Largely independent of consequences

If you pay even the slightest bit of attention to the social debates of the day, you are bound, sooner or later, to hear someone declare that just about any and all behavior must be allowed and even sanctioned by the state because “you can’t impose your values on society.”  Whether the subject is same-sex marriage, the contraception mandate in Obamacare, abortion or euthanasia, the argument is that nothing can be limited by the government, for fear of the imposition of “values.”

Values, you see, are presumed to be religious, specifically Christian.  And the imposition on the masses of religion, especially Christianity, is said to constitute a regressive and superstitious appeal to outdated notions that conflict directly with the spirit and the energy of contemporary Western society.

Ironically, the political and moral solons of the day usually start by citing the Constitution and the Founding Fathers as evidence of their conviction that values and religion have no place in civil society.  The 14th Amendment guarantees equal treatment under the law, they insist, which precludes the imposition of any moral beliefs.  Likewise, the Establishment Clause forbids the imposition of religious notions upon the nation.  And, of course, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the Founders insisted that Christianity was not a motivating force in the creation of the American Republic and should not be treated as such.  Or as John Adams put it – and as the anti-moralists repeatedly remind us:  “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The problems with this argument are manifold.  The two most obvious are the presumption that ethics, morality, and “values” are necessarily religious notions; and the corollary presumption that removing religion from the public sphere will therefore create value-free governance.  Both presumptions are patently false.

As it happens, values are inherent in any choice and are therefore an essential part of any decision – political or otherwise.  Values represent mere preference calculations, which is to say that any choice between two or more alternatives denotes the creation and imposition of a value.  The twentieth-century retreat from religious values was not a retreat from values altogether, but merely a conscious choice to substitute contemporary value judgments for traditional standards; that is, to abandon the longstanding moral conclusions of Western civilization for the situational ethics of the post-Enlightenment era.

This rejection of traditional, pre-modern values has created a bifurcated society, Western Civilization split in two, divided along epistemological and moral lines.  On one side of the divide are the traditionalists, and on the other are what I will call the postmodernists, who believe in no moral absolutes whatsoever and no objective definitions of right or wrong.  The postmodernists choose instead to define those terms on an ad hoc basis and in light of the idea that morality and “truth” are mere expressions of power and preference.

Each of these moral systems, in turn, fits into a broader conception of virtuousness.  The postmodern moral code is, in its essence, utilitarian, which is to say that its notions of right and wrong spring not from universal truths, but from outcomes, from the belief that utility is a far better measure of virtue than are the artifacts of pre-modern superstition.

Utilitarianism, as any schoolboy knows, is most generally associated with the British social reformer Jeremy Bentham.  Bentham, defined “the good” as that which produces the greatest pleasure (or happiness) for the greatest number.  In practical terms, Bentham believed that government can’t help but favor one constituency over another; and since this is the case, the best of governments – which is to that which operates most ethically – is that which favors constituencies and policies that produce the greatest collective pleasure.

More specifically, today’s postmodernists believe that suffering, as they define it, occurs everywhere and at all times in the absence of government action.  Therefore, government acts best when it alleviates that suffering to whatever degree is possible.  Individual men and women are free to pursue their own interests as long as those interests don’t conflict with the greater good, again, as the postmodernists define it.  In that rights are a human construct, when interests do conflict, moral government is obligated to suppress those interests that offend.  In today’s parlance, then, religious liberty is perfectly fine and acceptable, unless and until it brushes up against the greater good, the greater happiness of society.  In the postmodern moral scheme, then, the utilitarian ethic triumphs over individual self-regard.

The opposite of utilitarian morality is that which can most easily be described as deontological ethics, the belief that the morality of an action is dependent on the action itself, that man has a duty to do what is right, and that right and wrong are clearly defined, rule-based, and largely independent of consequences.  Right is right.  Wrong is wrong.  And an evil act may never be considered good, even if it produces profit or pleasure.

Deontological ethics is, by any measure, the foundational moral code of Western civilization, running through both the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Hellenic and Roman traditions.  Nine-hundred years ago, Aquinas put it simply: “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.”  More than a thousand years before that – before Christ and thus before Christianity – Cicero put it similarly:

So let us regard this as settled: what is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage.  The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.

Now, it is no mere coincidence that Aquinas’s first precept of Natural Law is the above-noted summation of deontology: do and pursue good and avoid evil.  Natural Law – which is to say law that is in keeping with nature and the will of the Creator – is part and parcel of the deontological ethic.  The law should represent and enable that which is right and good; and that which is in keeping with Natural Law is right and good.

It is also no mere coincidence that Natural Law served as the foundation for the “certain inalienable Rights” held by all men and “endowed by their Creator” that inspired the founding of the United States.  The Founding Fathers may or may not have wished for an explicitly Christian nation, but in the end, it doesn’t matter.  The Founders were part of the Hellenic-Judeo-Christian tradition and therefore saw the nation, its purpose, its establishment, and its principles in explicitly moral and explicitly Judeo-Christian terms.  They understood their moral “duty” to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”  The deontological ethic and its expression in Natural Law reached its theological apotheosis in Aquinas, who merged the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman traditions.  It reached its philosophical apotheosis in Locke and his construction of the social contract.  And it reached its political apotheosis in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and in the republic that sprang from it.

The Founding Fathers may well have abjured official state imposition of religion and faith, as the postmodernists insist.  But they were, nevertheless, guided by the same principles that form the foundation of Christian morality and, indeed, understood man, the state, and their relationship in explicitly Christian terms.  All of which is to note that the same John Adams who, as the postmodernists note, rejected a United States government “founded on the Christian religion,” also wrote the following:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.  But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation, while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candour, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world.  Because we have no government, armed with power, capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and religion.  Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (emphasis added)

vvyyttyctn

Source: https://cultureoflife.org/2015/09/22/a-constitution-made-only-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/

They rape…

I think the Maxwell-Epstein story is utter bunk. Half the world watches porn films from companies that have been sued for manipulating and enticing women with false cover. Talk about hypocrisy. It’s right there, in the mainstream. What has anyone done about it!? Half the internet makes money off it, and half the readers here consume it.

Then everyone gets on their high horse about Maxwell-Epstein because they are Jewish and its was a brilliant operation honoring the intelligence and hardiness of the Jewish people!?? Why not expose real rapists? The culture of rape in rap music and among Muslims, and even low class rednecks with their meth addiction?

I mean operations like “Casting Couch” or what not, have been served million dollar penalties in civil lawsuits, because for reasons no one wants to go into criminal charges are never served by the Feds (geez, why would that be), and is someone here gonna stop watching them?? Oh, but you’re not accomplices.

Aside from the intelligence aspect to Maxwell-Epstein, this is another Harvey Weinstein. Half the sluts in Hollywood jump into bed with him, and then turn around and call him a rapist when he’s down and out. Maxwell is not a grooming scandal like the UK, where dirty Pakis kidnapped White children (8 years old!) and sodomized them. There’s a story that is beyond the pale since its very telling is tantamount to incitement. I’ll be called a Jewish pig for defending “my own.”

Actually, I see no Jews defending Epstein-Maxwell. I see no one defending them. Too bad, because I think the truth is on our side on this one. I guess I’m a kosher pig!

Maxwell didn’t rape anyone. Nor did Epstein. To call it rape is to hitch your wagon to the “date rape” Uni-Karen mania of accusing sports jocks of “raping them” after she wakes up with a hang-over with Chuck in her bed. It’s not rape. It’s a fat hag advertising her worthlessness to school authorities.

Rape is when a Black guy handles a petite woman like a rag-doll and beats her within a breath of death while ripping up her unlubricated organs. The details are given to give readers the idea of the pain and damage this does. The Black or Hispanic or Arab animal then gets off scot-free in half the European/American world due to aggravating circumstances where this kind of “rape” is beyond public scrutiny, leaving its largely White victims out on a suicidal limb.

Nor was it pedophilia. Unless you’re not strangling the individual, and if they are 14 and their parents are ok with it – which is the case in every instance we’ve heard so far – then the term pedophilia is inappropriate. The parents of Maxwell-Epstein “victims” were always informed, and trafficked their teen kids. They are not victims in this case. They were accomplices. In half the country marriage age is set at 16. Two states allow it at age 14 (Alaska and North Carolina). Three more at 15. So how do you square that with some of these charges?

In the other half of the country consensual sex between two under aged individuals leads to a life time charge of pedophelia for the man. Between a rock and a hard place? Sanity tells us, Maxwell-Epstein was far more contrived, more careful, and skirted the law, without breaking it, or if breaking it, with consent of parents who bear legal responsibility. It’s called parental neglect and used to carry a charge. Human trafficking is huge across the country, with the Feds doing nothing against it, since it hits poor communities, both White and of color. Rappers rap about it all the time. They glorify it. People have never boycotted their work. They don’t even talk about it. I think real rape is a problem.

This story is based on the general tendency of the masses to pry into the sex lives of the rich and famous, and seethe with jealousy that they can buy their way into something normal people can’t. Its a story that tests societies mores. A successful entrapment operation, where troves of videos of high profile individuals, many of which are perfectly legal might someday see the day of light. There’s also a beautiful romance between Epstein and Maxwell.

Source: https://bannedhipster.home.blog/2020/07/11/when-jews-defend-ghislaine-maxwell-and-the-rape-of-christian-girls/

The decolonization of Palestine

Israel Has No History, Only A Criminal Record

Settler colonialism is the process when a conquering nation imports lots of its citizens to the conquered nation. The settler citizens violently hold down the new territory like an occupying army, and they control key industries which are considered too critical to be held in colonized hands. In return, settlers receive enormous benefits, far and above what they’d otherwise get in a “normal” capitalist country. In other words, they are a labor aristocracy. It follows that “Settler” is at core a class identity which manifests as a racial one. Race is closely linked to it, but the class identity isn’t some inherent biological trait. If it was, then we would be racialists. See Settlers by J. Sakai for further explanation.

Given the above, Israel is clearly a settler state and its Jewish citizens are settlers. Any solution to the conflict which involves concessions to Zionists is Zionism i.e. Fascism (the CPC is Zionist, sorry to break it to you). Isratine or any similar “democratic one state” solution is barbaric and putrid. South Africa is not the model to emulate. Natives still live in poverty meanwhile Whites own all that’s valuable.

Then what’s the real solution? It must fulfill the following (non exhaustive) conditions:

  1. Handing over of all means of production (land, industries, infrastructure, etc) to the native people, that is the Palestinians. This is self explanatory.
  2. The establishing of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in which Palestinians are the primary and final voice, though an important voice must be given to anti-Zionist Jews who will inevitably be citizens of the new state.
  3. Granting the Right of Return to the entire Palestinian diaspora. Jews must also be granted Right of Return. The creation of a decolonized DotP will necessarily eliminate any risk of Zionism 2.0. Antisemitism is very real and ever present. A safe haven for Jews is crucial. Furthermore, the land has genuine religious significance for Jews so to deny them access to it would be despicable.
  4. The expulsion or extermination of all settlers/Zionists (I must make explicit that this does NOT equate to all Jews; any such conflation between Jews and Zionists is fascism.) Zionists’ fate is not our concern – ideally it’s somewhere at the bottom of the Mediterranean. Algeria is the model here. It has many problems, but it’s unquestionably Algerian. We must succeed where the FLN failed (or more accurately were betrayed).

nn978tgd8f03uj3094jj8er98jjerjerj

Source: MoreTankieChapo