Scientific Theology

Way back in the before times, when terms like “multiculturalism” had not escaped the academy, it was assumed that science and math were immune from the politicization that was ongoing in fields like history. After all, history is about storytelling, while math is about getting the right answer. Surely the right answer fields would not succumb to the growing lunacy on the Left, with regards to race, sex and ethnicity. Yet, here we are in the current year and the Left has declared a fatwa against math.

It turns out that lunacy and intelligence are not opposites. Smart people, the sort you tend to find in science departments, can believe in crazy things. This probably should have been obvious to the men of science a long time ago, but scientists, like the lunatics now making war on them, have always had a narrow definition of religion and the supernatural. They fell into the trap of thinking the people spouting oogily-boogily about the gods were churchgoers, not their friends at the university.

A classic example of smart people embracing wacky beliefs is the fascination with communism in the last century. Lots of brilliant people, some working on top-secret government projects, were sure communism was the future. Marxism was their religion in the same way Catholicism was for Blaise Pascal. By the standards of his day, Pascal was considered a religious fanatic, even an extremist, but there’s no disputing his influence on math and science. Religion and science are not oil and water.

That is what we have to keep in mind as the sciences of today are overrun by the modern fanatics. A person capable of sitting through an undergrad degree in biology and then advanced degrees in human sciences is also capable of thinking their penis is a human construct and they are oppressed by pronouns. People are of two minds, the moral and the empirical. The former will always override the latter when it comes to their group participation. Morality is the shared reality of the group.

That’s important to keep in mind when these epistles are issued by random clerics and imams of the academy. The people putting these together are not using their science brain, which is why that post is largely devoid of science. Instead, they are using their moral brain in order to both reassure themselves by huddling tighter with their coreligionists, but also to increase their standing within that group. You can be sure they got plenty of positive feedback from their fellow members of the hive.

The anti-science quality of that post is clear in the second paragraph. The authors talk about “dark forces” in the same way a primitive would warn villagers of spectral forces he experienced in the forest. That’s not a phrase that has any business in a post about facts, but it is not a post about facts. It is an effort to anathematize a set of facts that contradict deeply held beliefs by the ruling cult of the West. The “dark forces” are not wrong as a factual matter. They are wrong in the spiritual sense.

This is something normal people have struggled with for a very long time, as they foolishly think facts and reason can overcome emotion. They have been sure they can “win” the fight with the Left by assembling enough facts or providing bulletproof reasoning. That never works. Facts will never triumph over people’s sense of right and wrong and that is the point of that post. They are not disputing the facts. They are subtly arguing that those facts are immoral, so they must be condemned.

Of course, the reason the fanatics are so focused on the human sciences now is they see it as a way to solve a problem in their faith. A couple generations ago, before genetics began to reveal important facts about humanity, the Left could claim to be on the side of reason against the superstition of religion. Their opponent was Christianity and they were on the side of facts and reason. Now that their opponent is the new information springing forth from science, they have lost their authority.

Imagine if suddenly the Catholic Church discovered some scrolls written by Jesus that contradicted key parts of modern Christianity. It turns out that Jesus wanted everyone to convert to Judaism. One option would be to overturn two thousand years of theology and tradition, admitting that Christianity is a hoax. The other option would be to toss the scrolls into the fire and be done with it. It’s not hard to see which way things would go, which is why this idea makes for a great plot device.

That’s what the primitives of the Left are doing when they attack the new findings from the human sciences. Everything the authors believe about the world, including their social connections and personal beliefs about themselves, are tangled up in the religion of the blank slate and extreme egalitarianism. The facts that are now showing those beliefs are false, perhaps deliberately false, are just like those scrolls in the hypothetical example. It’s easy to see why they are ready to destroy science in order to save it.

It is tempting to assume that the truth will eventually triumph, but that has never been the way to bet, at least in the cultural realm. We are more likely to see Steve Sailer burned at the stake as a heretic than we are to see these primitives accept biological reality. Belief is powerful magic that can easily overcome the most stubborn facts and the most stubborn people holding them. The barking at the moon fanatics now in control of the West will let the world burn before abandoning their faith.

For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. It turns out that you can’t live on clicks and compliments. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks, rather than have that latte at Starbucks. Thank you for your support!

224 thoughts on “Scientific Theology

  1. Tribe in action. Nothing more. But also nothing less. All part of their campaign to destroy national sovereignty and wipe Western culture off the face of the earth. In order to get their One World Government “utopia”. They learned well from their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin.

  2. I posted about this book in another thread, but I think it needs a mention here too.

    NIHILISM: The Root of the Revolution of the Modern Age by Fr. Seraphim Rose

    He makes a very similar observation to Z about the religiosity of believers in Science:

    “The despotism of science over practical life is contemporaneous with the advent of a whole series of pseudo-religious “revelations”; the two are correlative symptoms of the same malady: the abandonment of truth.”

    “Many run to the flickering candle of “common sense” and conventional life and accept–because one must get along somehow–the current opinions of the social and intellectual circles to which they belong. But many others, finding this light too dim, flock to the magic lanterns that project beguiling, multicolored views that are, if nothing else, distracting, they become devotees of this or the other political or religious or artistic current that the “spirit of the age” has thrown into fashion. In fact no one lives but by the light of some revelation, be it a true or a false one, whether it serve to enlighten or obscure. He who will not live by the Christian Revelation must live by a false revelation; and all false revelations lead to the Abyss.”

  3. “A person capable of sitting through an undergrad degree in biology and then advanced degrees in human sciences is also capable of thinking their penis is a human construct and they are oppressed by pronouns.”

    Well, if Xir is a biological XX female that has been “reassigned”, then their penis is literally a human construct. And non-functional even with Cialis or Viagra.

    They’ve already been so oppressed by proverbs they have all but eliminated them, so they are moving onto the pronouns. They also have gotten to the punctuation believing men can have periods, I think colons will fall under their scalpel and even semi-colons, by the aborted children from parent thesis errors.

  4. Imagine if suddenly the Catholic Church discovered some scrolls written by Jesus that contradicted key parts of modern Christianity.

    Imagine if a supporter of science could show you what matter is. Not one of them can. They “know” what matter is but neither they nor any scientist they have ever heard of can show you what matter is.

  5. > It turns out that Jesus wanted everyone to convert to Judaism.

    He probably did, at least to start with. He was a rabbi, after all…

    good enough for
    good enough for

  6. Any thoughts on forgiving student debt?

    On the one hand, a lot of otherwise innocent white kids were preyed on by the usual suspects.

    On the other, debt is a chain around the neck of a lot of people who probably should be on a leash, too.

    Third, choking off the capital flows to the Academy seems the simplest way to put and end to a lot of this craziness. At least save some in Gen Z from having their minds ruined.

    • Oh yeah. Kids have been confronted by the “go to college”
      propaganda since WWII. Real-estate agents can add $$ onto house prices depending upon how many kids are sent to higher-ed from that district. It’s BS

    • Very much in favor – charge off the losses to the schools first, banks second, not the taxpayers. Put the school’s skin back in the game, make them take real risks for their diversity a

      • Yea exactly right another way I would do it is no loans just you would have to give a certain percentage of your wage for a certain time period back to the school after you graduated that way if the school didn’t want to go broke they would have to have degrees in something worthwhile and they would vet the students properly…Win for the parents, the students, and the schools if they were serious about teaching…

    • Start here: uni has become a package for selling lemon loans.

      Then: almighty corporates should dip into the exec’s bonus pool to pay for needed skills.

      Privatize the profits, socialize the costs is pirate economics. It’s the latest vesion of the slavetrader’s Company Store.

    • Shouldn’t the premise be that if you’re going to university – you’re expected to have a certain level of intelligence?

      Seems to me that if you’re stupid enough to take out obscene amounts of loans for a degree that is useless in the real world – you just failed the financial reality portion of your education.

      The fact that many of the people whining about their school loans are all the way into their 30’s – only highlights this point IMHO.

      Being young is your opportunity to live in flop houses and eat Ramen noodles into order to direct all your income into paying off your obscene loans. If you’re delaying paying the loans off until later – you’re failing again on your previous failure.

  7. The superstition of science is powerful. One it successfully sued for divorce from religion it began to intellectually copulate with the putative enlightenment and us faithful are expected to adopt and care for the innumerable bastard children that fornication produced.

    With the solid principals established by Region (and there has only ever been one religion, the religion of Jesus Christ) science was able to advance because it had a religious and a philosophical basis upon which to expand natural knowledge.

    Now science is not only unable to successfully repeat expirements, it is increasingly buggy and bathetic.

    The true believers in science – such as Zman- are now in a quandary of which is more easily mocked – Divine revelation or the madness of scientism.

    • So tell us how it all works, and why.

      No. Not specious gassing about how only your monkeys are the best monkeys.
      I want measurements.

      So where is Heaven?
      It’s fifty miles, straight up.
      Can you do that?

      Now, tell me- what, specifically, is God, and why are we here?

      • Have you ever been in love?

        Prove it. Photographic it, what is its atomic weight, tell us how many atoms and electrons comprise it… Your materialism is your weakness not a strength.

        God is an spiritual being who created everything that exists, including you. He has always existed and He will always exist. He created you because He loves you and He created you for His Glory. He desires you know Him, love Him, serve Him in this world and be happy with Him forever in the next. He has given you Commandments, Holy Mass and Sacraments (The Risen Christ has passed over into the sacraments) so that you may attain unto the two ends He established His Church for; Salvation and Sanctification.

        The Sacraments exist so that you may partake of the Divine Nature.

        It is ineluctable that Divine Revelation is by the far the absolute best form of knowledge, not science. The word scientism exists for a reason – it is heresy and a tool of the devil.

        That is not to say that religion and science are enemies/opponents, far from it. “Fides et Ratio” by Pope John Paul II explained the Catholic Tradition on that reality

  8. Egalitarianism is a mantra of Progressives for a very sound reason. If most of the population gets seduced into parasitism (which is their goal), then sooner or later the bloodsucker sitting next to you on the host’s arm is going to be bigger than you and want more of the blood. And if you happen to be a wimpy cuck liberal SJW sniveling whiner, then you might just find yourself on the wrong end of a Darwinian fitness selection event.

  9. A few small things to throw out there.
    I thought Science was created by the ancient church? Specifically, an old memory I have of church history, outlining the belief that God is a God of Order. Order it good. And that observable Order shows consistent trends. Following those trends into the dark, looking for something that should be there, often was found. School me if I’m way off…

    Second, a wonderful book by a smart guy, Darwin’s Black Box, outlined massive limits explaining evolutionary ends.

    Finally, I wonder if whites have a better ability (well, white-pilled whites) to accept unknowns while continuing to pursue their goals. I think a DR white invented “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me”.

    I don’t have to have the answers, but my lyin’ eyes get me through the day.

    • A lot of cultures have origin myths that place us in endless cycles. Such cultures, either as a result or the other way around, don’t expect to go anywhere. Progress is not part of their catechism.

      The Genesis version builds. Each step is an improvement, and is recognized as such (God saw that it was good). The idea is baked into our culture’s origin story that progress based on reasoning, or love, is good. It starts from nothing and goes… somewhere.

      Hence all the arguing, which is really about our destination.

      • Exactly so, Doctor.
        People who ask about the beginning are seeking clues about the “end”.

        I submit that peoples through the ages rightly sense that death is not the end, but as yet have not the science or terms to describe what comes next.

        Thus I say religion is a science, stuck in the 5th century. Working to change that.

        We’re trying to fit moral propaganda to describe an immaterial process. That’s like using an Aesop’s fable as a repair manual for a broken radio, or to diagnose ulcers.

    • People are perfectly adaptive to their surroundings. Such as the United States in 2019, where the President trots out this dog that “got the bad man Baghdadi”…whom we’ve been surreptitiously funding for years…and the country is enamored with this dog. And we expect the same imbeciles passing these dog memes to vote for the “best candidate”…who is the best shadow on the wall that dances for them. The infotainment war state.

    • yeah the problem with evolution is it has become such an Orthodoxy and you really have to beware orthodoxies in science. I’m listening to Darwin’s doubt by Stephen Meyer right now while I’m driving about. Lots about the Cambrian explosion and information Theory so far. I’m finding it very interesting but it’s slow going because sometimes I have to pay attention to the traffic

      • The core is sound but I think we’re missing some key elements of the selection mechanisms. A lot of critique questions the random mutation/natural selection process.

        Epigenetics as promoted by Woke Science is junk science but I think there’s some as-yet-unknown mechanism for selection appropriate to environmental demands that’s “smarter” than random mutation.

        If some hidden variable moves the needle even 1% toward useful mutation based on environmental demands, over a long enough timeline it will appear to be “intelligent design.”

      • Whitney, the truly interesting thing is that you are interested.

        That’s what a kind of people We are.

        Otherwise you’d be listening to rap and finding inspiration from Cardi B.

    • No “ends”.
      Only the eternal pressure of the Force… the force of creation.

      An end is like asking, “what is the End Goal of gravity?” The human reference frame, the semantics themselves are the prism that bends our sight.

      That’s ok, though- our end is what concerns us, as it should.

  10. The barking at the moon fanatics now in control of the West will let the world burn before abandoning their faith.
    No Z they will cause the world to burn…

    • Absolutely Lineman. And not just here. I’m currently fascinated by what’s going on between India and Pakistan. Thats’ a place to watch as well. You have lunatic dot heads who believe in feeding rats at temples and goddesses with six arms, against a Mooslims (we all know about them). It’s like a cosmic set-up. And both countries have the perfect tools of “reason” and “science” atomic weapons. I strongly believe that the next 20 years will be the brown man’s WW1. The whole situation is designed to have about 100m people go up in flames, and even then the region will still be overpopulated.

      • If and when the Third World starts lobbing warheads around the globe, the West will bear a great deal of the blame, led by you-know-who, of course.

        We forced apocalytic conflicts on the globe with our moralizing, gas-canning a central-Asian regional conflict between Germany and Russia into a century of hot & cold world wars, created thousands of nuclear warheads, sold (or permitted to be “stolen”) hundreds more and educated ruthless Arabs, Pajeets and Han in their deadly alchemies. That last part was the most unnecessary and truly stupid mistake of all.

      • “…and even then the region will still be overpopulated.”

        I laughed out loud. So true!
        Proving, once again, that “Zardoz” was the deepest philosophy.

  11. To be fair to the Commies, they put tremendous effort into billing their flimflam as the only truly *scientific* way to live. Unless you’ve read up on it recently, you tend to forget stuff like The Authoritarian Personality — over 1000 pages of ponderous Teutonic prose, loaded up with every conceivable graph and table, “proving” that anyone who wasn’t a Socialist was mentally ill. It’s a trick Our Thing has to steal, as actual “science” a) says nothing about economics, and b) agrees with us in terms of HBD.

    • It is a logical system that makes decent sense – as long as you don’t try to apply it to actual human beings.


    I read lately that Spongebob Squarepants is a violent, racist colonizer. And yes, this is zirl science as the author calls herself Holly and desires female pronouns be used in her case.

    The gap between arts and sciences has been one that I know many of us have given attention to over the years. I remember in particular the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, popular when I was in college, which did a good job of addressing the state of thinking on the subject at the time.

    But that thinking has changed, helped along these lines by Radio Derb.

    The term STEM (introduced only in this century) is already being hijacked into STEMA. It’s like STEM tried to escape from the reservation and the Arts had to rope it back.

    The sciences crawled out of the humanities over the past few hundred years. With Newton and Leibniz, it became clear that these fields were categorically different from the humanities: there was usually only one right answer to a problem, and if there were more than one that needed to be explained – it couldn’t be put off to difference of opinion, style or preference.

    I think the resentment of the arts departments grew slowly over a long time, and really took off when scientists continued to come up with ‘esoteric’ theories that explained all kinds of stuff. Some guy in a patent office without enough to do could sit, think, and discern patterns of time-space that predicted everything from starlight bending around the sun, to clocks on airplanes slowing, to how much mass would be lost when a capital-B bomb went off.

    Take about envy. To compare, the humanists had theories about Shakespeare being anybody else but a guy named Shakespeare.

    Another example would be quantum mechanics. As calculus occurred to two people in two different (but equivalent) formulations, QM had half-a-dozen fathers in the paternity room. They also developed the ideas by coming at it from different mathematical approaches, all proven to be analogous.

    Relativity could be applied to Newtonian ideas and would explain them fully. So too with QM. Its methods were applied to previous theories and explanations, generally proving them as far as they went and showing where their lacunae lay, then filling them in. This process is on-going with respect to gravity and QM.

    I’ll stop with the successes of relativity and QM. Lots there for the arts to envy.

    Smart people sit around, thinking, comparing notes, and come up with a theory. They all agree that it seems to explain a lot of things, so they apply it to existing data, to old theories, and as it seems to continue working (papers published, PhDs awarded) its application is expanded into more and more areas.

    I wasn’t referring to relativity or QM in the previous paragraph. Now I’m talking about critical theory, white privilege, institutionalized racism and the like.

    The people who write articles like this one about a cartoon really think they’ve split the atom. Their theories of oppression, appropriation and the like excite them no end. Their friends, colleagues, journal referees and PhD-granting committees all agree that they are on to something. They think their discoveries are on a foundation as solid, as rigorously-determined, and as true as that of an integrated circuit.

    They live in a big echo chamber called academia, where never is heard a discouraging word about any of these theories. Who will argue, in their arena, for example that Spongebob Squarepants is harmless fun? Maybe a freshman who hasn’t caught on and/or been sufficiently shamed yet. They are going to ride the wheels off this stuff. I’m hoping to live to see it all cast aside as nonsense, but I doubt it.

    I believe we think this gibberish is merely funny at our peril. The people who promulgate this stuff would be happy to mandate, say, that Spongebob not be shown for the reasons listed.

    (I’ve never seen it, but if it’s been on the air for twenty years it must have entertained more than one generation of children. Nice big target to take down, truth to power and all that. Something to put on the resume.)

    After all, the proscription of a silly cartoon would be evidence-based and peer-reviewed, and of course for our own good. They would all agree.

    Actual smart people are still working on a Unified Field Theory. The left think they won the race when they came up with their universal explicator, Intersectionality, getting to root truths, defeating empiricism once and for all.

    • Those who would suppress Spongebob are anti-Sinotic haters!
      Spongebob is clearly Chinese, being yellow and all. (We will conveniently ignore the blue, round eyes. Ahem.)
      End the scourge of anti-Sinotism now!

  13. Reason is just a system of thought, it can be operated by any lunatic. Communism was the ultimate system of reason. On paper, it all worked, just as when they constructed Cabrini-Green in the 1950’s it was all very logical. They had no vision that the future occupants of those towers would be murdering each other while high on drugs, and churning out kids for more benefits. People have an ability to defy all logic, going from one emotive experience to the next. Black people are the pure embodiment of this, as they still have one hand in the tree. If you want to find any structural weakness in a human designed system, just insert black people. For instance, when you construct a metro station in a black neighborhood, you have to ensure that everything is either metal or cement, and bolted down tightly. No ornamental sheets of glass encasing the elevators or anything like that. Just as reason can organize positive things it can organize something that’s entirely chaotic and detrimental to human survival. “Climate change” fanatics have a perfect system of reason, it’s just entirely false. Common sense and reason are not the same thing. Over the next few generations, expect the bulk of scientific discovery to be in East Asia, while western counties retreat into poor backwaters, undermined by their own systems of reason.

  14. Belief is powerful magic. Presumably we on this blog have overcome that magic and perceive the truth rather than merely stubborn beliefs we mistake for the truth. We’ve escaped The Cave. What virtues or miracle provided us the power to do so?

    • I don’t know, but make sure, as much as you can, that the cave you escaped is not simply inside a bigger, similar cave surrounding you now. Demand the same discipline from your own thoughts and assumptions as you would expect from others. There’s no certainty that you/we have things right, either, we need to ask questions of ourselves and test our own conclusions every damn day.

  15. “[N]ormal people…foolishly think facts and reason can overcome emotion.” In other words, Benny “facts don’t care about your feelings” ShapEARo, as usual, has it backwards: Feelings don’t care about your facts.

    • Exactly. The Ben Shapiro example illustrates exactly who his audience is—people who already believe in his world view and philosophical bent. Not very useful to our cause and perhaps the “tell” of a grifter.

  16. “This is something normal people have struggled with for a very long time, as they foolishly think facts and reason can overcome emotion.”

    I recall during the Obamacare debates the many arguments I had with leftists. They would repeat the lie that 40 million people were without health insurance. When I would point out that eliminating non-citizens (legal and illegal), young people who choose to forego coverage, and people in between jobs who don’t want to pay Cobra, the number was below 10 million.

    I would then ask if it is wise to overhaul a major part of the economy for 3% of the population. Rather than address the new data they never heard from the media, the answer was always, “I don’t care how many people are uninsured, healthcare is a right.” The next day they were back to spouting the 40 million number.

    • Your example illustrates the impossibility of countering an emotional argument with a rational argument. This works, but not on the main body of Leftist Progressives. They respond to emotion, not necessarily facts. A better counter might be to explain that universal healthcare is rationed healthcare and describe how certain treatments are delayed or outright denied while illustrating examples in other countries. Of course, those are “facts” too, but they generate counter emotions and often cognitive dissonance. At that point, opinions can be altered.

  17. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Don’t debate with progs or devout leftists. Hoist the black flag and slit throats. God wills it, LOL.

    All very true, and well presented as usual. But… some random observations – coming from a recent exile from The Hive who has taken the God Pill.

    The church ran into big trouble with credibility when I was a youngster. Every second week some holy rolling television evangelist was in the news, being caught in a hot tub with a retinue of hotties blowing coke up his nose. Or diddling the choirboys. Or defrauding their congregations. Hypocracy was rampant and the people doing it were homos/pedos, closet Marxists, or flat out psychopaths and narcissists. People started throwing out their faith en masse… and their morals and ethics went with it.

    Today the same guys are doing to science what they did to the church 50 years ago. One is tempted to do the same as our Christian elders did – throw it out along with the baby and the bath water. Those that remain will be the perverts, the grifters and nutjobs, and the scammers who will play to an increasingly diminished audience.

    This possibly ties into your scholarly lecture the other day: perhaps, in order to redeem true science… we may have to redeem our faith first. For without morals and ethics forcing us to ask the tough questions of ourselves – we are fully capable of blowing ourselves and everything else off the face of the planet. Our power is increasing by orders of magnitude… and we will need all the wisdom we can get if we are to survive.

    And it isn’t looking good, is it?

  18. On burning the scrolls, that dllemma underlies every “testamentary” religion. Functionally, paganized & Germanified Christianity became a syncretic servant of the people. Even formally, the Bible’s numerous verses gave us a lot of room for interpretation.

    For all that I’ve recommended Myles of TRS’s “Godcast” as one of their better voices, he said and agreed with some cringe-worthy stuff in their latest pod about how the most important thing to a Christian was his faith rather than his race.

    Despite his blessed Based-ness, he’s still unable to unabashedly take his own side in an existential struggle. He has to lawyer some permission from the Magic Paper. In an existential struggle with history’s greatest lawyers, that’s a dangerous dependency.

    Race & faith should never be at odds. The future of the White race demands we recognize material necessities. Transcendent belief is necessary, but it isn’t sufficient.

    When some interpretation of transcendent dogmas supposedly demands White misery or puts our survival at risk, the Magic Paper has to burn.

    Deus vult, vita vult. No conflict, no apologies.

  19. Yes, and the nonsense from the left tees up a reaction from the right. Vox Day and Owen Benjamin are seriously auguring flat-eartherism and fake moon landings. They have lost any faith in scientific authorities and for good reason. It’s understandable, but nonetheless get your kids vaccinated.

      • I think the anti-dinosaur theories are interesting.

        Not a serious subscriber to any theory, but my personal faves are demons (nephilim) and dragons.

        I’m more skeptical of the claim that dinosaurs and humans didn’t coexist. And yea, with science in the place it is, we are seriously living in a post-science age.

        Liars is how we got here.

      • Why, I’m pretty old and I don’t remember any such creatures.
        Anyways, the troll Owen flirts with all nonsense. Not to say paleontology isn’t corrupt like many academic sciences.

      • Last time I called him Beale here we got dog-piled by a Day Pride Parade of trolling fanbois in a thread where various folks including myself were saying he was net-positive for Our Thing.

        The Forbidden Name is apparently not to be spoken, kinda like Yahweh. Ted’s still on balance an asset but some of his crew are meme-worthy. We’re all self-titled anons but the degree of enforced gravitas some demand for their online personas is ripe for good-natured mockery.

        For a guy who’s a huge Umberto Eco fan, you think his audience would appreciate the idea of “pulling out the cork” (see Focault’s Pendulum).

        Respect muh pronouns, betas.

    • No. Vox isn’t arguing for flat earths. If you read his repose to the Bear post he criticizes those whose worldview is binary – that because NASA bullshits doe not mean the earth is flat

      • I saw a post recently that proves the earth could not be flat definitively. The commenter pointed out that the earth could not be flat, because if it was cats would have knocked everything of the edge by now.

    • “Fake moon landings” is a meme started by a member of the Guess Who tribe.
      It’s a trojan horse.

      Guess who.

  20. Regarding the linked “Race, genetics and pseudoscience” article, i guess it all comes around, it’s like Lysenkoism all over again, people forget that in the Soviet Union:

    “In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”; all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued.

    Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism at one time and overall, scientific research in genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined as well.”

    • yeah i remember reading about Lysenkoism and thinking how crazy the Russians were. I was puzzled how a system could spin that far off the rails. Then you see it here and it is terrifying. Probably worth investing in canned corn and beans. Its getting frothy.

      • Get invested in building Community…What do you think is going to happen if you are the only one that has food stored…Now that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be stocking up but that the most important part of survival is the people aspect…That will be the thing that determines if you survive or not…Read Ferfal or Selco to better understand that…

        • well there is the guns and gold, but i lost those in a boating accident. I followed Ferfal, he had good practical advice. I’m in the Appalachians, i literally headed for the hills years ago. I have toyed with idea of acquiring land bordering the national forest and giving city dwellers a chance to buy in for a emergency retreat in case things go south. one could slap up some small cabins with wood stoves fairly cheaply.

        • Jon Hollerman’s “Survival Theory” has some good basics on how to organize your “prepper group” in that vein. It’s top-heavy on gun-geekery, so YMMV. If you don’t need or want to go to the “which tactical belt is best in a firefight” level, stick with the earlier chapters.

    • From the Wiki entry on Lysenko: “So quickly did he develop his prescriptions…that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted.”

      I can’t help thinking about this statement also applies quite accurately to the US educational system during the last 50 years. Sigh. 🙁

  21. Well, you didn’t expect them to find and accept absolute truth, anywhere, now would you?

    Seek and destroy. The more true, the more absolute, and you cannot have an authority that is higher than they are, can you now?

    Just be careful when you are told that you need surgery, and instead of using a walking bridge to cross the street, stay on the ground and take your chances with the traffic as you cross…

  22. The left likes to say they are “reality based” and “science based”, but the constructs of the “reality” and “science” they speak of are of conjured-up absolutes, generated by the emotional parts of their brains, incorporating group-approval seeking, and self-reinforced through circular logic. They are never to be questioned or closely examined.

    The concepts of empiricism, backed by close observation of evidence, the testing of theories, and the replication of test results by others, are all antithetical to their concepts of reality and science. They make black box leaps in logic to avoid the consequential conclusions that the evidence takes them to. Some of those nominally on our side do the same. Denial of the blank slate, or HBD differences, are some “forbidden zones”, as in the old Planet of the Apes movies, so (il)logical leaps and assumptions are made, in order to avoid stepping into the forbidden zones. The essence of science and reality is going where the evidence takes you, and if it leads you into the forbidden zones, so be it. Leaps in scientific knowledge are not made in safe spaces, but in the forbidden ones.

  23. The powers that be have exploited the hind-brain emotional parts of our psyches beyond what anyone would have believed could have been done, only a few years ago. The internet has been an important tool in the effort.

    Now they are taking on the last human bulwark against their manipulations, the front-brain. The move is on to both question anything empirical that you observe or calculate, and to infect any of the empirically based institutions with their relativistic and situational rot. This is one of the core goals of Social Justice, to pervert the institutions of impartial justice and written law. Read “1984” or similar works with an eye towards this way of looking at things, and the simplicity of it will jump off the pages at you.

    Being a “fly on the wall”, while watching all of this is going down, requires you to keep your front brain engaged, making and filing away observations, connecting dots, and avoiding emotional conclusions and assumptions. Keep your hind brain whiling away in the back room, while your front brain does the observational work front and center.

    • Believe me, man, I’ve been following your prescription. And since I’m alone in this world and behind enemy lines, it’s basically making me want to go live in the woods and escape it all. As in, late next summer and just let it shake it out for a year, tune back in, and see how things went. I’ll do that instead of going mad. I can only do so much acting in everyday life before the facade starts to crack.

      What are we to do in a destitute age, to paraphrase Holderlin? The people I respected in my life are dead or dying, and my peers are corrupt and fully bought in to what you’re describing. I have nothing further to say to them, ever. They’re gone. I might as well head for the hills, too.

      • Basically, this is the Benedict Option: disconnect as much as possible and focus on local matters, family and friends. Wait out the storm as well as you can.

  24. You know who you really want to be using the empirical mind, at least when they’re dealing with you? Doctors, that’s who.

    I think one neglected aspect of the James Younger case (the Texas boy who was going to be mutilated into a eunuch by his mother) is that the mother is a pediatrician!!!

    This woman’s whole job is supposed to be keeping children healthy, but instead she wants to destroy the body and life of her own child. What ideas does she give the other children? And their parents? Where did she get those ideas? How many doctors have them?

    When the Inverted Morality affects not just doctors’ private, off-duty, abstract musings, but their dealings with patients, then the rot goes very deep indeed.

    • This, in my opinion, should be the MAIN focus of this article. The over the horizon view of K-12 students who don’t need rayciss! math is the stuff of nightmares, and in clown world, also reality.

      Airline pilots who let the computers on board do ‘all that hard trajectory stuff’, doctors who use the gender unicorn to let your 5 year old decide if they want to have their handle amputated or have a handle attached, bridge engineers who are strong latinax wahmen, we saw a recent example of this and it is only going to get MUCH worse. Idiocracy as reality. Plants need Brawndo electrolytes dontcha know!

      This is the world we are barreling head first towards. Your actual knowledge will be arbitrary and secondary so long as you tick the right boxes. Meanwhile the competent (read: white) will have to do the heavy lifting for you and your company to keep the ship, from literally, crashing into the rocks. (Did I mention Naval officers who don’t know how to navigate, str0nk womyn, yeah, that’s a thing too…)

    • One certain truth I have learned from my many years working in healthcare, is that we wildly overestimate the intelligence of the average doctor/provider. Of course, some are brilliant, but most are just average like the rest of us; some are just dumb. Medical school isn’t particularly difficult, but it is time-consuming and very expensive. Most providers make diagnoses and treatment decisions based solely on flowchart/algorithms.

      • “we wildly overestimate the intelligence of the average doctor/provider”

        Speaking as an MD, I have two things to say about this highly inflammatory remark:
        1. You are absolutely correct;
        2. Ask any nurse what she thinks about the intelligence of doctors 🙂

        I’d say the average MD is brighter (however you define bright) than the random man on the street, but not all that much brighter. MDs tend to have good memories, are decently able to work off of deferred gratification principles, and too many (not most, but still too many) are quite full of themselves. (But if you want to see the people who are really obnoxious about how great MDs are, look to their non-MD spouses!) The other thing about medical training is that it rewards adherence to hierarchy and sycophantic behavior (let us all now praise the attending physician).

        My “nurse” comment above is slightly tongue in cheek, but mostly serious. There are obvious and valid analogies to be drawn between the military and the medical system. Basically the MD is your commission: it gives you certain privileges and certain responsibilities. A nurse is essentially a noncom. Your experienced ICU nurse is like an E6 or above. When you’re an intern in July (the medical training year starts 01JUL) you’re an MD, true, but you’re a brand-new, wet behind the ears, shavetail butterbar O1. You technically give the orders, but you’re still learning your trade. And having your commission does not guarantee you are a smarter person, and definitely doesn’t mean your a better person.

        Finally, the algorithm/flow-chart thing is absolutely true, but some of that is mandated. How the MD does his job is fairly regimented by various quality metrics.

        Oh, finally finally, I’ve also seen what The Right Doctor has noted about recent trainees looking at things through a socjus prism. Some medical fields have been taken over nearly entirely by progressives. I no longer do much work in epidemiology because of this exact phenomenon.

        • Mike;
          Excellent observations. I had essentially the same discussion at the time of her first residency with our one daughter who is an MD. (I am a senior field grade military officer, BTW, so this is *informed* bloviating.)

          The framework I used at the time was The Mask of Command modeled after the famous UK military historian, John Keegan’s book of the same title. The main idea is that in every age people put in charge of something had to consciously play the role of ‘guy in charge’ (commander) that his subordinates expect as a result of that day and time’s organizational culture. What that exact role looks like depends upon the broader culture and the specific circumstances.

          “Once you understand that you must play this role for the good of the organization and its mission, it should ease your anxieties. You’re a smart young woman and you will rapidly grow into it (I said).

          You and any nurse’s roles and relative statuses are already set by the organization and neither you nor she can change that without causing big trouble. So forget about trying to be her friend, confidant, or colleague (IOW forget about the natural female urge to form personal alliances with other females when under stress). You have been put in charge and you must act that way, however uncomfortable that makes you at first.

          *Of course* they know more than you do about most specific subjects right now. But if they were able to think like MD’s (officers) they’d *be* officers (MD’s). So you must be assembling the gestalt from their individual knowledge and experience since many of them are incapable of it. But that doesn’t make them bad people, just limited people. And they are (or soon will be), *your* people.

          So don’t act like a stupid, insecure jerk on a power trip, just act like you’re (mentally) securely in charge. Let them know that you respect their knowledge and value their input. Ask for it when called for under the circumstances. However, since the responsibility is yours, the decision must be yours also.

          It’s OK to ask what they would do, but you must ask why. And then you must say yes or no yourself. if you can’t argue with their logic, accept it gracefully. But, ‘because I say so’, (bluffing when they don’t really know) is never acceptable from them – you’re in charge. And you shouldn’t bluff either. People can smell fear in a leader.

          If you really don’t know and they don’t either it’s better to push the matter up to the next level for resolution (if there’s time). But don’t do this too often: If your superior is having to make all the decisions, they don’t need you.

          Overt disrespect in front of patients or other staff must be squelched immediately, however. It is organizationally unacceptable. (It’s always about the organization and not about you.) Don’t be afraid to use the chain of command if necessary. You can always make it into a request for advice if you are unsure what the informal norms are.

          Finally, don’t forget to praise subordinates in public when they deserve it. Reprimand should happen in private whenever possible.”

          It seemed to work.

    • I work with family practice residents, who rotate through my clinic as part of their training. They are still as smart as they ever were (I’ve been doing this 35 years), but their first reaction nowadays to any situation is to look at it through the leftist prism of privilege and whatnot.

      Once a year I speak to the newly-arriving class of interns about occupational medicine. This year I was asked to ‘focus on’ underserved communities. I gave my usual talk.

      We are all going to be the ‘underserved community’ when our doctors do not put empiricism and facts first, and do not treat us an individuals but as members of check-box groups.

  25. It’s still hard for me to accept that true believers in Blank Slatism exist. I want to “rationalize” them by telling myself they’re simply cynical liars angling for power like so much of Big Other. Yet, like these tortured souls, empirical evidence bedevils my desired beliefs.

    David Reich is the latest problematic fly in my cyncial brain-ointment*. Like Robert Putnam, he’s amassed an impressive mountain of data that flatly contradicts his Blank Slatist faith, but still, he Persists. Even Charles Murray bitterly clings to Race Denialism, out of some tragic admixture of fear and hope.

    We’ve shed some pixels here lately exploring the quantum weirdness between “is” and “ought.” These guys are type-specimens for this Faustian conflict, skewered for display between the pins of worldly empiricism and heavenly gnosis.

    The Devil’s (((advocates))) at the Atlantic have a solution for Dr. Reich – unsurprisingly, just what the Devil ordered for Dr. Faust’s bargain – semantics.

    Since its a shekel-walled article, I’ll take some fair use liberty with a lengthy quote:
    Biological races are not a current scientific concept and often reinforce historical biases. In his op-ed, Reich explicitly acknowledges that race is a social construct. At several places in the text, he goes to great pains to distance himself from racism…

    In the United States, historically, a person is “black” if he has any sub-Saharan African ancestry; in Brazil, a person is not “black” if he is known to have any European ancestry. If “black” refers to different people in different contexts, how can there be any genetic basis to it?

    Since some people refer to Peter “Tyrion” Dinklage as a midget, and others as a “little person,” yet others a “dwarf,” how can there be any genetic basis to his diversely-described wee-ness?

    This is amateur-hour gaslighting, of course. A reasonably insightful toddler instinctively knows the difference between the map and the territory.

    For all that I’ve given Christianity the business of late in failing to address the challenge of modernity and science, the religion of the modrens doesn’t hold up any better in the scientific arena.

    An honorable peace between religion and science is both practical and necessary, but that’s a subject for another post.


    • It would make more sense if we were discussing nations over race, even as races do share more distinct traits than nations do.

      The nation has the natural ability (when not propagandized against, to choose who is numbered among them. I don’t decide if I’m English. I can lay out the case for why I should be considered so, but ultimately, the nation of Englishmen gets to say yeay or nay to that.

      So however Brazil defines white people or how America defines black people is moot in this context. Brazilian whites have their criteria for nationhood and black Americans have theirs.

      The problem with these scientists is that they get so far into the weeds of genetics where there really aren’t that many differences between groups (relatively speaking) that they can’t understand that people don’t group based on invisible genetic markers. Races might have a handful of genetics unique to them as a package, but other races possess some of those traits, too. They track genetic migration and are confused on why the introduction of new traits into one group doesn’t create a bond to the group those traits came from. I mean, why is it that black americans, possessing more genetic material from anglo ancestors than africans, are still a distinct group?

      They need to stop looking with microscopes and relearn how to use their naked eye.

      Nations aren’t just genetic groupings – they are familial bonds, too. Genetics help and are only a preliminary marker, not the only marker.

      • It really boils down to the real-life fact that in 90% of circumstances, we know Blacks from Whites. Humans have to use generalized, simplified hueruistics like race in order to function. Analysis paralysis is fatal even in a modern society and it certanly wasn’t selected for in the millenia of hard living we evolved in.

    • My reading of Reich (his writings directly) is that he does not believe what he states wrt current PC opinion’s on race. But he has much to lose if he comes directly out and states such. As others have pointed out, he goes to the “brink”, and “retreats”. That being said, his latest book, “ Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past” is one of the best I’ve read wrt HBD science implications.

      The chapter on Indian (with a dot, not a feather) racial breakdown and history is a perfect example. Very enlightening and in line with what we know must be true if HBD theory holds. We can argue about “whose side he’s on”, but he’s definitely an asset as his research is accepted.

      • That’s always a tough call with Woke-era science. Anyone we end up reading has to pay fealty to get published & keep his seat. Even the best guys have to be dissumulators and I’d still like to think that’s an inimical mindset for scientists, at least the good guys. I wonder how many guys in academia are Our Guys at heart? I also like to think they’re the better ones, too.

        • ” I wonder how many guys in academia are Our Guys at heart?”

          Speaking only for academic medicine (in a particularly evidence-based specialty yet), I’d say 10% are entirely Our Guys, and another 15-20% congruent on at least a few issues. Hard to say about the “better ones” but I would note that the worse tend to cluster on the hard progressive/social justice end. I have also noticed formerly good, hardheaded, and productive people take up progressive issues as their productive research output fades, perhaps as a way of staying in the limelight.

          As to physicians in general, overall those in academic (university hospital based or affiliated) medicine trend left, those purely in private practice trend somewhat more right.

        • You might find this discussion on a biomedical blog of interest.

          I was the smartass provocateur while skeptic carried the water. would love to know this guys identity. he knew his shit. I had an interesting interaction with my doctor. I redpilled him on average IQ of the various races. he was shocked but believe cuz i’m a professor. It drives my wife (a doctor) crazy because we sit around and BS during my appointments rather than tending to my health. I fully expect the guy to show up at amren.

          • Good Lord. If that series of exchanges wasn’t proof that Progressive ideology is not a religion then I don’t know what is.

            I can’t bear to plow through that superficially erudite-sounding hash again to attribute the following, but I particularly loved the part where someone asserted that genetic factors clearly play a role in IQ differences within groups, but there is no evidence (read that as “reason to believe”) that genetics have ANY role on IQ BETWEEN groups. The self-delusion required for that is awesome in the original sense of the word. Apart from the inherent idiocy of that remark, that person is a heretic, because xe was clearly predicating xir statement assuming black, white and Asian as distinct biological groups, when any fool knows that they are entirely social constructs.

            It all goes to show that credentials and a good vocabulary do not necessarily translate into even remotely resembling intellectual integrity or common sense.

          • Conceding group differences in iq underpinned by genetics is the definition of racist. This makes the observation that smart parents tend to produce smart children problematic. It’s utterly ridiculous.

    • I think a lot of what’s going on with those guys is simple doublethink. From Orwell, for my money the greatest political psychologist of all time, on doublethink from 1984:

      “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it…consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed.”

      “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.”

      • A shaman of compartmentalization. A man for our times. No wonder schools have started memory-holing his work. When I took high school lit we covered Animal Farm & 1984. Now I think kids are lucky to get a bowdlerized sample of Animal Farm alone.

      • Did CIA Director William Casey really say, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false”?

        Barbara Honegger, studied at Stanford University
        Answered Nov 25, 2014 · Upvoted by Mark Berger, former Legislative aide for a United States Senator.
        Originally Answered: Did William Casey (CIA Director) really say, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”?

        I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.

        The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.

        As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.

        Barbara Honegger

        Mission accomplished, I’d say!

  26. As I make it, religion first arose as an effort by our inherently pattern-seeking human minds, to discern the nature of Reality: or to put it another way, the meaning of existence.

    Way back when the various religions arose, human beings didn’t yet have any facts, so they had no choice but to ‘wing it’: to conjure something up out of nothing. Hence the amazing diversity of religious cosmologies.

    Our pattern-seeking, ‘meaning’-seeking minds couldn’t help but try to figure it out. That’s what we humans have evolved to do: to try and understand.

    But today, we have science, which has the power to provide us with demonstrably-proven facts, about who we are, and where we came from. We no longer need to imagine; we no longer need to rely on Iron Age myths to image the nature of reality. Paleoanthropology, and evolutionary biology and psychology and genetics, is where we’ll find our true human backstory.

    The Egalitarian Progs’ refusal to accept the findings of science re: human biodiversity, is akin to the refusal of the Church to accept the findings of Galileo and Darwin. The truth disrupts the self-deceiving game they have going on. They’re no longer able to say, “But it feels so good to believe this way…”

    • ” we have science, which has the power to provide us with demonstrably-proven facts, about who we are, and where we came from”

      Well, yes, to some extent. But facts do not give us purpose or meaning. For the intelligent and pragmatic, facts may provide some rudimentary ethical guidelines as well, but facts alone, IMNSHO, are not enough for a whole and healthy individual, or civilization. Part of our pattern-seeking, social primate brains also want stories, and an understanding of our role relative to other humans in both space and time. In other words, we also need mythologies. Sometimes the mythology is almost wholly congruent with objective, measurable reality; sometimes it is not, but it is not always harmful in the latter case.

      As I’ve noted before, I personally have zero religious impulse (i.e. I’m not at all trying to sell you religion), but I think that religion (and folk stories, and heroic epics) have been a convenient and effective way of transmitting archetypal stories, and the embedded value systems. Not just in the form of official commandments or suchlike, but also as examples of how to behave, or not behave. e.g. It was good that Odysseus was clever to escape the Cyclops, but bad that he paused to taunt the blinded creature, leading to the enmity of Poseidon. Most people can absorb the implicit lesson of not letting pride and cleverness run your mouth.

      While analogies are sometimes misleading, and occasionally dangerous, one might think that science is good at the hardware (or wetware) parts, of the human organism, as well as some firmware, but ethics and mores are the software (and some firmware). While we almost certainly have preferences and defaults that are hard-coded for, we are also to an extent programmable (without meaning to get all blank slatey). Religion has been an effective, and often good, way of doing the programming.

      • Yes: there’s no doubt that we humans are storytelling beings, whose innate tendency is to imagine our lives as stories, with us as the central characters. And that part of the success of religious stories is that they satisfy this tendency.

        My point is, that science is now in the position to supply us with the raw materials for these stories which we can’t help but tell ourselves. We humans are finally in a place where we can tell ourselves stories which are based on demonstrable facts, rather than on one religious mythology or another.

    • Or it’s an attempt to rationalize elements of pre-life memory and relate that transcendent experience to a new embodied life in a dimension with temporality and locality.

      I think it’s some combination of the two. Dreams and other altered states serve mundane functions as well as mystic ones.

  27. I remember Paul Johnson, in Intellectuals, talking about how Leo Tolstoy treated himself as “God’s elder brother”–on about the same level as God, but in fact a bit higher.

    Now in the Lunatic Left we have people who think themselves superior to reality. You really think that you’re going to get through to people with such adamantine conceit?

    In fact, those people are going to be very dangerous. You have to either avoid them, or destroy them.

    • I read Johnson (along with his “Modern Times” as well) as a young man, and thought — “Nah, the people he’s describing here were outliers. And we’ve learned the lesson. Johnson is too hyperbolic, writes with a heavy hand.”

      Fast forward two decades and I now look back at my younger self’s cynicism/naivete with humor. Irrationality is always there. Always. This war will never end.

    • Reminds me of a joke I used to bait my academic colleagues* with: “George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama die, and end up before the throne of the Almighty Himself. God says ‘You have one sentence to justify your life to Me. Go!’ Clinton says ‘I know I had some moral failings, but my heart was in the right place.’ God forgives him, and he’s in. Bush says ‘I know I made some mistakes, but my heart was in the right place.’ God forgives him, and he’s in. Then God says, ‘Barack, what do you think?’ Obama cogitates for a minute, then says ‘I think you’re sitting in my chair.'”

      *n.b. life in academia was great fun during the Obama years, if one was a deep-cover shitlord. Since the only game eggheads play is More-Radical-Than-Thou, it was easy — and fun! — to vent a lot of spleen at Obama… because he wasn’t Socialist enough (I just left out that last part a lot).

  28. Many technically smart people are stupid when it comes to human nature and think that since they can use science and technical ability to make efficient machines, they should be able to do the same thing for society and government. Herbert Hoover was a talented engineer who made millions by running mining operations more efficiently than the competition. He thought he could do the same thing with progressive government. Calvin Coolidge dismissed his ideas as idiotic – Hoover went on to prove Coolidge right.

    • Coolidge, our greatest president. Very hi IQ people should be sequestered to the environment or skill where they are useful at. Keep them out of human relations and governing.

    • I’ve been witness to an interesting pattern at home. My wife is a highly intelligent, educated and successful archaeologist. She excels in the field and has been a museum curator, collections manager and director. She’s very good at what she does and works in a thoughtful, scientific manner. All that changes when she gets home.

      I am constantly amazed at her ability to totally and completely shut off the smart part of her brain (with the help of TV) and revert to the purely emotional side. It is like a switch has been flipped. Is this something that is unique to women? If so, it really would explain a lot.

      Yes, yes, men are just as likely to be religious and/or accept some very silly ideas (great examples above), but are they more consistent in their thinking, or lack of thinking? Do men also have this on/off switch that women have?

      • I try to work on my “switch”. It is useful (I’m told) in human interactions. However, it is difficult and so my wife reminds me that I am “difficult”. 😉

        • Yes, i’ve been pegged as intemperate. My family keeps secrets from me. However, if they need a village burned down they will wheel me out. It’s demoralizing.

      • Thinking is hard work. Collecting, evaluating, testing facts takes time and energy. It’s so much easier to just go with what feels right. Go along to get along.

  29. Excellent job on giving a diagnosis on why all modern efforts have failed to restore western civilization to order from this lunatic cult. You are most definitely right that magic is at work here in the classical sense of the word: altering other people’s perceptions of reality so as to influence their behavior without their conscious awareness.

    The antidote is also magic, specifically unselfish white magic. Memetic warfare is a form of magic. Faggy columns in conservative rags is not. The psychological technique of pacing and leading is magic. One of my most successful techniques in dealing with liberals who can be converted (because that’s what this is) of telling them that Donald Trump is the first president since Carter to not start a war, independent of what they think of him; Obama started at least two. As narcissistic and pompous as Trump is, he did something extremely useful in that he forced the oligarchs to ummask themselves, removing all prior doubt.

    The first steps are planting seeds of doubt about their current beliefs in how the world works. It is necessary to break their illusion before they can be reasoned with, and this must be done from a position of benevolence, otherwise they will always remain hostile to alternate realities.

    • That’s a good one. I also like to point out that Trump is the first president to take on China and the flood of cheap crap at Walmart that ruins small retailers and depresses union wages. Another is that he is the most pro-LGBTQWERTY (hat tip Mark Steyn) president in history. Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage. I don’t much care about those issues, but it’s fun to throw back at lefties the positions they held five minutes ago. The typical response is that they don’t disagree with all of his positions. Sure, but they still want him dead.

    • I was thinking more about your post. Obviously the Bushes started large wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While I believe Obama had his fingerprints all over the Middle East, in various disasters from Egypt to Syria to Libya to Benghazi, what would you consider to be his actual wars? I am not defending him and believe he was GWB 2.0, meddling everywhere in various conflicts, but never really thought he started any large scale wars. Same with Clinton. I’m truly looking for information, not defending two POS presidents.

      • At a minimum, Libya and Syria were armed conflicts started under his administration; Libya is currently a failed state thanks to the big O, Syria would be were it not for Russia. If we are to be more generous, he funded through covert means color revolutions all throughout the middle East (Egypt, Tunisia, etc), covertly funded ISIS, and covertly funded a neonazi group in Ukraine to overthrow the Russian friendly president (and got Tymoshenko out of prison for rather heinous crimes).

  30. Isaac Newton is a great example of the rational/irrational mind. The same man who worked out calculus, gravitational laws, and the theory of light was also a fanatic Puritan. Go figure.

    It’s clear to me that humans of every intelligence range need something to believe in that is outside themselves. For the modern-day SJW Puritans, that something is the Humanist ideals that followed WWI. To admit that these ideals were a Chaemera would be a fate worse than death. And to be blunt, they will die before they relinquish these beliefs.

    • If you read Kepler’s original work his laws of planetary motion are full of astrological mumbo jumbo. That Sir Isaac was able to extract Kepler’s Laws out of that mess was one of his seminal feats.

    • Serious people know they will often have to deal in lead.

      This is the way of nature. If a religious nutter with a foreign ideology even if he is of your own people shows up on your door, convert him or kill him before he does this to you.

      In the end the “leftist” elements in our society will have to go till society is moral enough to handle them and this includes religious tolerance , being able to redress certain grievances, freedom to speak .

      No you cannot practice some religions, no you cannot lobby to lower the age of consent or sell drugs and keep your damned mouth shut

      Not forever, just the interregnum, that lousy, tyrannical and miserable forty years.

      if we do it right and have the character to give up power, we can have the Republic back. If not ?

      We didn’t deserve it anyway.

      • They will never be able to do anything, these people, except yell and push buttons on a screen, and they are eagerly embracing their slavery by being told “this is how you stop being a slave.” What awaits them? A very short lifetime, both for them and unfortunately for anyone who has the misfortune to come into prolonged contact with their ilk.

        Too many stupid people in the US and West now. They dominate politics and public life by dint of sheer numbers. I have no answers to this, but we know it how it almost always ends up, don’t we? They’ll believe anything they’re told if it comes in the right packaging. Pondering this for too long will induce madness.

        • Thankfully expert AI systems will be calling the shots
          for the next generation of “stupid people” ..

      • How about messing with how we count on our fingers? Some people can only count to five on one hand. I can count to twelve. How?

        Look carefully at your fingers, there are three joints, giving you three “pads” to count on. Use the thump as a counting device, and touch it on the flesh between each joint of each finger, you get three counts per finger, or a total of 12 per hand, or 24 for both hands.

        I can also do multiplication this way; 2×3=6 which is calculated with just two fingers x three pads. Then try 3×5=15 using both hands. Now try multiplication with the “western” method where you only have four fingers on each hand and you’ll find it doesn’t work so well.

        Which is better? Which should we teach our children?

        • Karl;
          Witty and true observations. Useful_? BTW, watch an asian small merchant on an abacus: Amazing (if they still do that)

          You are right that math can be done using other than base 10 notation. Obviously computers use base 2 for good reasons of physics (at least current physics). But in order for the computational effort to be useful in everyday life there must be *a* standard.

          It’s the attack on standards, particularly just to try to move up the Prog virtue stack, that is so pernicious and destructive. Peoples’ Exhibit Z+ of how little Progs care about the the minions that fall under their power and how little foresight they possess. They’re cheerfully ruining their ability to maintain their civilization. Just don’t let it be ours.

          • I’ve seen a few recent articles that math is now suppressing people of color in America. Somehow 2+2=racist. Amazing.

  31. Genetics is upending all kinds of “settled” science – not only racial/ethnic biology but all kinds of human sciences from archeology to linguistics. Nations and cultures that unapologetically accept the facts and run with them will blossom in their knowledge and discoveries while those that reject genetics as heresy will stagnate and go backwards. China and Russia understand this, most Westerners do not.

    We need to develop a parallel culture and fast.

    • Probably not a good idea to mention how modern genetics has upended many Native American tribe’s origin myths. Which is why they don’t normally agree with genetic studies anymore, especially after the Havasupai debacle. It’s too bad really, cause many of them have some very interesting genetic backgrounds.

  32. Should we really care about this? Take that fatwa mentioned above, the majority of school children in this country are brown. Why should they learn actual math? Or real English and not ebonics. Why should a dindu be strapped to a chair and Shakespeare forced down his throat? If the Progs want to abandon reading, writing and arithmetic, then our guys will be the only ones selling.

    • Right you are, Tykebomb. I’ve long held the belief that my homeschooled kids will be part of our people running everything in the future…if we can survive.

      • That’s the key Brother, surviving so we can rebuild later… Community will be what makes us able to do that…

        • Lineman…I’m learning! That’s why my theme is Tool Collecting. I’m a polymath and wildly mediocre at many, many things.

          • Mosshammer,

            if you haven’t already come across him, may I please suggest trying the Woodpile Report. Part weekly news summary with witty comentary… but also because he is a down to earth bare bones prepper on a budget. The important stuff, what will serve instead of what is tacticool, deep larder supplies, sage prepper wisdom, commando wildwoods growing, ammo storage etc.

            As a plus he’s been reposting a lot of Zman’s writings when he finds him particularly clever or prescient.

          • Thanks PM. Yes, I read Woodpile. Bison Prepper, Rural Revolution, MountainGuerilla…all so helpful. I have to wonder, given the quality of the men and woman I read on these sites and others, just how big we really are…I’m more encouraged than ever.

    • Are Seattle Public Schools majority non-white? Either way point taken.

      The fact is that, with even a small amount of push from parents, and tutoring, etc. an average kid can excel in the modern education system, especially in math and science, because a) the brown kids are dumb and b) it’s so freakin’ dumbed down. We whites can’t lose sight of this. Your kids can be miles ahead of everyone else as long as you take some time to either enrich their curriculum at home, home-school, or get a tutor.

      You see this in Toronto. The curriculum is so easy, teaches white guilt, anti-racism, etc. The problem? Whites and Asians just ignore most of it and still learn math and science. Whites have white guilt but still learn math. Asians have no guilt of any kind.

      This approach has created a mass of stupid, resentful, negro-worshipping black and brown kids.

      Either way, yeah I don’t really care. These mystery meat Drake people all around Toronto really hate white people, especially rednecks. It’s what they’re taught at school. I say let them rot in Toronto, most of them are broke anyways.

      My kids will be pushed quite hard at home and taught proper English, math, and science.

      • I don’t know about Canada but here in the USA there is a massive campaign going on to relocate big city ghetto dwellers to peaceful, orderly majority white communities in red states. They will not leave us alone or allow us a place of refuge.

        • True. As congestion increased, commuting became a trial. Real estate currently occupied by city “Projects” became very valuable. Solution: move occupants out to the ‘burbs (where affordable housing laws had been implemented) a win-win for both the developers and Diversity, Inc.

        • Why should only white people be allowed to live in peaceful neighborhoods with clean streets and good schools?

      • UFO, All that concerns the modern education establishment are “achievement gaps.” It’s become worse with diversity, but even in the mono-culture that existed when I was a kid in the 70s you would be punished for “reading ahead” of the group. Looking back it was so wrong. They were chopping bright kids down back then. I fear to imagine what it’s like for even average kids now.

    • Solid. Thank you for pointing out this fact (“the majority of school children in this country are brown) that most here appear to continually forget or dismiss. Just as the decaying multikult military of the Empire is likely to be ineffective (and thus beneficial to those attempting to overthrow the Empire), so, too, is the execrable education the mystery-meat hordes receive in the public indoctrination centers also beneficial to dissident Whites.

      • As long as we have product to sell. As much as we should all roll our eyes at the anti-nationalist canard “why should you take pride in the accomplishments of others”, it does have a tiny element of truth. You have to be a steward of your culture and traditions. This is easy if you have a nation: just keep swimming. It’s harder as a minority. Trades are a necessity as the POCs pox collapses society around us. Every man must also know the classics and canon of White civilization from Plato to the present.

  33. “People are of two minds, the moral and the empirical. The former will always override the latter when it comes to their group participation. Morality is the shared reality of the group.”

    -Hence, cognitive dissonance. And you can’t fix someone’s cognitive dissonance. So it’s all doomed.

  34. The fact that “belief is a powerful magic” has long been evident in the lives of otherwise-intelligent people who profess religious faith. Religious belief is characterized by a huge emotional investment in ‘X’ being true— a strong need to believe— when compared with other sorts of beliefs.

    It’s long been evident that NONE of the events described in the Old Testament— the Israelites spending 400 years in Egypt, and one of their men becoming the second-in-command, and saving the country from famine; the Israelites leaving, and the entire pursuing Egyptian army, along with Pharaoh, being swallowed-up by the Red Sea; hundreds of thousands of Israelites wandering a small area of desert for 40 years, then going on to burn and destroy whole cities in ‘the promised land’; the fabled kingdom of Solomon, supposedly famous throughout the then-known world— could possibly have happened; since all would have been expected to leave a trace on the historical-archaeological record, yet no such trace exists for any of them.

    It’s possible that some of them might have occurred without leaving a trace… but ALL of them? No…. yet millions of otherwise-rational people continue to insist that the Bible is “God’s inspired word”, containing an accurate historical record of real events.

    When belief comes to serve an emotional purpose in peoples’ lives— when the need to believe exceeds some critical mass— reason goes out the window, and blind fanaticism takes it’s place.

    Clearly, that’s the case today with the new religions of ‘anti-racism’, egalitarianism, and climate change.

    • Parts of the old testament are intended to be symbolic, and these derive from Egyptian and Babylonian creation myths. Other parts likely are highly exaggerated versions of the theft of Egyptian documents by Thutmose, or perhaps Akhenaten (amenhotep iv) during a period of turmoil. This part is the “Noble lie” of Plato, and likely was disseminated to the barbarian semitic tribes in the Levant as a means to surmount an insurrection in Egypt.

      • The problem is, that the OT ‘claims’ to be—presents itself as— an accurate historical record of people who actually existed, and events that actually happened. And every Christian I’ve known has believed that to be the case.

        • Genesis 1 says the earth was created in 6 days. Genesis 2 says the earth was created in 1 day, in a very different order. Why would this contradiction be written or compiled unless it was implied that these events are not to be taken literally?

          • The trouble with the literal interpretation of the Bible is it assumes a total lack of sophistication by the writers and it assumes they were writing for complete morons, unable to understand nuance, symbolism, allegory and so forth. It strips everyone of their humanity.

          • One way to evaluate the Bible is to ‘let the text speak for itself’: to try and discern ‘how the text sees itself’, how it ‘presents itself’, what it ‘purports to be’. And while there are clearly portions of the Bible which are mythological— e.g., the creation accounts of Genesis— and which are symbolic/allegorical— the book of Revelation— it seems clear that most of the Old and New Testaments are purporting to be historical accounts of actual events. Certainly that’s the way that virtually every Christian I’ve known has taken them.

          • Which Bible? – What parts, when compiled, via what texts? Most protestant Christians know nothing of the history of their precious book (some even think the only ‘true’ Bible is King James’). Sola Scriptura is a *new* thing in some strains of Christianity. It *was not the case* and still is not for most Christians (who are either Catholic or Orthodox).

          • Hell, Augustine understood this and made this exact point 1700 years ago.

            “Usually, even a pagan knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

            Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.”

      • That all sounds terribly complicated. Thank God we have the clergy to interpret these things for us.

    • As a new outhouse Christian convert… I struggle with that stuff too. I get around it by shrugging, and taking it as biblical mythology. I am not an evangelical so you can take it or reject it as you see fit. Certain events are a matter of historical record and we have ample biblical archeology to back them up. It’s fascinating stuff.

      Personally, I think the OT should be mandatory study for whites. It contains the voices of our ancestors from thousands of years ago – and they have so much to offer those that are willing to listen and take their messages to heart.

      Historians seem to reject biblical archeology and mythology the same way that warble gloamers reject science and observable truth. In doing so, they do a real disservice to us all.

      • I take elements of the OT (and the NT, for that matter) with a grain of salt, but you make a great point, John Smith. The OT, for better or worse, is our theological heritage, and it behooves is to read it, think about it, and try to understand God’s messages to us through it. We owe it to ourselves to embrace its meaning for us, because it is where much of our spiritual understanding, individually and collectively, eminates from. The one thing I would point out is that the OT is largely written from the point of view of a certain tribe, but our need to consume it to better understand ourselves still stands.

        • Don’t treat any testament as a straightjacket though. We have always shaped faith to our circumstances. Medieval Christianity incorporated a great deal of pagan and German elements that significantly altered the Semitic original. There’s a third way between cafeteria-style therapeutic deism and fundamentalism. Honor the core spirit but make the application and interpretation serve your people and your times.

      • FWIW I think the Old Testament should be mandatory study for anyone living in the West. But not because contains “ancestral European voices”. Because it really doesn’t very much, if at all. It contains the voices of fractious and often unpleasant Semites [1,2]. But the OT is critically important in understanding our civilization.

        Without meaning to go all Varg Vikernes on you, I’d note that our culture and civilization is based as much [3] on Greek, Roman (pre and post-Christian) and (importantly) pagan Germanic customs, mores, and law, as it is on the tales of the Chosen (and how they’ve been wronged through the ages [4]).

        [1] the ADL’s website assures us that “Semite” (or more specifically, “anti-Semite”) in conventional parlance applies only to Jews, and not to other “sons of Shem” e.g. Arabs. But they in the same article claim that the origin of this popular use is from Jew-hating German writers. So if the S-word is essentially like the N-word, they why do they keep using it? Why not just say “anti-Jew”? Serious question.
        [2] When Alex of A Clockwork Orange is in prison, he is assigned to read the Bible by the chaplain. “I didn’t so much like the latter part of the book which is more like all preachy talking, than fighting and the old in-out. I liked the parts where these old yahoodies tolchock each other and then drink their Hebrew vino and, then getting on to the bed with their wives’ handmaidens. That kept me going.”
        [3] When I say “as much” I am speaking broadly of course, as such things are difficult to quantify.
        [4] If you are treated badly by someone, maybe it’s just that you met a jerk. If everyone treats you badly, maybe you should consider whether you’re the jerk.

      • It was the West’s encyclopedia for centuries. It made us interested in history- we resurrected history around the world, while everyone else lost, burned, or forgot theirs. Invaluable.

    • “It’s long been evident that NONE of the events described in the Old Testament…could possibly have happened.”

      Juxtapose the current state of scientific knowledge about the creation of the universe, and more specifically earth, with the Genesis account of creation. Genesis identifies the exact correct sequence from the big bang, to the dark earth covered in water, surrounded by dense clouds, to the creation of the atmosphere, to plate tectonics, and finally to the evolution of life – from plant life and sea based creatures, to birds, to land based animals, and finally to humans. How did the writer of Genesis get the exact sequencing correct over 2700 years ago? It was not until the big bang was proposed in 1927 that science caught up with the biblical account written down 3 millennia ago by someone in the desert, with no scientific tools or fossil records.

      • Given that this Biblical account was plagarized by the Tribe from Babylonian myths running back to Sumeria, it’s more like 4000+ years ago.

        • Fundamentally I would argue that these myths exist not just in Babylon, but other cultures as well, because they explain the world and our place in it in a way that simply logically makes sense. Chaos Theory, Fractals, however you want to explain it, but the large patterns tend to match up to the small patterns. The cycle of life – birth, progress, death, which which our ancestors were deeply familiar, mirrors the cycle of the universe in these myths. That it maps to current scientific understanding of entropy and the creation of the universe is unsurprising, IMHO.

      • Where to begin? Ah, at the beginning! Genesis chapter one verse one says that God created the heavens and the earth. Then chapter two describes the earth and how God’s spirit was moving over the surface of the waters. Then, in chapter three God creates light. Nothing about any big bang.

        Later it states that God made the lights in the heavens. So, according to your bible, the stars in the sky are all younger than the earth. Interesting claim. But then, after making the earth, and then the stars, God makes the sun and the moon! But wait, that all happened after God made all of the plants. How did photosynthesis work before God made the sun?

        I could go on…

        • The big bang in Genesis is the fact that there was a beginning to the universe, as stated in the first verse. Prior to the big bang theory, the prevailing scientific view was that the universe always existed in an eternal state. In a 1959 survey by Scientific American, two-thirds of leading American scientists held this view. It wasn’t until the big bang was confirmed in 1965 by the discovery of its echo in the universe that the scientific consensus changed.

          The third verse does not say God created light. It says “let there be light”, which occurred on earth when the dense gas engulfing the earth was lifted. Later, “let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night…” Again, this is from the perspective of earth, not from additional creations in the universe. In 1.15 and 1.16 it does talk about “making” the sun and the moon, which could also be interpreted as making them visible on earth.

          You can pick apart some the language, but most of the sequencing is pretty amazing. Especially note 1:6 to 1:10 describing the creation of the earth’s atmosphere and the appearance of dry land, exactly how, and in what order, science now believes it happened. Also note the correct sequencing of evolution, from vegetation to seas creatures to birds to land animals to humans.

          Here is good comparison, obviously from a religious perspective.

    • The problem with fedoras like you is that you bring nothing useful to the table. You can tear down endlessly, but you can’t ever build up anything. You seem to have completely missed the point of Zman’s article. Nobody gives a shit about science. Nobody. Not really. Myths – true or false – are what motivate people, and especially motivate them to fight and sacrifice. Precisely nobody is going to charge out of a foxhole yelling: “FOR DNA SCIENCE!!!” What will get people to do that is faith, blood, and soil – and you really need all three. Anything or anyone which separates our people from any of those things jeopardizes our survival, and thus must be treated as an enemy.

  35. “Imagine if suddenly the Catholic Church discovered some scrolls written by Jesus that contradicted key parts of modern Christianity. It turns out that Jesus wanted everyone to convert to Judaism”

    If you change Judaism to paganism that is actually what bergoglio is saying, doing and what’s happening in the church. Was anyone else happy to find out there’s an actual Catholic priest in South Carolina?

    • There is currently a schism underway in The Church.
      And Jorge isn’t really the Pope, because Benedict resigned in error (per Canon law), which is to say he didn’t “resign the post” at all.
      Jorge Bergoglio is not a holy man.

      • The schism being, between those who recognize ‘The Church’ as an organized enclave of pedophiles, and those who haven’t yet figured that out?

        • No – the schism being between those who recognize there is an enclave of pedophiles/homosexuals in the Church and want them running it vs. those who want them to go home to Anglicanism.

        • The pedophile component of the catholic church is around 5% of priests, which is similar to leaders in every other faith, and is lower than the general male population of 8%, and public school teachers, which is 10%. I’m not excusing it, and the church has handled it disgracefully. But don’t believe everything you hear in the liberal media.

          • The notion that roughly 1 man in 12 is a pedophile makes no sense unless you stretch “pedophile” to interest in anyone under 18.

            There are barely that many men with any homosexual ideation and most of them are “stuck at sea for months” ” Thebes brother” or “tried it once” types not active regular homosexuals. That could be as much as 1 in 10 as per Kinsey’s spurious stats though 1 in 12 sounds right to me

            Actual regular homosexuals or bisexuals with a significantly stronger interest in the same sex are maybe 1 in 20 possible as low as 1 in 30 men.

            Even fewer men have an interest in prepubescent boys or girls , the proper definition of pedophile and a somewhat larger number probably runs to ephebophilia to some degree, defining that as “less than fully developed.” not under a specific age. This is in the West 15-18 BTW when the law reflects maturity varying from place to place.

            The fact that men are interested in sexually well developed women may cause social issues and unmarried sex is to be discouraged on grounds of sanity, very few men have any pathology and certainly not 1 in 12.

            Now as for the Priest issue, I don’t know. I haven’t been to a Catholic service in decades but 5% with many of them high placed sounds plausible to me.

          • A.B. – I should have been more precise, but for brevity was mirroring the language in the original post. In the study I was referencing, the parameter was “inappropriate sexual contact with a minor” and not pedophilia per se.

            I don’t believe this affects my point, unless you assume a different age average of victims for each grouping. I don’t believe priests have much contact with very young children, so I would expect similar distributions. Though the school teacher group likely skews toward 15-17 year old girls.

            Beyond the issue of abuse, it does appear there is a homosexual culture within some dioceses, with a liberal interpretation that gay sex is not sex. I can’t defend that one.

            BTW, I share your doubt about the Kinsey 10% homosexual figure. If I recall, many of his surveys were in prisons, because there were large sample groups of men available for interviews. More reasonable estimates are 2-5%, but that doesn’t fit the media narrative.

          • Your observation that there appears to be a homosexual culture within some dioceses, can also be extended to some Seminaries, which are also reported to be hotbeds of homosexuality which actively recruit homosexuals into the priesthood and cover up what transpires there.

            I don’t know what the relative numbers are— which dioceses and Seminaries are thus infected, and which aren’t— but from the fact that the cover-ups were so widespread, and extend so high in the Church hierarchy, one could easily make the case that this is an endemic problem: a feature rather than a bug.

            Are there ANY instances where the Church took the proper approach— immediately removing the offending priest, and REPORTING HIM TO THE AUTHORITIES?

            If so, I’m not aware of them…

          • The 5% number may indeed be spurious, or low. Don’t conflate—which has been done in this thread—the number of homosexuals within the population in general, with a self selecting population of homosexuals who enter the priesthood for reasons of predation, or just to “hide out”. Similar to using count of homosexuals residing in San Francisco and assuming that number represents the percentage of such in the general USA population.

          • The way the Church has handled this issue in virtually every instance—covering up the abuse; asking/instructing victims and their families to remain silent “for the good of the Church”; not contacting the police; re-assigning the offending priest to a different location, without informing the incoming parish what type of person they were getting, in some cases multiple times for the same priest; continuing to advance pedophile priests within the Church hierarchy; repeatedly sending them for ‘counseling’, and declaring them ‘cured’, only to see them relapse— makes it clear that this is not a case of individual ‘problem priests’.

            Clearly, there’s an organized SYSTEM in place, which protects pedophile priests, and retains them in the Church without serious consequences, whenever possible. Clearly, the Church has long been aware of what’s going on, and has done nothing to stem it.

            Cover-ups of this type and magnitude in any other context would be considered criminal offenses.

          • Bill, I agree. It appears the extent of the homosexuality problem is more pervasive and at higher percentages. The pedo issue is serious and the coverups inexcusable, but listening to the media, you would assume that the majority of current priests are pedophiles. Most of the abuse and coverups were decades ago, and there are much better controls in place now. I believe, in addition to self-preservation, part of the covering up was a liberal notion of redemption within the church hierarchy. But the recidivism rate for pedophiles is way too high for that.

    • You seem completely unaware of Southern history. The four main Christian denominations in the Southern states up to the Revolutionary War were Church of England, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, and Methodism. That loony tunes fundamentalism came out of the North during the 1st and 2nd Great Awakening movements. Educated Southerners would love to send it all back where it came from.

      • The modern conflation of fundamentalism as “Southern” seems to come from media reaction to Falwell in his heydey, largely an ACELA Yankee media mash-up of redneck stereotypes. Even the Applachian Prots who (self-defeatingly) fought for Lincoln weren’t fundies.

      • Mosby, that Mosby of Mosby’s Raiders was a Catholic. The last major officer of the Confederacy to yield and a terror to the Yankees.

      • That’s not what I was talking about. Joe Biden went to mass in Florence South Carolina and the priest rightly denied him communion because of his stance on abortion

      • I really see it as more of a frontier thing – fundamentalist ‘camp meeitngs’ were a mostly southwestern thing, with big urban ‘prayer revivals’ also happening in the northern cities. The deep south didn’t see a lot of this until the 20th century evangelical movements (guys like Billy Graham, things like Campus Crusade for Christ, which originated in LA, etc).

  36. A former hypnotist said once about how people reacted when taken out of their supposed trance. When denying that they cackled like a chicken, they finally admitted to him that they did because they wanted to. His conclusion is that he didn’t hypnotize anyone, we already are.

    Most people are just responding to conditioning and will defend to the death their complicity in it. Hard to admit you have no agency. None of us are immune. When confronted with countering facts, most just double down. The left and progressive loonies are beyond help.

        • I had been an atheist for a decade before I discovered him around 1999. After a year of listening to him, my faith returned. And along the way I was red-pilled in many respects. He, like anyone I suppose, has his detractors but I wouldn’t be reading the Zman if he hadn’t laid the groundwork.

    • And most BoomerCons who have been steeped their entire life in the Witches Brew of ‘I don’t see color’ + ‘Black Families are Natural Conservatives’ their entire lives (while of course never, ever, seeing the conflict inherent in those two statements).

    • Hypnotism. Am I really a chicken? Placebos, nocebos too. Norman Vincent Peale. The subconscious has surprising powers. Sometimes the belief creates the truth.

  37. From the Birney blog: “Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.” The sentence contradicts itself.

      • The twitt tussles are a tell. In the link, he shows his cards by the second paragraph, in which he also mentions the media (social even) and the ‘inside v. Outside’ the academy in terms of ‘real v. fake’ science.

        How science is framed is essential to them. It is not a discipline as much as it is a message. Proselytizing is critical. This the academy must control the media.

        The fact that their religion is packed with contradictions, many obvious to even the passive observer, and many more to come as actual science rungs their beliefs aground against new discoveries, means that guarding the narrative is as important as anything else. Its also awkward.

        But not that different from watching any other prog believer contort themselves around their cogdis in real time while working up a fever pitch.

        They are dangerous not just because their religion destroys truth and the pursuit of such, but that it must also control – are thereby destroy, dissent and the platforms from which discourse, understanding, and access are provided to the people.

        The fact that so called scientists are so paranoid about dissent and skepticism reveals that they are not scientists at all, but gatekeepers of a powerful but fragile orthodoxy with its own DNA like a cancer. It will die. The questin is will it take the host body with it?

        • The abuse of science by non science, by pseudo-science and by science itself has always existed but it has accelerated during the past few decades. Because science and technology have met with great success in the past 2 centuries…anything dressed up in scientific language no matter how delusional gets a pass. At least for a while.

          It’s a form of “cultural borrowing ” without the cultural context in place. Applying principles rooted in observation, experimentation and analysis in one discipline (science) and using those principles in an unrelated area without adapting those approaches to the needs and form of that new area(history)…turns science into pseudo-science. The borrowed principle is applied on faith. Any observation or analysis applied to this wholesale borrowing is purposely cherry picked in supporting the forgone conclusion.

          There’s a very good book on this subject. It examined the “cultural borrowings” of Marxism and its pseudo-scientific construction. The author referred to this sort of thing as Darwinisticism. It came out 25 – 30 years ago. The book was savagely attacked by intellectualoids but largely done so falsely.

          The book criticized the pseudo-science of Marxism and the growing body of post-modernist pseudo-scientific drivel. The attack on the book accused it of being an attack on science itself…because after all. .Marxism and post-modernism ARE scientific, right.

          Here’s the kicker: Darwin and The Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb. She was Irving Kristol’s wife and Bill Kristol’s mother.

          The attacks on her book came almost exclusively from other members of her tribe.

        • Screw;
          One big reason why ‘scientific’ narratives are so well defended is that by guarding the narrative they are guarding *the money*.

          Before WWI, probably and WWII certainly, academic science was mainly done by eccentric millionaires and trustafarians. That is, it was not an industrial enterprise. But WWI showed the great military advantages of applied technology. To cite one previously well known example, Germany could declare war in 1914 because the Haber Process of fixing nitrogen from the air in order to make explosives. This scientific breakthrough (they thought) made them immune from British sea blockade.

          The pre and pan WWII technical arms race seemed to confirm the military utility of state funded and directed R & D. The biggest and best (?) example was the Manhattan Project that developed the nuclear weapons that ended WWII. In that project the R was done in selected universities in order to placate the prima donnas and the D was done in highly controlled secret govt. installations.

          After the war the prestige of science was at its peak.* So much so that a number of famous scientists were able to con Congress in the late ’40s with the audacious claim that they and their lesser known cohorts would fix the world (or at least do enormous good) if granted enormous sums of tax money with little govt. supervision channeled through universities where they enjoyed the good life.** Even more audacious was their claim that ‘science’ itself should determine who got what money for what purpose.

          Hence the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of health, etc.etc. As is the way of the world, these quickly became old boy’s clubs. In actual practice they are now guilds who get to determine who is admitted. One mostly gets admitted by doing work that builds upon and burnishes the reputation of the work of prominent guild members.

          A sure way not to get admitted would be to bring into question the work of one of the old bulls/cows that served as their admission ticket. So few if any such proposals get funded. Hence the proliferation of studies of minuscule differentiation, many of them now being exposed as unrepeatable (sloppy work under deadline pressure, outright fraud, who can say_?)
          *Such was the prestige of science that obvious bullshyte psych theories could be propagated merely by claiming to be scientific.
          **The Soviets clearly demonstrated that tightly controlled state R&D institutes can produce important results, especially from their badly damaged post WWII circumstances.

    • The problem is that ‘race’ is a vernacular term, not a biological one, so it’s easy enough to demonstrate it only corresponds loosely to actual scientific categories – it’s not even Linnaean.

      It’s like trying to prove that there are no such creature as a “farm animal” because look! That ones has horns and goes moo, and that one has only two legs and doesn’t even have an udder, and whoa! now that one ate the other one, and how can you really distinguish a wild buffalo from a domesticated one? Some matriarchal tribe in the pre-Columbian Amazon farmed scorpions, so there!

      No, farm animals are social constructs.

      • This is one of the best descriptions of the problem we face as ‘race realists’ I’ve ever read. Thank you!

  38. J.M Greer says it better than me (about the retreat from reason):

    “My take is that what we’re seeing is a precursor of the Second Religiosity, one of the social shocks that precede the end of each civilization’s Age of Reason and the turn back to an intellectualized version of old religious forms. An essentially religious attitude has arisen, but it hasn’t yet found its way back to the forms proper to it, and so, as you’ve suggested, we see people directing religious passions toward nonreligious goals. It’ll get sorted out eventually, but there may be a few more rounds of craziness before the Second Religiosity really takes off.”

    • I think Spengler talked abut this. I’ve written in the past that these spasms of Progressive fanaticism track with the religious revivals that have been part of English speaking societies. I should revisit the topic one of these days.

      • Puritans and their progressive descendants seem to have a drive for utopian crusades, whether those crusades be founding the New Jerusalem or multiculturalism. Assuming an evolutionary biology framework, does anyone have any thoughts on how a drive for utopian crusades could be evolutionarily adaptive?

      • Humans have an evolved need for religion- and will fill that hole with whatever. So I think one could make an argument for Christian Nationalism since this is a set of beliefs which has shown fitness by surviving and promoting civilization. An evolutionary argument for faith- I just enjoy that seeming contradiction

    • Lovecraft said it well:

      “ The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

Comments are closed.