Natural law and evangelization

We sometimes act like we care more about persuading people that abortion is wrong than we care about persuading people that Jesus is Lord. In fact, we disavow the latter in the course of arguing for the former.

It won't work ultimately. Natural law arguments simply aren't that convincing when separated from the life of virtue--from the Christian way of life (or, at the very least, something in the classical stream of Western and "Judeo-Christian" way of life). Moreover, it concedes secularism's premise that a just society and a moral life is possible without God and his revelation, when, in fact, the evidence is all around us that this isn't so.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't make natural law arguments. We should make them, but it's not something separate from evangelization. The consistency and truth of the Church's moral teaching--i.e., the goodness of the Christian way of life--gives witness to the truth of the Gospel. Convincing someone that abortion is wrong is part of bringing them closer to Christ.

In truth, your gender is assigned by your older brother, or--in some delayed cases--by members of the football team.

And yet, our society still fails to recognize the identity of gaywads, wusses, fat hos, and other marginalized groups.

Liberal privilege

Left liberalism is the privileged ideology of our society.

If you are a liberal, you can expect your ideals and political goals to be reflected by all legitimate institutions in our society: the government at all levels, the education system at all levels, entertainment and the arts, the newsmedia, major corporations, non-governmental organizations, charitable foundations, the military (at least among the leadership), and most respectable religious organizations. The rich, the famous, the powerful, the beautiful are mostly left liberals.

If you are liberal, you can expect to regularly be praised by all these institutions for your good sense and good character. You are regularly reminded that you are on the right side of history. You are kind and thoughtful. Your views reflect science and reason. They are so obvious that, to deny them ... I can't even!

If you are a liberal, the world is your safe space.

Yes, there are exceptions, but they are notable as exceptions. When you find out a business, or a famous person, is conservative, it is something to be noted--a surprise that is contrary to your expectations. No one takes note of the liberalism of a powerful person or institution unless they are very extreme or outspoken. Everyone takes note when the rich, the powerful, the respectable, are "conservative," even when, in fact, they are not really conservative, but just deviate from left liberalism in some small way (most commonly, libertarianism).

Also, yes, there is a conservative ghetto. It has its own media, and its own religious and educational institutions. But it is a ghetto.

Outside this ghetto, conservatives can have no expectation of seeing their ideals or political goals reflected in any institution. In fact, they can expect the opposite. At best, their views are ignored, but if they are mentioned, it is only to dismiss, refute, ridicule or vilify them.

You can expect you and your ghetto to be regularly denounced. To hear horror stories of the ghetto; of the terrible things they think and do and say there. To hear breathless stories told of people who escaped from the ghetto and lived to tell the tale.

The mere existence of the ghetto is taken as evidence of the need for ever stronger measures to protect all God's precious children from the terrible people that dwell there.

You can try to disprove their stereotypes: But I'm a nice guy! I'm not a bigot. I'm intelligent and well-read! I have well thought-out reasons for my dissent! I grew up in the ghetto, and it wasn't like that!

It doesn't matter. You are a bigot. You are a troglodyte. On the wrong side of history. The world will be better when you are displaced by women and gays and racial minorities.

Hate vibes

What is it
  that makes blacks kill each other?
What is it
  that makes gays and trans persons kill themselves?

Simple.

Hate.

Your hatred.
Your hate speech.
Your hate thoughts.
The things
  that the deepest part of your mind
  won't unknow
  despite your best intentions.

These send out vibes.
  Those vibes
    make black people kill each other.
  Those vibes
    make gays kill themselves.

Stop the hate.

Beauty is not subjective and androgyny is not beautiful

Human beauty is not subjective.

Yeah, there's a subjective element. Yeah, some people have weird tastes.

But it's not subjective.

You can take pictures of human beings and get reliable, stable, estimations of their beauty by polling people.

Yeah, there are cultural variants. People like people that look like them. And there's those weird tribes that stick big plates in their lips or stretch out their necks with rings. There are gross things like foot-binding.

But, on the whole, the basic traits--signs of fertility/health/strength--things like symmetry, are universal, and I'd be willing to bet that, for the most part, while people might not always agree across cultures about who's most beautiful between the cultures, they probably would agree about who is most beautiful within a particular culture. In other words--I prefer white women, while a black guy prefers black women--but the black guy and I would probably mostly agree about which is the most attractive among the black women and which is most attractive among the white women.

And, here's the thing, femininity is beautiful in women, and masculinity is beautiful in men.

Yeah, every individual is different and has his or her own kind of beauty. Yeah, everyone has some slight admixture of the traits that are more characteristic of the opposite sex. But, on the whole, femininity is beautiful in women, and masculinity is beautiful in men.

It's written into our biology. Attractive feminine traits are those that indicate fertility. Attractive masculine traits are those that indicate strength (or more generally, ability to protect and provide resources and status).

Excessively masculinity in women is bad sign. It indicates high testosterone and low fertility. And it indicates trouble for a stable family. Likewise, excessive femininity in men is a bad sign. It indicates in an inability to protect and provide for his offspring. It indicates weakness that is trouble for a stable family.

Nowhere on earth is masculinity preferred over femininity in women. Nowhere on earth is femininity preferred over masculinity in men. Even gay guys want straight-acting men!

(And, no, masculinity and femininity are no more subjective or culturally dependent than physical beauty. We're talking about biological signals. If we weren't any good at detecting these signals, we wouldn't last ... or more to the point, organisms that weren't good at detecting it lost out and will always lose out to those that are good at it.)

Thus androgyny is objectively ugly, and a culture that celebrates it is insane or demonic.

A culture that celebrates it is doomed. Doomed to have barren women and cuckolded men. Doomed to be conquered by a culture that understands and lives according to reality.

Trans is ugly

I recently stumbled on a before and after picture showing a reasonably pretty young woman transformed into a ridiculous looking male impersonator. This was being passed around with acclamations of "Trans Is Beautiful!"

Bullshit. I don't know what possesses a woman to do this to herself, and I'm willing be compassionate and understanding, but no, cutting your breasts and going from a pretty girl into an oddly feminine looking boy isn't beautiful. It's horrifying. And the people who are encouraging this are liars.

It's hard for me to believe someone who disfigures herself in this way won't one day regret it, but I'm willing to concede that people are weird. I'm pretty confident, though, that troubles that make someone do this won't be cured by the surgery, and they won't go away no matter how much acceptance and affirmation people pour on her. Because she's not beautiful. She had beauty, and something possessed her to throw it away.

Emotional blackmail

We are being emotionally blackmailed by gays and trannies: "Stop being mean or I'll kill myself!" It seems very unlikely that responding to this with appeasement will end up well. Even if stopping meanness did fix things for them (which seems unlikely to me, as the root of their anguish is not mean people, but the mismatch between their desires and identity and the obvious facts of biology), they have every incentive not to give up their grievance, but to redouble it.

(For what it's worth, I find the form blackmail used by blacks--"Respect us or we'll burn your city down"--much more respectable.)

Transgenderism disproves feminism

How humiliating it must for feminists to have everyone talking about the great achievements that the Wachowskis have made for women in cinema, or Martine Rothblatt's breaking the glass ceiling. We're even letting dudes participate in women's sports, where--even with mediocre talents by male standards--they will quickly break records (and the bones of the poor girls we allow them to compete with).

If this expands, were going to see dudes in dresses out-performing real women in all kinds of fields. Amazing isn't it, that despite the fact that men and women are perfectly equal and that the transgendered are the most oppressed people ever, biological males out-compete biological females, even when they're oppressed by transphobia.

Please, please, bring on the circular firing squad. Let the madness destroy itself.

Newspeak and the war on noticing

Political correctness is (in the words of Steve Sailer) a "war on noticing." Thus, it employs a form of newspeak, a political manipulation of language, whose purpose is not to make it easier to describe and understand reality, but harder.

Thus, for instance, the concept and language of race and racial differences is attacked not because it has no biological validity (it certainly does, just as much as species, sub-species, family, etc.) or use in the social sciences (it is predictive of all kinds of social outcomes), but because it is "problematic." In other words, it makes it easier to see truths about the world that are inconvenient for the state ideology. Newspapers hide the race of criminals not because the information is irrelevant but precisely because it is relevant--it is not just noise but meaningful data from which people can draw generalizations and inferences about the world. Disallowing such crimethink is precisely the point. In order to keep us from noticing that blacks and (to a lesser degree) hispanics have higher levels of criminality, we are to be deprived of the language necessary for describing it. (We even shame people into not using race in totally benign situations: "What's your friend's name again? ... you know, the ... uh ... tall guy with, uh, dark curly hair ..." To keep us from noticing patterns, we must be deprived of the general language allowing for classification.)

Similarly, the attempt to classify people who are confused about their sex with the sex they identify with rather than their actual sex is a confusion of language for the purpose of making it harder to think. I recently read the beginning of a book discussing women, which had to start with an extensive caveat/apology that, in describing women, the author was generalizing about human beings that, for instance, have female sexual organs and chromosomes, were raised as girls, etc., but, of course, we know that there are women who don't necessarily have these characteristics, so, what she said may or may not necessarily apply to all women. She then proceeded to make perfectly valid points about the class of human beings that everyone, everywhere has always referred to as "women"--and, which, by an amazing coincidence, had limited or no applicability to anyone else that might be included in whatever broader definition she had in mind in her caveat.

Biological sex is a pretty fundamental aspect of the human person. As evidenced by what this writer actually did, as opposed to her PC caveat, the words "woman" and "man," understood in the traditional sense are really useful for talking about and describing human beings, making generalizations and thinking about them. Changing those definitions to base them on the felt or declared identity of individuals rather than biological sex obscures reality and makes it harder to think about rather than easier. And, that, indeed, is the exact purpose. We are to be deprived of the language for noticing that "Caitlyn Jenner" is not a beautiful, courageous, woman but a ridiculous, middle aged man in a dress.

The intelligent feminists see this quite clearly. Letting biological males classify themselves as women (and vice versa) makes it impossible for them to talk meaningfully about "women's issues." If a "woman" beats up "her" girlfriend, is it still the violence of patriarchy? If a "man" kills his unborn daughter, is it still an empowering "choice" for women? If the highest paid "female" CEO is a dude in a dress, does this count as breaking the glass ceiling? Is "she" an inspiration for little girls?

In the hierarchy of victimhood, trans beats woman, so the feminists must give up the privilege of cis-normative language for the rights of their trans "sisters."

Insanity.