Month: September 2013

by

The Evangelical Adoption Scam

The theory of inclusive fitness predicts that people can maximize their inclusive fitness by reproducing with someone of the same race.  Such reproduction maximizes the number of genes that one can replicate.  Thus, it’s unsurprising that peoples’ natural tendency will be to reproduce with someone of the same race and have their own biological children.

Adoption has always been around, but it has usually involved adoption within the extended family or within the same race.  Well, until recently.  Enter the new strange marriage of contemporary Christianity and Cultural Marixsm, and you’ll find crazy Christian fundamentalists now obsessed with interracial adoption.  (These fundamentalists, I suspect, suffer from pathological altruism and are goaded on by profit-seeking church con artists.)

Luckily, even this unhealthy obsession has set off the political left, well, at least a sanitized criticism of said obsession. The NY Times has a recent piece on the Evangelical adoption racket by Kathryn Joyce, entitled “The Evangelical Orphan Boom.”  Although this article is dressed out with all the requisite politically correct disclaimers, it’s quite a good article, and a book is soon to follow.

It seems that many loony Evanglicals have not only become obsessed with interracial adoption, but are also now kidnapping Third World babies, inflating supply to try to increase demand to sell more babies, working with shady Third World adoption agencies (which often steal or buy babies and then sell them as “orphans” to gullible evangelicals), and are involved in all other types of international adoption scams.  But, hey, it’s all cool because “Jesus told them to to do it.”

Related:

“Biological Problems with Mixed-Race Families, Marriages Relationships & Adoptions”

by

As Christianity becomes a ghetto religion….

As Christianity becomes a Non-Western religion in much of the world, we can probably expect to see more of the following.

Philip Jenkins predicts Christianity will become more of a “black thing” and seem alien to Westerners:

(I must confess:  The first time I saw the above video I couldn’t control myself from laughing.)

Catholic mestizo rapper Two Ten with “How We Roll”:

The rise of mestizo Christianity — expunging European elements for Amerindian:

Some mestizo preacher kid condemning evolution:

And some creationists and black preachers talking about how “racist” Darwinism is  and how human biodiversity isn’t real:

The real question:  How much longer until white liberals experience cognitive disconnect?  Typically today, white liberals give lip service to science and evolution (although they practice liberal creationism), and in the white liberal’s mind the biggest barrier to progress is other whites, esp. religious white rednecks.  In reality, proportionally and absolutely many more blacks and mestizos oppose evolution on a global scale, which is unsurprising given their lower average IQs (evolution is a subtle theory).  White liberals, however, do not view blacks and mestizos as true competitors, so white liberals focus their hatred against religious whites.  But as the USA becomes more of a brown, Third World country, it will only become more and more apparent that the brown masses are in fact the biggest opponents of scientific understanding.  Idiocracy cometh.

Related:

by

Straussians, Catholics, & the War on the West

If case you missed it, Paul Gottfried has an interesting article up at VDare:

“Claes Ryn, Allan Bloom, Leo Strauss, And Me”

And here are couple follow-ups:

Race/History/Evolution Notes: “‘Alienated’ ethno-religious minorities preferring’inclusive’ anti-majority narratives”

Kevin MacDonald: “Paul Gottfried and Claes Ryn on Leo Strauss”

I’ve always found it telling that American conservatives have gravitated toward Straussian thought (e.g. see popularity of the Closing of the American Mind), which is really just re-packaged extreme liberal universalism.  For instance, for Bloom, the #1 boogeyman is “historical relativism,” which translates as no ethnic identity for Westerners (although, of course, it’s allowed for Israelis), and unsurprisingly short-sighted American conservatives eat it up.  Strauss & Bloom retell Western history as a war of good (universalists) vs evil (historical particularists).  If you are a good conservative, the implication is, then you must submit yourself to the great matrix of universalism.  In short, Straussian thought is just another facet of the Cathedral.

Related:

“Catholic Church declares war on West”

“Israel and African Immigrants”

“Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

by

Moldbug Resartus

I’ve been so preoccupied for the last few weeks teaching new courses on logic & ethical theory & intro phil that, until today, I missed the latest issue of Radish!

http://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/white-right/

Suffice it to say (if you didn’t already beat me to it): do not pass go, do not collect $200 – click on the link and go straight to Hell Radish.

The topic is libertarianism’s racism problem.

Long. Wordy. Brilliant. Too many quotes from Thomas Carlyle, but, hey – that goes with the territory.

Since I still think of myself as something of a libertarian, I will need to respond, at some point.

In the meantime, enjoy.

by

Darwinism & Final Causation III

I concluded my last post on this topic by asking: “Sure, the ‘reigning naturalistic consensus’ needs Darwinism – but does Darwinism need the ‘reigning naturalistic consensus?’ – and answering: “I don’t think so.”

Let’s try & unpack that, now.

If you’re an evangelical atheist, determined to defend at any cost the elimination of purpose, meaning &c as fundamental features of the world and to explain them away in terms of the motion of physical particles in accordance with ultimately purposeless, meaningless natural forces, than Darwinism comes as a God-send – because it seems, at least at first glance, to explain away what is, seemingly, the most purpose-, & meaning–ridden phenomenon of all – i.e., life itself, in purely mechanistic terms. Even human beings, with their beliefs, desires, fears and all the rest of it are really just complicated machines.

But is there any particular reason why Darwinists need to insist on the ultimate lack of final causation in their account of the evolution of life? Would it cost them anything important to embrace final causation as part of their explanatory toolkit?

Well, what, exactly, does the notion of final causation entail, anyway?

According to Edward Feser, this is what it entails: “for the Aristotelian, final causation or teleology…is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects. A match, for example, reliably generates heat and flame when struck. and never (say) frost and cold, or the smell of lilacs, or thunder. It inherently “points to” or is “directed towards” this range of effects specifically, and in that way manifests just the sort of end- or goal-directedness characteristic of final causality, even though the match does not (unlike a heart or a carburetor) function as an organic part of a larger system. The same directedness towards a specific effect or range of effects is evident in all causes operative in the natural world. When Aristotelians say that final causality pervades the natural order, then, they are not making the implausible claim that everything has a function of the sort biological organs have, including piles of dirt, iron filings and balls of lint. Rather, they are saying that goal-directedness exists wherever regular cause and effect patterns do.” (Aquinas, pp. 17-18).

So for a modern Darwinian to admit final causation into his explanatory toolkit, all he has to do is agree that particular genes in particular circumstances have a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects and not others – that they are directed towards those effects as towards a goal, and that this goal is really real, and not some sort of illusion or delusion that needs to be explained away. In return for this admission, he earns the right to talk all he wants to about the struggle for survival, the functions of organs, the selfishness of genes, & so on & so forth, without apology.

So what’s not to like? For the life of me, I can’t see any good reason for the Darwinian not to agree to this bargain.

by

AIPAC and War in Syria

It’s interesting that as the US gears up for war in Syria, very little mention has been made of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), what has been labeled  the most powerful lobby in the USA.  Apparently, AIPAC was mentioned in the NY Times:

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

But then they removed the quote!  Wow. Did someone from AIPAC call the Times and say, “That quote has to come down.”  I wouldn’t be surprised, as even AIPAC leaders are wont to brag of their own power:

“I asked Rosen if AIPAC suffered a loss of influence…. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

I suspect this might approach the truth, which is fine for Rosen to admit but if a Goy were to say the same thing…. Oh, boy….  Obviously, you won’t hear it from the mainstream media on the eve of another Zionist war.

Throughout history, people were prone to gossip and discuss those in power, whether kings, dukes, advisers, ministers, etc.  Is the USA the first country in history were those truly in power are rarely ever mentioned?  And, if so, is not this bound to make the country more schizophrenic and totalitarian over time?  Suppressing the truth is a full-time job…

Related:

“The West Needs New Elites” and “Who Supports Open Borders? Summary of Open-Borders Elite in USA“

Updates:

Just heard someone on NRP yammering on about terrorism.  If Western countries want to end most terrorism in the West, here’s cheap and simple solution:  Deport the Third World from the West and end all Third World immigration into the West.  It’s the inverse of Sailer’s manta:  Quarantine the Third World / Deport the Third World.

And as Israel is deporting and sterilizing African immigrants, they demand that Western countries roll out the welcome mat for Syrian refugees.

Interview with Alexander Dugin on Syria crisis.

by

Is Contemporary Christianity Suicidal for the West?

Continuing along with the theme of the Catholic Church declaring war on the West, it got me to thinking about the most prominent “conservative Catholic” politician in the USA, Sam Brownback, and some of Brownback’s fetishes, such as:

– Not allowing white South Africans to immigrate to USA, although blacks commit genocide against them

– Encouraging tons of non-whites, esp. mestizos, to immigrate to the USA

– And encouraging white people, instead of birthing white babies, to adopt non-white babies

This is what Brownback does in his spare time; he’s even teamed up with George Clooney to attempt to achieve some of the above goals.

Of course, Brownback is not alone in these goals, as they even extend to prominent Protestants like Richard Land, John Piper, and Russell Moore.  Christian Cultural Marxism is the norm among nearly all sects of Christianity in the West.

More recently, the ever maudlin Rod Dreher was praising the likes of Caleb Stegall, representative of a new type of “crunchy-con localism”. It’s interesting that for these religious conservatives “localism” seems only to extend to baseball and BBQ, and not the traditional understanding of ethnos or gens, as Stegall made a legal practice of representing whites who tried to steal black babies from Haiti (because Jesus told them to do so).  Jim Jones’ notion of the Rainbow Family, extreme during its day, is now the norm for many mainstream Christians.

In short, the modern system is set up to reward whites who encourage pathological altruism and whites to reduce their inclusive fitness, and Christianity is a major player in this system.  Anyone who doesn’t see this is willfully blind or a liar.

Rev. Jim Jones and the Rainbow FamilyIs there any hope that a new, pro-Western form of Christianity could arise, or is Christianity in the West doomed?

Further Reading:

“Christianity Turns Loud, Brown, and Obnoxious“

“Another Paganism vs. Christianity Debate“

“Conservative Evangelical Nutjobs Pray for Amnesty“

“Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?”

“Why the religious should reject Intelligent Design“

Updates:

Thinking Housewife:  “The African American Heresy“

by

Is The American Conservative Going Out of Business?

Well, not just quite yet, but I suspect that it will within a couple years.   The magazine has become a politically correct bore.

TAC started as an exciting venture, headed by Pat Buchanan, Taki Theodoracopulos, and Scott McConnell.  But by 2007, both Buchanan and Taki were gone (although TAC still runs Buchanan’s syndicated columns), and TAC slid ever more toward becoming a mouthpiece for the Cathedral.  Ron Unz took over around 2007.  And while Unz did publish some flawed pieces (most notably on Hispanic crime and race and IQ), he did publish some winners, such as on Jewish affirmative action at elite colleges  and Chinese eugenics.  Unfortunately, TAC wouldn’t publish Unz’s most recent piece on black crime, which led to the board firing him as publisher and replacing him with Jon Utley.

Apparently, the editor at TAC said everyone already knows about black crime, so nothing needs to be said.  Greg Cochran begs to differ.   What a joke TAC has become.

Who is Jon Basil Utley?  I don’t know much about him, but allegedly he wants to make TAC more like an anti-interventionist National Review.  And, like many neocons, he is of a Russian Ashkenazi background.    While Utley is allegedly an anti-interventionist (or perhaps a more moderate liberal internationalist?) and even critical of the Israel lobby, he seems quite politically correct.  For instance, while he’s correct to criticize Christian Zionist fundamentalists for promoting war in the Middle East, he criticizes them for being against mass Third World immigration into Western countries. (Huh? I guess they should welcome their genetic replacement?)  Or Mitt Romney’s mild criticism of illegal immigration during the Republican primary Utley calls a “tremendous calumny against immigrants.” In other words, it’s wrong for Westerners to question their own extinction.  Under Utley, can we expect TAC even more vigorously to parrot the Cultural Marxist open-borders propaganda?

A friend with ties to TAC tells me that TAC is really strapped for cash and might not be around much longer; allegedly, none of their traditional donors wants to give them more money.  Geez, I wonder why?

Updates:

Handle:  “Unz Undone” & “Unz Update“

by

Catholic Church declares war on West

As if out of a Jean Raspail novel, it seems that the Catholic Church now openly calls for the Third World invasion of Western countries (i.e. the genetic replacement of Westerners) and the Vatican plans to do it from the pulpit.  The United States is the first stop, as The Washington Times reports:

The Catholic Church has put the word out to the faithful: Come September, the papacy will be pushing for a widespread and comprehensive immigration reform package on Capitol Hill that will open the doors to citizenship to roughly 11 million illegals.

The church announced the plans last week. Starting Sept. 8, services at participating churches around the nation will include a pulpit-generated push for amnesty, including a call for pew members to get involved, the New York Times reported.

In some ways, this isn’t surprising.  Christianity is fast becoming a non-Western religion in Latin America and Africa and within the West Christian Cultural Marxism has become the norm.  Combine both these trends, you have white people suffering from pathological altruism inviting in Non-European hordes who want to replace them.  On one side, mestizos and Africans, it’s a win-win situation (they remain ethnocentric and benefit from the success and wealth of whites); on the other side, Westerners, it’s a suicide-pact.

Sadly, we can expect the handful of Pro-Western Catholics to keep prattling on about the rise of neopaganism  among European intellectuals, when more than likely the bishops and priests of these very Catholics are plotting their genetic extinction.  If only these faithful Catholics would direct the same ire against a church becoming hostile toward Westerners as they do against a handful of largely obscure French writers.

Related Stories:

“Christianity Turns Loud, Brown, and Obnoxious”

“Another Paganism vs. Christianity Debate“

“Conservative Evangelical Nutjobs Pray for Amnesty“

“Religion 2.0: Identitarian Religion“

“Are Christian Leaders Today a Bunch of Girly Men?”

“Is Christianity Inherently Left-Wing and Egalitarian?”

“Why the religious should reject Intelligent Design“

Updates:

Donald Collins:  “Catholic Bishops’ Treason Offensive Hits Next Sunday, September 8“