Resurrect the Church: Space Christians!

Today is Easter Sunday. As I sat in the pews of the Methodist church, listening to the male half of our married co-pastors (how progressive, huh?) deliver his sermon, I decided that I won't be coming back to this church. I love the feeling of community, the music, singing hymns and the beautiful building, but I've come to the realization that our church is toothless and blind.

The sermon grated on me in minor ways, from the pro-feminist quip about the 'subservient role of women in that culture', and his multicultural hope for the end of all racial strife, to our tithes serving not just our community but the entire globe, to the various charity outreach programs including food drives and of course the obligatory mission to Africa. Why? Well, I believe that patriarchy is a central building block of civilization. I believe that diversity leads to strife and should probably be avoided, and definitely not be violently enforced. I believe that America's poor have an obesity problem and I think that denying blacks agency and indulging in the 'White Savior' complex is what real racism looks like.

The pastor spoke of having performed multiple second marriages for divorcees on Easter and made a poorly aligned allusion to the resurrection, considering the second marriages were not between the same individuals. The good Christian minister wouldn't dare second guess or decry a divorce, he'll even reward divorcees on one of the Church's holiest days. The church is dying of old age and needs new life.

I have a proposal to resurrect the Church: Space Christians. Yeah, it sounds a little Heaven's-Gate-Hale-Bopp, but let me make my case. I propose a space race between the major religions. Here's why.

The Heavens are Eternal

Saving and investing is future-think. Having a lofty future goal, such as planting the first cross on Mars would be a huge investment. It would require planning, saving, keeping the members focused on a far off goal. This is the very lowering of time preference which has made the Church essential to Western flourishing in the past. We live in a world of increasing time preference. America's leaders have not only used up their available resources, they have spent far into the future, displaying a disgusting disdain for saving and investing. They encourage rampant materialistic consumerism, creating junk that's used briefly and stuffed into landfills, to leak toxins for thousands of years. The American government has basically shelved its space program, and in so doing it has shelved its place in the future. Modernity is about the present moment, the Church should be focused on the eternal.

Religion Leads to Life

The tenets of a religion must lead to life, otherwise they are nihilistic and lead to death. Ideas which lead to death are self-selected out of the underlying ideology and removed from the religion. Life and more than life...human flourishing is the real goal. What better way to lead to life than to colonize space? Perhaps a Benedictine monastery on Mars might hold the seeds to repopulate the Earth after some catastrophe. To protect and ensure the survival of the human species.

Christianity is Unscientific

We've all heard that charge. I can just imagine the Pope blessing a mission to Mars, manned by the smartest and bravest Christians of the era, using technologies improved upon in Vatican laboratories. What if Christian tithes, rather than being used to supplement the populations of low IQ savages, were instead used to pay for the smartest Christians to acquire advances STEM degrees. The Church should stop wasting money encouraging profligacy, but instead could actually fund a surge in number of scientific minds. The Church could provide financial support and incentives to high-IQ, high-producing members to breed far beyond their self-funded capacity, providing us with an ever growing pool of Christian geniuses. It wouldn't be the first time the Church has encourage eugenic population growth. Why not do some good for the planet by actually improving its scientific capacity?

Space is Cool

Africa is backwards and boring, but I'm pretty sure they have the internet there. Let them get some 3-D printers and download free tractor plans from Open Source Ecology. They will pull themselves into the future as they good and ready, and don't need the White Savior to come do it for them. I would actually be excited to sit in the pews and hear about the latest scientific advancements in the Christian Space Race. I would be proud to know that my donations were funding a space industry manned and led by high-IQ, high-moral, high-ethic, high-virtue humans... the best that the world has to offer. I could happily spend my whole life supporting that endeavor.

So, that is my proposal to resurrect the Church. Give the Church a worthy goal: Space Christians! The future belongs to those who will colonize it.

Meme: Libertarian Leon and Moral Blindness

In Neoreactionary circles, there is quite a bit of talk about 'moral blindness' on the part of Libertarians. Moral blindness is a condition of impaired moral intuition, to varying degrees. It appears that many groups do exhibit a moral sense, but Libertarians in particular, being extremely intelligent, rational and empirical tend to have an abbreviated sense of moral intuition, as asserted by this 2012 study of Libertarian morality.

This leads to such neoreactionary claims as 'Libertarianism is Retarded', and frequent charges of autism being directed at Libertarians.

While no-one doubts that Libertarians tend to be highly intelligent, and the Libertarian analysis of economics to be extremely helpful, the lack of high ethics among Libertarians is likely the direct cause of their inability to marshal support from 'normal' folks.

Curt Doolittle refers to the resulting ethics as 'low-trust', or Rothbardian 'ghetto' ethics, and contrasts them with Western high-trust ethics. Libertarians seem unable to grasp the transaction costs associated with these 'low-trust' ethics.

Libertarianism does seem to be on the rise in America, though I think this is primarily due to growing distrust of the two-party system, so the recent newcomers are probably more 'normal' followers.

That I may do my part to alert Libertarians to their blind spot, I've created a meme dubbed "Libertarian Leon". Being a post-Libertarian myself, I hope you Libtards take it in good humor.

If you decide to join in the fun and make a meme with it, I would consider it a personal favor if you would link the meme in the comments so that we can all enjoy it.

Here's the blank one.

Here are some contributed by other creative individuals.

Some more from me.

Pathologizing Whiteness.

White Privilege: No joke

On April 1, 2014, we received the highlights from the National White Privilege Conference in Madison Wisconsin. The taxpayer funded event offered an opportunity to discuss issues of white supremacy, social justice, education and the Tea Party. In the breakout sessions, many people seemed very interested in how to bring the ideals of social justice and white privilege into the classroom. Attendees learned many interesting things, such as: white charity is racist.

We can thank Kimberley Radersma for marxsplaining important issues to us, for example, that whites cannot teach blacks.

Pathologizing Whiteness

This 'White Privilege' notion is simply the pathologization of whiteness. We've seen feminists engaged in the pathologization of masculinity for decades. This is simply the Marxist Critical Theory taken to its logical conclusion. Marx recognized that you can divide any group into oppressed and oppressor. For him, in a homogenous population, this dividing line was class. For the feminists the dividing line is gender. For 'anti-racists' the dividing line is between whiteness and non-whiteness. This is why many refer to this process as 'Cultural Marxism', which is Marxist critical theory applied to all aspects of society and culture.

It's not hard to see that all of these critical theories applied to every aspect of society simply increase the fractures and divisions between groups of humans. Obviously, these dividing lines are the focus of all their efforts. As the fractures are pressured, we see social cohesion dissolve, resulting in the atomization of society, where individuals are alienated from the larger group identity and begin to act solely in self-interest. While 'anti-racists' claim to be working to bring us together, their actions lead inevitably to division. They teach non-whites to hate whites. They teach whites to hate themselves. They teach whites to hate whites who do not hate whites.

Of course, education is key to the Final Solution to the White Problem. Apparently, teaching white hate is not the highest ideal in modern progressive academia.

'White Privilege' is a message of hate and division. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any way to stop this process, until we reach a point where all social cohesion breaks down. So, believe in 'White Privilege' if you hate whites and want to hasten a race war, or you can choose to be a peace-maker and tell these idiots to go find something useful to do.

A Quick Critique of Democracy

This article is a quick overview of the main reasons why democracy is not only unworkable, but is a complete sham. 

 

1) The Electors: Stupidity outweighs intelligence

You should know what an IQ distribution looks like: it's a 'normal distribution', a bell curve. The median changes in various populations, but it remains true that half the population is dumber than the other half, and a small percentage of the population is very smart.

What level of IQ do you need to make a reasonable decision about who to elect as the 'leader of the free world'? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that it is above average. If my assumption is true, then there are far more people who do not have the intelligence to make this decision properly, than there are those who are intelligent enough to have this responsibility.

2) The Electors: Volume of information exceeds human capacity

Let's say that your IQ is high enough to make a good decision about whom to elect, if you were provided the information. We are provided this information, plus a mountain of disinformation, to wade through. Who has time to adequately study and decide upon every voting possibility from local, to state, to federal? I contend it would be a full time job just to attempt to perform it adequately, which would leave little time for Honey Boo Boo episodes, rap and Lady Gaga concerts, or twerking that average voters would rather be watching or doing, or working a full time job.

3) The Electors: Humans are social animals

The evidence is insurmountable: humans make decisions socially, meaning they decide to do what everyone else is doing. If you add the point about IQ (the first point) to this point, then the obvious result is that most humans will decide to do something stupid, such as elect a fashionable leader over a qualified one.

4) The Elected: Federal legislative throughput exceeds human capacity

Have you seen the size and volume of the laws that federal legislators must vote on? It's a huge volume of information that your average human simply could not read and process in the time provided. This means that Federally elected legislators are not really reading, considering, changing, or debating the bills on which they are voting. The PPACA (Obamacare) alone was 2000+ pages. Once you factor in the changes to each law and that it must be re-evaluated after each round of changes, then it becomes obvious that a single human (a federal legislator) cannot accomplish the task.

5) The Elected: Legalese

Have you ever read a bill? The legal language alone can make the process difficult. What percentage of federal legislators are lawyers? Currently, it's about 25%, down from a high of 50%. Thus this call to elect all lawyers. That's right, the overwhelming majority of those being elected to vote on laws that they don't have time to read, probably couldn't handle the legal aspect anyway.

6) The Elected: Problem domain inexperience

Do you have any clue about the best way to manage fisheries? Neither do those who are elected to Congress, yet they are supposed to vote on laws that they don't have time to read, that they probably couldn't understand if they did have the time, which cover problem domains that would take them years or decades of study to understand adequately enough to make a wise decision.

Summary

In short, 'democracy' is a sham. The majority of electors (and we are talking about majority rule) have neither the IQ, time nor interest to make decisions about their leaders. The legislators that are elected, have neither the time, legal training nor problem domain experience to properly perform their nominal function.

Isn't it about time that we have an honest discussion about how we should run our country, once we can come to the hard truth that we live in a post-democratic illusion?

To be a good liberal, you have to be a bad scientist

How much longer the debate over Human Biological Diversity can go on in the real world?

In Feb. 2014, in The Harvard Crimson, Sandra Korn called for the end of academic freedom in The Doctrine of Academic Freedom: Let’s give up on academic freedom in favor of justice. Liberals like Korn would rather have 'justice' than truth. Of course, don't we need to know the truth in order to have justice? Perhaps my definition of justice differs from Korn's. I think she may have coined the term 'academic justice', which is equally as Orwellian as 'social justice'.

Why, in this age of science and technology (and transparency), would she make such an outrageous suggestion? This appears to be an act of desperation. Is the dam about to burst?

Korn: "If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of 'academic freedom'?"

Obviously, 'science' is subservient to the liberal agenda, at Harvard and elsewhere. Even the eminent Dr. James Watson was purged for not toeing the political line, not for being a bad scientist.

Handel's Haus list of purges seems to be growing daily.

To be a good liberal, you have to be a bad scientist.

When Texas Becomes Mexico

Check out the demographics provided by the State of Texas, including projections to 2040:

http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/tif/population.html

Points of Interest:

1. Exhibit 3 - As of 2006, Texas White population was under 50%
2. Exhibit 8 - Notice that the Total Population line (in black) mirrors the hispanic (Mexican) population line (in blue)
3. Exhibit 8 - Texas will become majority hispanic (Mexican) in 2020. Just over 5 years away.

You know that old saying 'Remember the Alamo?'. Well, it appears that no-one in Texas does, because the open-borders pro-amnesty Republican leadership is going to do what Santa Ana couldn't: Deliver Texas to the Mexicans.