Skip to content

Author: Briggs

July 9, 2018 | 5 Comments

Diversity Is Our Weakness

Diversity is our weakness. Diversity is the process of giving special consideration to those who have favored demographic or biologic characteristics or who have non-procreative sexual desires.

Now you might think it insane to accord special preference to people because they express enthusiasm for and participation in non-procreative sexual practices. You might say that a civilization that takes “pride” in such extreme self-indulgences is effeminate and courting death. And you would be right.

But the promotion of unhealthy sexual desires is not what Diversity is about. Diversity is about power. Diversity is therefore never strictly about the subjects in which Diversity is pushed. The subjects are always incidental. Who controls the subjects is paramount.

Same Old Tune

A paradigmatic example. Sheffield University and the Centre for New Music will host a competition in classical music composition. To decide who wins, “A ‘two ticks’ policy will be in place for female composers, composers who identify as BME, transgender or non-binary, or having a disability, to automatically go through to the second stage of the selection process.”

“BME” stands for “black and minority ethnic”.

Quality in the music will be down-weighted. Up-weighted will be political measures.

One of two things will happen. A normal person not exhibiting the desired “victim” characteristics will win. This implies the quality of this person’s work will not only be better than victim competitors’ work, but that it soared above far above them (and had to, to overcome the non-quality weighting). This person’s undesired victory will lead to a call for actual quotas from the embarrassed judges in the next competition.

Or a designated victim will win. This person’s work will probably be mediocre, since the quality of the victim’s work will receive less than full weight. The quality of the music in the competition will decline.

Who wins takes precedence over what wins. Diversity thus causes, on average, a decline in standards.

Chalk Another One Up

Quotas are never called quotas at the beginning of the Diversity process. For example, Cornell University was discovered never to have had a female president. So one was hired. But nobody admitted the new president was hired because she was a female.

This female president sadly died shortly after her arrival. So a new female was hired in her place.

Each person’s qualifications was not the sole judge of her merit. Their sex was included in the judging. Those deciding among the candidates did not confess these females were picked because they were female. So it’s unclear how much genuine merit counted: was there a better male rejected because he was male?

Anyway, the true belief that quotas are harsh measures and harmful to quality constrains people from acknowledging, at first, their use.

This shyness does not persist. Since Diversity, as in the music competition, always leads to a decline in quality, and thus in greater “inequities” in rewards, eventually actual calls for quotas-by-name are made.

Equality Kills

Find out how here.

It’s Official

The Diversity process always follows a common pattern. Here then are the official Steps of Diversity:

All right here, at this most clickable link.

July 8, 2018 | 1 Comment

Summary Against Modern Thought: Ultimate Happiness Man’s Knowledge of God

Previous post.

Three-word summary: Avoid bad books.

That Human Felicity Does Not Consist In the Knowledge of God Which is Generally Possessed by Most Men

1 It remains to investigate the kind of knowledge in which the ultimate felicity of an intellectual substance consists. For there is a common and confused knowledge of God which is found in practically all men; this is due either to the fact that it is self-evident that God exists, just as other principles of demonstration are—a view held by some people, as we said in Book One—or, what seems indeed to be true, that man can immediately reach some sort of knowledge of God by natural reason.

For, when men see that things in nature run according to a definite order, and that ordering does not occur without an orderer, they perceive in most cases that there is some orderer of the things that we see.

But who or what kind of being, or whether there is but one orderer of nature, is not yet grasped immediately in this general consideration, just as, when we see that a man is moved and performs other works, we perceive that there is present in him some cause of these operations which is not present in other things, and we call this cause the soul; yet we do not know at that point what the soul is, whether it is a body, or how it produces these operations which have been mentioned.

Notes That there must be an orderer is easily proved. However things work, at base, there has to be a creator of how things work. How things work could not have come about “randomly”, which is impossible, or from nothing, which is also impossible. There must therefore be an author (or, as our good saint says, at least one, the singularity of the one not yet proven).

2 Of course, it is not possible for this knowledge of God to suffice for felicity.

3 In fact, the operation of the man enjoying felicity must be without defect. But this knowledge admits of a mixture of many errors. Some people have believed that there is no other orderer of worldly things than the celestial bodies, and so they said that the celestial bodies are gods.

Other people pushed it farther, to the very elements and the things generated from them, thinking that motion and the natural functions which these elements have are not present in them as the effect of some other orderer, but that other things are ordered by them.

Still other people, believing that human acts are not subject to any ordering, other than human, have said that men who order others are gods. And so, this knowledge of God is not enough for felicity.

Notes The first “gods” fallacy is mostly dead. The second “physics” fallacy is alive and prospering. We are the generation privileged to see the true birth of the “man-as-god” fallacy, which we might also call the “final fallacy.”

4 Again, felicity is the end of human acts. But human acts are not ordered to the aforementioned knowledge, as to an end. Rather, it is found in all men, almost at once, from their beginning. So, felicity does not consist in this knowledge of God.

5 Besides, no man seems to be blameworthy because of the fact that he lacks felicity; in point of fact, those who lack it, but are tending toward it, are given praise.

But the fact that a person lacks the aforesaid knowledge of God makes him appear very blameworthy. Indeed, a man’s dullness is chiefly indicated by this: he fails to perceive such evident signs of God, just as a person is judged to be dull who, while observing a man, does not grasp the fact that he has a soul.

That is why it is said in the Psalms ( 13:1, 52:1): “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.” So, this is not the knowledge of God which suffices for felicity.

6 Moreover, the knowledge that one has of a thing, only in a general way and not according to something proper to it, is very imperfect, just like the knowledge one might have of a man when one knows simply that he is moved.

For this is the kind of knowledge whereby a thing is known only in potency, since proper attributes are potentially included within common ones. But felicity is a perfect operation, and man’s highest good ought to be based on what is actual and not simply on what is potential, for potency perfected by act has the essential character of the good. Therefore, the aforementioned knowledge is not enough for our felicity.

July 7, 2018 | 15 Comments

Insanity & Doom Update XLII — With Homework Assigned!

Item Diversity Is Not a Threat: Study Links Low Intelligence to Fear of Gay Lifestyle

A new study from researchers at University of Queensland, Australia, has identified that those with low cognitive ability — defined as diminished mechanisms of learning, memory, problem-solving, and attention focus — are much more likely to be prejudiced against people with different lifestyles, notably sexual orientation….

The study, titled “The Cognitive Roots of Prejudice Towards Same-Sex Couples: An Analysis of an Australian National Sample,” was published in the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence, and is claimed to be the first deep analysis of the relationship between low cognitive ability and attitudes toward LGBT issues.

Earlier clinical research has indicated that a lower level of intelligence during childhood can predict whether an adult will display an anti-homosexual prejudice, particularly in instances of a right-wing ideological background, notably detailed in the Brock University study “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes,” published in the monthly peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science.

THIS IS HOMEWORK! I’m far too tired to wade through the wee p-values and critique this nonsense. So if anybody wants to take this on and write a small guest post using the techniques I’ve taught you lo these many years, please do so.

Hint 1: the greatest minds in Western history have opposed concupiscence. Yet, suddenly, a sample of (I’m guessing) college kids score some number on a test and thus only the dimmest oppose sodomy.

Hint 2: We earlier dissected the foolish “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes” study.

Item Portland Church Sued for $2.3 Million for Refusing to Host LGBT Event on Their Property

An Oregon business has filed a complaint against a church that prohibited it from hosting an LGBT event in a building owned by the church, claiming that the fallout from that decision has harmed the company.

In 2015, Ambridge Event Center, which once rented out a space owned by Holy Rosary Church for various events, was compelled to reject an LGBT group’s request to hold an event on the property due to the church’s “morals clause.”

In a lawsuit filed last week in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon, Ambridge alleged that the church’s rules against them hosting the LGBT event caused them harm. They are seeking $2.3 million in damages.

The freedom of association is long dead. “But…but…they’re open to the public!” Yeah, and if pornographers wanted to host a shoot there, the Church would have to say yes. They’re open to the public, after all. “But…but…if we allow freedom of association, then racism!” Sigh.

Item Consult with women on proposals to enshrine ‘gender identity’ in law

The government proposes to amend the law to allow people to self-identify as men or women, and to stop allowing organisations in sensitive situations to exclude people of the opposite birth sex. We call for women to be consulted on how to protect women and girls’ rights, safety, privacy and dignity.

Government responded

“The Government has not yet decided whether or not to introduce a self-declaration model, and will not change the Equality Act 2010 provisions which support organisations to run single sex services.”

Equality, like Diversity, always leads to mandatory quotas. Absolutely always. And quotas must necessarily have bureaucracies to enforce them. The police state in the UK must, if this all passes, necessarily increase because the only the sole the lone way to have equality is by constant force.

As proof of that, this next Item.

Item Shoplifting Legalized in Austin to Fight Racism and Nativism

‘Freedom city’? Going beyond ‘sanctuary,’ Austin, Texas, vows to curtail arrests

…The other resolution directs police to avoid arrests for misdemeanors, including those for smoking marijuana, having drug paraphernalia, and taking part in petty theft — crimes that city data shows frequently end in arrests of black and Latino residents.

It is, of course, a complete mystery how these arrests of black and Latino residents arise. One thing is certain, though. If blacks and Latinos are not arrested in proportion to the number of crimes the commit, we can achieve Equality with the white arrest rates.

July 6, 2018 | 29 Comments

Manufacturing Hate: Manipulating The Masses To Incite Revolution — Guest Post by Jim Fedako

Last Saturday I went on a quest to find the source of rising leftist hatred. I wanted to get behind the facades fronting websites and Facebook posts, as well as the provocative clickbait that covers the edges of browser pages. I needed to get inside the movement — the Petrograd Soviet, so to speak — to hear the Bolsheviki recite Marx, shout slogans, and call for worldwide revolution.

While I consider politics the genesis of coercion and compulsion, I am drawn to the machinations that make up the political process. Since I like to hear from all sources, I subscribe to emails from leftist organizations (and right ones as well), including ProgressOhio, whose website states it is the state’s leading progressive organization. A while back, they sent an email inviting subscribers to a We are Progress training summit hosted by Generation Progress, the youth outreach arm of the Center for American Progress (things get murky when you try to put all the organizations together). The summit included speakers from various other Ohio organizations (most small, flying well under the radar, so to speak). I decided to attend to find the source of hatred, expecting there would be calls for blood in the streets.

After I entered the meeting, sat down, and observed, I found the assumed agitators reserved and reasonable, with no revolution proposed. The hate was, for the most part, nonexistent. In fact, I empathized with many of the speakers. Sure their means were wrong, but their ends made some sense. Let me explain.

The summit was small, close to 50 attendees, with at least half being speakers or other members of the various organizations represented. Most were young and clean cut. A very ordinary crowd for an event held on a community college campus. During one session, local Ohio organizations were allowed 15 minutes to present their current agendas. The first organization to speak was Planned Parenthood, who subdued their vile inclinations and simply called for a national sexual education curriculum, never mentioning what their wicked curriculum would entail.

Next up was a speaker from the Ohio Environmental Council, seeking support for legislation to mandate that entities wanting to frack have sufficient funds for post-fracking cleanup. He also wanted legislation to force farms to reduce runoff to protect lakes and waterways. I did not find his ends to be offensive. Sure, while his means were off, his ends were reasonable (i.e. less pollution). Any disparity between means and ends could be easily rectified, assuming the leaders of the council were willing to read Rothbard’s, “Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.”1

Then things got a little weird. The speaker for the People’s Justice Project noted that, five times a day, she “centered” herself on her commitment to “independent black power,” leading the audience in a chant of, “We have nothing to lose but our chains.” However, her passion was reducing mass incarceration. To that end, she wanted simple drug possession reduced to a misdemeanor from a felony. I agreed, not with the chant that channeled Assata Shakur and Karl Marx, but with any retreat from the so-called war on drugs.

Finally, the last speaker pleaded for donations to his organization that assists refugees relocating to Cleveland. He took a jab at the Trump administration, but it was only half-hearted. I found him to be a committed advocate for others. No revolutionary here, either.

This is the left of my youth, sincerely committed, yet misguided. It is the left that directed my steps when registering as a conscientious objector back in the 1980s. It is the left that desires change, but mistakenly sees more government as the solution. A left that rejects private property, but only because it doesn’t understand the moral and ethical principles underpinning private ownership, though it generally respects self-ownership (not including Planned Parenthood, of course). A left that challenges authority more than it desires collectivism. It is, to continue the analogy from above, the Russian workers in the soviets, soldiers on the lines or in the garrisons, and the peasants in the fields, seeking an end to the war, yet being driven toward revolution.

So what is inspiring the growing hate from the left?

As I allude to above, the speakers came from various small entities, all tied together by ProgressOhio and its nefarious, associated organizations. If you follow those organizations backwards, you find they are funded by, or associated with, other entities and individuals. As you go back farther and deeper, you begin to encounter the same names over and over again. It is as if a vanguard exists — an elite cadre akin to Lenin’s view of the role of the Bolshevik Party, agitating all toward revolution. A vanguard that guides disparate groups, such as those at the summit, into collective action.

Unlike the Russian soldiers, workers, and peasants, who were united to end the war, there is no obvious unifying theme among the grassroots organizations at the summit. Why does an environmentalist care about the struggles of recent refugees? So a theme must be created, which appears to be, from my observations, a combination of anti-Trumpism and pro LGBTQ slogans. Whatever it is, it seems to be working.

The speakers I heard were not fomenting revolution — individually. Yet, they are unknowingly being directed from above to foment revolution collectively. A powerful alliance is manufacturing hate and manipulating opinions. This cabal, which cares nothing about the environment, mass incarceration, refugees, or even the LGBTQ community, is seducing the sincere, but misguided, perverting their actions from holding rational discussions at summits to manning barricades in the street. It is an insidious force that generates hate through propaganda, converting the interesting and pleasant souls at the summit into vile spectres, seeking the blood of anyone who dares resist the planks of the manifesto. A force that desires power over all.

I did not find the true source of leftist hate — the scheming vanguard, though I found a hint of its trail. But I did learn something important: we either endeavor to spread the truth of liberty and property to all, or I end up plaintively pleading, at the sharp end of a bayonet, to the folks manning the pickets, “Don’t you remember me? I sat next to you at the summit.”

Note:
1. This is similar to the plethora of organizations on the right, such as those united in a genuine belief that marijuana is vile and remain illegal.