Monday, November 30, 2015

Speaking of Xenophobia...

It looks like it's pretty popular in Germany too.

I'm talking, of course, about the clergy who otherwise won't shut up about how important it is to flood Europe with as many 'refugees' as possible.

Sayeth the kind-hearted liberal clergy about Africa:
Of course the Church is growing there. It grows because the people are socially dependent and often have nothing else but their faith. It grows because the educational situation there is on average at a rather low level and the people accept simple answers to difficult questions(of faith) [sic]. Answers like those that Cardinal Sarah of Guinea provides. And even the growing number of priests is a result not only of missionary power but also a result of the fact that the priesthood is one of the few possibilities for social security on the dark continent.
Channeling Chris Rock, I suppose Cardinal Kasper would insist that while he loves black people, he just can't stand niggers.

Speaking as an educated child of the west, protective of my culture and my ways - and awash in sin besides - let me take it upon myself to put a good word in, not just for Cardinal Sarah, but for the Church in Africa: maybe we're not as smart as we think we are, and maybe the Africans have recovered some of the clarity we used to be blessed with. Maybe when they disagree with us, they have reasons for doing so. Last I checked, Cardinal Sarah offered reasons for his views - damn good ones. The educated Cardinal Kasper mostly offered up hot air, deception and misdirection.

Let Cardinal Kasper ask me who I think the more intelligent person is between the two, and which of the two I think became a cleric because the alternative was bottom-feeding in his respective culture. The answer may surprise him.

So while I'm one post away from having sung the praises of a certain amount of xenophobia, let me make it clear: western civilization doesn't dominate in every category. While Africa has its own problems - putting it mildly - we have plenty of our own, and believing we're so goddamn smart is one of them. Maybe not every topic is as complicated as we like to pretend it is - maybe we're having trouble figuring out simple problems that other people can understand and solve with ease.

Saturday, November 28, 2015

Xenophobia versus Apathy

There is a near-unceasing war against 'Xenophobia' in the modern west. It's more universal, more passionate than the war against 'Homophobia', and people who will still criticize same-sex marriage or sodomy in general will often turn on a dime and lambast xenophobia or anything in the ballpark of it. Even people accused of xenophobia usually fight back by trying to argue that others are the REAL xenophobes.

At heart, there is an obsession with denouncing anyone who dislikes change. Who wants to preserve almost anything about the life they know - the language spoken in their country, or even their city. The traditions they have ('tradition' is itself sneered at by default by many). Their habits, their temperaments, their loyalties, their tolerances - the desire to stand firm and preserve just about anything is seen as primitive retroactive behavior, and even yesterday's liberal attitude becomes today's out-of-date stance.

To express dislike at the idea that in a hundred years, or fifty years, or possibly even twenty years the country you know of will be of a near-completely different racial, cultural, linguistic, religious and intellectual makeup is a sign that you're intolerant, stupid and quite possibly dangerous on top of it all. You fear change, ergo you fear progress, ergo you are an enemy of all that's good.

People go along with this, as they'll go along with just about anything with the right prodding. But in the process, they fight back - subconsciously and naturally, even if undetectably.

And their weapon of choice is apathy.

They stop having children, or at least stop prioritizing their welfare. They lose attachment to their community. Some lose interest in their own lives, or maintain it only in pretty shallow ways - ways that benefit themselves, and if they benefit anyone else, that is at best a happy and usually temporary accident. They may be politically active, but their movements are unpredictable and without rhyme or reason. They're emotional, based on the extraordinarily immediate - what upsets them today. If they change their mind about what's desperately urgent in a week or a month or a year, you can point out their inconsistency and they won't care. They've already absorbed the idea that consistency is for savages.

Now, you can laugh at them - I sure do. Mock them, belittle them, and it's not always undeserved. But what has actually created them? Point at the media, point at the schools. Once again, I do the same, and there's some blame there. But I think there's more blame to be passed around than that. Did anyone ever teach them that it was perfectly acceptable - even noble - to want to preserve something more than a fucking park for the next generation? That they rightly had some say over who that next generation would even be?

Thursday, November 26, 2015

Happy Thanksgiving

Even if you're in Europe or something!

Monday, November 23, 2015

Church of England ad banned for featuring Lord's Prayer

Mostly I'm surprised they still recite that prayer, since it's sexist and patriarchal.
I should feel sympathetic. I am sympathetic, in fact, but in a larger and more abstract way. It's another sign of what 'multiculturalism' really means in the West, a sign of that 'tolerance' that only tolerates the shittier aspects of what we call human diversity.

But this isn't a fight I see the Church of England meaningfully fighting. They've rolled over when it's come to every major fight with the modern, secular world. Their whole sect was founded on the tenacity of their desire to roll over for a state authority who wanted to change a rule he found inconvenient. I don't think they're going to improve, now that the secular world is demanding their extinction, which they've otherwise resigned themselves to, when they're not outright encouraging it.

They'll complain, and then one of those ugly women they made into a bishop will complain that this sort of row is meaningless in a world where women are underrepresented as CEOs, and the CoE should focus on more important issues that can 'bring us together, not tear us apart.' And that will be that.

Those Christians with spirit should take a closer look at what's happening, and ask at what point they're willing to riot in response to this kind of shit.

Saturday, November 21, 2015

Hell is Other Christians

A hard lesson for many culturally conservative Christians to learn is that liberal Christians aren't really on their side. Their problem with the Gnu atheists isn't that the Gnus want to persecute, mock, belittle and generally attack Christians. Their problem is that liberal Christians aren't excluded from their ire.

If Richard Dawkins today announced that he was all wrong, and while atheism is the most rational position in the world in his view, the REAL problem is conservative Christians - the 'Religious Right' - and the left-wing Christians were the atheist's allies... you'd see a fair chunk of Christians celebrate Dawkins as a font of wisdom and the world's most brilliant scientist besides. Even ones calling Dawkins a hateful bigot right now.


Thursday, November 19, 2015

Speaking of schadenfreude, how about the university protests?

Meanwhile, at Missouri U, a professor negotiates with a community leader.
A while back over on What's Wrong With the World, I made my views on universities clear: burn them all to the ground. Academia is a hellhole, and while there are some bright spots - Professor Feser, and others - they are few and far between, and can probably survive the destruction of these campuses.

At the time, there was pushback. Basically in the form of 'No, we have to retake them, they are important centers of learning!' and 'What about good ol' Aquinas U?' I was unmoved. As Black Lives Matters continues to claim scalps across academia - liberal scalps, by the way, because God has a sense of humor - I wonder if any of my opponents have been rethinking their stance on the matter.

I don't know about everyone else, but my plan seems easier than ever to accomplish. All you have to do is start announcing budget cuts at state universities. You think these places are going up in flames now? See what happens when the money's tighter. It's one thing to emasculate the liberal white male professors - that they cut and run in the face of Team SJW is a given.

But watch the fireworks when the Women's Studies department has to compete with the African American Studies departments to see who's taking a pay cut. Better yet? Make them all share the same unisex bathroom.

I guess I have changed my position. It's not enough to burn these places to the ground anymore. Now I want to do it in the funniest way possible.

Sympathy for the Atheist

I'm harsh about atheists, and most of that is directed towards the Cult of Gnu. But the fact is, I feel some sympathy for the modern atheist in one respect: imagine how many of them must feel right now if they actually believed that shit about atheism being all about free thinking and not being ashamed about sex.

It didn't take a decade - I'm pretty sure, not even half a decade - before more than half of the free-thinking anti-prudes took their masks off and, behold: they were SJWs. Atheism+ jackboots ready to lecture the world about how ashamed they should be about everything from being white to how men sit on the subway to the sexually attractive women in every piece of media they own. Their free-thinker allies suddenly informed them they'd better shut up about feminism, blacklivesmatter and everything else, unless they plan on pledging unrelenting support. Freethought is rightthought, not badthought.

Hell, they can't even criticize Islam without walking a minefield, if they can do it at all.

You may think this is a bit of schadenfreude, and I'm taking some pleasure in the atheists who woke up backstabbed, and let me assure you, from deep within the confines of my soul that, yes, that is completely true.

But just as true is the fact that it's not all humor. I do feel sorry for the betrayed atheists. They spent years thinking that, finally, they'll be able to jerk off to Princess Leia in peace if only they chase off Sister Mary Prudence. Then, the moment it looks all clear and their pants are around their ankles, Brianna Wu grabs their wrist and growls, "Not so fast!"

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

If atheism is defined as a lack of beliefs about God...

...then observation tells me most self-described atheists can't even get atheism right.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Defending the Evil Vicar


I've linked the above video before, as it's one of my favorite sketches. You'd think I'd hate it - the prissy, snobbish vicar, cast as an overbearing villain. But something about it always appealed to me, and I never really knew why. I mean, sure - it was /funny/, and I don't really need a reason beyond that. Sometimes a laugh's just a laugh.

Still, something was nagging at me about this entire exchange. And a few days ago, I finally managed to figure it out: the Vicar's in the right here.

Look at the context. You have the New Age touchy-feely woman dragging her 'You know, I don't even want to be here' husband to Church... and her interest in actual Christian teaching is utterly zero. All that matters is that Church is a more inclusive, happy place, and she likes that. It doesn't even matter that her husband doesn't give a rat's ass about it - he has to go and give it a chance, because, you'll see, it's just plain nice. It's not like you have to be Christian or anything.

It's just a Church.

The fact that we expect the vicar to find this all fantastic just shows how far things have slipped. Is the vicar an asshole? Sure he is, but he's completely justified in being pissed off. He's the vicar in charge of that Church, and apparently he actually believes in the teachings. No, he's not running a support group for people who feel the world needs more positive thinking. Here comes someone who's completely unconcerned with the teachings, and expecting that things are going to conform to her beliefs - and she's probably not alone in thinking that.

Better yet, the vicar has the couple clearly pegged. 'Internet-assembled philosophy' is apt - this woman barely knows what she believes, to say nothing of her husband. Oh, they're entitled to their beliefs? Great. Why does the vicar care? This place isn't putting this up to a vote, even if it is an Anglican church.

The final straw is the woman exclaiming 'We have a right to be here! This is a place of peace!' She's telling the vicar of the church what is and isn't right there, and she doesn't even believe any of it. All she cares about is how 'inclusive' the place is supposed to be and how nice the people are. Churches are supposed to be nice and the vicar isn't being nice. How dare he be sick of people like her! She's supposed to make people like him feel like they don't belong there, not the other way around!

Really, what self-respecting Christian wouldn't show these two the door, with or without an upraised cross and a loud voice?

Anal Sex II: In Through The Out Door

The previous post didn't really do this subject justice. So, continuing with topics that no one's going to want to touch with a ten foot pole...

Before I go on, Bob Prokop has informed me someone stormed over to the Skeptical Zone to complain that this utterly small blog spammed his comment. I was going to welcome any Skeptical Zone readers here, but that's made problematic by the fact that A) The Skeptical Zone is a shitty combo-blog, and B) No one reads what that guy has to say anyway. The latter partly explained by the fact that his content includes things like 'The small personal blog of someone who thinks I'm an intellectual ginch didn't post my comment!'


With that out of the way, let's get back to serious, intellectually weighty topics.

Look, cards on the table. I believe the Thomists, the Aristotileans, are correct. Sex is ordered towards a final cause, that final cause is procreation, and therefore anal sex and oral sex are as a rule off the table. Take Aristotileanism out of the picture, and I'm still going to argue that it's a good idea - all else being equal - to look pretty dismissively on these things, because the -practical- value wrapped up in that 'final cause' logic is still substantial, even without the underlying metaphysics. The fact that the modern West and any culture tainted by modern Western thinking is managing to fuck itself into a demographic spiral is frontline evidence in favor of that.

That said? In a personal aesthetic sense, I don't exactly find it repulsive. And by that I mean, sure, I'd do a young Ellen Degeneres in the ass. Accent on the 'young', and admittedly the context is interesting. You know, pretty cute, tomboy look. Calling her 'past her prime' doesn't do justice to the current situation.

I digress.

It's just that my desires - my aesthetic sense about the sensual benefits, putting it very gently - don't mean shit given the worldview, the arguments, the evidence we're dealing with. Nor do anyone else's, for that matter. So the onus is on everyone else to deal with it. Let us admit we are broken, for various reasons, and continue to struggle to improve ourselves.

And so, many of us do. With all our failures, some obvious, some not.

But you know, I think there's a very traditional way of dealing with these problems, and it's an effective way: you don't discuss these things. Not in open, and barely among your friends. And not because you're crippled with shame and self-loathing or such drama, but for another, very good reason: to talk about it is to focus on it, to focus is to dwell, and dwelling on this shit is precisely what you'd like to -not- do. It's counterproductive. Finding other things to focus on is -productive-. It's helping. It's one route to success. This is putting aside simple questions of tact and grace and social expectation.

It's like dieting. If you're fat, do you want to keep a box of cookies on your coffee table as a conversation starter? "Yeah, it's a pack of my favorite cookies. I'm trying to lose weight so I thought it would be a good idea to keep this around and to talk about it a lot."? No. Certainly not if you're -struggling- with losing weight. And if you know someone is trying to lose weight, telling them about the moistness of the chocolate cake you're having way is a great way to be a real bastard to them.

So I think among the social conservatives, there is this tendency to keep things delicate in conversation when it comes to these taboos. It's a sensible tendency. More than that: in most situations, it is the proper tendency to have and maintain.

But it isn't always. Sometimes, there is a need to be blunt.

When it comes to the topic of same-sex marriage and 'Same-sex relationships' in general, I think it's important to be up-front direct. And not just about 'same-sex sexual relations', but LGBT culture, dating culture, and more. Because the avoidance method - the gingerly beating-around-the-bush approach of vaguely wording what we're talking about and what the issues are, does no one any favors anymore.

The problem is the anal sex. The problem is thinking that fucking someone's mouth is somehow on an equal plane with the sort of sex that leads to a new life. The problem is the guy whose palette now has a refined taste in feces. The problem is that LGBT culture which has everything from bug-chasers to a view of sex that makes Charlie Sheen's exploits look downright prudish. The problem is the decaying view of marriage, and sex, and relationships, and what exactly the hungers are that are driving that decay.

But notice, I didn't just take aim at the LGBT groups there. Once the problem isn't some vague 'same-sex sexual relationship' but 'these sex acts', I've drawn a Venn diagram that overlaps a hell of a lot more than the LGBT subculture. If you start talking about sex acts, sexual desires, what makes a proper sexual desire and relationship and what's wrong with all of those, you're opening a Pandora's box that most people prefer to keep closed. Some because they're already struggling with their own bullshit. Some because they're not, but they'd rather not think of themselves as having a problem they need to deal with. Some because they're just following the cues around them, even though they mean well.

For my part? I've decided that it does no good to mince words and keep things vague, thereby helping confuse an issue further. I have no interest in turning discussions of 'same-sex sexual relations' into namby-pamby talk of 'expressions of oneness with each other' when I'm talking about some guy jamming his dick into another guy's bowels.

In the process, the guy who likes stuffing his cock into his wife's bowels (and the wife who enjoys that) may feel uncomfortable. He'll just have to deal with it, and she's clearly used to it anyway.

Anal sex, ass-to-mouth and LGBT Activists

One complaint I get when talking about LGBT issues is that I go for the vulgar explanations quickly. Tell me you support same-sex marriage, and I'm going to bring up the whole 'Cock goes into the place where you shit' thing immediately.

"Why are you talking about -that-? You're horrible!" is the complaint.

Even from conservative Christians, mind you.

And my response is - why are you not? Marriage has sex as a central focus. A massive part of the problem with 'LGBT relations' is the sodomy. The hand-holding is not exactly a big deal here. Talking about things like this puts the real issues in stark relief.

What I sadly suspect the real problem is that the sexual issues not only are too vivid, but it hits too close to home, in more ways than one.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Under Construction

By the way, consider this blog under construction, because I like to play with all the settings and whatnot.

Edit: That's right, kids. New color. I made things bigger. And COURIER FONT.

Why Courier?


........Because reasons.
...._../................
...(+)..................
..(o_o)..+..............
..|XVX|--o..............
..|XXX|..|..............
..|XXX|..|..............
........................

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Regarding France...

...Count me out of the mass signs of unity, the 'our thoughts and prayers are with you', etc routine.

In fact, I regard this 'All of the world stands with you now, France!' schtick to be part of the problem. Whatever problem ISIS poses to the western world, nations have responsibilities to their own people first and foremost. France should defend itself, Paris should look after Parisians, and the people whose homes are in Paris (not 'who live there', but whose home is there) have the first responsibility to look after their home.

It is not France's primary responsibility to look after Syria. The belief that it is their responsibility is part of the reason they have this mess on their hands to begin with.

Friday, November 13, 2015

Terrorism doesn't have a religion

Which means, I suppose, that terrorism is just another kind of atheism.

Sunday, November 8, 2015

A Safe Space for Marriage

A same-sex marriage doesn't harm you at all. In fact, being forced to provide a wedding cake custom-made for a same-sex wedding, or take photos of the same-sex couple, doesn't harm you at all.

And yet...

Having a speaker show up on your campus, if you find their views objectionable, is a horrific offense which requires 'trigger warnings', protests, and a safe space, because simply encountering their views is enough to Do Real Harm.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

The appeal of Ben Carson

Alt conservatives keep talking about Ben Carson's popularity being due to white guilt. As Vox says, he's the get-out-of-racism-free-card candidate in their eyes, the guy whose main appeal is that he can be a black man conservatives support, shield them from charges of being evil bigots.

Yep. There's probably some truth to that. But I think the reasons to support him go beyond that for a long-game conservative.

See, the alt-right thinks Carson is a joke. But the mainstream left is terrified of Carson. People like Carson are an existential threat to the modern democratic party, which frankly functions as a religious organization for the modern American leftist. The idea of a major campaign by The Enemy, led by a member of what amounts to their most loyal pet class, is frightening to them. It introduces the possibility that the currently near-100%-locked black vote may end up being up for grabs. That wouldn't be merely inconvenient for the Democratic party - it would be an existential threat.

Now, I don't care for Carson. He's pro-TPP, he's too soft on most things I care about, and he seems exactly like the sort of guy who would turn into a dupe for the ruling class if he did gain power. But take Trump out of the equation and I'd be tempted to back Carson. I wouldn't expect major policy victories from him, but four years of leftists being forced to dump hatred on a black brain surgeon turned politician would be quite a sight.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

If culture matters, then race matters

It does no good to endorse a colorblind life on the grounds that culture, rather than race, is to be the key factor in evaluating an individual. For better or for worse, culture and race overlap in ways which make race a prime indicator of culture. It may not be a failure-proof method of determining culture, but then skin color isn't a failure proof indicator for determining race.

Monday, November 2, 2015

Muslim Immigration in Europe?

Frankly, I'm not sure what to think.

Part of me wants to see the Europeans resist, and help make stir both nationalism and the recognition of citizens' rights in their own country again. I see demonstrations going on in opposition to the massive immigration and I get hopeful.

Part of me sees the other half of Europe - those idiots showing up en masse to greet migrants with balloons and teddy bears - and I wish the immigration rates quadruple, so I can enjoy the spectacle of french and german women wearing burqas out of fear in their own countries.

This would all be easier if the people who were pro-massive-immigration could all be sectioned off into particular areas of the country and forced to live among the migrants, while everyone else could have their enclaves to themselves.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Reality check for social conservatives on race and sex

Say the following lines out loud:

* A lot of white people are really stupid.

* A lot of asian people are really stupid.

* A lot of black people are really stupid.

* A lot of hispanic people are really stupid.

* A lot of men are really stupid.

* A lot of women are really stupid.

Did saying any of the above cause you a moment's pause? Did it feel -weird-? Did you feel like you had to check to see if anyone was within earshot - even a family member - before you could say any of those lines, while the others flowed a bit more naturally?

If something just felt -wrong- about saying any of those lines in contrast to the others, heads up: you've experienced some cultural conditioning that you need to remove.