Skip to content

Author: Briggs

June 16, 2018 | 6 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update XXXIX

Item California university’s website says its OK for children to engage in ‘sexual play,’ watch porn

It adds that parents should intervene only “if the acts are non-consensual or hurtful.”

In a section titled “Talking To Your Children About Sex” parents are encouraged to let their children watch pornography.

“It is important that children understand that viewing pornography is a normal habit, and that they do not need to be ashamed of it,” UCSB students wrote.

The article tells parents how to have “the talk” with their kids.

“Children and teens do not want to be told what to do, especially when it comes to personal topics such as sex,” the website states. “It is important that parents do not lecture their children, but instead try to present information and have an open discussion about sex. Adolescents will make their own decisions regarding sex and it is up to the parent to give them the information and resources needed to make informed decisions.”

There is nothing here that is right. Viewing porn is abnormal and should be shameful. I wish I had never seen any. Obviously by “the talk” they are not referring to John Derbyshire. It is important that parents do lecture their children. The Caly students cannot think (who saw that coming?). Adolescents will make their own decisions regarding [strong-arm robberies] and it is up to the parent to give them the information and resources needed to make informed decisions. But your own idiocy in brackets and see what fun you can have.

Item Shocking discovery: Face-tattoos lower your chances of landing a job

The results of the research showed that face tattoos are the most likely to scare employers away from a candidate, with 61 percent of those surveyed saying they wouldn’t hire a person with some kind of tribal tattoo on their face. According to 17 percent of the respondents, a candidate with a face tattoo is “slightly” less likely to be hired.

Tattoos on the neck could reportedly scare off 66 percent of employers, while 60 percent of potential bosses wouldn’t hire people with hand tattoos.

Only shown as an instance of scientism of the first kind, the false belief that we can only know something if it has been formally studied.

Item ‘Deviant’: Major art exhibit showcases naked monster embracing small girl on bed

An Australian art gallery is hosting an exhibit that includes an installation of a naked human-like male with huge claws suggestively embracing a young girl, both of them smiling while on top of a rumpled bed.

The exhibit, titled “Curious Affection,” is running at the Gallery of Modern Art in Brisbane until August. Its creator is Patricia Piccinini.

Piccinini said in a 2015 video interview that children are featured in her work “because it is easier for us to empathize with them.” She added: “I think children bring out the best in us in that we feel their vulnerability.”

“My work is actually about ideas. One of the main ideas in the work — actually it’s in all my work — is the changing definition for us of what we consider natural,” she said.

No it isn’t. Nobody can change what is normal—prescriptively, i.e. of the nature law. Any fool or maniac can change what is frequent or common behavior. Trying to make the demonic common might succeed, too. How interesting that will be.

Item Transgender people encouraged to become priests in Church of England diversity drive

Transgender people are being encouraged to become Church of England vicars as bishops launch a diversity drive.

Bishops in the diocese of Lichfield have issued new guidance to parishioners and clergy reminding them that LGBT people “can be called to roles of leadership and service in the local church”.

The guidance, titled “welcoming and honouring LGBT+ people”, warns that the church’s reputation as being unwelcoming towards gay and transgender people is stopping young people attending…

“Nobody should be told that their sexual or gender identity in itself makes them an unsuitable candidate for leadership in the Church.”

The group, led by diocesan bishop The Rt Revd Dr Michael Ipgrave, also warn against “intrustive questioning about someone’s sexual practices or desires, or their experience of gender”, saying it is “almost always inappropriate”.

Watching England commit slow-motion suicide has its fascinating aspects, it must be admitted. Barring the odd lunatic or raving ideologue, people like Ipgrave know they are stuffed clean full of wild blueberry muffins. What he said was false, and so obviously false that unless he belonged to the former category, he knew they were false. Yet still he said them. He thus welcomes the insanity, or rather uses it, to promote himself above the good of his country. His tacit hope that he’ll outlast the seppuku, or continue to profit from it shows you how powerful wishcasting can be.

June 15, 2018 | 11 Comments

Statistics Are Now Hate Facts

Hate facts are true statements about reality that our elites demand remain occult and unuttered.

Elites don’t yet say that members of the elite cannot know hate facts, but they being good gnostics do try to control the spread of hate facts among the indigenous populants of these once United States.

Examples? We had many here. See the old post “Black And White Homicide Rates: Who’s Killing Whom?” Using official statistics, numbers which are therefore beyond dispute (“That’s a joke, son”), it was demonstrated that blacks murder at much higher rates than whites, that more blacks (proportionally) kill whites than whites kill blacks, and so on.

Like all hate facts, people know the truth of these statements, but you can see from the tone of the comments that some thought it in poor taste to state in public what we all knew to be true.

The fear of hate fact haters (our elites) is that hate facts will be used to generate hate, which is to say, to infer undesirable or incorrect explanations for the hate facts. Now it has been observed that blacks kill at higher rates than whites, and have done so for many decades, but the numbers themselves do not say why the difference exists. Some will say that the difference is caused because blacks and whites are different. Which is a trivially true statement. If it wasn’t trivially true, we would never be able to tell the difference between the races. The numbers do not however say why blacks as blacks kill at higher rates than whites as whites.

What to do about the difference in murder rate (or about any hate fact) is an altogether separate question. The answer can never be found in the hate facts themselves. The numbers are barren of cause. Cause and action have to be discovered outside them. Hate fact haters say that when the wrong people learn of hate facts, the cause they ascribe will invariably be some -ism or -phobia and the action (if required) will usually or always be hate. These conclusions do not necessarily follow.

It will be true sometimes that incorrect causes and unpalatable actions are proposed. But it is also true that hate fact haters come to incorrect causes and suggest actions that do more harm than good. We all know this story well enough about crime and race not to repeat it here.

Finally we come to confirmation about hate facts in a story discovered by reader Vince Lee. “Scholars claim that statistics ‘serve white racial interests’“.

Three British professors recently claimed that statistical analyses have been weaponized to “serve white racial interests” within academia and beyond.

Led by David Gillborn, a professor at the University of Birmingham, the professors argue that math serves white interests because it can “frequently encode racist perspectives beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity.”

“Numbers are social constructs and likely to embody the dominant (racist) assumptions that shape contemporary society.”

“Contrary to popular belief, and the assertions of many quantitative researchers, numbers are neither objective nor color-blind,” Gillborn and his team assert in their article for the journal Race, Ethnicity, and Education.

7! 14! 23.5!

There’s some n-words for you, baby. N-umbers. Weapons. I slipped ’em in and you didn’t even notice.

I won’t tell you how “7” encodes a racist perspective beneath the facade of supposed quantitative objectivity because I’m already risking the censor by printing it. Saying what it means can land me prison.

Enough dumb jokes. The truth is these professors are frightened of hate facts. They know what numbers mean, and they know you know what numbers mean when you see them, but they wrongly suspect you will always ascribe incorrect causes and that you will propose harmful actions when you learn of the numbers.

These men have formed the field of “QuantCrit’—a portmanteau for ‘quantitative analysis’ and ‘critical race theory'”. They say “quantitative data is often gathered and analyzed in ways that reflect the interests, assumptions, and perceptions of White elites”, which is nonsense because it is impossible for any number to contain its cause. An analysis can be wrong when it ascribes the wrong cause. But numbers can never be wrong, nor can an analysis, unless they are lied about (I’m excepting mistakes).

Whatever else this is, it is a play for power. “The professors also acknowledge the tension between social justice and quantitative analysis, saying that while statistics can be used to point out the failures of social justice programming, ‘data is often used to shut down, silence, and belittle equity work.'”

In other words, hate facts undercut and disprove the theses of equality and diversity and they aren’t happy of it. Solution? Ban hate facts (in effect) by calling the hate facts themselves racsit, sexist, etc. etc. etc.

June 14, 2018 | 3 Comments

If The Founding Principles Were So Great, How’d We Get To Where We Are? Part II

Read Part I (first!).

Munoz is right to show there was not unanimity among the Founders. Most adopted the language of rights, but some tempered this with doses of natural-law reality. For instance, James Wilson: “In a state of natural liberty [the state of nature], every one is allowed to act according to his own inclination, provided he transgress not those limits, which are assigned to him by the law of nature.” This brings the focus to natural law, but through the lens of rights, not duties. Contrast a direct statement along the lines of “The civil law will follow the natural law.” And now, of course, we have the State denying the limits of our natures—as if our essence can be decided by whim and law and not nature.

The natural law follows from the nature of things. Since all things have natures, or essences, and we are things, and since natures have to have an Author, it is well to learn about this Author and what we might owe Him. Thus we finally arrive at the difficult subject of religion. The State now, and the State at the founding had a religion, even though at the founding it was decided not to call the State’s religion a religion. (As we learned from Anthony Kennedy, that religion is the deification of man.) The idea was that if the State’s religion was not called a religion, worship would not be mandated as worship. Mandating worship is equivalent to mandating thought, a condition about which the Founders were rightly afraid. Funny how we ended up where we were designed not to go. It is now the “law of the land” that people must swear to believe absolute violations of the natural law. There now exist genuine thought crimes.

It wasn’t always so. Madison quoting Jefferson (quoted by Munoz, quoted by me) wrote “We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, ‘that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.'” It does not follow from this that State cannot or must not declare a religion. It only says that mandating worship and thought is verboten. Disallowing calling the State’s metaphysical position, which necessarily must exist, a religion allows the State to mandate thought because when it does so it can say it is not mandating worship of an official religion. It is merely, it will say, forcing compliance with a law. Obviously, Christianity was never our State’s official religion, though many forms of it were tacit. But notice that none of the Founders insisted the natural law would be official, either. They left its unacknowledged religion entirely up to “reason”, by which path we have reached unreason.

The radicals cannot thus agree with Munoz when he says “Liberalism, accordingly, recognizes that religious authority and the teaching of religious truth properly fall under the domain of churches alone.” Liberalism, as the radicals have it, acknowledges freedom of thought (which is not equivalent to what we now call freedom of speech) and the right to withhold worship. Outside families, that is; inside families is their own business (children can be made to worship, for example). There is nothing illiberal with having the State teach religion. It can teach the wrong religion, of course, and does (as we have seen) and that can be illiberal. Unless the State officially acknowledges an authority higher than itself, eventually the State becomes the religion. (We saw an outright statement of this conclusion from a Chinese official recently.)

If instead the State laid out with specificity and limits of what its official religion was, while also declaring freedom of thought and association, we might have a real liberalism, at least about religion. Look to once Great Britain for an example. They have an official State religion without mandatory worship. They also have an unofficial State religion, much like our own, with mandated acquiescence. The problem is that the more the religion differs from the natural law, the further from liberalism the society goes. Real liberalism is the freedom to do what is right. And what is right must be based on the natural law. We increasingly lack the freedom to do what is right because our religion is inimical to the natural law.

Also, the constant talk of rights diminishes acknowledgement of the duty to worship. A true liberalism would not see religious police à la Saudi Arabia beating layabouts on the noggin on Sunday mornings. Nor would it develop into clericalism as long as the religion can be made to understand its limitations (which are also in part constrained by the natural law). The State and the religion must not become one. But this does not preclude the State from encouraging worship. Again, it does so now (but it does not call its regulations worship).

Now Munoz also says “The liberal state is limited to safeguarding liberty because religious truth lies beyond its authority. In disparaging liberalism, the ‘radical’ Catholics, perhaps unwittingly, raise doubts about the propriety of the separation of church and state and about the legitimacy of religious freedom.” This is false because a person in government who holds a religious truth brings that religious truth to the State. He can and must use that truth for the actions he takes in government. To say the person is forbidden to bring religious thought with him, and that he must not use religious convictions as the basis of his official actions, is illiberal. It also strengthens the State’s Religion That Shall Not Be Named.

Our enemies understand this point (here’s one example). This is why they push for the exclusion of religion from all State business, including the use of religious principles by State officials (leading to the Imposing Your Beliefs Fallacy). This is allowed because of “freedom from religion”, which arises from (current) liberalism’s separation of Church and State. The more these forbidden religious principles align with the natural law and can be made to seem religious and not deductions from natural law, obviously the further the State will recede from the natural law. You say a man pretending to be a woman is a man? That’s religious bigotry! That it is also a hideous violation of natural law no longer counts. The pseudo-transformation must then be judged on other merits. Again we’re back to Kennedy.

Munoz does allow there is some justice to the radicals’ point about the path from then to now. “American liberalism, whatever its original character, has produced a decadent and deplorable legal and moral culture.” And “The Founders held that the primary purpose of government is to secure natural rights.” That is, in short form, the argument of the radicals: equality and rights and not the natural law were the actual founding principles. Munoz also admits

[The Founders] did not embrace Aristotle’s teachings that the purpose of politics is to make men virtuous and that law should be used to coercively habituate moral virtue, but they did understand that their constitutional republic would depend on virtue for its success. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People,” John Adams stated.

The radicals say the Founders had it backwards and that Aristotle was right. Adams was lucky to live at a time when virtue was thicker on the ground than now, and he incorrectly forecasted (or wishcasted) its continued presence. It was not a terrible guess, which we know because so many great men thought the same. But nobody bats a thousand.

Munoz still denies the path. “If we Americans are no longer sufficiently virtuous, the fault lies primarily with us, not our founding principles.” It’s true we are to blame for our own decisions (everybody always is), but this is not to disprove we got here from the actual founding principles of equality and rights. Now it could be the emphasis on equality and rights at the Founding was not what we are making it out to be, and that the natural law had a more prominent place. There is surely some truth in that, but because equality is false and rights were always made to seem like a gift to the State (“Bill of Rights”), we did not start from an ideal place.

I won’t discuss, as Munoz does, the Constitution, because it is clear (to him, too) that whatever is written must be interpreted. The radicals say that grounding interpretations on equality and rights gives us results—voil&agrave!—aligned with equality and rights. Because equality is false, and rights are (believed to be) granted by the State, to enforce equality and award rights, the State must inexorably grow. Hence abortion, gmarriage, etc., say the radicals. That story is so well known we don’t need to retell it.

Classic liberals could retort, again with some force, that all civilizations commit suicide or are conquered eventually, and what makes us so special? Equality and rights gave us a good two hundred-plus years! Even if we started with natural law, we’d end up in a ditch sooner or later. Well, who could but agree? Plus what makes all this discussion almost pointless is that however we started we are where we are now, and we all see where we’re going (including Munoz, God bless him), and we also see that only the insane want to get to the final destination. The real questions are: can we get from where we are to a better place? If so, how?

Here Munoz joins with the radicals. We must “regain both political wisdom and the character that befits a constitutional people. Reacquaintance with our actual liberal principles and a return to belief in the existence of an obligatory moral law are essential.” (This does not imply the Constitution has to remain as it was.) I think it is only politeness (for Munoz is a learned and humble man) that has him say that to institute a preeminence of the natural law “may require a reemergence of religious belief, especially among the cultural elite where it has precipitously declined.” The radical would change that “may” to “must’. We guess Munoz would too, in private, because he says “Morality, it must be recalled, is a precondition of political freedom.” That morality must be derived from the natural law.

Alas, I think that unless God looks with mercy on us, and so leads us to another Great Awakening (for which we all ought to pray), it is better to speak of an anticipated Restoration, as our reactionary friends have it. Anticipated because it assumes the slide toward the Left Singularity (as it has been called) will continue. Much worse is to come. The pace is anybody’s guess, but there is wisdom in the old phrase motus in fine velocior: things accelerate at the end.

Note: I do not mean for this to be a complete explanation or a brief in favor of Catholic integralism. All I want to establish here is that States founded on Equality & Rights, as seen here and in Europe, come to the same bad end.

June 13, 2018 | 15 Comments

Anthony Bourdain In Hell?

Hell exists. The unrepentant go there. By all accounts, and from the man’s own pen, Anthony Bourdain was unrepentant. Therefore, Anthony Bourdain is in Hell.

Or perhaps purgatory. Or maybe even Heaven itself. For though the argument above is perfectly valid, it is not necessarily sound. Missing from it is the premise that it is God, and God alone, who judges. Since God knows all, and we know but little, there could be any number of reasons God chose to show Bourdain mercy. Let us pray He did.

On the other hand, if we insert the premise of God’s potential mercy, we still are forced to concluded this: based on what we know, it is likely Anthony Bourdain is in Hell.

Now this is an unpleasant thought. Indeed, there is none more unpleasant. It is an awful, sickening thing to contemplate. The mind reels, and does its best to refuse to grasp the point. Why? Because we all know it could our own fate we have in mind. Which is well. It is why St Paul advised “with fear and trembling work out your salvation.”

Tweet Storm

Such thoughts were probably on the mind of David Leavitt, who tweeted “If you’re religious, then you believe there’s a special place in hell or purgatory for people like Anthony Bourdain who take their own lives.”

This, unfortunately, and with the same qualification about God’s mercy, is also true. Suicide in many cases, as the Catholic Encyclopedia writes, “constitutes a grave injustice towards Him.” Since the act is final, there is no chance to beg forgiveness.

Leavitt was careful not to claim to know definitively Bourdain is in Hell. But, again, it is not unlikely.

To say that people did not like hearing this is like saying Vlad the Impaler was displeased with Transylvania’s Saxons.

Many took the attitude that it was Leavitt, or Christians in general, who put Bourdain in Hell. This accounts for Patheos’s Matthew Stone’s article “Christians Claim Atheist Anthony Bourdain Is Burning In Hell.

Stone calls himself a “secular humanist”, which like Bourdain, signals an unwillingness to seek redemption. He said “There is no heaven, and there is no hell. Death is final, and that is tragedy enough. There is no afterlife.”

They said What?

Stone took exception to Leavitt’s tweet, and to tweets made by other Christians. Including some by the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

That group is not known for their subtlety or in their accuracy in relating scripture. But in this case they said:

After lapping up the goods of this world—with no observable evidence that he sought and served God—Anthony Bourdain most likely faces a sorrowful and hopeless eternity in Hell. Oh, don’t follow him!!! #ServeGodAndLive #WhyWillYouDie

There is nothing wrong in that. And nothing in poor taste, either. And there is nothing wrong with clicking here and revealing the dramatic conclusion!

Pray for the soul of Anthony Bourdain, pray for mine (I could use it), and pray for yours, too.