Go full Gideon. Destroy this racist religion.

If we are of the left, then we are damned. Because it is a matter of their religion that there is racism.
Even if there is no racism, such things must be manufactured: the texts of envy must be read. And if there is no minority, one must be imported, regardless of the cost.

One is not to question, and people can be quite explicit about that. For example, in the “Conversation” about race that we are so often told we need to have, the tacit idea is that black people will express their grievances and whites will agree—again, no questions, or at least not real ones. Here and there lip service is paid to the idea that the Conversation would not be such a one-way affair, but just as typical is the praise that a piece like Reni Eddo-Lodge’s elicits, openly saying that white people who object to any black claims about racism are intolerably mistaken and barely worth engagement (Eddo-Lodge now has a contract to expand the blog post into a book). Usefully representative is a letter that The New York Times chose to print, which was elicited by David Brooks’s piece on Coates’s book, in which a white person chides Brooks for deigning to even ask whether he is allowed to object to some of Coates’s claims.

Note: To say one is not to question is not to claim that no questions are ever asked. The Right quite readily questions Antiracism’s tenets. Key, however, is that among Antiracism adherents, those questions are tartly dismissed as inappropriate and often, predictably, as racist themselves. The questions are received with indignation that one would even ask them, with a running implication that their having been asked is a symptom of, yes, racism’s persistence.

As such, even Brooks has gotten the religion, critiquing Coates’s book while also making sure to say that “every conscientious American should read it.” Brooks, here, is genuflecting, as America now does in general to Antiracist scripture. One is to accept that beyond a certain point—and one arrives at the point quite quickly—one is to treat logic as optional and simply have faith.

I think it is time to go full Gideon.

Find the temple of this idol, geld the priests, put the idol through a woodchipper and then burn it all to the ground. Before this rots what is left of our fallen society.

From Ian Bibby’s Facebook Feed, and because the other idol we need to smash involves animal rights over everything else.

"Fricking thank you.
All the idiots weeping over a lion- an animal- and not one peep about the extreme suffering of the PEOPLE in the country said lion lived. Do yourself a favor and look up Robert Mugabe, the dictator of Zimbabwe, where the lion lived, and the atrocities he's committed. Check out the wholesale slaughter of innocents and the sex slave trade going on **right now**in Africa and the Middle East. Or how's about we take a gander at the 58,000,000 babies slaughtered in the womb in this country, many of whom, it's become apparent, have been chopped up and sold off for parts. We literally have modern-day Mengeles IN THIS NATION and I'm supposed to get worked up about a lion.
I swear people. What the heck is wrong with you all."


Our Catholic Lawyer Brethren have proved they are not lizards or lower life forms, but human. Hat tip Mundabor: this is a superb smackdown of the five tyrants of Washington.

In a teaching that applies universally under the natural law, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a statement whose publication was ordered by John Paul II, declared that even “[i]n those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application.” [“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003]

Accordingly, we call upon the Court to overrule this decision at the first opportunity. Further, we call on the Bishop of Justice Kennedy’s diocese or any competent Church authority to impose appropriate canonical sanctions in keeping with the 1983 Code of Canon Law promulgated by John Paul II, which provides: “Those who have… been obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” CIC (1983) § 915. The Catholic faithful are not immune from the authority of the Church when they don judicial robes or enter legislative chambers. On the contrary, the Church imposes a higher duty on Catholic public officials precisely in virtue of their public offices—a duty to defend and protect the common good according to the higher law.

Excommunicate the judges: and consider if there is a time for deliberate and systematic disobedience of tyrants, both sitting on the throne of power and wearing legal robes in judicial chambers.

Do not medicalize shame. And music.

I despise the overly sensitive. Because they turn everything into a diagnosis as if that means that they have won their show trial and that things should change.

I have seen real PTSD. I have heard the stories. From war: from refugee camps, from accidents. I have nightmares from some of them (and I have lived through road crashes where I witnessed broken pelvises and death: I have my own nightmares that resonate with these things).

And being butthurt is not PTSD. Shame is not PTSD. Shame means you have a conscience, and the hounds of the Spirit may still encourage godly sorrow that leads to repentence.

But that is not allowed in this time’s ideology: it must all be someone else’s fault.

This denies our humanity: for we are no longer moral agents. We are not allowed to consider how our opponents think and feel, instead we are commanded to shriek, to hate, and to destroy.

But this hatred and shrieking is not merely noise that deafens, it dulls our sensitivity, blunts our intelligence, and makes our statements ridiculous.

Of course, social justice isn’t the only option if you’re stuck, emotionally, at age 17. No disrespect to Our Lord and Saviour, but the church used to be a good career choice for sociopaths who get off on abusing other people. In many cases, the swooshy frocks and the free incense sealed the deal.

But if you hate yourself and you want to take it out on rest of the world, these days, you’re better off getting a job at Gawker. Today, it’s all about self-esteem, not self-indulgence, and nothing satisfies the ego like the warm glow of satisfaction you get after putting someone else down.

The impulse to cut has metastasised into the self-righteousness of social justice. Self-loathing has been externalised: rather than hurting ourselves, we hurt other people who look like us. Hence the social justice warrior’s hatred for his own ethnic group, straight white men. “Kill All White Men” is the new “Where’s the cheese knife?”

The culture around teen angst has dissolved accordingly. Gone are the long dark nights of the soul as embodied by emo icons Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson. These days it’s all about hollow chest-beating affirmation from the likes of Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, which satisfies the Millennial’s constant requirement for mood fixes.

Honestly, things were better in my day, when we got the self-obsession and hatred off our chests by the time we hit 18, for the trivial price of a few white lines under our Omega Seamasters that stubbornly refuse to tan. 

Personally, never saw the need to cut myself. Instead one can listen to the old stuff: predating anything Milo would have heard, the blues neat and without extra flavour. No, I won’t inflict much Byzantine Chant or Latin music on you today.

Whether antipodean (the song’s not written by Eddie, but by David Seymour, an Aussie

Or postmodern, with full emo,

But eventually I am bought back to worship, away from anger, the self loathing and projection. As should we all be.

Not power, not socialization, the gospel.

Aaron Clarey has religion but, like most preachers kids, it got injected the wrong way. And he comments on the US situation and the dilution of the gospel into some form of corporate marketing and socail service club.

This reformed geek agrees with him on where much of the US church is: and I know plenty of Catholics who whould agree with him about the spiritual status of the current Bishop of Rome.[1]

Be it the never ending empiricism of science, the freedom of thought secularism grants you, the leftist movement of the 1960’s, or feminism railing against the “religious right,” people started leaving the church. And like corporations cannot abide decreasing profits, churches cannot abide decreasing attendance.

And so in an effort to stem the flow of congregants leaving the church, the church started diluting itself, sacrificing its standards to appeal to a larger market and therein save all those religious leaders their jobs.

In my town alone there is the church that actually baptizes animals. It’s right next to another church where (20 years ago) I listened to a long haired hippie preacher rail against the evils of capitalism. Which is only one of about a gazillion churches that fly gay banners outside their steeple.

And let’s not forget about the score of female pastors I’ve seen. And you Catholics have GOT to realize your pope isn’t a pope, but a leftist purposely chosen to win a popularity contest with the young and naive generation.

What Aaron cannot see as well as I can, from across the pacific, is that the church as an institution still has a function in US civic society. It does not in NZ. It does not. Most people ignore the church: like marriage, salvation and religion are seen as nice to have but not essential. The moderator of the Presbyterian Church, the Archbishop of the Province of New Zealand and the Pacific (who is anglican) and the Catholic cardinal (who lives in the capital) have as much power as the local pastor of the Bible Baptist Church in Timaru, (who faithfully preaches to about eighty souls). That is none at all. Our current PM is a nonobservant Jew, the previous one a fervent member of the fourth socialist international.

The people who are left are those for whom the gospel is life and death. Not those who want a good social club. And definitely not those who want riches or power.

I see the US church, particularly the mainline, as craven. I cannot understand where the lost their brains, let alone their spine and ovaries. Particularly when they produce beautiful peices of prose like this. Because this bastard does not even realize he is assuming that all whites have a middle class upbringing.

When I taught White Privilege studies to a class of Masters of Divinity students at Eden Theological Seminary, the assignment I left the students with every day was this: "Tell me what you see." There is a passage in my sacred texts that reads: "Let those who have eyes to see, see." There is so much more to be seen than what white men will let there eyes take notice of.

I invite the white men of America with me on this journey of discovery. Ask those who don't share your privilege to tell you what they see. It may not have escaped your attention that whether we are talking about Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, what whites see and what blacks see are not the same thing. There is a reason for that. Privilege comes at a price -- and the price is the loss of a vision that admits facts that make accepting the privilege uncomfortable.

Therefore, I extend an invitation to a seeing that engenders the kind of discomfort with privilege that creates the space necessary for real justice to emerge. Don't worry about carrying the burden of solving this pervasive injustice: for good reason, you and I won't be entrusted with that work. But only when we see what others are more than happy to show us about ourselves will we be open then to hearing what they have to teach us about what will be required for true equality to emerge.

The acceptance of this invitation, and the resulting years of work it will take us all to open our eyes to that we have been conditioned to ignore for the sake of our privilege, is the first step in the proverbial journey of a thousand miles. White men in America, I invite you to walk this road with me

You racist bastard [2].

You see me in my congregation with my kids and assume they are white when their great grandmother paid a poll tax and their father grew up in the parts of Auckland people who had priveledge thought needed their service to enlighten. (Yes, direct comment from a lovely young girl on first day at medical school — in a class where at least ten people came from her school (of 180) and four came from the third of Auckland I grew up in). You assume that because I am white I am responsble for US slavery when I don’t even have any ancestry there — and the people of my lineage, who did not rebel from the King, got rid of slavery before you and without a fight. You see everything as racist and nothing as the gospel.

I much prefer my Dad’s Bapticostal church. Chinese, Indian, Samoan, and Kiwis, Aussies and Yarpies all worshipping together. Because in Christ we can be each other’s shelter. And in Christ we have something more than social status and seeking power.

For our status and power do not follow us to the grave, while Christ from the grave saves us.

1. Yes, I commented.
2. Yes, I commented.

Cthluthu is corporate

Cthulthu is such a useful symbol. He swims to the left, towards both anarchism and what the left consider is justice. Which is not justice: it is a tyranny of the Jacobins, where the populace is microregulated because of ideology, at significant cost to the society.

Historically, this has not ended well.


At present Cthulthu includes many parts of the Borg. It definitely includes much of Apple (Let’s be fair: Microsoft is more tolerant. Open Source is WAY more tolerant of divergent barriers: most of the time people don’t know who you are, and it is one of the few places left where the only thing that matters is your coding).

Aligning with Cthulthu is seen as a good business decision. People forget that it is destructive — and as Stross points out, we should wait for the monster with a shotgun loaded with spent uranium. It was a good business decision, and that sponsorship is trumping politics.

Meanwhile, Republicans and Democrats vie for the votes of the likes of the owners of Memories Pizza, with Republicans touting their support for family values and opposition to abortion, and Democrats insisting upon their commitment to equality and social justice. However, when the chips are down, the parties are only and ultimately successful when the corporate powers join their respective camps—forcing Christian commitments back into the catacombs and relentlessly widening the chasm of inequality that divides the “in-breds” (again, quoting from Yelp!) living in Walkerton, Indiana, from the Most Enlightened People who left violent and obscene reviews, aided by vocabularies picked up at the best universities in America.

When Democrats criticize the role of corporate money and influence in politics, they (rightly, in my view) point out the disfiguring effects of wealth and power on the political process. Typically the role of money ends up skewing the legislative process in favor of corporate interests, and results in legislation that favors especially wealthy elites over citizens who do not have the same access and influence in politics. We have come to expect that those corporate interests work almost always hand-in-glove with Republicans.

This past spring, we saw something quite different and revealing and worrying. With the imprimatur of American elites, which was clearly given in the furor over Indiana’s RFRA, religiously based opposition to gay marriage is now more than ever likely to be treated by our society as tantamount to a hate crime. This elite-sanctioned attack on “bigotry” will not stop at Memories Pizza. It will be extended first to religious nonprofit institutions that insist upon the view that marriage is between a man and a woman—the schools, the colleges, the adoption services—and then will reach inevitably into the sanctuaries of the churches ­themselves.


But this… will not last. There are too many demands that all parts of society are “diverse” as if a head count of women or minorities is a proxy measure for success.

But in business, survival is success. If you do not code lean, if your hardware is not cheap and powerful, if you do not provide adequate service… you will lose. Most of us buy manufactured goods that are not made in the USA (or NZ, for that matter) or even designed locally: for the products from other countries are cheaper and good enough.

And other countries, correctly, see diversity as a delusion, and Cthulthu as a parasite.

The arrogant leftist notion that the arc of the universe bends towards justice (ie. what they want) is predicated on the belief that Western liberalism will remain hegemonic. However, I suspect that this dominant liberal narrative will erode as China and other Asian nations continue to rise. We already know that Asian countries have no use for the kind of bizarre identity politics running amok in the West.

In fact, given how pervasive intense nationalism is in Asia, I suspect that Asia’s ascendancy – combined with the West’s demise – will alter the way we view history. Such a paradigm shift will not be kind to the likes of John Oliver. Future Asian historians will be nonplussed upon learning that Americans placed a higher premium on transsexual rights than nationalism or a strong economy. They will also shake their heads and chuckle when reading about how historical white figureheads such as Joe Biden celebrated the impending minority status of their own people. They’ll wonder why the most dominant group in human history threw it all away in the name of quixotic ideals.

They will, with amusement and contempt, consign the Western left to the wrong side of history.

I will add but one thing: do not bet against the church. It is owned by someone with more power than any fevered dream of Lovecroft.

Boredom and Potato Cannons.

I arrived home on Thursday. At 9 AM: the flight to NZ had arrived at 5 AM in Auckland. When I got home, Son one talked to me for two hours. The pro photog — who is interested in most things — helped keep the conversation up, because I could not that well, but he wanted to go through his thoughts and check his numbers (the issue was the funding for DHBs per person: Otago is not paid as a rural board, or not at the same rate as the true rural boards, despite only a third of the catchment being in Dunedin, and the board having a geographic area about the same size as Belgium).

This is fairly common in our house. And not only our house. When the guys get together, the nerdy ones talk issues: if the group is not nerdy we talk hunting or sports. Some women enjoy these things… but a lot would rather discuss relationships (and if there are no local dramas, there are always the artificially gossip narratives, such as the Kardashians).

As Vanessa and I agreed in the old days, on her then hot blog, women are actually pretty dull in the main. Very few have anything genuinely interesting to say. I used to observe that in a group of 10 men and 10 women, about 8 of the men would have something worth saying, and maybe 2 of the women. It was not lack of intelligence. It was just that the women had no broader ideas and views. Whereas even ordinary men have ideas they want to discuss. (I was sitting near a group of three older blokes at a coffee shop today, and they were talking about high politics. I laughed to myself, there you go, men planning how to fix the world, with no power to make the slightest difference. But that is men for you. They never stop thinking about the bigger issues.)

(It is possible to find an interesting woman. I married one. But they are not as common as we are led to believe).

Men have been building better and better toys for decades now. And what do you do with toys? You play with them. I used to think that men would not want to have sex with a cybergirl. But men don’t need much. We are perfectly capable of having “sex” with a photograph on a page. Just wait til the Tyrell Corporaton create a slightly better doll. “More Human Than Human is Our Motto”. Rachael will do just fine.

In a sense, both sexes are living off their patrimony. After numerous generations of women bearing children, they have decided not to bother so much. And, they think, why should they? It was only ever a duty, and nobody holds them to it now. And the men are also living it up. Why should they not live off their patrimony? They are not going to starve if they only get some undemanding job. There are plenty of toys around these days. The slacker is not a peasant in a hovel. A woman is not the most interesting thing in his dwelling. Chances are she is only getting in the way of the screen anyway.

I agree with Julian that this is not really anything to do with intelligence, but seems to be something around social skills and social status. Most women conversations revolve around such issues — akin to the the school yard, where it matters for a little girl if she is bestest friends or not. Boys, generally, care less. They are too busy trying to hit each other with balls (Stingball — tag using a tennis ball, and extra points of you leave a bruse) or tackle each other (bullrush. enough said).

Give most guys a topic and they will talk for hours. But relationships (yes I know there are exceptions).

I would argue that this is one reason Paul told older women and not older men to teach younger women how to love their children and husbands. Firstly, men and women are different, and both need a space where they can be boys and girls. Secondly, loving your children and husband is not instinctual: it is a skill. We have to be taught such things (from how to breast feed and launder nappies to how to give each child their own time and their own space to how to care for yourself in the process). This requires that (women generally) are taught advanced parental skills and housekeeping skills — including the budgetl.

The guys are content discussion issues at the gate of the city. Or repairing said gate. or fixing the floods. It matters not that much. But guys are different.

And if we have to watch the Kardashians alone: boredom (and potato cannons) will happen. For better that than we go and hide in our rooms with our toys and go full Otaku: the nightmare that Julian worries about.

Parasites now killing their host: what to do?

Being told you are special and owed a living by the general public is bad for you. Being told, particularly, that this is due to your race or blood is very bad for you. There is a reason the house of Windsor sends all the sons into the military: they need to be under the discipline of a good drill sergeant until they learn discipline, and learn that they are not owed a living, but have a duty to serve.

But that lesson died during the American revolution: the most snobbish and unthinking elite in the world is in Washington, D.C.

I would also add that you cannot take money from those who are dead or have no money. Which is the situation that the progressives, with their progressive tax system, are now in.

The truth is this really has nothing to do with race. This is 100% psychology, psychopathy, cowardice, and self-loathing. These professors, who by their own “profession,” are unconsciously admitting they do not care to be real men and women in this society, are the true and genuine fools in this world. They are the weaklings that would rather enslave themselves by paying danegeld to perceived-future vikings than lifting weights, taking up arms, and training to fight them off. They are the modern day incarnations of “Bob” who would rather bribe the parasitic masses than refuse them, fight them, or face them. And sadly, they are the true racists for deep down inside they believe their own leftist, hate-filled propaganda that there’s some kind of race war brewing or (more idiotically) “whites should commit suicide” when in reality most minorities and whites get along just fine and we’d miss some friendships and loved ones if half the population just up and killed itself.

So do yourself a favor.

Don’t pay the danegeld.
Don’t pay the protection money.

Well, yeah. But the good cappy misses out on one thing: if you, as a country, pay your way and continue to do so, you will be punished. Particularly, as in NZ, if you offer real interest rates. We have cut our official bank rate recently to reduce the cost of our currency, and it has worked. All too well.


This is getting interesting. The US dollar is fragile. The Pound is also somewhat fragile. The Aussie and Kiwi are, even together too small. And only a fool trusts Russian and Chinese figures on their economy.

At the risk of paraphrasing others who do this better than me, what to do? Well, what will I do?

  • Get cash flow positive. I have increased hours of work, , and avoiding buying new toys.
  • Make yourself essential. Part of this trip was about learning a new skill set (which I think I am one of the few people in my country who understand) and I intend to negotiate more training out of my employer.
  • Do some private work. You cannot rely on one employer, and be a good socialist drone working for the noble corporation, state owned or otherwise. There is too much political correctness around. Get some private income: if things get difficult you may need to rely on that.
  • Do not be an asshole. There are plenty of people who will try to blind side you at work: do not let them. I have worked on the three strikes rule: if you flake out on my projects once I will be cautious in working with you again, but twice and you are gone. But be professional, and absolutely correct when it comes to HR. It is better to work around the known traitors or incompetents than sack them and have to work out the new hires. Besides, like Ellen Pao, the incompetents will sue you.
  • Keep to your deadlines. Whenever possible. If you cannot, say so.
  • Support the ladytrack. This has two parts to it (a) allow women to work part time and (b) do not promote a woman to a job where she is essential if she has the chance to be a mother. Because most women want to be mums, and part time work seems to be the way that they function best and are happiest.

Ignoring or devaluing reproductive instincts is a huge part of what is wrong with feminism, IMO. Feminists want women to not love, crave and adore babies and families. They find all of that icky and will chastise women who, no matter what their accomplishments, want babies and husbands. The happiest women in the world work part time at jobs they find interesting, and have plenty of time to spend with children, partners and friends. When Forbes surveyed working women in the US, 84% of them expressed the desire to not work at all, and surveys consistently reveal that the vast majority of women would prefer to work part time, and have the happiness Dutch women have. Denying women’s reproductive instincts has led to deep unhappiness for American women, but that’s only part of the problem. Feminism insists that women should care about economic productivity more than reproduction, and it has convinced a great many women that men are assholes, who do not deserve the basic compassion, kindness and respect all humans deserve, until those humans demonstrate otherwise.

Finally, do not let your integrity be destroyed by a job. Be prepared to walk away. You may have to: another reason to have two or three ways to make an income and to monitor your net worth more than your credit rating.

For when the host is sick, the self reliant will survive, and the parasites (from managers to SJWs) will die.

Do not be with them.

It is Monday here: Tuesday is tomorrow and I lose Wednesday, leaving Canada on Tuesday and arriving in New Zealand on Thursday. I hope to blog in airport lounges, but normal service may be lost until then.

The judicial lubrication of the slippery slope.

Well, as the Knight of Winter noted, this did not take much time. I would note that what the pagans do is not a concern of the church. However, it is a concern for society: and who society listens to matters for the nation.

The Montana trio argue that under Friday’s landmark Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage across the country as legal, their polygamous relationship should be legally recognized and guaranteed the same rights as heterosexual and homosexual marriages. “If you read the justice’s statement, it applies to polygamists,” Collier said.

He’s referring to the dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, who argued that the reasoning for giving same-sex couples the right to marry “would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.”

Spurred by Roberts’ words, the three decided to go to the courthouse Tuesday armed with the Supreme Court ruling. County clerks initially denied to give a marriage license upon learning that Collier’s marriage with Victoria had not been dissolved. But the clerk returned afterwards, saying that they would refer to the county attorney’s office before making a decision.

This is a slippery slope. Given that historically you could marry at 12 and 13, will people soon demand the right to marry or predate the underage? May that never be. For the religious, it matters not a whit what the court says: we have the Bible, and we should have church law that is based on the Bible. The liberals, who see nothing but the ability to consent, have far more problems.

It is worth noting that the two authors this columnist discusses argue against polygyny because it reinforces the Patriarchy. And that SJW is demolished neatly.

But we don’t prohibit marriages between those who have adopted traditional gender roles. “Part of liberalism is tolerating illiberality,” Mr Freiman rightly says. In the absence of credible evidence that plural marriage in America today would be any more inegalitarian or socially harmful than the old-fashioned patriarchal monogamous marriages that millions of Americans already have, it’s hard to justify, at least on liberal grounds, our legal prohibition against more than two consenting adults freely entering into a marital arrangement. As I’ve argued before, many of the unseemly and unhealthy aspects of existing American polygamous “marriages” are a side-effect of our having made them illegal, and a target for disgust and contempt, much as homosexuality was within living memory.

Perhaps there are other, excellent arguments against legalising plural marriage. But for now, not even extremely sophisticated liberals are making them. Messrs Rauch and Macedo’s claims about the harms that would ensue from legalising plural marriage have the same speculative character as some conservative arguments against legal gay marriage. This ought to pique some concern.

Well, at the risk of going all Thomistic, if you deny an argument from nature, or an argument from tradition or the argument of universal practice, you remove the ability of the universal grace that has been given us to work in your conscience and keep you judicial system working correctly.

You either depower the judges — which is what Parliament in NZ has done, refusing to allow a constitution and requiring all such changes go through parliament, as the King-in-parliament is sovereign, or by limiting the power of the state itself and judges within the state to make such choices, or you watch them smear the slippery slope to romantic and ethical barbarism with the most effective lubricants money can buy.

Tradition is a bulwark, but tradition, like the laws of nature, point to God. It appears that we can tolerate a lot of evil before we consider that we may have erred, and mocked he who will judge the dead.