matters, they will concede on the rest soon enough.

The neg in romance stories

Monday, September 10th, 2012

The authors of A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the Internet Tells Us About Sexual Relationships have surveyed thousands of porn sites and great stinking piles of slash romance fiction. It was a tough job, but someone had to do it.

They tell us that the ideal-looking hero of a romance story has “dark hair,” which accents the “white teeth” in his “sensual mouth” curved into a “crooked smile.”.

But a crooked smile is an expression of contempt. If the hero is looking at someone with a crooked smile he is laughing at them. I checked one romance fiction for a crooked smile, that being all I could stand, and yes, that is what hero was doing, negging the heroine most savagely – no he was not negging,  since a neg is back handed compliment, an unsettling comment that could be interpreted as insult.  He was just insulting her.

So yes, all women are like that.

Dude, where is my flying car?

Monday, August 27th, 2012

The first man on the moon has died, and pretty soon the last men on the moon will be dead also.

where are the space settlements?  By the year 2000, we were supposed to have flying cars, space settlements, and cities that looked like this: (more…)

Legitimate rape

Tuesday, August 21st, 2012

Todd is deep trouble for using the phrase “legitimate rape”, for implying that a lot of rapes are not legitimate – implying that a lot of rape allegations are false rape allegations, or the post hoc reinterpretation of profoundly ambiguous events as rape.

Evolutionary psychology predicts that women will be far more upset about consenting to sex with someone that they subsequently deem a creep or a loser, than actually being forcibly and unambiguously raped, thus false or delusive rape accusations are likely to be common.

Surveys show that it is very rare for a woman married to the head of her household to be raped, and very common that the rapist is an acquaintance of the woman.

This suggests that most rapes occur under courtship circumstances, where it is apt to be inherently ambiguous whether the women consented or not.

In practice, the only common cases where a woman unambiguously consents to sex is marriage, where she consents verbally in front of witnesses, and prostitution, where she accepts a fee for service.  In other cases, consent is seldom verbal, and not merely merely non verbal, but, as in cats, pre verbal, making it genuinely hard to apply our contract based concepts of consent.  Illicit sex is usually inherently ambiguous sex.   You cannot really say she consented except she comes back or sticks around, she herself cannot really say whether she consented unless she observes herself coming back or sticking around. These days, much, perhaps most, sex outside marriage does not involve people sticking around or coming back. (more…)

Western sponsorship of “Russian” protest

Saturday, August 18th, 2012
Hot half naked Russian chick chainsaws someone else's crucifix in Russia

Hot half naked Russian chick chainsaws someone else’s crucifix in Russia

Observe her protest is written on her in English – she is not protesting for the Russian or Ukrainian audience, but for the western audience. This a western propaganda offensive against the last major Church to stick with Christianity. (more…)

Pussy Riot attacked freedom of speech and freedom of religion

Saturday, August 18th, 2012

And the longer they stay in jail, the more secure freedom of speech and freedom of religion is in Russia.

If you desecrate your own altar in your own venue, that is freedom of speech and freedom of religion. If you desecrate someone else’s altar in someone else’s venue, you are suppressing their freedom of religion, and, in that an altar is symbolic speech, you are silencing their speech. (more…)

Where the doctrine of equalism comes from

Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

“View from the right” is Christian rightist, and there they are arguing all men are made in the image of God, and therefore, equally entitled to rights and dignity.

Of course, they can argue this without being totally insane since they believe that everyone has an immortal soul inside, regardless of physical and mental inequality and propensity to depraved acts, but when Christians ditched their Christianity, while retaining equalism, thus becoming progressives, which began with the anti slavery movement and was more or less completed in the late 1940s, early 1950s, then, having ditched immortal souls, they then had to argue that men and women, blacks and whites, and so on and so forth were all literally equal in mean and distribution, which position is transparently insane and contrary to casual observation and common sense. (more…)

The left singularity continues

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Moving left faster

Increased repression brings increased leftism, increased leftism brings increased repression, in an ever tighter circle that turns ever faster.  This is the left singularity (more…)