A particularly heinous crime, and how you can avoid a similar fate

Share Button

Being a good Samaritan only makes sense in high trust societies. And the only societies capable of supporting that high level of trust are those composed primarily of ethnic Europeans. Asians may have this to some degree as well, although I don’t think they reach a level anywhere close to Europeans with the Japanese being a probable exception. What happens when a high-trust individual comes into contact with people who just shouldn’t be trusted?

There was a recent news report about two “teens” in North Carolina who got their vehicle stuck in ditch. A good Samaritan stopped to help them get it out. After the vehicle was extricated from the ditch, the “teens” proceeded to murder and rob him. This level of disgusting behavior is difficult to comprehend for the average European. It seems so… foreign to harm someone who went out of their way to help you.

As you have probably guessed, the “teens” were black males. Black males are notoriously prone to violent crime. 6-7% of the population in the US is composed of black males, yet they make up 50% or more of the perpetrators of violent crime, depending on the crime. In 85% of inter-racial violence between whites and blacks, the black is the aggressor. You can see a lot more details in the previous link. I also recommend this interview/discussion between Colin Flaherty (see also) and Stephen Molyneux.

Not every black person is a violent criminal and I am not trying to claim that. However, a much larger percentage of the black population is composed of violent criminals than any other racial group. So how should a rational person respond to this undeniable fact? I plan to have a more in depth post about stereotypes and statistical reasoning later, and will include a relevant excerpt from my book on stereotypes, but for now it will suffice to say that using stereotypes about blacks to avoid dangerous situations is justifiable. If you avoid a black stranger who happens to be decent and nice, there are no negative consequences of significance. If you give a black stranger the benefit of the doubt and are wrong you could be looking at a beating, a raping, a mugging or even death. Even if only 5-10% of blacks would do something like this, it really makes no sense to take the risk. Why chance it when there is no or very little benefit?

M&M

Avoiding even small risks is perfectly rational when there is no possible pay off. Avoiding relatively big risks like that of black crime is thus a no-brainer. Perhaps the best and most concise elaboration of this sentiment was in John Derbyshire’s The talk: the non-black version. In fact, Derbyshire even specifically advises against being the good Samaritan for blacks with vehicle issues on the side of the highway. Had the victim read and followed Derbyshire’s sensible advice, he would still be alive today:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

In order to have nice things like good Samaritans a normative commons must be created and maintained:

In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it…

Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

If you want your society to have people willing to stop and help complete strangers, you have to forego killing them after they help you. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained, but real life events indicate that it does. At least for blacks and some other minorities. Actually, it is probably more the result of a biological tendency and no amount of explaining is likely to ever work. Only segregation or very intense, no-nonsense policing of problematic minorities could address this. The only long-term solution for a tendency for violent crime is regular executions for violent or otherwise egregious crime; although sterilizations could be considered equivalent. Over several generations this eugenic pressure could greatly reduce the frequency of genes leading to violent crime in any given population.

Ironically, avoiding blacks because of their tendency for violence is not just a sane policy for whites (and Asians, mestizos, Indians or anyone else), it is also a prudent policy for blacks themselves when dealing with other blacks they do not personally know and trust. You see, the good Samaritan in the above case was HIMSELF black. This was no instance of racial animus. It was purely the natural behavior of barely-human animals against one of their own co-ethnics. 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. It turns outs the claim that the “The talk”  is not for blacks is actually quite the misnomer. No group could get more day to day use out of that advice than blacks themselves.

Garrett Chadwick

Garrett Chadwick

It also explains why blacks and (some) other minorities are always in such a rush to settle in majority white areas: justified fear of their own co-ethnics (that and taking advantage of white created social norms). Never mind that whites don’t want and shouldn’t have to deal with the dysfunction of other groups. Never mind that the normative commons whites created are quickly destroyed as an area stops being overwhelmingly white because other groups refuse to pay the opportunity costs necessary to maintain them. The immigration mindset is essentially a slash and burn technique: Move to a white area with high trust, strong co-operation and take advantage of the situation. Individual acts of defection can provide real rewards and largely go unnoticed while the population of defectors is small. Unfortunately, every member of the out-group wants a piece of the action and quickly overwhelm the culture. The commons are destroyed, whites try to literally or at least de facto escape parasites on their cultural institutions, then the process begins all over again with a new white area being invaded. This will continue until it is forcefully stopped, or there is nothing left to destroy.

Blacks may implicitly already understand that their co-ethnics aren’t as trustworthy as whites:

It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

Now I have read the statistics, I have seen the many news reports (the last two years have been especially enlightening), and I have read or heard lots of anecdotes by other people. However, I have also experienced issues with aggressive and volatile blacks personally, and those experiences are easily the most memorable and substantial in my forming of opinions on this topic. There is nothing like a real risk of being the victim of a group attack by blacks to make a person see things more clearly. Years of progressive propaganda can be washed away in mere seconds, or for 10s of minutes if you are unlucky. Assuming you survive that is. The following are three personal examples copied from a comment I have made previously:

1) In the first instance, I was at University after graduation. I had three friends over celebrating the end of classes for the semester. It was a large party school and I was in a college apartment complex known for throwing parties. Though of course, there were only four of us and I wasn’t throwing a party. We had some music playing and my neighbors thought it was too loud. Hypocritically, they were always making huge amounts of noise themselves the entire year. They first started stomping on the floor, I turned down the music a little, but that wasn’t enough. 5 big black guys then came down and started beating on my door with a baseball bat. We had to call the police who I think ended up arresting one for an outstanding warrant. This sort of behavior was amazing to me. This is a college apartment complex in a party town. Some noise is to be expected at times. With only the 4 of us, we couldn’t have been making that much noise. They had never shown any consideration towards their neighbors about their noise level for the entire year they lived above me. One night on which I had an important test the next day, their washing machine broke and they scrapped the floor with a wet vac from 1-3am. I was super pissed, but I didn’t beat their door with a baseball bat.

2) In another instance I was with my roommate and we were going to the grocery store in his truck. He pulled into a parking spot and all of a sudden a black guy who was around a corner pulls behind us. Being around a corner before this, he was clearly not in a position to own the spot when my roommate pulled in. He got out and attempted to instigate a fight (first with my roommate who was a quiet guy, then me when I stepped in and told him he was out of line). He eventually left after I threatened to call the police.

3) I used to ride my bike and take the train to work. On the train, there is a slot for bikes on some of the cars. However, there is a seat under the rack which makes it unusable when someone is sitting in it. On previous occasions, I was told by police officers (at least twice) that I needed to use the bike rack and not use the aisle. If someone is sitting there I need to ask them to move to a different seat if any are available (there were plenty of other seats on this occasion, the train was maybe 50% occupied). Well, it happened to be this black girl and her girlfriend. I politely asked her to move and she did move to a seat about 2 feet distant (literally, it was hardly a move) but with a great deal of attitude. I explained that the police told me I have to do that. Undeterred, she started yelling/chimping out and wouldn’t stop for about 20 minutes. At first (2 minutes) I tried to engage reason, but when that failed (of course) I just ignored her. Most people would eventually give up when their “opponent” stopped participating. Not her. She kept yelling and yelling and talking shit. She wanted to instigate a fight (probably hoping that her “cousins” on the train would gang attack me if something actually happened). The conductor eventually called the police and they took us off at the next stop (thank god). I explained my story and they let me go. I don’t know what happened to the girl. I noped right out of there, but they were detained at least somewhat longer than I was. I am sure she is using that as an example of “white privilege” while conveniently ignoring her completely unjustified and egregiously obnoxious behavior.

And just to add to that, an acquaintance was recently assaulted by a black man while pumping gas for his vehicle. His great offense was mistakenly thinking the yelling and belligerent black was trying to talk to him, and thus asking him what he wanted. Fortunately, the black guy, who was probably on some drug, was pulled away by his friend before he landed more than one punch.  There is a reason race relations are deteriorating rapidly and it isn’t being caused by whitey.

Share Button

We’re not in Kansas anymore

Share Button

I have been planning to write this cladistics post which looks at the history of Kansas and its connection with the Cathedral for some time. Recently, Occam’s Razor had yet another post where he tries to say that progressivism is 100% Jewish and not Christian which convinced me it was time to add yet more evidence to the cathedral description camp. Much has been written on this which draws the link between puritanical Christianity and the modern progressive movement and I am no less convinced that this is an open and shut case. You can see my previous posts which talk about this: The missing links and the cathedral compilation.

As far as the “Jewish Question” is concerned (since Occam brings it up), I have no quibble with the idea that a select group of individual Jews have had an outsized influence on it. Much like they have an outsized number of nobel prizes. All this shows is that given a certain popular trend, progressivism being only one such trend, Jews have a tendency to produce unusually successful individuals. In my opinion, this is entirely explained by biological intelligence differentials. The Jewish intelligence distribution is to the right of most other groups so I wouldn’t expect anything else.  In addition, lets not forget that half of the Christian bible is Jewish. The two religions share part of their common core with each other. Logically, that both are capable of propping up progressivism is not surprising in the least. However, I would argue that the new testament does a better job supporting progressivism than the old. In short, individual Jews looking for success saw that progressivism was popular with the majority Christian culture around them and simply did the smart thing from a personal perspective in becoming leaders within said cultures. If reactionary culture had been dominant, they probably would have gone after that instead. Lastly, today brahmin whites and Jews are in my opinion the exact same culturally. These two groups are barely distinguishable as it is and are currently engaging in a great deal of admixture with Jews marrying non-jews at an astounding rate of 58-70% (only current marriages are addressed in link, so divorce probably makes it higher overall), so before too many generations they will be genetically the same, not just culturally the same.

Moving on to the main topic. Surprisingly given their modern conservakin demographics, the history of Kansas makes for an excellent example of a transitional period for progressivism. Kansas became a center for progressive politics in the 1800s which peaked around 1890 because so many of them moved to Kansas because of the slavery issue. New England abolitionists were invested in a pure morality status signaling way in the outcome of whether new states came into the union as free state or slave states. Based on purely moral reasoning without regard to economics or convenience, many of these New England proto-cathedralites moved to Kansas just so they could ensure Kansas would be a free state.

The most famous example is that of abolitionist John Brown. He was every bit of the same kind as the violent far-left activist/terrorist of today, but in the setting of the 1850s. Brown led raids with other activists and even murdered a number of people as he believed a peaceful end of slavery was not possible so a violent overthrow of government was the only solution. He was motivated by his religion: “He believed he was the instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of owning slaves.” The stage was set for the civil war by conflict between free-state puritans who had moved to Kansas and Slave-state Missourians who had a number of small conflicts that happened before the civil war. These events became known as bleeding Kansas. Brown later went on a raid of an armory in Virginia in 1859 in which he and his supporters killed five men. Brown was executed for treason for this act, but its effect was to greatly increase the tensions between the North and South. The South was correct in identifying the highly aggressive posturing and support of violence by Northern abolitionists. Even if most paid lip-service to a peaceful resolution, they weren’t exactly angry that the fringe of their movement was engaging in violence and were dead set in isolating and inconveniencing the south as much as possible. This was Anarcho-tyranny at its very core. During the civil war proper, the union army even had a marching song celebrating Brown as a martyr.

After the civil war, abolition was no longer an issue, but Kansas was still full of puritans and through their activism the state became one of the main centers of progressivism during last half of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century.  They instituted or tried to institute child labor laws (somewhat understandable, but this had an undesirable side-effect of turning children from a economic gain into an economic cost for families), temperance/prohibition, direct election of federal senators, and labor reform among other things. They even had a populist party called “the people’s party” which engaged in outright illegal actions in the Kansas house of representatives. For example, locking the republican party out of the state congressional hall. Armed conflict almost resulted in Kansas because of these sorts of antics, which demonstrates that democracy really is just a low level civil war that always has the potential to turn violent.

inatior001p1

Though this is just a very brief synopsis of progressive Kansas, it clearly draws a link between the progressive movement and Christianity. I invite you to do more research on this historical period yourself, but even from this summary it is clear that Jews were not all that involved in significant portions of the evolution of progressivism. Puritanical Christians were the ones driving this movement from the bottom up and it is the same movement that has evolved into the modern cathedral. A few Jews which punch above their weight in terms of influence here and there does not undermine the fact that the cathedral is a christian spawned demon through and through. I am not sure how much of this was because of their particular version of Christian culture or because of the genetics they possessed from direct descent from English dissenters. I would imagine that it was a little bit of both, culture and biology have a lot of feedback with each other. Either way, the christian character of the cathedral cannot just be washed away.

Share Button

The Neoreactionary Inquisition

Share Button

(Image Source, T-shirt available)

Writing under my alternative username Nemester, the head moderator over at /r/darkenlightenment, I made a post and a comment in which I discussed entryists and how they might be effectively dealt with. I have gained lots of direct experience with actually dealing with entryists which should be valuable to everyone. The comment thread in question can be found here. To paraphrase, someone asked “Why don’t we just make our own SJW free communities?” Well, we all know the answer to that. Entryists will not follow “live and let live.” If you have a community which does not have sjw values, prig progs will move in and ruin it if given the opportunity. Many may do so unconsciously and unintentionally, but at least some are quite conscious of what they are attempting to do. Enough that they constitute a real threat to any genuine and healthy community. Here is my original comment on the question of how to deal with entryists:

Its not that easy, trust me. Leftists will come in and will try to change the nature of the sub. Generally, we refer to it as “entryism” when they pretend to be moderate or “reasonable” or whatever and slowly shift the overton window. The SJW manual (before sjw was a coined term) is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. It specifically tells these busy bodies to invade other organizations discretely, even ostensibly apolitical ones, so they can be transformed to push for sjw causes. There really are people out there who consciously invade communities like parasites to change it to fit their utopian ideals, which of course ruins the community in the process and often causes it to dissolve because it no longer represents what it is supposed to represent .

Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

-John Derbyshire, Conquest’s Laws

Over in /r/darkenlightenment and in neoreaction generally, huge amounts of effort has been spent trying to analyze this problem and how best to handle it. We make a great deal of effort to signal in such a way as to be repugnant to sjws. This keeps some of them away, but not all. I also try to make sure that entryists are banned when I find them. Sometimes easy, sometimes not based on comment history. Even today, there were three SJW transexuals in the sub commenting, presumably subscribed, and trying to change the overton window. I don’t think neoreaction could have done anything more to signal that we aren’t fond of sjws, or the treating of a mental illness as if it were normal. If /r/darkenlightenment has a problem with sjws persisting there, then everyone has a problem. Yet there they were. 3 of them. These people are crazy and apparently masochistic. Crazy enough that instead of sticking to their corner of the internet they will invade yours and try to force you to think like them even if they know the established community strongly dislikes them. And they will use deceit in order to do it, per their own instruction manual. Normal people don’t do that.

What is needed for virtually every single community no matter how apolitical is something akin to an inquisition. The inquisition gets a bad rap, thanks to old protestant propaganda. But the catholic church never actually killed anyone, or even stated that anyone should be killed even if found guilty. It was the king of the country that did that. In almost all cases accused witches or whatever were found to be innocent. Moreover, the inquisition prevented a lot of revolutionary mob behavior that killed way more people in protestant countries than ever died as a result of the inquisition. Especially witch burnings. Effectively, the inquisition was a way responsible men could prevent the mob from going crazy and doing stupid shit. To make sure cooler heads prevailed. Think of all the twitter witch hunt campaigns, that didn’t start with twitter. In the case of communities, established and trusted non-sjws (i.e., inquisitors) have to be put in charge with the mission of firmly clamping down on them and ejecting sjws as soon as they are seen. These inquisitors have to be both smart and informed enough to know an sjw when they see them, which can be hard because many are crafty and/or sincere “moderates” who aren’t aware of what they are doing in shifting the discourse leftward. Essentially creating an easier entry point for more radical sjws to follow. There absolutely is no other way. At least no other way that doesn’t require an extreme and directed dedication to preventing entryism. I can tell you right now, that isn’t easy. You really have to be informed on how these people operate, because they will dress up their language to try to appear like they are part of the community and some of them are extremely good at that. It really requires the most competent of the anti-sjws to do something like that effectively, and getting people dedicated and competent enough to start running all of these communities is not easy. Not only that, but unfortunately you have to reject libertarian ideals with regards to freedom of speech. I love freedom of speech generally, but specific communities have to be strict to maintain their culture because there are lots of people out there who will ruin it if given a chance. A community has to formulate their values effectively and clearly and actively enforce those values. If not, they will drift left and eventually become an sjw organization. To me it is clear what the lesser of two evils is.

My answer to the problem of entryism is a strict and authoritative inquisition with reliable and trustworthy inquisitors who have the intellectual capability and necessary knowledge to pick out even well camouflaged entryists and promptly eject them from the community. Easier said than done, but it is a practical plan on effective community governance.

There is just one problem. Wasn’t the inquisition that evil and oppressive church using their power against the poor, oppressed masses? Didn’t they just go out and murder a bunch of people willy nilly just because they were a bunch of fascist pricks? Surely such an institution should not be a source of inspiration. Surely.

Fortunately, I also provided was a link  which elaborates on why the commonly held views on the inquisition, its purpose, and the results of its actions are little more than myth. Myth originating from old protestant propaganda. The original progressives. The propaganda was passed down the generations in the west and eventually was assumed to be truth.

As it turns out, the inquisition was originally formed mainly because uneducated, illiterate mobs regularly found people they considered to be heretics against god and promptly wanted to execute them with some gusto. Or maybe that was just an excuse for a community to kill someone they didn’t like. In any event, one of the main purposes of the inquisition was to give such accused people a fair hearing, with due process and all those inconveniences, to see if they actually were heretics before they were burned to death. Specifically, the inquisition was set up so the accused were judged by someone who was actually able to read. You know, the ones who might actually have some idea about what the bible says god likes or doesn’t like.

As the inquisition took on more complexity from more humble beginnings, this was how it was structured:

Following the most progressive law codes of the day, the Church in the 13th century formed inquisitorial tribunals answerable to Rome rather than local bishops. To ensure fairness and uniformity, manuals were written for inquisitorial officials.

By the 14th century, the Inquisition represented the best legal practices available. Inquisition officials were university-trained specialists in law and theology. The procedures were similar to those used in secular inquisitions (we call them “inquests” today, but it’s the same word).

Sounds really oppressive. Let’s gather a mob and burn them at the stake.

Seriously though, maybe it is just me, but I think I would rather be judged by an inquisitor than an angry mob. Probably just me.

Moreover, unlike non-church authorities and the unruly mobs who saw heretics as evil traitors deserving of a quickly administered slow and painful death, the church felt that true heretics were in fact just lost sheep and deserved compassion. In other words, they should be lead back to the church if at all possible rather than be killed. True to their intentions, most of the people seen by the inquisition were acquitted or given a suspended sentence. Those who were truly guilty were made to confess sin, do penance, and eventually released back to the community. Only those few truly belligerent souls were ever found guilty, and it was the non-church authorities that decided the proper punishment was death. In reality, the inquisition saved many, many people from unruly mobs; far more than ever died from being found guilty. And that doesn’t even consider lynch mobs that didn’t bother getting started because they knew the inquisition would put a stop to it. Chances are that without the inquisition many more than just that minority would have been found guilty by the local yokels and would have gotten their own front row seat at the barbeque.

Considering how often leftist mobs go out of their way to ruin people, can there be any doubt that if they had the authority they would eagerly call for the same people to be killed? I don’t think so. Its a scary thought considering there is an example of mob social media attacks against typically innocent people almost every week. The last few weeks seemed to have even more than usual.

Well, the medieval inquisition seems relatively fair, but that doesn’t seem to have much to do with entryism. The Spanish inquisition specifically turns out to be the actual role-model to consider; at least the last stage.

A good place to start seems to be a summary of the entire life of the Spanish inquisition before picking the part that is best suited to being a guide in combating entryism. It seems that medieval Spain was quite the diverse place owing to various conquests by Christians and Muslims in the area. Muslims, Christians and Jews all lived side by side in the same area and attempted to get along (tongue in cheek). However, in 1391 an angry Christian mob in Barcelona and other towns went to the Jewish quarter, rounded up all the Jews, and gave them a choice between baptism and death for the exact same reasons given every other time in history something like this has ever happened. Most accepted baptism. Later the King of the area, who had made a failed attempt to stop the mob, reminded everyone that forced baptisms don’t count and allowed all Jews to return to their religion. However, most of the new converts decided to remain Catholic. These Jews for Jesus, or conversos, created an initial population which subsequently received a steady stream of additional voluntary converts (3000 alone after one debate between a rabbi and a Christian). However, most retained many of their old customs and the new Christians never fully integrated with the old Christians. Therefore, a new culture of religiously Christian, yet ethnically and culturally Jewish, people was born. Some even had arrogance enough to claim they were better Christians because they were related by blood to Jesus and Mary.

In any event, the new converso class managed to gain a fair amount of wealth and success (probably as a result of IQ differentials which are still present today). This led to old Christian nobles to become jealous and start accusing the conversos of not really being Christian; they believed the conversos were in fact still secretly Jewish and were working to infiltrate and take over the society as part of a conspiracy to destroy it from within. Though I doubt any such conspiracy actually existed, modern scholars, including Jewish ones, have embraced the conspiracy theory as part of a narrative where Jews oppressed by the Catholic church struggled to maintain their faith. Sigh. Who would have thought that Nazis and progressives would find something other than socialism to share in common (Nazi is short for National socialist), and that it would be a Jewish conspiracy theory of all things? Progressives really need to learn some basic logic, if only to maintain some consistency. The reality was most of the conversos were in fact faithful Catholics.

All these agitations and accusations by the mob, and advanced by nobles, is what led to the formation of the Spanish inquisition, which was under the authority of the Spanish government rather than the church. What ended up happening is that old Christians, not under investigation since they weren’t new converts, and practicing Jews, not bound by the Catholic church in any way, used the inquisition to try to settle scores against conversos they had personal issues with. Jews were not subject to the inquisition because the purpose of the institution was to find wayward Christians and set them back on the right path. It never did anything to actual Jews. There were certainly some abuses in the early years of the institution, but that was probably because it was under local authority rather than the church. The pope did in fact try to stop the mob’s undue influence on the determination of guilt, and to make it a policy to throw out questionable testimony. The pope specifically condemned burning people at the stake. This did not initially work because of the secular king’s control, and more substantial abuses (i.e., deaths) were had that were primarily fueled by mob agitation and hysteria.

Eventually, however, the institution was reformed and proper legal practices were implemented. Any potential secret Jews were given due process and most were found to be innocent; those guilty were treated humanely and given an opportunity to do better. These reforms ended up working out pretty well, and the Spanish inquisition eventually assumed its proper role of stopping mob violence.

Staffed by well-educated legal professionals, [the spanish inquisition] was one of the most efficient and compassionate judicial bodies in Europe. No major court in Europe executed fewer people than the Spanish Inquisition. This was a time, after all, when damaging shrubs in a public garden in London carried the death penalty. Across Europe, executions were everyday events. But not so with the Spanish Inquisition. In its 350-year lifespan only about 4,000 people were put to the stake. Compare that with the witch-hunts that raged across the rest of Catholic and Protestant Europe, in which 60,000 people, mostly women, were roasted. Spain was spared this hysteria precisely because the Spanish Inquisition stopped it at the border. When the first accusations of witchcraft surfaced in northern Spain, the Inquisition sent its people to investigate. These trained legal scholars found no believable evidence for witches’ Sabbaths, black magic, or baby roasting. It was also noted that those confessing to witchcraft had a curious inability to fly through keyholes. While Europeans were throwing women onto bonfires with abandon, the Spanish Inquisition slammed the door shut on this insanity. (For the record, the Roman Inquisition also kept the witch craze from infecting Italy.)

The Spanish inquisition got its bad name not from the early episode with conversos, however. Nor from its obviously reasonable response to the witch hysteria. Rather, it got its bad name as a result of the protestant reformation and the propaganda spewing from northern European printing presses. The Spanish decided early on that they were defenders of the Catholic church and that they were in no way going to allow the earliest iteration of the progressive memeplex to infect their country.

Innumerable books and pamphlets poured from northern presses accusing the Spanish Empire of inhuman depravity and horrible atrocities in the New World. Opulent Spain was cast as a place of darkness, ignorance, and evil. Although modern scholars have long ago discarded the Black Legend, it still remains very much alive today. Quick: Think of a good conquistador.

Sound familiar? Na, just a coincidence obviously.

In any event, this last episode is where the Spanish inquisition really shines. They were in fact combating the ancestors of the very same cathedral we still face today and did so quite effectively in the face of their main weapon of propaganda; propaganda remarkably similar to that still used today. Reasonable, informed men worked within the institution of the inquisition to make sure protestant entryists did not succeed in their culture. Even though they were firm, they did not engage excessively in executions or torture relative to their contemporaries. They merely identified entryists and gave them the option to stop trying to destroy the culture from within or face imprisonment. Ceasing to attempt to destroy the culture usually got them a slap on the wrist and they were free to go. It worked pretty well too it would seem. They also did not concern themselves with people who did not claim to be a part of the christian community. If you were part of an out-group, and you maintained your separation, you had absolutely nothing to worry about. Sounds like a good policy. Understanding the exact processes and procedures implemented by this late stage of the Spanish inquisition thus seems like an extremely valuable area of study. They took on the progressives and within their territory they won. At least they won until the protestant countries, and specifically the US, achieved much greater financial and cultural success later and were able to exert enough soft power to disrupt other cultures.

Though clearly neoreactionary communities don’t have the level of authority that the Spanish inquisition possessed, valuable lessons could be learned regardless. Every neoreactionary community requires trusted, intelligent, and knowledgeable inquisitors who can properly, fairly, and compassionately govern them. Inquisitors who nonetheless can be firm when necessary.

EDIT:

Here is another article on the Spanish inquisition.

Share Button

The Missing Links

Share Button

The Cathedral is a Christian sect that very cleverly adopted the camouflage of secularism so as to more easily infect (memefect?) non-Christians and non-religious institutions in addition to actual believers. This was a natural evolution of the theology given that the constitution of the United States originally sought to keep religious authorities out of government. I think it is instructive to compare some tenets of the protestant reformation to some of the ideas currently held by the progressive elite. The analogy of change in Christian culture to evolution is quite intentional. Natural selection can impose truly remarkable morphological changes to organisms. For example, consider this video detailing the evolution of whales from their land based ancestors. Culture should in theory be much more adaptable and otherwise susceptible to change than biologically physical features. If the process of natural selection can make something more or less like a deer into a whale, then it isn’t so hard to imagine that the process could morph Christianity into modern secular progressivism given the right environment.

In Nick Wade’sA troublesome inheritance he discusses how social institutions are fundamentally based on the aggregation of behaviors of the individuals that make up the population of societies. These behaviors ultimately have a significant biological component. Though in some sense the form of the cultural expression of a population’s behaviors can vary significantly over a short time, the underlying biological dispositions act as a brake slowing the overall change and limiting its manifestations. A lack of prerequisite biological dispositions can prevent effective institutions from being formed. The greater persistence of genes underlying dispositions also make it more likely that abandoned cultural norms could be resurrected. It should not be surprising that when one generation rejects or alters some cultural norm that it can re-emerge in a related, if modified, manifestation since the underlying biology is probably more or less the same. As such, the fact that ideas resembling Christian doctrines persist or re-emerge in secular culture should almost be expected. The following list contrasts older theological doctrines with modern secular progressive principles.

  • The ancestor of egalitarianism is probably Martin Luther’s justification by faith alone. Before that, European and every other culture believed in hierarchies and the idea of priests being the intermediary between god and the average peon. After the reformation, it became believed that anyone could interact with god through faith and through reading the bible. It is this concept that mandated that bibles should be written in all common languages so everyone could read it and become closer to god. At the time that this was first proposed it must have been an extraordinarily radical and new idea. I have nothing against the idea of equality before the law and an equality of opportunity. For example, for everyone to read the bible you would need mass literacy, which is undoubtedly good for society. However, you can see how this concept has gotten more and more extreme ever since to the point that now people are denying that differences exist between races and gender. If you bother to disagree with them they will condemn you with nothing less than righteous indignation. This certainly suggests a religious quality to the belief in egalitarianism. [edit] I recently had a conversation with a churchian who expressed that no sin is of greater magnitude than any other sin. It is all just sin. In other words, a slut with ten partners is no more sinful than an otherwise true Christian who had an impure thought about an attractive woman. A murderer is no worse than someone who tells a white lie in polite company. Clearly the belief that all sin is created equal supports the Christian origin of egalitarianism.
  • Manifest destiny and creating god’s kingdom on earth was originally a very religious idea. In essence, the New England puritans believed that they and the United States were predestined or elected by god to spread certain religious ideals as well as expand in influence. To the puritans and their descendants at least, the creation of the United States was thus part of god’s divine providence and his plan to spread his desired human organization as far as possible. This tradition continued in Progressive Christianity, which gave birth to the Wilsonian progressives who thought up the idea of the league of nations, and eventually FDR with the united nations and other world bodies with an explicit mission to spread progressive ideals worldwide. In essence, this is the idea that history and culture march in a linear fashion to an inevitable Utopian state and requires the work of true believers to be accomplished. Before it was god’s kingdom on Earth, but now God’s kingdom has been replaced by the divine mysteries of democracy, liberalism, freedom, equality, pacifism and other contradictory beliefs. Most other religions in the world believe in a cyclical nature of time and culture. The idea that history moves on a linear trajectory, an arch of progress, is fairly unique to western Christianity and that uniqueness has been inherited by modern secular progressivism. Again, this is not all bad. Technological progress is real and desirable. Neoreactionaries also believe a better civilization is desirable. The problem comes when this is combined with egalitarianism above. That some people don’t seem to fit this narrative of history progressing towards a better society causes a lot of consternation to progressives. To jump-start the progress toward Utopia that has been stalled by the failures of various demographics, crypto-calvinists implement doomed policies that have a philosophical foundation in egalitarianism. Since egalitarianism is untrue, these policies are ill-conceived and ironically usually make things worse.
  • The seeds and concepts of socialism and Marxism existed years before Karl Marx was ever born and were certainly within the reach of the Puritan imagination. Mark 10:25 is a classic example of the Christian attitude towards wealth. Jesus states:

    “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Christianity contains the premises that give rise to the belief that wealth is a hindrance to salvation. The legacy of which is an amorphous feeling that all those who are wealthy must be be reprobates. In addition, in John Winthrop’s sermonA Model of Christian Charity he specifically advocates for acts of charity by the rich to the poor. He gave this sermon on the Mayflower during the voyage to America and outlines what we would call wealth redistribution today. This sort of attitude led to the very first experiment with Socialism in America. The initial laws of the puritan colony mandated that all produced goods be collected into a common stock and distributed equally among its members. Colonists had no incentive to work harder because there was no benefit to doing so. The results of greater productivity would be redistributed to others. Unsurprisingly, they worked as little as possible. In William Bradford’sOf Plymouth Plantationhe described the attitude of young able bodied men:

    For the young unmarried men that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.

    As true today as it was in the 1600s, young men did not like being coerced into being cuckolded beta providers for women and children who were not their own. An extreme revulsion at being made cuckolded providers is one of the most fundamentally natural and just aspects of the masculine condition. Men accrue resources in excess of their needs for one reason and one reason only: to gain an opportunity to mate and guarantee the fitness of their biological children. The nature of man will eternally frustrate attempts to impose socialism since it breaks the link between wealth creation and evolutionary fitness. Socialist Plymouth was accordingly frustrated by repeated famines for years until they changed to a more capitalist system that guaranteed men would reap the benefits of their work. Once people were able to directly enjoy the benefits of their labor, food and goods were produced in excess of need and the colony prospered. Capitalism took such a strong hold early on in America not because the founders were inherently predisposed to free enterprise; quite the opposite. Rather capitalism became preferred because their initial attempt at a communal order, which they correctly perceived to be consistent with Christian doctrine, was such an abysmal failure and left such a strong impression that all pretense of socialism was firmly abolished. So great was the change that the new economic system induced in the colony, the holiday of Thanksgiving was invented to celebrate the abolition of socialism and the beginning of more prosperous, happier times. In a fashion contradictory with the previous interpretation of the faith, it became accepted that bounty accrued as a result of hard productive labor could be interpreted as a sign of election.

    It was great for America that the early colonists experienced such a harsh lesson about the dangers of socialism and that it was thereafter successfully suppressed for many years. However, America was still a Christian country and Christian doctrines still carried the dormant seeds that could spontaneously germinate into new strains of progressivism at any time once the initial failure of common property faded from the cultural memory. And, of course, it did as the modern world can attest.
  • Total depravity is the ancestor of modern ethnomasochism among people of European descent. This is more commonly called white guilt, but I feel ethnomasochism better connotes how self-destructive and foolish the attitude, behaviors and policies that result from it are. Total depravity is the idea that man is fundamentally sinful as a result of original sin. Humanity is so inclined to sin that it is physically and mentally incapable of not sinning. As such, man must repent of his innate evil and be thankful for being saved by Jesus Christ because in no scenario would he have been able to save himself from his own fundamental wickedness. Undoubtedly, experiencing guilt is an important part of repenting and of minimizing sin. In secular progressivism, the direct attribution of original sin to every person has been replaced by a direct attribution of responsibility to whites, and especially white males, for the fact that other human groups (i.e., minorities and women) are not able to achieve and thus signal high status at the same frequency as white males. Of course, white males have very little to do with the failings of other groups, but the experience of guilt for sin seems to be a natural part of the biological psychology of Europeans. Opportunistic groups find it convenient to appeal to that tendency to gain political advantages in western society.
  • The book of revelation is an important part of the bible. Therefore apocalyptic imagery has long been popular (for lack of a better word) in Christian thinking. There is supposed to be an end of the world filled with great disaster and at that time Jesus will come for a second time, repel the devil, and establish god’s kingdom on earth. Unlike some of the other doctrines listed here, most cultures and religions make some references to an end of the world that is accompanied by disasters of Biblical proportions. A fear of the end of the world is probably a universal human trait rather than specific to Christians or Europeans. What evolutionary benefit such beliefs could possibly have I honestly can’t fathom. But the universal presence of such beliefs suggest they offer some benefit or are a side effect of genes that cause some other useful phenotype. In a secular society, however, the justification for an end times belief is much harder to come by without recourse to the supernatural. Since people are still compelled, for whatever reason, to hold apocalyptic beliefs something “rational” had to be substituted. Of course that something is human induced climate change. I am not as skeptical about climate change as some. For example, humanity is releasing a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and it would surprise me if that didn’t have SOME effect. Where I differ with the cathedral is in its insistence that carbon dioxide is going to cause some sort of apocalypse that destroys all life and especially human life. Carbon dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and plants require it for carbon fixation. If plants have more carbon dioxide available, they will simply grow more easily and likely get larger. Increased carbon concentrations will probably end up being good for agriculture. Plants better able to use the carbon would evolve and sequester carbon at a greater rate, creating a negative feedback to human emissions. In addition, warm periods in earth’s history seem to be better, not worse, for biological diversity. Of course, given that the previous link is from the cathedral, the cognitive dissonance created by this contradictory finding is rationalized so they can maintain their apocalyptic beliefs. They simply assume that climate change is much more rapid this time around and their beliefs are validated. For the most part, climate scientists are underestimating the rapid pace at which evolution can take place. Species seem stable not because evolution is slow, but because environments are relatively stable and species very rapidly reach a stable form that is at equilibrium within their environment. Species can be drastically modified in surprisingly few generations if the selection pressures drastically change. Enough digression; the point of this is that though the cathedral may be right that humans are causing some amount of climate change, it is a non sequitur that this change is going to cause an apocalypse. The evidence they have doesn’t support such a drastic conclusion. If anything, there is reason to believe extra carbon dioxide will ultimately be beneficial. Belief in an apocalypse scenario caused by climate change thus seems more of a religious sentiment than a reasonable conclusion drawn from the data.
  • (Edit:) The American conservative advanced the point the missionary work common to mainline protestants is still alive and well in the form of foreign volunteerism of progressives at the individual level, and so-called “benevolent” foreign policy at the level of government. Rather than repeating the argument, I recommend you read through the article in the previous link.
I am not saying all of the results or desires of Protestantism are bad. World peace, eliminating poverty and hunger, having more wealth equality and strong work ethic* are all reasonable goals. Unfortunately for progressives, you can only achieve your goals when you have an accurate understanding of how reality actually works. In the case of social engineering, that means understanding the biological instincts of man and working with what they are, not what we would like them to be. Benevolent intentions are not good if they result in bad outcomes. Benevolent intentions and bad outcomes are just as evil as malevolent intentions and bad outcomes. Judging by the real world impact, there is no difference. To continue doing things that cause bad outcomes despite evidence that it doesn’t work can only occur as a result of mystical thinking. However benevolent the intention, this makes progressive policies both religious and prone to creating evil in the world.
*Not to be biased towards cultural explanations of behaviors, it may be better to describe it as Germanic work ethic rather than protestant work ethic.

 

Share Button

What is a Prig Prog?

Share Button

A prig is a person who displays or demands of others pointlessly precise conformity, fussiness about trivialities, or exaggerated propriety, especially in a self-righteous or irritating manner. Also, A self-righteously moralistic person who behaves as if superior to others.

Prog is an abbreviation of Progressive. Among other things, the progressive believes in egalitarianism in such a way that it is more accurately thought of as an example of faith, rather than an objective appraisal of human nature.  Since egalitarianism is incompatible with biological and even some cultural explanations for disparities and the occurrence of under-represented groups, progressive leftoids have to assume that hypoagency (See also) of those groups result from the unfalsifiable hypotheses of institutionalized racism and sexism. Being unfalsifiable, these concepts clearly fall within the realm of pseudo-science, despite the idea being popular among left-wing social academics.

Therefore, a prig prog is an irritatingly self-righteous person who demands or displays precise conformity and exaggerated propriety towards moral precepts founded on progressive ideology in order to signal their self-perceived moral superiority. This mostly revolves around promoting egalitarianism, but can occur with other pet progressive issues. Progressive ideology in this context has also been termed political correctness.

In example, during an interview with NPR Adam Carolla experienced the absurdity of a white male prig prog being very offended on behalf of an Asian thede that he is not actually representative of.  The key motivation of this interviewer was to project a sense of his supposed moral superiority relative to Carolla to NPR listeners, who would vicariously be able to experience this false moral superiority. This situation is a great example of the religious character progressive dogma. Only a profound sense of pompous self-righteousness could lead him to actually believe he has any idea about how Asians might feel or react to this clip, let alone know that they would be hugely offended. In fact, given that it was the Asian comedian who committed the blasphemy, it is clear how little he actually understands the other group.

One of key features exposed by situations like this is the ironically paternalistic and objectifying attitude that prig progs display in their concern for supposedly oppressed groups.  The group in question is considered so weak and sensitive that constant censorship is required or else they will be forced towards bad outcomes despite any and all efforts on their own part. They are simply helpless objects floating in the breeze with no control of their direction or destination. The prig prog position is one of the worst examples of a discriminatory and objectifying attitude they rancorously denounce.

Update:

Examples:

  • A Prig Prog chastises Trader Joe’s for playing a popular rolling stones song.
  • Bill Maher shows how prig progs use their pseudo-morals to silence criticisms from whites
  • Prig Prog bureaucrats will attempt any tactic to get the Washington Redskins to change their name. Free northerner had a post on this.
  • Prig Progs are getting more careful in advocating blankslatism
  • What is a Social Justice Warrior
  • Prig Progs attacked labor secretary Daniel Moynihan when he attempted to save blacks from family break-down.
  • Prig Prog Zeinab Khalil (and friends) vandalized a columnist’s door for satirizing prig progs.
Share Button