The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Through the Valley of the Shadow of Corona
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

COTW from DanHessinMD:

The Coronavirus panic to me is nothing less that the breakdown of society, and it stems from a lack of religious faith. Religion is fundamentally how civilizations and civilized people faced the horror of mortality and other uncertainty with success.

All of the panic superspreaders from Bill Gates to the Silicon Valley techbros to big media are people without belief in God who have no coping mechanism for any death or disaster. Whether belief in God and afterlife are perfect models is beside the point. That was the software that we (individually and as a civilization) needed to cope.

The combative righteousness will repulse some. That’s understandable. Personally, I appreciate candor even when I’m not in agreement with it.

That said, is Dan onto something regarding religiosity and attitudes towards coronavirus? None of the polling I’ve seen has broken down attitudes towards coronavirus and the societal response by religious affiliation or theistic orientation.

Pastors have been arrested. Even high profile leftists have felt compelled to call religious Jews out for their perceived insouciance. From an irreligious point of view, there is no reason people should be able to gather at church if they can’t get together at a restaurant or a movie theater. For the pious, though, these activities are not of equal import. When your spiritual ancestors were fed to lions and hung on crosses for the faith, chancing the 0.1% risk of illness isn’t much of a psychological hurdle to get over.

As we’ve seen previously, Republicans and conservatives express less worry and anxiety about coronavirus than Democrats and liberals do. Notable exceptions on my intellectual radar with regards to the former are all people of the secular right–Razib Khan, Gregory Cochran, Stefan Molyneux, Future Pundit, and fellow UR bloggers Anatoly Karlin and Steve Sailer, along with Ron Unz himself. Are re-openers on the left more religiously inclined than those who want the shutdown to continue?

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Science • Tags: COTW 
Hide 129 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Of course, the logic could just as easily be flipped: religious people, believing in the immeasurable value of human life at all stages, might support the lockdown, while atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the “economy” and quality of life and want to re-open, a few worthless boomers be dammed. In the early stages of the virus, left-wing “rationalist” types were among the most dismissive.

    I do agree that allowing restaurants and bars to re-open while church services are still limited will rub a lot of believers, including myself, the wrong way. But that’s due to a specific government policy, not any deep-seated psychological effect.

    When some kind of speculative causation is just as easily argued from both sides, I tend to be very skeptical.

    • Agree: Fluesterwitz
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Golly. You're smarter than the douchebags who get paid to write the above drivel. And yet they don't fire them and hire you. Everything is a sinecure in this world. Just get your head under the door and you can drool and drivel you want forevermore, no matter how off-the-cuff, poorly-thought-out, and not-even-wrong-it's-so-dumb (Cf. the above). The idea is just pump out the padding and you get your check.
    , @Kratoklastes

    atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the “economy” and quality of life and want to re-open
     
    This specific atheist utilitarian made clear a while back, that the appropriate utilitarian calculus involved the loss of QALY under the two alternatives.

     ① No Lockdown: some number - X - of people die. 80+% of the deaths will be elderly, chronically sick people who are already at (or even beyond) their HALE65. The average QALY loss is very close to zero, but let's set it at 0.5 years.
     ② Lockdown: some proportion of X (let's say k%) don't die of (or with) covid19, and live the rest of their HALE65. Some other number - Y - of people die just through the predictable increase in suicide that happens with every severe economic contraction. The average age of those deaths is ~37, so the average QALY loss is 35 years.

    So the utilitarian calculation is
    if 35Y + 0.5×k×X > 0.5×X, then lockdown is not justified.

    Collecting terms:

    If

      35Y > 0.5×(1-k)×X,

    i.e.,

      Y > (1-k)×X/70

    then the costs of lockdown - in quality adjusted years of life lost - exceed the benefits.

    Instead of 35 and 0.5, you can substitute your own estimates for the expected healthy lifespan of otherwise-healthy suicides and chronically-ill octagenarians. Call these qₛ and qₑ... it becomes

      Y > (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): stay open
      Y = (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): indifferent
      Y < (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): lockdown

    Now you have something that can be tested against data... get some estimate of the distribution of those inputs -
     • QALY for suicides and chronically-ill octagenarians;
     • a guess at the proportion of chronically-ill octagenarians that would be saved by lockdowns;
     • the number of additional suicides expected.

    And then do a full-bottle sensitivity analysis and see what the distribution's like.

    There's been recent mention in the press of some study that estimated the additional 'deaths from despair' at 75,000 for the US; that's almost certainly too low, given that it is more than just suicides (it includes accidental OD, death from alcohol-induced liver failure etc).

    For suicides alone, the GFC induced at least 10,000 suicides between 2009 and 2011: that's a low-ball estimate, because the effect was assumed to end at year 3 by assumption. In reality, people in the bottom 2 socioeconomic quartiles did not participate in the post-GFC 'recovery'.

    During the GFC there was a 2.7% peak-to-trough decline in GDP, and unemployment went from 4.7% (Nov 2007) to a peak of 10% (Oct 2009) and was above 9% for the whole of May 2009 - Sep 2011.

    For the self-inflicted depression we've been dumped into in on the basis of absolutely shitty quant...

     • GDP growth has already dropped 4.8% in one quarter; the peak-to-trough fall will be somewhere in the order of 30%.

     • unemployment has gone from 4.4% to 14.7% in a single month (and was actually at least 5% higher for reasons that would take another paragraph) and is likely to peak in the mid-20% range (which will understate the problem, because people will give up looking).

    All contractions hit the bottom socioeconomic quintiles harder, and since the 1970s they have not participated in recoveries (real annual earnings in those quintiles is lower now than it was in 1978).

    So suicides might actually increase by 10k or more a year... and non-suicide deaths of despair by about the same amount.


    THAT is why an atheist utilitarian worth the name, is against lockdown.

    It has fuck all to do with #muheconomy or #DieForTheDow or other things seized upon by retards who only want to count one set of bodies: it is based on a purely utilitarian calculus that treats a healthy year of life as a sensible unit of account.

    We can argue whether that's a sensible assumption, because people use life-years differently (and like money, there's diminishing marginal utility: young adults do shit that an elderly adult wouldn't "waste time" doing).

    Extend it a bit further: people get sad when 80-year-old sick granpop dies, but it was largely expected. When 45-year-old healthy Dad sticks his 12-gauge in his mouth and blows the back of his head off, there is a shock that can affect his social circle for a decade or more.

    So to this point it's not about money or financial markets or production; it's about human non-financial costs, measured in healthy life-years.

    However if you take the analysis further and incorporate the lost productivity of the two different sets of victims, the answer is even more strongly tilted against lockdown... because sick elderly people are - per capita - a bigger drain to the economy than people in the bottom 2 quintiles of the income distribution.
    , @iffen
    a few worthless boomers be dammed.

    Hey! Hey! Hey!

    Well, okay.
  2. As DanHessinMD implies, there is an undiscussed assumption lurking beneath everything that is discussed: is death preventable or not? Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic. Hence the atheistic ruling class deems every measure less than the utmost to be insufficient because, well, every measure is insufficient: death will claim 100% of us.

    Ordinary partisan politics may drive this too, irrespective of metaphysical outlook. For example, whatever Trump’s religious beliefs are, if any, he does know that the Democrat-Media-Complex intends to pin every US death between March and November squarely on him, so he has to do—or at least be seen to appear to do—everything possible to head off every death possible, even if the costs vastly outweigh the benefit. The Democrat-Media-Complex, for their part, is delighted finally to have Trump cornered and dancing to their tune, but they can only keep him there and dancing so long as the virus hysteria stays at maximum pitch. So they won’t back down either, regardless of their personal beliefs about biohazards. We know their private beliefs about health risks are more relaxed than their public statements because of the many exceptions to social distancing they readily countenance to grandstand, workout, get haircuts, sex their mistresses, and stoke mobs for their side.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.
     
    Uh, no. I think your JewGod Sky Fairy is ridiculous and immoral. I also accept and embrace my finality daily.

    Religion just didn’t stick with me. My godly parents tried, but by about age 9-10 they gave up and agreed it was best for all parties if I stayed home while they went to church and prayed for me. Similarly, from a very early age I was confident that I would die by 47. No particular reason, I just didn’t want to get old and 47 sounded good. I’ve survived cancer and a STEMI, and I’ve passed 47, but I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here.
    , @Nodwink

    Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.
     
    When religious folks are confronted with their own mortality, the lizard brain kicks in pretty quick
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EamBdM2kc9E
  3. Real scientists don’t make YouTube videos.

    • Replies: @orionyx
    Real scientists don't give a fig for your opinions.
  4. FWIW my own view on this could just as easily be seen as utilitarian, if that’s the right word. The damage from the Coronavirus Panic of 2020 is far greater than what the virus would cause by itself.

    I don’t understand why people like the esteemed ones listed can’t see this. It seems obvious that millions more people will be harmed by the economic shutdowns, the distancing and the limits on freedom than would have been harmed if we all just carried on normally.

    My religious beliefs can best be called deism, BTW, but the modern sort in which God the Watchmaker can indeed intervene and do miraculous things. He doesn’t necessarily have to sit back and let his watch run all the time without resetting it.

    This is a case when we mere mortals should let things go a bit. We cannot manage this system without breaking our own. To think we can is hubris, a quality that perhaps many of a certain sort possess to a high degree.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    No they won't. You are not a utilitarian. You are an idiot. Why? Because the virus is real, and it doesn't just attack old people, it even attacks "utilitarians" like you, and after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.

    And the "economy" will adjust just fine. The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.

  5. Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    The main point is that if one does not believe in a diety and his or her purpose for the circle of life, one grasps desperately to cheat certain death. I’ve had a few near-death experiences where things seemed to go into slow motion, and a slightly amused voice in my head said, “So this is how I die.” I’ve somehow managed to cheat death … so far … but I’m kind of amazed at how calmly I was prepared to meet my maker. I’m not a particularly religious type, but I accept that my time on Earth is limited and subject to the caprice of nature.

    We’ll get past COVID-19 … models say that there is only a 2.7% probability that the asteroid Apophis will hit Earth in 2029.

    • Replies: @botazefa

    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.
     
    I have some really lefty friends who are middle class and poor. They are vigorously locked down. They are genuinely terrified of the coronavirus. I'm baffled by their reaction until I turn on the TV and see the relentless scaremongering going on.
    , @216

    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.
     
    In North America, no. They want maximum economic damage so the government loses re-election.

    In the rest of the developed world, probably yes. Leftist governments in Denmark, Spain and Italy are gradually loosening the lockdowns.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    What are Elon Musk's politics?
  6. Although the religious/mortality viewpoint is both tempting and clever, it is not what is really going on.

    The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board — just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck. Just as back in the 40s, the British Empire and a German-centered Continent were both sacrificed to make way for the Yankee Dollar and the Communist steamroller.

    One was expecting a massive all-engulfing war, say a war with Iran that sucked in Russia and China, to do the dirty work, but instead, along came this convenient plague, and TPTB said, Fine, this will do.

    The virus and pandemic are biologically real and are not a hoax or an engineering trick. But the response to the virus is specific and deliberate. Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.

    • Disagree: botazefa
    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Just stand back and observe with amazement just how far Globo-Shlomo has gone with the virus lockdown in just a few short months... as opposed to the snail's-pace Warming/Climate Change nonsense scam, which had exactly the same intended goals, but which was taking forever and getting nowhere because it wasn't scary enough and no one really actually believed it. The epidemic could be made believable with just a few mass-media tweaks; now if only Globo-Shlomo knew a friendly crew who just happened to control the media...

    A war with Iran or Russia would have been messy and disastrous, in no small part because our imported new young POC Patriots will never allow themselves to be drafted into fighting yet another patently fake Zio-war; after all, the POCs themselves are the Ziological weapons designed to exterminate Whites.

    The virus comes along at just the perfect time: trashes the economy, wipes out Trump and his nascent mob of angry slowly-awakening goyim, consolidates Woke Capital and Tech Censorship, ushers in mail-in vote fraud, puts trillions of imaginary dollars into a financial cups-and-balls trick, bleeds and bankrupts the middle class -- making all hard assets soon available for pennies on the dollar to the Last Liquid Men Standing, who just happen to be Shlomo, Ching Chao, and Prince Abdul Aziz; what's not to like? And they got all this in months, without having to listen to Greta Thunberg and Al Gore any more.
    , @DanHessinMD
    "The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board — just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. "

    Really? What are some aspects?

    * Global travel shut down
    * Universities are shuttered and not looking too hot
    * Holywood not producing
    * National borders reinvigorated everywhere
    * The world of the globe-trotter, the jet setting world of travel and posh hotels and self-important conferences is shuttered
    * Everyone is homeschooling everywhere
    * National pride rules in many countries
    * Socialism has gotten a new lease on life

    Was this planned by elites? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

    America could never have been settled -- the extreme hardship of settlement and fear of the unknown could not have been endured -- without really strong religious faith. Through America's meteoric rise in the world was a constant belief in divine support and blessing on the project. There was a phrase -- Manifest Destiny -- that summed up a belief that Americans were marching with God toward greatness. Americans had huge families and took extreme risks at all levels, and sometimes suffered and inevitably died, but advanced civilization to an astounding degree. Whether the mental model is correct or not, it seems to be a great tool for success.

    There are some controls. Europe was comparatively secular and stagnated while America shot past them. The Communist world expressly banned religion and fell into poverty and backwardness.

    The America of the past wouldn't have even flinched at a disease that kills at most one percent of the population and mainly the very old.

    I am not arguing whether our traditional mental model -- based on religious faith -- is true, but it sure seems like it worked better.

    , @Corvinus
    "The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board"

    And this statement here personifies the descent into modern anti-intellectualism. This insistence that a Globalist cabal will destroy the white race once and for all is predicated on the notion that the Deep State is pulling the strings through a series of coordinated false flags, with high IQ whites being duped along the way by a complicit media. Proof? Not required. But anyone dare to question this general Alt-Right, Q-driven narrative, and (whallah)...one is deemed a purveyor of Fake News. Hey, no need to critically think when under the impression that ANY and ALL news from the MSM is doctored, altered, or outright lies.

    "Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons."

    OK, so what are your sources? Who specifically is involved? How are you certain? What evidence are you able to show? What proof exists that these machinations have been carefully coordinated?Did the various players meet some in back room to develop their devious course of action? If not, how in the world are they carrying out this nefarious plot right underneath our noses? Please show your work.

    , @dfordoom

    In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck.
     
    That's one crazy conspiracy theory.
  7. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Although the religious/mortality viewpoint is both tempting and clever, it is not what is really going on.

    The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board --- just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck. Just as back in the 40s, the British Empire and a German-centered Continent were both sacrificed to make way for the Yankee Dollar and the Communist steamroller.

    One was expecting a massive all-engulfing war, say a war with Iran that sucked in Russia and China, to do the dirty work, but instead, along came this convenient plague, and TPTB said, Fine, this will do.

    The virus and pandemic are biologically real and are not a hoax or an engineering trick. But the response to the virus is specific and deliberate. Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.

    Just stand back and observe with amazement just how far Globo-Shlomo has gone with the virus lockdown in just a few short months… as opposed to the snail’s-pace Warming/Climate Change nonsense scam, which had exactly the same intended goals, but which was taking forever and getting nowhere because it wasn’t scary enough and no one really actually believed it. The epidemic could be made believable with just a few mass-media tweaks; now if only Globo-Shlomo knew a friendly crew who just happened to control the media…

    A war with Iran or Russia would have been messy and disastrous, in no small part because our imported new young POC Patriots will never allow themselves to be drafted into fighting yet another patently fake Zio-war; after all, the POCs themselves are the Ziological weapons designed to exterminate Whites.

    The virus comes along at just the perfect time: trashes the economy, wipes out Trump and his nascent mob of angry slowly-awakening goyim, consolidates Woke Capital and Tech Censorship, ushers in mail-in vote fraud, puts trillions of imaginary dollars into a financial cups-and-balls trick, bleeds and bankrupts the middle class — making all hard assets soon available for pennies on the dollar to the Last Liquid Men Standing, who just happen to be Shlomo, Ching Chao, and Prince Abdul Aziz; what’s not to like? And they got all this in months, without having to listen to Greta Thunberg and Al Gore any more.

    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Just stand back and observe with amazement just how far Globo-Shlomo has gone with the virus lockdown in just a few short months… as opposed to the snail’s-pace Warming/Climate Change nonsense scam, which had exactly the same intended goals, but which was taking forever and getting nowhere because it wasn’t scary enough and no one really actually believed it.
     
    That's a good point. They tried to convince everyone that Global Warming was an existential threat and the the tipping was RIGHT NOW! But people didn't feel the urgency so they sat back and waited to see how the panic models performed. They were a total fraud and a bust (GIGO, as usual), so the "experts'" credibility is now pretty much shot to hell.

    The Plague Panic got around this problem by hyper-accelerating the time frame with the claim that: "2.2 million Americans will die in six months if the government doesn't take over everything and lock down the country RIGHT NOW!" It was basically equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The faux emergency allowed the power-grabbers to get control before anyone could get real data and before any dissenting voices were allowed to speak.

    The Left has now learned the lesson that you can't give your opponents any time to organize an opposition when springing a "crisis." This will be a template for future power grabs, no doubt.

  8. @Almost Missouri
    As DanHessinMD implies, there is an undiscussed assumption lurking beneath everything that is discussed: is death preventable or not? Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic. Hence the atheistic ruling class deems every measure less than the utmost to be insufficient because, well, every measure is insufficient: death will claim 100% of us.

    Ordinary partisan politics may drive this too, irrespective of metaphysical outlook. For example, whatever Trump's religious beliefs are, if any, he does know that the Democrat-Media-Complex intends to pin every US death between March and November squarely on him, so he has to do—or at least be seen to appear to do—everything possible to head off every death possible, even if the costs vastly outweigh the benefit. The Democrat-Media-Complex, for their part, is delighted finally to have Trump cornered and dancing to their tune, but they can only keep him there and dancing so long as the virus hysteria stays at maximum pitch. So they won't back down either, regardless of their personal beliefs about biohazards. We know their private beliefs about health risks are more relaxed than their public statements because of the many exceptions to social distancing they readily countenance to grandstand, workout, get haircuts, sex their mistresses, and stoke mobs for their side.

    confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.

    Uh, no. I think your JewGod Sky Fairy is ridiculous and immoral. I also accept and embrace my finality daily.

    Religion just didn’t stick with me. My godly parents tried, but by about age 9-10 they gave up and agreed it was best for all parties if I stayed home while they went to church and prayed for me. Similarly, from a very early age I was confident that I would die by 47. No particular reason, I just didn’t want to get old and 47 sounded good. I’ve survived cancer and a STEMI, and I’ve passed 47, but I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Good luck. [Written in good will.]

    I was going to leave it at that, but I can't help noting that


    "I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here."
     
    presupposes a belief in a kind of transcendent self. After all, what is the "I" that is is going to "get out of here"?

    I sometimes wonder whether there really are any atheists, as I also wonder whether there really are any liberals. No matter how liberal/left anyone claims to be, they always turn out to be intensely conservative/right about their own personal stuff. To the extent there are exceptions, they are a) limited, and b) usually religious/Christian rather than super-Socialists.

    Everyone claiming to be atheist acts with purpose and an apparent aim to accomplish something in life. So by "atheist" they appear to mean, "we're cleverer and more rational than those mired in medieval superstition." Which may even be true. By declining to taint the ineffable with mortal concepts, atheists may ironically be the most reverential.

    , @Mr. Rational
    Hey, man, I didn't think you hated us quite that much. /sarc
  9. UK says:

    Some people have the vision to look inwardly and without judgement at their own fear of death, some people do not.

    Of those who do, they tend to either be buoyed into it by a spiritual system or find genuine belief in this mediation.

    Of those who don’t, they split into those who merely suprress their fears, rather than accept them as part of themselves, and those who don’t have the strength/inclination.

    The former are likely the ones whom Sailer reacts to as “self-styled Nieztschian supermen”, the former range from the hysterically controlling and dramatic to weepy, maudlin old men with grandiosity issues.

  10. Steve Sailer is a Catholic.

    • Agree: MEH 0910
    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    Greg Cochran is also a Christian.

    Razib Khan (David Hume):
    http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/secular-right-wing-edition-of-bloggingheadstv/

    https://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/secular-right-wing-edition-of-bloggingheadstv/#comment-6612
  11. @obwandiyag
    Real scientists don't make YouTube videos.

    Real scientists don’t give a fig for your opinions.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he's-smart-but-isn't response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having "opinions" because you are so stupid.
  12. @Almost Missouri
    As DanHessinMD implies, there is an undiscussed assumption lurking beneath everything that is discussed: is death preventable or not? Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic. Hence the atheistic ruling class deems every measure less than the utmost to be insufficient because, well, every measure is insufficient: death will claim 100% of us.

    Ordinary partisan politics may drive this too, irrespective of metaphysical outlook. For example, whatever Trump's religious beliefs are, if any, he does know that the Democrat-Media-Complex intends to pin every US death between March and November squarely on him, so he has to do—or at least be seen to appear to do—everything possible to head off every death possible, even if the costs vastly outweigh the benefit. The Democrat-Media-Complex, for their part, is delighted finally to have Trump cornered and dancing to their tune, but they can only keep him there and dancing so long as the virus hysteria stays at maximum pitch. So they won't back down either, regardless of their personal beliefs about biohazards. We know their private beliefs about health risks are more relaxed than their public statements because of the many exceptions to social distancing they readily countenance to grandstand, workout, get haircuts, sex their mistresses, and stoke mobs for their side.

    Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.

    When religious folks are confronted with their own mortality, the lizard brain kicks in pretty quick

    • Replies: @Saint Louis
    What's your point with this video? Almost Missouri didn't say that religious people don't have an instinct for self-preservation, just that perhaps "they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque." I would hardly classify running from falling debris to be an extravagant measure.
  13. Religion is definitely a part of it – although it doesn’t have to be God and the afterlife. I’m sure genuine Buddhists – who see the world as an illusion and unimportant anyways – are not too bothered.

    However, I quarantined for 5 weeks in a wealthy Jewish suburb in New Jersey where I happened to be at the time – mostly high-end professional types. They were modern orthodox Jews who took their religion very seriously, but at the same time, took the virus very seriously as well, and were aghast at the behavior of the ultra orthodox.

    Personally, I took it as a sign that their religion was not quite up to par.

    For myself, I take the approach of taking reasonable precautions, but not being too bothered. The risk doesn’t seem too high, and I try and cultivate acceptance of death. And while I’m not an aggressive covid further, I’m not fully convinced this thing is real, either.

    I kind of admire the attitude of the ultra orthodox Jews – if you want to take risks for your religious practices, I completely respect that. The only thing that would have made their attitude perfect was if they at the same time, they quarantined their community from the larger public – that’s only partially the case now – and agreed they would not over burden the medical system but die at home.

    However, Jewish religion places an extremely high value on human life – you are allowed to break all religious laws to save a life, and suspend all practices. So I suspect the attitude of the ultra orthodox was more based on ignorance and isolation, and perhaps distrust or dismissal of the outside world, then anything else. Although I’m sure a greater acceptance of death played into it.

    I do think, however, that modern materialism has led to a pathological preoccupation with safety. Quite before this pandemic, especially in the last 10 years, I have noticed an increasingly hysterical attempt to banish all risk – and adventure – from life.

    I regard this as a perfectly natural development of materialism. So I think our reaction to this is bound to be on some level pathological, however serious it is or isn’t.

    I also think the technological mindset that desires total control – which goes together with pathological fear and is another natural development of materialism – is also conditioning our reaction. The attitude that we can control everything and should do so.

    One of the joys of travel to the right third world countries – not the really extreme ones – is the exhilaration of being in an environment that gets the balance between safety and adventure much better than we do. You feel freer there, and you realize people can live well without tightly controlling everything.

    One of the ironies of this is that modern civilization – with its themes of total control and safety – might kill itself precisely by implementing that agenda. Hoisted on its own petard, as they say.

    That would be a fitting end to the drama.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Wency

    I have noticed an increasingly hysterical attempt to banish all risk – and adventure – from life.
     
    Indeed. R.R. Reno at First Things called this materialist notion out as "death's dominion". Materialism can't seem to decide if life has no value or infinite value. As in many things, there is wisdom in moderation. We should call out callous disregard for life where it exists, yet recognize that some things are more important than life. This has to be true for life to have any meaning. Of course, for this we'll be called "pro-life hypocrites".

    Growing up in the 80s, the children of the 70s regarded me as utterly coddled. But as a new father I see now the borderline-insane coddling going on around me, to excesses unheard of in the 80s, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to navigate around it.

    On a related note, boys apparently don't get into fights anymore. I haven't heard a great explanation for this, but it seems to be the supreme victory of the coddlers. On one hand, I got into a lot of fights just standing up for myself against bullies. It was unpleasant, and I'm glad my kids apparently won't have to do that. On the other, fights were at least a means of airing and settling grievances, and I don't want my son growing up *afraid* of a fight. This seems to make martial arts or wrestling basically mandatory.
  14. He doesn’t comment much on religion, but Greg Cochran has said on James Thompson’s podcast that he is religious, so I wonder whether he would consider himself part of the secular right.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  15. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Although the religious/mortality viewpoint is both tempting and clever, it is not what is really going on.

    The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board --- just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck. Just as back in the 40s, the British Empire and a German-centered Continent were both sacrificed to make way for the Yankee Dollar and the Communist steamroller.

    One was expecting a massive all-engulfing war, say a war with Iran that sucked in Russia and China, to do the dirty work, but instead, along came this convenient plague, and TPTB said, Fine, this will do.

    The virus and pandemic are biologically real and are not a hoax or an engineering trick. But the response to the virus is specific and deliberate. Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.

    “The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board — just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. ”

    Really? What are some aspects?

    * Global travel shut down
    * Universities are shuttered and not looking too hot
    * Holywood not producing
    * National borders reinvigorated everywhere
    * The world of the globe-trotter, the jet setting world of travel and posh hotels and self-important conferences is shuttered
    * Everyone is homeschooling everywhere
    * National pride rules in many countries
    * Socialism has gotten a new lease on life

    Was this planned by elites? Seems pretty unlikely to me.

    America could never have been settled — the extreme hardship of settlement and fear of the unknown could not have been endured — without really strong religious faith. Through America’s meteoric rise in the world was a constant belief in divine support and blessing on the project. There was a phrase — Manifest Destiny — that summed up a belief that Americans were marching with God toward greatness. Americans had huge families and took extreme risks at all levels, and sometimes suffered and inevitably died, but advanced civilization to an astounding degree. Whether the mental model is correct or not, it seems to be a great tool for success.

    There are some controls. Europe was comparatively secular and stagnated while America shot past them. The Communist world expressly banned religion and fell into poverty and backwardness.

    The America of the past wouldn’t have even flinched at a disease that kills at most one percent of the population and mainly the very old.

    I am not arguing whether our traditional mental model — based on religious faith — is true, but it sure seems like it worked better.

  16. @Stan d Mute

    confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.
     
    Uh, no. I think your JewGod Sky Fairy is ridiculous and immoral. I also accept and embrace my finality daily.

    Religion just didn’t stick with me. My godly parents tried, but by about age 9-10 they gave up and agreed it was best for all parties if I stayed home while they went to church and prayed for me. Similarly, from a very early age I was confident that I would die by 47. No particular reason, I just didn’t want to get old and 47 sounded good. I’ve survived cancer and a STEMI, and I’ve passed 47, but I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here.

    Good luck. [Written in good will.]

    I was going to leave it at that, but I can’t help noting that

    “I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here.”

    presupposes a belief in a kind of transcendent self. After all, what is the “I” that is is going to “get out of here”?

    I sometimes wonder whether there really are any atheists, as I also wonder whether there really are any liberals. No matter how liberal/left anyone claims to be, they always turn out to be intensely conservative/right about their own personal stuff. To the extent there are exceptions, they are a) limited, and b) usually religious/Christian rather than super-Socialists.

    Everyone claiming to be atheist acts with purpose and an apparent aim to accomplish something in life. So by “atheist” they appear to mean, “we’re cleverer and more rational than those mired in medieval superstition.” Which may even be true. By declining to taint the ineffable with mortal concepts, atheists may ironically be the most reverential.

    • Replies: @Wency
    Perhaps the only true atheists are the low-IQ irreligious. The sort of people who were never exposed to religion and basically live like animals, never worried for 2 seconds about why we're here, where we came from, what we ought to be doing.

    High IQ atheists are just playing word games, treating the self and morality as transcendent while pleading that that's not really what they're doing.

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, "Yeah, but that's not God though!" -- word games.

    Romans 1:20-21

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

     

  17. From an irreligious point of view, there is no reason people should be able to gather at church if they can’t get together at a restaurant or a movie theater. For the pious, though, these activities are not of equal import. When your spiritual ancestors were fed to lions and hung on crosses for the faith, chancing the 0.1% risk of illness isn’t much of a psychological hurdle to get over.

    The problem with this is that the vast majority of churchmen want to close their churches. There’s a certain (not very high) IQ floor you have to meet to be a pastor or a priest, and it’s above the level where anyone can take corona denial seriously. I have this vague suspicion that most of the whining about “muh liquor stores are open but churches aren’t” is coming from people who like the idea of church but find it too boring to actually go.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    I whine about that on occasion even if I'm not religious. My motivation is I would prefer a country that makes life difficult for alcoholics, not one that enables them. Pot shops still being open is especially upsetting to me. How quickly we went from marijuana being illegal to being essential.
  18. @The Alarmist
    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    The main point is that if one does not believe in a diety and his or her purpose for the circle of life, one grasps desperately to cheat certain death. I've had a few near-death experiences where things seemed to go into slow motion, and a slightly amused voice in my head said, "So this is how I die." I've somehow managed to cheat death ... so far ... but I'm kind of amazed at how calmly I was prepared to meet my maker. I'm not a particularly religious type, but I accept that my time on Earth is limited and subject to the caprice of nature.

    We'll get past COVID-19 ... models say that there is only a 2.7% probability that the asteroid Apophis will hit Earth in 2029.

    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    I have some really lefty friends who are middle class and poor. They are vigorously locked down. They are genuinely terrified of the coronavirus. I’m baffled by their reaction until I turn on the TV and see the relentless scaremongering going on.

  19. Btw, why are my comments now being held up in moderation and soft censored? They never used to before, this is new.

    Is that you AE, or is that our fearless leader Ron trying to suppress my free speech even as he rails against facebook banning him lol 🙂

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It is not me but I don't think it's Ron, either, at least not intentionally. More comments have been getting caught in the filter lately.
  20. @Almost Missouri
    Good luck. [Written in good will.]

    I was going to leave it at that, but I can't help noting that


    "I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here."
     
    presupposes a belief in a kind of transcendent self. After all, what is the "I" that is is going to "get out of here"?

    I sometimes wonder whether there really are any atheists, as I also wonder whether there really are any liberals. No matter how liberal/left anyone claims to be, they always turn out to be intensely conservative/right about their own personal stuff. To the extent there are exceptions, they are a) limited, and b) usually religious/Christian rather than super-Socialists.

    Everyone claiming to be atheist acts with purpose and an apparent aim to accomplish something in life. So by "atheist" they appear to mean, "we're cleverer and more rational than those mired in medieval superstition." Which may even be true. By declining to taint the ineffable with mortal concepts, atheists may ironically be the most reverential.

    Perhaps the only true atheists are the low-IQ irreligious. The sort of people who were never exposed to religion and basically live like animals, never worried for 2 seconds about why we’re here, where we came from, what we ought to be doing.

    High IQ atheists are just playing word games, treating the self and morality as transcendent while pleading that that’s not really what they’re doing.

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, “Yeah, but that’s not God though!” — word games.

    Romans 1:20-21

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, “Yeah, but that’s not God though!” — word games.
     
    I thought to reply to Almost Missouri’s comment but you’ve struck a bit closer. If anything, the Bible thumpers are narcissistic, megalomaniacal, and self-aggrandizing to presume that they know this entity (if it exists) and especially that they “have a personal relationship with” it. How lofty one must be to chat amicably every night with an entity capable of creating the Universe. An atheist or agnostic has the humility to accept that he is less than a grain of sand in the Universal scheme of things. What hubris does it take to believe that one can comprehend the infinite?

    What irks me the most however is that all the thumpers are convinced that Bronze Age Semitic Jews had everything figured out, were in fact blood related to the creator of the Universe, and that my ancestors were retarded barbarians fighting off brown bears and wolves under several feet of snow. And yet these same geniuses complain incessantly about Jews controlling the Narrative and dictating our livelihoods. Hmm. Seems like a “can’t see the forest for the trees” problem.

    That the JewGod thumpers coopted our “pagan” traditions and holidays, made their “New and Improved” “JewGod & Son” brand supersede the qualities of our gods like Dionysus is obvious and undisputed. Nobody thinks Easter is anything but our ancient Spring Festival or Christmas more than our winter equinox festival - they readily concede that they have no idea when JewGod Jr was born nor when/where he died. They just plastered “JewGod & Son” logos over all our pagan billboards and told us it was better this way.

    We may in fact (many of us) need religion for a properly functioning civilization, but I’m certain that we don’t need the Jew’s God or his putative bastard. I’m certain that no Bronze Age Jew had a better understanding of Reality than I do. And given the skepticism around these parts of Jews and their motives and methods, it’s ironic that so many Jew-believers comment here in defense of this Jewish fable.
  21. Puritans were known to hang Quakers who were discovered on Puritan turf after having been exiled.

    This is known as “protective sequestration“.

    Pure human ecologies are essential to diversity in its true form — as opposed to its travesty better called “enforced violation of protective sequestration”.

    The problem of civilization is non-violent allocation of turf between protective sequestrations.

    I’ve offered such a solution in Sortocracy’s per capita land rent stream combined with replacement of prisons with exile.

    The only other person to have even claimed to have offered this is Curt Doolittle in The Propertarian Constitution. I believe I’ve a superior approach to Curt’s, but really folks, for crying out loud, why should Curt and I bother arguing when the rest of you can’t get your heads screwed on straight enough to see what the problem is?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    I mean, what you propose sounds GREAT on paper. But you never explain how in the world you plan on implementing such grand schemes. Basically, you leave out the details. How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your "arrangement"?

    Seriously, I'm all ears.

    Mmm, this is interesting. You advocate "Sortocracy recognizes all States* have legitimate power to control the presence of individuals on their respective territories. This includes exclusion or exile of anyone for any reason whatsoever."

    Any reason? So, who ultimately makes this decision? How were they put into that position of authority? Is there any recourse the offender can take? What happens if people come to the aid of the offender because they believe there was an injustice? Are those individuals also permanently removed?

    This is also intriguing. You support "If no other State will accept a relocating member, at least one State of Nature must be set aside for such members in which human group selection is suppressed by rules enforcing individual sovereignty, including death penalty and deadly natural duel as nature’s preferred dispute processing of last resort."

    So, in this State of Nature, is it like banishment to a place where people simply fend for themselves? And how in the world did you come up with this idea that "nature prefers" a "deadly duel" between "sovereigns"? In other words, what literature or philosopher, if any, inspired your line of thinking?

    I honestly want to know more of your thought process here.


    Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:

    All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.

    A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.

    There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.

    Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage.

    All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides.

    No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground.

    No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat.

    When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.

    No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.
     

  22. @orionyx
    Real scientists don't give a fig for your opinions.

    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he’s-smart-but-isn’t response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having “opinions” because you are so stupid.

    • Replies: @fish
    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he’s-smart-but-isn’t response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having “opinions” because you are so stupid.
  23. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    Of course, the logic could just as easily be flipped: religious people, believing in the immeasurable value of human life at all stages, might support the lockdown, while atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the "economy" and quality of life and want to re-open, a few worthless boomers be dammed. In the early stages of the virus, left-wing "rationalist" types were among the most dismissive.

    I do agree that allowing restaurants and bars to re-open while church services are still limited will rub a lot of believers, including myself, the wrong way. But that's due to a specific government policy, not any deep-seated psychological effect.

    When some kind of speculative causation is just as easily argued from both sides, I tend to be very skeptical.

    Golly. You’re smarter than the douchebags who get paid to write the above drivel. And yet they don’t fire them and hire you. Everything is a sinecure in this world. Just get your head under the door and you can drool and drivel you want forevermore, no matter how off-the-cuff, poorly-thought-out, and not-even-wrong-it’s-so-dumb (Cf. the above). The idea is just pump out the padding and you get your check.

  24. @Buzz Mohawk
    FWIW my own view on this could just as easily be seen as utilitarian, if that's the right word. The damage from the Coronavirus Panic of 2020 is far greater than what the virus would cause by itself.

    I don't understand why people like the esteemed ones listed can't see this. It seems obvious that millions more people will be harmed by the economic shutdowns, the distancing and the limits on freedom than would have been harmed if we all just carried on normally.

    My religious beliefs can best be called deism, BTW, but the modern sort in which God the Watchmaker can indeed intervene and do miraculous things. He doesn't necessarily have to sit back and let his watch run all the time without resetting it.

    This is a case when we mere mortals should let things go a bit. We cannot manage this system without breaking our own. To think we can is hubris, a quality that perhaps many of a certain sort possess to a high degree.

    No they won’t. You are not a utilitarian. You are an idiot. Why? Because the virus is real, and it doesn’t just attack old people, it even attacks “utilitarians” like you, and after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.

    And the “economy” will adjust just fine. The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Gee, one meets the nicest people on the internet.

    ... the virus is real...
     
    Yes it is, like every other virus and illness. Why are you so afraid of this one? Are you a utilitarian too? According to you, it hates utilitarians.

    And the “economy” will adjust just fine.
     
    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy. That should not bother you, since you obviously have the same trust in central economic planning as a good old communist.

    The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential.
     
    Does "the virus" decide which jobs are not essential? No, apparently you do.

    ... after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.
     
    You have a nice day too. :)
    , @The Alarmist

    The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.
     
    All jobs are essential, if only for maintaining some semblance of human dignity. The route you suggest doesn't end with cheques or direct deposits.
  25. @obwandiyag
    No they won't. You are not a utilitarian. You are an idiot. Why? Because the virus is real, and it doesn't just attack old people, it even attacks "utilitarians" like you, and after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.

    And the "economy" will adjust just fine. The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.

    Gee, one meets the nicest people on the internet.

    … the virus is real…

    Yes it is, like every other virus and illness. Why are you so afraid of this one? Are you a utilitarian too? According to you, it hates utilitarians.

    And the “economy” will adjust just fine.

    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy. That should not bother you, since you obviously have the same trust in central economic planning as a good old communist.

    The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential.

    Does “the virus” decide which jobs are not essential? No, apparently you do.

    … after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.

    You have a nice day too. 🙂

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy.
     
    Saying that Covid-19 is going to kill millions this year is unwarranted doomsterism, but so is this kind of “There won’t be any bread!” also an unwarranted doomsterism for the “My GDP” crowd. Both are fear-motivated hysteria that simply place the fear on different particulars.

    Although everyday we are finding out more about this pandemic, we still don’t know much about it, e.g. long-term effects, impact on children, etc. So while I agree that we need to balance public health concerns with people’s livelihood and economic concerns, there is ample cause for caution.

    Also, when you have a compliant and fastidious population, you don’t need a general lockdown, but when you don’t, it’s a problem.

    https://twitter.com/nick__puckett/status/1259541624389955584

  26. @Wency
    Perhaps the only true atheists are the low-IQ irreligious. The sort of people who were never exposed to religion and basically live like animals, never worried for 2 seconds about why we're here, where we came from, what we ought to be doing.

    High IQ atheists are just playing word games, treating the self and morality as transcendent while pleading that that's not really what they're doing.

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, "Yeah, but that's not God though!" -- word games.

    Romans 1:20-21

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

     

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, “Yeah, but that’s not God though!” — word games.

    I thought to reply to Almost Missouri’s comment but you’ve struck a bit closer. If anything, the Bible thumpers are narcissistic, megalomaniacal, and self-aggrandizing to presume that they know this entity (if it exists) and especially that they “have a personal relationship with” it. How lofty one must be to chat amicably every night with an entity capable of creating the Universe. An atheist or agnostic has the humility to accept that he is less than a grain of sand in the Universal scheme of things. What hubris does it take to believe that one can comprehend the infinite?

    What irks me the most however is that all the thumpers are convinced that Bronze Age Semitic Jews had everything figured out, were in fact blood related to the creator of the Universe, and that my ancestors were retarded barbarians fighting off brown bears and wolves under several feet of snow. And yet these same geniuses complain incessantly about Jews controlling the Narrative and dictating our livelihoods. Hmm. Seems like a “can’t see the forest for the trees” problem.

    That the JewGod thumpers coopted our “pagan” traditions and holidays, made their “New and Improved” “JewGod & Son” brand supersede the qualities of our gods like Dionysus is obvious and undisputed. Nobody thinks Easter is anything but our ancient Spring Festival or Christmas more than our winter equinox festival – they readily concede that they have no idea when JewGod Jr was born nor when/where he died. They just plastered “JewGod & Son” logos over all our pagan billboards and told us it was better this way.

    We may in fact (many of us) need religion for a properly functioning civilization, but I’m certain that we don’t need the Jew’s God or his putative bastard. I’m certain that no Bronze Age Jew had a better understanding of Reality than I do. And given the skepticism around these parts of Jews and their motives and methods, it’s ironic that so many Jew-believers comment here in defense of this Jewish fable.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
    • Replies: @Saint Louis
    "Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron." - Stan d Mute and obwandiyag.
  27. In my trad Catholic community, the sentiment for reopening runs about 80-20, I d say (even though the area has not had 14 days of decline in cases yet).

    Common comments are along the lines of “The Sacred Host is the Body of God – you won’t get sick from it,” “Not being able to partake in Mass and the Sacraments are a fate worse than illness and even death,” “Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church,” and so on.

    Finally, someone in the 20% crowd chimed in and said, “A wise priest told me once that you don’t play with matches and then ask where God is when you are engulfed in fire.” Then crickets.

    These are my people and I loved them, but they too are fallible human beings. They too engage in virtue-signaling just like people on the left – it’s just that their virtue-signaling (and tribe-signaling) takes a different form.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?

    The only thing I could see being an issue is the Holy Eucharist, which could, perhaps, be not given to the public at Mass but carried later to those at home as it has been carried for centuries to those in hospital. There are probably other solutions; though I personally haven't given this much thought there are probably other people who have.

    Even if Mass normally would be an issue, there are various means for making it less of an issue; Mass outside, for instance, like below but with distance:

    http://licatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NH-1045831.jpg

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected, or removed and the floor regularly disinfected, or some other set of protocols drawn up by someone who, unlike me, actually knows what he is talking about in this regard.

    Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church
     
    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don't think this is true? Personally I wonder if you could replace "pandemic" in that sentence with any other issue and still have a correct statement.

    The Sacred Host is the Body of God – you won’t get sick from it
     
    I'm curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.
    , @Dutch Boy
    My own opinion is that churches should have remained open with proper precautions (masks, gel, etc.). If super markets, liquor stores and pot shops can operate, so should churches.
  28. @Buzz Mohawk
    Gee, one meets the nicest people on the internet.

    ... the virus is real...
     
    Yes it is, like every other virus and illness. Why are you so afraid of this one? Are you a utilitarian too? According to you, it hates utilitarians.

    And the “economy” will adjust just fine.
     
    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy. That should not bother you, since you obviously have the same trust in central economic planning as a good old communist.

    The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential.
     
    Does "the virus" decide which jobs are not essential? No, apparently you do.

    ... after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.
     
    You have a nice day too. :)

    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy.

    Saying that Covid-19 is going to kill millions this year is unwarranted doomsterism, but so is this kind of “There won’t be any bread!” also an unwarranted doomsterism for the “My GDP” crowd. Both are fear-motivated hysteria that simply place the fear on different particulars.

    Although everyday we are finding out more about this pandemic, we still don’t know much about it, e.g. long-term effects, impact on children, etc. So while I agree that we need to balance public health concerns with people’s livelihood and economic concerns, there is ample cause for caution.

    Also, when you have a compliant and fastidious population, you don’t need a general lockdown, but when you don’t, it’s a problem.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, yes, I anticipated your point, and I agree it is valid.

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes -- because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.

    Economic disasters are very real.

    People can't pay their bills; therefore the recipients of the payments, the businesses, lose income and can't pay their bills either, and so on.

    That is a train wreck.

    The financial consequences are probably even less predicable than the biological ones. Good luck gambling with 330 million Americans and at least as many more in the rest of the Western world.

    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.
  29. @obwandiyag
    No they won't. You are not a utilitarian. You are an idiot. Why? Because the virus is real, and it doesn't just attack old people, it even attacks "utilitarians" like you, and after you get it no doubt you will continue to be a utilitarian right up to the final showdown.

    And the "economy" will adjust just fine. The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.

    The virus shows just how many jobs are not essential. This is a good thing. Now we know how much busy-work was being done. Better people just get checks than driving all over creation to their pathetic busy-work jobs all de liblong day forever.

    All jobs are essential, if only for maintaining some semblance of human dignity. The route you suggest doesn’t end with cheques or direct deposits.

  30. @Twinkie

    Yes, even when you are paying $20 for a loaf of bread, if there even is one on the shelf for you to buy.
     
    Saying that Covid-19 is going to kill millions this year is unwarranted doomsterism, but so is this kind of “There won’t be any bread!” also an unwarranted doomsterism for the “My GDP” crowd. Both are fear-motivated hysteria that simply place the fear on different particulars.

    Although everyday we are finding out more about this pandemic, we still don’t know much about it, e.g. long-term effects, impact on children, etc. So while I agree that we need to balance public health concerns with people’s livelihood and economic concerns, there is ample cause for caution.

    Also, when you have a compliant and fastidious population, you don’t need a general lockdown, but when you don’t, it’s a problem.

    https://twitter.com/nick__puckett/status/1259541624389955584

    Yes, yes, I anticipated your point, and I agree it is valid.

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes — because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.

    Economic disasters are very real.

    People can’t pay their bills; therefore the recipients of the payments, the businesses, lose income and can’t pay their bills either, and so on.

    That is a train wreck.

    The financial consequences are probably even less predicable than the biological ones. Good luck gambling with 330 million Americans and at least as many more in the rest of the Western world.

    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes — because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.
     
    You know what’s sad? People in $50,000 SUVs lining up at the food bank. Even when my wife and I were barely making minimum wage when we started out as a couple, she and I saved and had six months of reserves. So many people are so highly in debt living absurdly beyond their means that they can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption (makes one wonder what their plans were if they lost their jobs in ordinary times). What the heck happened to saving for emergencies? That’s your train wreck right there.

    Sure, the government responses to the pandemic have been hardly perfect - far from it, but what’s really multiplying the pain is the utter foolishness and unpreparedness of many ordinary people (which, I grant you, our ruling class has encouraged for decades). The massive economic contraction is also occurring in other countries that managed the crisis well and never implemented a general lockdown (because people are avoiding public gatherings), but the cries of economic woes are muted in them, because people are longer-horizoned and have greater savings to tide them over.


    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.
     
    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives. One of the ill effects of our ideological and political polarization is that too many people immediately see anyone who disagrees with them as a caricature of their enemies, real or imagined.
  31. 216 says:
    @The Alarmist
    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    The main point is that if one does not believe in a diety and his or her purpose for the circle of life, one grasps desperately to cheat certain death. I've had a few near-death experiences where things seemed to go into slow motion, and a slightly amused voice in my head said, "So this is how I die." I've somehow managed to cheat death ... so far ... but I'm kind of amazed at how calmly I was prepared to meet my maker. I'm not a particularly religious type, but I accept that my time on Earth is limited and subject to the caprice of nature.

    We'll get past COVID-19 ... models say that there is only a 2.7% probability that the asteroid Apophis will hit Earth in 2029.

    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    In North America, no. They want maximum economic damage so the government loses re-election.

    In the rest of the developed world, probably yes. Leftist governments in Denmark, Spain and Italy are gradually loosening the lockdowns.

  32. @Buzz Mohawk
    Yes, yes, I anticipated your point, and I agree it is valid.

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes -- because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.

    Economic disasters are very real.

    People can't pay their bills; therefore the recipients of the payments, the businesses, lose income and can't pay their bills either, and so on.

    That is a train wreck.

    The financial consequences are probably even less predicable than the biological ones. Good luck gambling with 330 million Americans and at least as many more in the rest of the Western world.

    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes — because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.

    You know what’s sad? People in $50,000 SUVs lining up at the food bank. Even when my wife and I were barely making minimum wage when we started out as a couple, she and I saved and had six months of reserves. So many people are so highly in debt living absurdly beyond their means that they can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption (makes one wonder what their plans were if they lost their jobs in ordinary times). What the heck happened to saving for emergencies? That’s your train wreck right there.

    Sure, the government responses to the pandemic have been hardly perfect – far from it, but what’s really multiplying the pain is the utter foolishness and unpreparedness of many ordinary people (which, I grant you, our ruling class has encouraged for decades). The massive economic contraction is also occurring in other countries that managed the crisis well and never implemented a general lockdown (because people are avoiding public gatherings), but the cries of economic woes are muted in them, because people are longer-horizoned and have greater savings to tide them over.

    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.

    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives. One of the ill effects of our ideological and political polarization is that too many people immediately see anyone who disagrees with them as a caricature of their enemies, real or imagined.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives.
     
    No, they care about SOME lives... the ones their TV told them to consider. They are only thinking about some archetypal covid19 victim; not 'what else could possibly happen if we stop the economy'?

    If their TV didn't tell them to consider some important subset of victims that will - predictably - result from the shutdowns... fuck 'em - who gives a fuck if they die?

    I've seen these fucking morons on Twitter, comparing it to the 'Trolley Problem' - but assuming that the 'alternative track' is fucking EMPTY (in that it contains no humans, only 'an economy').

    Literally this ->

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/f7sro1j9bv3bnz9/FuckwitTwitter.png?dl=1

    And of course other fuckwits - Ellen/Oprah-audience level Epsilons - lap it up because they think this 'Tremendous' fuckwit is a nuanced thinker.
    , @Buzz Mohawk

    So many people... can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption... What the heck happened to saving for emergencies?
     
    I made the same point around here (on Sailer's blog I think) weeks and weeks ago (months now?) And like you, I have always been a good saver. In fact, part of my work has involved advising people how to save money.

    Would you say, though, that it is okay for government to force good savers to deplete their savings?

    You say weeks, but this has now turned into months. Governments seem unclear about how long exactly this will continue, and the changes in behavior in many places will linger on anyway, hurting the livelihoods of many.

    My barber has had no income during this. I know something about his finances and situation. He runs a good business and has loyal customers. Believe me, I would go to him if our governor allowed me to. I'm sure many or most of his other customers would too, because they are a lot like me. He would not have to spend his savings or retirement money to pay his bills. He has rent for his shop to pay, and all the other bills, plus a wife at home and a house.

    He has a right to those things and to what he has earned. He would not be seeing his financial future shrinking if government had not overreacted and abused its power. There would be even less damage to him and especially to other small business owners if media and public intellectuals had not spread the panic and made this such an overblown story, scaring everybody away.

    People like my barber would have weathered this by indeed using savings, but it would have cost them less. The long-term damage, multiplied across our country and in other countries would have been less.

    I feel more sympathy for the savers and the industrious people than for the fools you described. Many businesses are threatened with failure now, or an increased debt load, because the margins are small. (Debt is often a part of a perfectly good business, and business growth, my friend.)

    Many will, I assume, start over, and many will not. Either way, this should not be happening to them, and it is the fault of our leaders in government, in media, in government-corporate "science," and in the public intellectual square (even here).

  33. @Twinkie
    In my trad Catholic community, the sentiment for reopening runs about 80-20, I d say (even though the area has not had 14 days of decline in cases yet).

    Common comments are along the lines of “The Sacred Host is the Body of God - you won’t get sick from it,” “Not being able to partake in Mass and the Sacraments are a fate worse than illness and even death,” “Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church,” and so on.

    Finally, someone in the 20% crowd chimed in and said, “A wise priest told me once that you don’t play with matches and then ask where God is when you are engulfed in fire.” Then crickets.

    These are my people and I loved them, but they too are fallible human beings. They too engage in virtue-signaling just like people on the left - it’s just that their virtue-signaling (and tribe-signaling) takes a different form.

    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?

    The only thing I could see being an issue is the Holy Eucharist, which could, perhaps, be not given to the public at Mass but carried later to those at home as it has been carried for centuries to those in hospital. There are probably other solutions; though I personally haven’t given this much thought there are probably other people who have.

    Even if Mass normally would be an issue, there are various means for making it less of an issue; Mass outside, for instance, like below but with distance:

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected, or removed and the floor regularly disinfected, or some other set of protocols drawn up by someone who, unlike me, actually knows what he is talking about in this regard.

    Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church

    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don’t think this is true? Personally I wonder if you could replace “pandemic” in that sentence with any other issue and still have a correct statement.

    The Sacred Host is the Body of God – you won’t get sick from it

    I’m curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?
     
    I would think not.

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected
     
    I think the main concern isn’t so much things as people being close to each other. Pews are simply not set up to be distant.

    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don’t think this is true?
     
    Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, who took early restrictive measures and probably saved many lives in his state, is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion and homosexual marriage.

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point. People don’t multitask - especially during a crisis.

    Although the war against the Church is real in my view, it’s not everything and I would urge others of my faith and persuasion to ponder that not everything (and even not everything our enemies do) is about us.
    , @Toronto Russian

    I’m curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.
     
    There is historical experience. Russian deacon and writer Andrey Kuraev said in an interview concerning mass infections of priests and nuns:

    When in early March the "chrysostoms" chatted about communion being by definition safe and in itself is a cure for all illnesses, I cited as an example an excerpt from Pidalion, a collection of church rules of the late 18th century. Its author, Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, gave specific instructions on how to receive Communion of infectious patients: it turns out that they need to leave holy gifts in a separate vessel, they themselves should be communed at home, then they can wash the vessel and spoon in vinegar. This is concrete evidence that two centuries ago the church recognized the possibility of contagion through communion. And the Patriarchy remembered about this text three weeks later...

    You say you can't get infected through the sacrament? Well, people were even murdered via communion! The wine cup was poisoned, and that was it. And not only among Catholics, but also in our Orthodox world. In 985, Archbishop Hilarion brought such poison to Georgian King David. On Easter, by the way. And in 1451, Prince Mikhail Sigismundovich was poisoned in Moscow.
    https://www.mk.ru/social/2020/04/28/andrey-kuraev-rezko-vyskazalsya-o-zarazhenii-svyashhennikov-koronavirusom.html
     
    By the way, a Croatian cardinal released the special guidelines for sacraments in reopened churches yesterday, as his country is out of lockdown and even letting in cross-border travelers (not ones with tourist visas though). It's on news site dnevnik.hr and probably translated somewhere.
  34. @RSDB
    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?

    The only thing I could see being an issue is the Holy Eucharist, which could, perhaps, be not given to the public at Mass but carried later to those at home as it has been carried for centuries to those in hospital. There are probably other solutions; though I personally haven't given this much thought there are probably other people who have.

    Even if Mass normally would be an issue, there are various means for making it less of an issue; Mass outside, for instance, like below but with distance:

    http://licatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NH-1045831.jpg

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected, or removed and the floor regularly disinfected, or some other set of protocols drawn up by someone who, unlike me, actually knows what he is talking about in this regard.

    Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church
     
    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don't think this is true? Personally I wonder if you could replace "pandemic" in that sentence with any other issue and still have a correct statement.

    The Sacred Host is the Body of God – you won’t get sick from it
     
    I'm curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.

    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?

    I would think not.

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected

    I think the main concern isn’t so much things as people being close to each other. Pews are simply not set up to be distant.

    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don’t think this is true?

    Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, who took early restrictive measures and probably saved many lives in his state, is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion and homosexual marriage.

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point. People don’t multitask – especially during a crisis.

    Although the war against the Church is real in my view, it’s not everything and I would urge others of my faith and persuasion to ponder that not everything (and even not everything our enemies do) is about us.

    • Replies: @RSDB

    Pews are simply not set up to be distant.
     
    Can some pews simply be removed for the duration?

    To this day many Orthodox churches get along without any pews at all.
    , @RSDB

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point.
     
    That's a good point.

    I would, however not entirely agree with People don’t multitask, at least if it is amended to people don't multigoal; certainly in my case and I suspect for most people it is very different to separate the various motives and factors involved in any action. I wouldn't say, either, that all actions are part of a war on the Church, but inasmuch as all actions have a moral dimension they are part of the war the Church is fighting.

    Here, of course, though, I am no longer talking about the lockdown specifically, since at least in my state the Church took that action well before the State; I am merely saying that certain politicians will rejoice at any harm the Church appears to suffer. (Not that one should necessarily base decisions on whether one's enemies are happy or not.)

    Sorry for writing two responses. Your comment made me think a little after I read it over again.
  35. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Just stand back and observe with amazement just how far Globo-Shlomo has gone with the virus lockdown in just a few short months... as opposed to the snail's-pace Warming/Climate Change nonsense scam, which had exactly the same intended goals, but which was taking forever and getting nowhere because it wasn't scary enough and no one really actually believed it. The epidemic could be made believable with just a few mass-media tweaks; now if only Globo-Shlomo knew a friendly crew who just happened to control the media...

    A war with Iran or Russia would have been messy and disastrous, in no small part because our imported new young POC Patriots will never allow themselves to be drafted into fighting yet another patently fake Zio-war; after all, the POCs themselves are the Ziological weapons designed to exterminate Whites.

    The virus comes along at just the perfect time: trashes the economy, wipes out Trump and his nascent mob of angry slowly-awakening goyim, consolidates Woke Capital and Tech Censorship, ushers in mail-in vote fraud, puts trillions of imaginary dollars into a financial cups-and-balls trick, bleeds and bankrupts the middle class -- making all hard assets soon available for pennies on the dollar to the Last Liquid Men Standing, who just happen to be Shlomo, Ching Chao, and Prince Abdul Aziz; what's not to like? And they got all this in months, without having to listen to Greta Thunberg and Al Gore any more.

    Just stand back and observe with amazement just how far Globo-Shlomo has gone with the virus lockdown in just a few short months… as opposed to the snail’s-pace Warming/Climate Change nonsense scam, which had exactly the same intended goals, but which was taking forever and getting nowhere because it wasn’t scary enough and no one really actually believed it.

    That’s a good point. They tried to convince everyone that Global Warming was an existential threat and the the tipping was RIGHT NOW! But people didn’t feel the urgency so they sat back and waited to see how the panic models performed. They were a total fraud and a bust (GIGO, as usual), so the “experts’” credibility is now pretty much shot to hell.

    The Plague Panic got around this problem by hyper-accelerating the time frame with the claim that: “2.2 million Americans will die in six months if the government doesn’t take over everything and lock down the country RIGHT NOW!” It was basically equivalent to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. The faux emergency allowed the power-grabbers to get control before anyone could get real data and before any dissenting voices were allowed to speak.

    The Left has now learned the lesson that you can’t give your opponents any time to organize an opposition when springing a “crisis.” This will be a template for future power grabs, no doubt.

  36. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Although the religious/mortality viewpoint is both tempting and clever, it is not what is really going on.

    The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board --- just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck. Just as back in the 40s, the British Empire and a German-centered Continent were both sacrificed to make way for the Yankee Dollar and the Communist steamroller.

    One was expecting a massive all-engulfing war, say a war with Iran that sucked in Russia and China, to do the dirty work, but instead, along came this convenient plague, and TPTB said, Fine, this will do.

    The virus and pandemic are biologically real and are not a hoax or an engineering trick. But the response to the virus is specific and deliberate. Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.

    “The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board”

    And this statement here personifies the descent into modern anti-intellectualism. This insistence that a Globalist cabal will destroy the white race once and for all is predicated on the notion that the Deep State is pulling the strings through a series of coordinated false flags, with high IQ whites being duped along the way by a complicit media. Proof? Not required. But anyone dare to question this general Alt-Right, Q-driven narrative, and (whallah)…one is deemed a purveyor of Fake News. Hey, no need to critically think when under the impression that ANY and ALL news from the MSM is doctored, altered, or outright lies.

    “Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.”

    OK, so what are your sources? Who specifically is involved? How are you certain? What evidence are you able to show? What proof exists that these machinations have been carefully coordinated?Did the various players meet some in back room to develop their devious course of action? If not, how in the world are they carrying out this nefarious plot right underneath our noses? Please show your work.

  37. @Twinkie

    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?
     
    I would think not.

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected
     
    I think the main concern isn’t so much things as people being close to each other. Pews are simply not set up to be distant.

    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don’t think this is true?
     
    Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, who took early restrictive measures and probably saved many lives in his state, is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion and homosexual marriage.

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point. People don’t multitask - especially during a crisis.

    Although the war against the Church is real in my view, it’s not everything and I would urge others of my faith and persuasion to ponder that not everything (and even not everything our enemies do) is about us.

    Pews are simply not set up to be distant.

    Can some pews simply be removed for the duration?

    To this day many Orthodox churches get along without any pews at all.

  38. @James Bowery
    Puritans were known to hang Quakers who were discovered on Puritan turf after having been exiled.

    This is known as "protective sequestration".

    Pure human ecologies are essential to diversity in its true form -- as opposed to its travesty better called "enforced violation of protective sequestration".

    The problem of civilization is non-violent allocation of turf between protective sequestrations.

    I've offered such a solution in Sortocracy's per capita land rent stream combined with replacement of prisons with exile.

    The only other person to have even claimed to have offered this is Curt Doolittle in The Propertarian Constitution. I believe I've a superior approach to Curt's, but really folks, for crying out loud, why should Curt and I bother arguing when the rest of you can't get your heads screwed on straight enough to see what the problem is?

    I mean, what you propose sounds GREAT on paper. But you never explain how in the world you plan on implementing such grand schemes. Basically, you leave out the details. How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your “arrangement”?

    Seriously, I’m all ears.

    Mmm, this is interesting. You advocate “Sortocracy recognizes all States* have legitimate power to control the presence of individuals on their respective territories. This includes exclusion or exile of anyone for any reason whatsoever.”

    Any reason? So, who ultimately makes this decision? How were they put into that position of authority? Is there any recourse the offender can take? What happens if people come to the aid of the offender because they believe there was an injustice? Are those individuals also permanently removed?

    This is also intriguing. You support “If no other State will accept a relocating member, at least one State of Nature must be set aside for such members in which human group selection is suppressed by rules enforcing individual sovereignty, including death penalty and deadly natural duel as nature’s preferred dispute processing of last resort.”

    So, in this State of Nature, is it like banishment to a place where people simply fend for themselves? And how in the world did you come up with this idea that “nature prefers” a “deadly duel” between “sovereigns”? In other words, what literature or philosopher, if any, inspired your line of thinking?

    I honestly want to know more of your thought process here.

    Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:

    All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.

    A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.

    There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.

    Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage.

    All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides.

    No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground.

    No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat.

    When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.

    No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.

    • Replies: @James Bowery

    How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your “arrangement”?
     
    That question is a non sequitur.

    See this video I just uploaded.

    A constitution without sovereignty is without force. If you don't believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won't find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty. I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia's notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the closest thing in US history to an assertion of legitimacy consistent with the Treaty of Westphalia. The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery. Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy's rejection of prisons.
  39. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:

    I thought we were over all this religious stuff given 2016. I always smirk whenever some conservative Christian leader is asked if they think Trump is a Bible-believing Christian and responds with “well, only Christ knows what it’s a man’s heart” or some other kind of non-answer answer. Yet you still have people saying “oh, you have to be Christian or else you support all this globohomo crap.” And this is coming from people who are big fans of Trump! Do they not see the irony there?

    On second thought, there is a twisted logic to it. When Trump was running on immigration restriction, he had groups like VDARE actually asking him to get stuff done and getting mad at him when he didn’t get stuff done. With Christianity, no policy changes are required. Just call yourself a Christian and cling to that Bible.

    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    I think Trump's appeal to the Religious Right was not his own religiosity (he obviously is not religious) but his lack of the hatred for conservative Christians that abounds on the Left.
  40. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    Of course, the logic could just as easily be flipped: religious people, believing in the immeasurable value of human life at all stages, might support the lockdown, while atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the "economy" and quality of life and want to re-open, a few worthless boomers be dammed. In the early stages of the virus, left-wing "rationalist" types were among the most dismissive.

    I do agree that allowing restaurants and bars to re-open while church services are still limited will rub a lot of believers, including myself, the wrong way. But that's due to a specific government policy, not any deep-seated psychological effect.

    When some kind of speculative causation is just as easily argued from both sides, I tend to be very skeptical.

    atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the “economy” and quality of life and want to re-open

    This specific atheist utilitarian made clear a while back, that the appropriate utilitarian calculus involved the loss of QALY under the two alternatives.

     ① No Lockdown: some number – X – of people die. 80+% of the deaths will be elderly, chronically sick people who are already at (or even beyond) their HALE65. The average QALY loss is very close to zero, but let’s set it at 0.5 years.
     ② Lockdown: some proportion of X (let’s say k%) don’t die of (or with) covid19, and live the rest of their HALE65. Some other number – Y – of people die just through the predictable increase in suicide that happens with every severe economic contraction. The average age of those deaths is ~37, so the average QALY loss is 35 years.

    So the utilitarian calculation is
    if 35Y + 0.5×k×X > 0.5×X, then lockdown is not justified.

    Collecting terms:

    If

      35Y > 0.5×(1-k)×X,

    i.e.,

      Y > (1-k)×X/70

    then the costs of lockdown – in quality adjusted years of life lost – exceed the benefits.

    Instead of 35 and 0.5, you can substitute your own estimates for the expected healthy lifespan of otherwise-healthy suicides and chronically-ill octagenarians. Call these qₛ and qₑ… it becomes

      Y > (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): stay open
      Y = (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): indifferent
      Y < (1-k)×X×(qₑ/qₛ): lockdown

    Now you have something that can be tested against data… get some estimate of the distribution of those inputs –
     • QALY for suicides and chronically-ill octagenarians;
     • a guess at the proportion of chronically-ill octagenarians that would be saved by lockdowns;
     • the number of additional suicides expected.

    And then do a full-bottle sensitivity analysis and see what the distribution’s like.

    There’s been recent mention in the press of some study that estimated the additional ‘deaths from despair‘ at 75,000 for the US; that’s almost certainly too low, given that it is more than just suicides (it includes accidental OD, death from alcohol-induced liver failure etc).

    For suicides alone, the GFC induced at least 10,000 suicides between 2009 and 2011: that’s a low-ball estimate, because the effect was assumed to end at year 3 by assumption. In reality, people in the bottom 2 socioeconomic quartiles did not participate in the post-GFC ‘recovery’.

    During the GFC there was a 2.7% peak-to-trough decline in GDP, and unemployment went from 4.7% (Nov 2007) to a peak of 10% (Oct 2009) and was above 9% for the whole of May 2009 – Sep 2011.

    For the self-inflicted depression we’ve been dumped into in on the basis of absolutely shitty quant…

     • GDP growth has already dropped 4.8% in one quarter; the peak-to-trough fall will be somewhere in the order of 30%.

     • unemployment has gone from 4.4% to 14.7% in a single month (and was actually at least 5% higher for reasons that would take another paragraph) and is likely to peak in the mid-20% range (which will understate the problem, because people will give up looking).

    All contractions hit the bottom socioeconomic quintiles harder, and since the 1970s they have not participated in recoveries (real annual earnings in those quintiles is lower now than it was in 1978).

    So suicides might actually increase by 10k or more a year… and non-suicide deaths of despair by about the same amount.

    THAT is why an atheist utilitarian worth the name, is against lockdown.

    It has fuck all to do with #muheconomy or #DieForTheDow or other things seized upon by retards who only want to count one set of bodies: it is based on a purely utilitarian calculus that treats a healthy year of life as a sensible unit of account.

    We can argue whether that’s a sensible assumption, because people use life-years differently (and like money, there’s diminishing marginal utility: young adults do shit that an elderly adult wouldn’t “waste time” doing).

    Extend it a bit further: people get sad when 80-year-old sick granpop dies, but it was largely expected. When 45-year-old healthy Dad sticks his 12-gauge in his mouth and blows the back of his head off, there is a shock that can affect his social circle for a decade or more.

    So to this point it’s not about money or financial markets or production; it’s about human non-financial costs, measured in healthy life-years.

    However if you take the analysis further and incorporate the lost productivity of the two different sets of victims, the answer is even more strongly tilted against lockdown… because sick elderly people are – per capita – a bigger drain to the economy than people in the bottom 2 quintiles of the income distribution.

  41. @Twinkie
    In my trad Catholic community, the sentiment for reopening runs about 80-20, I d say (even though the area has not had 14 days of decline in cases yet).

    Common comments are along the lines of “The Sacred Host is the Body of God - you won’t get sick from it,” “Not being able to partake in Mass and the Sacraments are a fate worse than illness and even death,” “Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church,” and so on.

    Finally, someone in the 20% crowd chimed in and said, “A wise priest told me once that you don’t play with matches and then ask where God is when you are engulfed in fire.” Then crickets.

    These are my people and I loved them, but they too are fallible human beings. They too engage in virtue-signaling just like people on the left - it’s just that their virtue-signaling (and tribe-signaling) takes a different form.

    My own opinion is that churches should have remained open with proper precautions (masks, gel, etc.). If super markets, liquor stores and pot shops can operate, so should churches.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    I tend to agree, but it's wise to remember that when the bishops made the decision they did we knew a great deal less about the risks than we do now (this was way back when, for instance, official guidance was for healthy people not to wear a mask) and their decision may well have saved lives, given, for instance, that the most elderly-skewed parishes also tend to be the most huggy.

    Twinkie also has a good point that pews are often set somewhat close together for comfort. However, this is a problem that can be solved, whether by removing some pews, blocking off some pews or sections, or some other method.
  42. @Alexander Turok

    From an irreligious point of view, there is no reason people should be able to gather at church if they can’t get together at a restaurant or a movie theater. For the pious, though, these activities are not of equal import. When your spiritual ancestors were fed to lions and hung on crosses for the faith, chancing the 0.1% risk of illness isn’t much of a psychological hurdle to get over.

     

    The problem with this is that the vast majority of churchmen want to close their churches. There's a certain (not very high) IQ floor you have to meet to be a pastor or a priest, and it's above the level where anyone can take corona denial seriously. I have this vague suspicion that most of the whining about "muh liquor stores are open but churches aren't" is coming from people who like the idea of church but find it too boring to actually go.

    I whine about that on occasion even if I’m not religious. My motivation is I would prefer a country that makes life difficult for alcoholics, not one that enables them. Pot shops still being open is especially upsetting to me. How quickly we went from marijuana being illegal to being essential.

  43. @Twinkie

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes — because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.
     
    You know what’s sad? People in $50,000 SUVs lining up at the food bank. Even when my wife and I were barely making minimum wage when we started out as a couple, she and I saved and had six months of reserves. So many people are so highly in debt living absurdly beyond their means that they can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption (makes one wonder what their plans were if they lost their jobs in ordinary times). What the heck happened to saving for emergencies? That’s your train wreck right there.

    Sure, the government responses to the pandemic have been hardly perfect - far from it, but what’s really multiplying the pain is the utter foolishness and unpreparedness of many ordinary people (which, I grant you, our ruling class has encouraged for decades). The massive economic contraction is also occurring in other countries that managed the crisis well and never implemented a general lockdown (because people are avoiding public gatherings), but the cries of economic woes are muted in them, because people are longer-horizoned and have greater savings to tide them over.


    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.
     
    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives. One of the ill effects of our ideological and political polarization is that too many people immediately see anyone who disagrees with them as a caricature of their enemies, real or imagined.

    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives.

    No, they care about SOME lives… the ones their TV told them to consider. They are only thinking about some archetypal covid19 victim; not ‘what else could possibly happen if we stop the economy‘?

    If their TV didn’t tell them to consider some important subset of victims that will – predictably – result from the shutdowns… fuck ’em – who gives a fuck if they die?

    I’ve seen these fucking morons on Twitter, comparing it to the ‘Trolley Problem’ – but assuming that the ‘alternative track’ is fucking EMPTY (in that it contains no humans, only ‘an economy’).

    Literally this ->

    And of course other fuckwits – Ellen/Oprah-audience level Epsilons – lap it up because they think this ‘Tremendous’ fuckwit is a nuanced thinker.

  44. @Stan d Mute

    confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.
     
    Uh, no. I think your JewGod Sky Fairy is ridiculous and immoral. I also accept and embrace my finality daily.

    Religion just didn’t stick with me. My godly parents tried, but by about age 9-10 they gave up and agreed it was best for all parties if I stayed home while they went to church and prayed for me. Similarly, from a very early age I was confident that I would die by 47. No particular reason, I just didn’t want to get old and 47 sounded good. I’ve survived cancer and a STEMI, and I’ve passed 47, but I’m ready right now to be done with the lot of you and get the fuck out of here.

    Hey, man, I didn’t think you hated us quite that much. /sarc

  45. @Twinkie

    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?
     
    I would think not.

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected
     
    I think the main concern isn’t so much things as people being close to each other. Pews are simply not set up to be distant.

    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don’t think this is true?
     
    Mike DeWine, the governor of Ohio, who took early restrictive measures and probably saved many lives in his state, is a Roman Catholic who opposes abortion and homosexual marriage.

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point. People don’t multitask - especially during a crisis.

    Although the war against the Church is real in my view, it’s not everything and I would urge others of my faith and persuasion to ponder that not everything (and even not everything our enemies do) is about us.

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point.

    That’s a good point.

    I would, however not entirely agree with People don’t multitask, at least if it is amended to people don’t multigoal; certainly in my case and I suspect for most people it is very different to separate the various motives and factors involved in any action. I wouldn’t say, either, that all actions are part of a war on the Church, but inasmuch as all actions have a moral dimension they are part of the war the Church is fighting.

    Here, of course, though, I am no longer talking about the lockdown specifically, since at least in my state the Church took that action well before the State; I am merely saying that certain politicians will rejoice at any harm the Church appears to suffer. (Not that one should necessarily base decisions on whether one’s enemies are happy or not.)

    Sorry for writing two responses. Your comment made me think a little after I read it over again.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Erratum:

    for most people it is very different
     
    "different" -> "difficult"
  46. @Twinkie

    What I am saying is that already there are tens of millions of people in my country without incomes — because of the measures taken. Plus my government has just created Trillions of DEBT dollars out of thin air. (There is your potential $20 loaf of bread.) We are playing with fire.
     
    You know what’s sad? People in $50,000 SUVs lining up at the food bank. Even when my wife and I were barely making minimum wage when we started out as a couple, she and I saved and had six months of reserves. So many people are so highly in debt living absurdly beyond their means that they can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption (makes one wonder what their plans were if they lost their jobs in ordinary times). What the heck happened to saving for emergencies? That’s your train wreck right there.

    Sure, the government responses to the pandemic have been hardly perfect - far from it, but what’s really multiplying the pain is the utter foolishness and unpreparedness of many ordinary people (which, I grant you, our ruling class has encouraged for decades). The massive economic contraction is also occurring in other countries that managed the crisis well and never implemented a general lockdown (because people are avoiding public gatherings), but the cries of economic woes are muted in them, because people are longer-horizoned and have greater savings to tide them over.


    The people who support these measures fit the stereotype of hubris-filled nerds who think they have the answers.
     
    Or maybe they care about, you know, lives. One of the ill effects of our ideological and political polarization is that too many people immediately see anyone who disagrees with them as a caricature of their enemies, real or imagined.

    So many people… can’t survive a few weeks of income interruption… What the heck happened to saving for emergencies?

    I made the same point around here (on Sailer’s blog I think) weeks and weeks ago (months now?) And like you, I have always been a good saver. In fact, part of my work has involved advising people how to save money.

    Would you say, though, that it is okay for government to force good savers to deplete their savings?

    You say weeks, but this has now turned into months. Governments seem unclear about how long exactly this will continue, and the changes in behavior in many places will linger on anyway, hurting the livelihoods of many.

    My barber has had no income during this. I know something about his finances and situation. He runs a good business and has loyal customers. Believe me, I would go to him if our governor allowed me to. I’m sure many or most of his other customers would too, because they are a lot like me. He would not have to spend his savings or retirement money to pay his bills. He has rent for his shop to pay, and all the other bills, plus a wife at home and a house.

    He has a right to those things and to what he has earned. He would not be seeing his financial future shrinking if government had not overreacted and abused its power. There would be even less damage to him and especially to other small business owners if media and public intellectuals had not spread the panic and made this such an overblown story, scaring everybody away.

    People like my barber would have weathered this by indeed using savings, but it would have cost them less. The long-term damage, multiplied across our country and in other countries would have been less.

    I feel more sympathy for the savers and the industrious people than for the fools you described. Many businesses are threatened with failure now, or an increased debt load, because the margins are small. (Debt is often a part of a perfectly good business, and business growth, my friend.)

    Many will, I assume, start over, and many will not. Either way, this should not be happening to them, and it is the fault of our leaders in government, in media, in government-corporate “science,” and in the public intellectual square (even here).

  47. @Corvinus
    I mean, what you propose sounds GREAT on paper. But you never explain how in the world you plan on implementing such grand schemes. Basically, you leave out the details. How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your "arrangement"?

    Seriously, I'm all ears.

    Mmm, this is interesting. You advocate "Sortocracy recognizes all States* have legitimate power to control the presence of individuals on their respective territories. This includes exclusion or exile of anyone for any reason whatsoever."

    Any reason? So, who ultimately makes this decision? How were they put into that position of authority? Is there any recourse the offender can take? What happens if people come to the aid of the offender because they believe there was an injustice? Are those individuals also permanently removed?

    This is also intriguing. You support "If no other State will accept a relocating member, at least one State of Nature must be set aside for such members in which human group selection is suppressed by rules enforcing individual sovereignty, including death penalty and deadly natural duel as nature’s preferred dispute processing of last resort."

    So, in this State of Nature, is it like banishment to a place where people simply fend for themselves? And how in the world did you come up with this idea that "nature prefers" a "deadly duel" between "sovereigns"? In other words, what literature or philosopher, if any, inspired your line of thinking?

    I honestly want to know more of your thought process here.


    Any sovereign may challenge another sovereign to formal combat for any reason. The following are the conditions for such formal combat:

    All combat shall be one sovereign individual against one sovereign Individual.

    A challenger shall give formal public notice three days prior to combat and a formal public declaration of reasons therefore.

    There shall be up to a one year interval from the time one is challenged to formal combat before one may again be engaged as the challenged. This interval may be shorted by the challenged issuing a formal public declaration of its termination. The challenged may not shield others from the end of combat through the end of this interval.

    Subject to the following provisions, the conditions of formal combat shall be established by a majority vote of all sovereigns of the community who assemble after three days public notice. The intent shall be to give challenger and challenged the equal opportunity they would have In Nature — if no human society existed. Terrain of the combat ground shall be varied and extensive enough to permit strategy and to give the physically weak the chance that Nature gives them. Combatants shall have equal weapons and clothing. Weapons shall be a sword or knife with a blade not to exceed 25 cm (approximately 10 inches) plus a 15 meter (approximately 50 feet) length of strong cordage.

    All previous agreements between challenger and challenged are automatically suspended during the period of formal combat. There shall be no rules within the combat ground. Challenged and challenger shall enter combat ground from opposite sides.

    No one but challenger and challenged shall be within the combat ground.

    No one shall attempt to aid, hinder or observe what happens. It Is intended that only one shall return alive from formal combat.

    When two return alive one shall forever be shielded by the other. The relationship must be announced jointly by them before they are permitted to leave the combat ground. Two are not permitted to return alive if one has been permanently disabled or disfigured by his opponent.

    No sovereign who has an unanswered challenge pending may leave the community, refuse combat, or relinquish one’s sovereignty.
     

    How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your “arrangement”?

    That question is a non sequitur.

    See this video I just uploaded.

    A constitution without sovereignty is without force. If you don’t believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won’t find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty. I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the closest thing in US history to an assertion of legitimacy consistent with the Treaty of Westphalia. The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery. Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy’s rejection of prisons.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "That question is a non sequitur."

    Not in the slightest.

    "If you don’t believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won’t find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty."

    The problem here is that you are not offering specific ways to convince Americans that your "upgrade" is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper. How do you plan to ensure it comes to fruition? What is your specific course of action?

    "I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution."

    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.

    "The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery."

    The Civil War was an inevitable conflict between North and South over this and other issues.

    "Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy’s rejection of prisons."

    Are we not all slaves to a system?
  48. Early on I thought the coronavirus was going to be bad, and have supported drastic actions and stringent lockdowns. They seemed sensible and rational to me.

    I am young and slim and healthy and work from home, nor do I really know anyone in the vulnerable category.

    Apparently I am part of a ‘panic’, which is strange because I have never felt even slightly perturbed.

    The use of the word ‘panic’, with its connotations of irrationality and unmanliness, reminds me of the sort of verbal tactics the left uses.

    Now, about those people panicking over the economy (due to their extreme modern materialism) and getting their panties in a bunch: a little lockdown will only kill sick economies with comorbidities anyway. In fact, better a little shake up causes a collapse now than the inevitable more violent collapse if the economy is left to grow further out of control. So it’s a good thing when you think about it. Yes, I am trolling.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I see yer bait and I'm not biting. Nice try, Harold.

    Glad you're in a good situation. So am I.

    -- Nietzschean Superman with Savings, Who Works from Home

    , @Audacious Epigone
    In fact, better a little shake up causes a collapse now than the inevitable more violent collapse if the economy is left to grow further out of control.

    Qualified agreement, though I had a hope we might revolutionize our way out--nuclear fusion, negligible senescence, CRISPR revolution, AI revolution--before the collapse.
  49. @Harold
    Early on I thought the coronavirus was going to be bad, and have supported drastic actions and stringent lockdowns. They seemed sensible and rational to me.

    I am young and slim and healthy and work from home, nor do I really know anyone in the vulnerable category.

    Apparently I am part of a ‘panic’, which is strange because I have never felt even slightly perturbed.

    The use of the word ‘panic’, with its connotations of irrationality and unmanliness, reminds me of the sort of verbal tactics the left uses.

    Now, about those people panicking over the economy (due to their extreme modern materialism) and getting their panties in a bunch: a little lockdown will only kill sick economies with comorbidities anyway. In fact, better a little shake up causes a collapse now than the inevitable more violent collapse if the economy is left to grow further out of control. So it’s a good thing when you think about it. Yes, I am trolling.

    I see yer bait and I’m not biting. Nice try, Harold.

    Glad you’re in a good situation. So am I.

    — Nietzschean Superman with Savings, Who Works from Home

  50. I don’t think the divide between the lockdown enthusiasts and the reopening the economy enthusiasts has anything to do with religion.

    There seem to be several divides on this issue. There’s definitely a divide between autists and non-autists. Autists have spent their whole lives self-isolating. Now they feel vindicated, and they have the chance to impose the autistic lifestyle on everybody.

    There’s a divide between the Secular Puritans and non-Puritans. The Secular Puritans would like all the things they disapprove of permanently banned – restaurants, bars, tourism, cruises, golf, beaches, etc. In other words they would like to see fun outlawed. The only valid reason to ever leave your home is to go to work. Ideally the Secular Puritans would like everybody to be forced to live a much simpler lifestyle, whether they like it or not.

    There’s a also a divide between Science Worshippers and Science Sceptics.

    So there are definitely differences in outlook, but I don’t see religion as being significant. The key differences seem to be between different personality types.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    >Autists have spent their whole lives self-isolating.

    Not always by choice, I can assure you!

    It doesn't matter what your mental chemistry is: unwanted long-term isolation will warp your personality.

    , @Toronto Russian

    There’s a divide between the Secular Puritans and non-Puritans.
     
    To think of it, this correlates with the Czechs (known hedonists among Slavs, who live for their beer, pork and pastries) saying goodbye to lockdown in late April. I wouldn't assume about Belarusian national character, because in their case that was the whim of an absolute ruler and ordinary people on the ground aren't so happy with the crowded hospitals it got them.
  51. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    Although the religious/mortality viewpoint is both tempting and clever, it is not what is really going on.

    The Global Lockdown is a massive worldwide reset mechanism, deliberately engineered, designed to knock over the chessboard and scatter the pieces, forcing the players to either start over or to create new, invented positions on the board --- just as the Second World War was a massive, deliberate reset of the entire global order in its own time. In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck. Just as back in the 40s, the British Empire and a German-centered Continent were both sacrificed to make way for the Yankee Dollar and the Communist steamroller.

    One was expecting a massive all-engulfing war, say a war with Iran that sucked in Russia and China, to do the dirty work, but instead, along came this convenient plague, and TPTB said, Fine, this will do.

    The virus and pandemic are biologically real and are not a hoax or an engineering trick. But the response to the virus is specific and deliberate. Many various responses were available, but the global Perma-Lockdown is the one which was selected, and for very specific reasons.

    In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck.

    That’s one crazy conspiracy theory.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    You have a funny way of spelling "chess problem."

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?

    Questions, questions, questions, flooding into the mind of the concerned young person of today.
  52. @dfordoom
    I don't think the divide between the lockdown enthusiasts and the reopening the economy enthusiasts has anything to do with religion.

    There seem to be several divides on this issue. There's definitely a divide between autists and non-autists. Autists have spent their whole lives self-isolating. Now they feel vindicated, and they have the chance to impose the autistic lifestyle on everybody.

    There's a divide between the Secular Puritans and non-Puritans. The Secular Puritans would like all the things they disapprove of permanently banned - restaurants, bars, tourism, cruises, golf, beaches, etc. In other words they would like to see fun outlawed. The only valid reason to ever leave your home is to go to work. Ideally the Secular Puritans would like everybody to be forced to live a much simpler lifestyle, whether they like it or not.

    There's a also a divide between Science Worshippers and Science Sceptics.

    So there are definitely differences in outlook, but I don't see religion as being significant. The key differences seem to be between different personality types.

    >Autists have spent their whole lives self-isolating.

    Not always by choice, I can assure you!

    It doesn’t matter what your mental chemistry is: unwanted long-term isolation will warp your personality.

  53. @dfordoom

    In terms of the Great Lockdown, the true pro/con dividing line is between the Globo-Shlomo / Zionist / Race Revanchist / Non-White / Anti-White / Death to Whites! factions who are all for the lockdown because they believe it will decisively and permanently re-arrange the pieces on the board in their overwhelming favor; and the hapless Whites who stand to be plundered and fleeced, and to lose everything, in the present reshuffling of the deck.
     
    That's one crazy conspiracy theory.

    You have a funny way of spelling “chess problem.”

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?

    Questions, questions, questions, flooding into the mind of the concerned young person of today.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?
     
    Have you considered the possibility that there's no chess-playing mastermind (or masterminds)? Maybe there's just a bunch of people in government, the bureaucracy, academia, business and the media all just doing foolish things out of incompetence, fear, panic and opportunism?

    Maybe that's just the way history usually works. It's a series of foolish mistakes. When a crisis hits nobody has a plan so they just blunder from disaster to disaster.

    People tend to be disorganised. Has there ever been a disaster in history in which governments have acted swiftly, wisely and efficiently?

    I don't buy grandiose conspiracy theories because I don't think human beings are capable of organising vast interlocking conspiracies. People are too selfish, too chaotic, too driven by emotion, too prone to misjudgments, too unwilling to trust each other, too short-term in their thinking.

    History is more a comedy of errors (or sometimes a tragedy of errors) than a conspiracy.
  54. Jtgw says:

    Would be interested in more analysis of how Covid attitude relates to ideology or political persuasion. And also how these relationships shifted over time. Eg both mainstream left and right downplayed threat to start; panic confined to intellectual fringe. Then somehow it became this tribal thing where Team Red was muh economy and Team Blue muh lives.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Saint Louis
    I'd like to see how attitudes about the lockdown relate to media consumption. I don't watch TV news, but from what I understand, it's wall to wall panic about the virus. I would guess people who watch a lot of that are influenced to be more pro-lockdown.
  55. When choice of fast food, clothing, and automobile make along with many other consumer choices, including choice of media are partisan choices, it was inevitable that the choice of policies concerning this pandemic would become a partisan issue. The issue of trust in institutions and “experts” is likely a pivot point for many.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The issue of trust in institutions and “experts” is likely a pivot point for many.
     
    Yes. The childlike faith in experts displayed by so many people has been quite extraordinary. It's been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.

    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.
  56. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    You have a funny way of spelling "chess problem."

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?

    Questions, questions, questions, flooding into the mind of the concerned young person of today.

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?

    Have you considered the possibility that there’s no chess-playing mastermind (or masterminds)? Maybe there’s just a bunch of people in government, the bureaucracy, academia, business and the media all just doing foolish things out of incompetence, fear, panic and opportunism?

    Maybe that’s just the way history usually works. It’s a series of foolish mistakes. When a crisis hits nobody has a plan so they just blunder from disaster to disaster.

    People tend to be disorganised. Has there ever been a disaster in history in which governments have acted swiftly, wisely and efficiently?

    I don’t buy grandiose conspiracy theories because I don’t think human beings are capable of organising vast interlocking conspiracies. People are too selfish, too chaotic, too driven by emotion, too prone to misjudgments, too unwilling to trust each other, too short-term in their thinking.

    History is more a comedy of errors (or sometimes a tragedy of errors) than a conspiracy.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    This is correct of course. The age has a tendency of its own and the people who are conformed to it look as if they're acting in concert, but the score and the conductor are not of human making.
    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    "Maybe that's just the way history works."

    This is heartening to know. I look forward to never again having to hear about racism, slavery, Jim Crow, the self-styled Holocaust, the organized fire-bombing campaigns of the Second World War, the Red Terror, the French Terror, all the other Terrors, the Irish famine, the Holodomor, or the campaigns of the U.S. Army and Cavalry against the Lakota, the Comanche and the Paiute. Nobody was in charge, it all just sort of happened. What a relief, it was all just the "spirit of the age."

    Quick question: at what time did the U.S. government spend more public money and take on more debt... the Second World War, or the past three months? At least with WWII, you know what you got for your money -- world domination for decades. What are you getting this time around?

    , @Mr. Rational

    Maybe that’s just the way history usually works. It’s a series of foolish mistakes.
     
    Some things are definitely NOT mistakes.  The effort to suppress the chloroquine/amoxicillin/zinc/Vitamin D treatment is no mistake whatsoever.  If we had a way to knock down these infections as soon as symptoms appeared and get people to recover and develop antibodies with negligible mortality or morbidity, we could un-lock and just swat outbreaks while rapidly developing herd immunity.  Given how chloroquine can be made for a few cents a dose (which is what it sells for in the third world) this should have been our go-to solution.

    Instead we have governments banning chloroquine and holding out for expensive new antivirals or a vaccine we don't have yet... a vaccine which would be very profitable for certain people.  No accident whatsoever.  Definitely attempting to profit from the crisis rather than solve it, selling out the public.
  57. @iffen
    When choice of fast food, clothing, and automobile make along with many other consumer choices, including choice of media are partisan choices, it was inevitable that the choice of policies concerning this pandemic would become a partisan issue. The issue of trust in institutions and "experts" is likely a pivot point for many.

    The issue of trust in institutions and “experts” is likely a pivot point for many.

    Yes. The childlike faith in experts displayed by so many people has been quite extraordinary. It’s been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.

    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok

    It’s been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.
     
    Of course, they're just blindly believing the experts. You don't think for yourself and so cannot imagine others doing so.
    , @iffen
    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.


    That's because we know that scientists and their media purveyors, unlike politicians and God, do not have personal agendas, biases, hidden motivations and selfish desires.
  58. @dfordoom

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?
     
    Have you considered the possibility that there's no chess-playing mastermind (or masterminds)? Maybe there's just a bunch of people in government, the bureaucracy, academia, business and the media all just doing foolish things out of incompetence, fear, panic and opportunism?

    Maybe that's just the way history usually works. It's a series of foolish mistakes. When a crisis hits nobody has a plan so they just blunder from disaster to disaster.

    People tend to be disorganised. Has there ever been a disaster in history in which governments have acted swiftly, wisely and efficiently?

    I don't buy grandiose conspiracy theories because I don't think human beings are capable of organising vast interlocking conspiracies. People are too selfish, too chaotic, too driven by emotion, too prone to misjudgments, too unwilling to trust each other, too short-term in their thinking.

    History is more a comedy of errors (or sometimes a tragedy of errors) than a conspiracy.

    This is correct of course. The age has a tendency of its own and the people who are conformed to it look as if they’re acting in concert, but the score and the conductor are not of human making.

  59. @dfordoom

    The issue of trust in institutions and “experts” is likely a pivot point for many.
     
    Yes. The childlike faith in experts displayed by so many people has been quite extraordinary. It's been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.

    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.

    It’s been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.

    Of course, they’re just blindly believing the experts. You don’t think for yourself and so cannot imagine others doing so.

  60. @RSDB

    Even ordinarily anti-Church pols are, I think, too busy trying to deal with the pandemic to be preoccupied with trying to weaken religion at this point.
     
    That's a good point.

    I would, however not entirely agree with People don’t multitask, at least if it is amended to people don't multigoal; certainly in my case and I suspect for most people it is very different to separate the various motives and factors involved in any action. I wouldn't say, either, that all actions are part of a war on the Church, but inasmuch as all actions have a moral dimension they are part of the war the Church is fighting.

    Here, of course, though, I am no longer talking about the lockdown specifically, since at least in my state the Church took that action well before the State; I am merely saying that certain politicians will rejoice at any harm the Church appears to suffer. (Not that one should necessarily base decisions on whether one's enemies are happy or not.)

    Sorry for writing two responses. Your comment made me think a little after I read it over again.

    Erratum:

    for most people it is very different

    “different” -> “difficult”

  61. I see no one mentioned the atheistic Czechia which got rid of the lockdown before many of its neighbors, up to re-opening the national borders on April 24. And in almost 100% religious Sub-Saharan Africa, Tanzania is an island of no lockdown among the countries that have imposed some lockdown (how effective it is there, that’s another question).

  62. @dfordoom
    I don't think the divide between the lockdown enthusiasts and the reopening the economy enthusiasts has anything to do with religion.

    There seem to be several divides on this issue. There's definitely a divide between autists and non-autists. Autists have spent their whole lives self-isolating. Now they feel vindicated, and they have the chance to impose the autistic lifestyle on everybody.

    There's a divide between the Secular Puritans and non-Puritans. The Secular Puritans would like all the things they disapprove of permanently banned - restaurants, bars, tourism, cruises, golf, beaches, etc. In other words they would like to see fun outlawed. The only valid reason to ever leave your home is to go to work. Ideally the Secular Puritans would like everybody to be forced to live a much simpler lifestyle, whether they like it or not.

    There's a also a divide between Science Worshippers and Science Sceptics.

    So there are definitely differences in outlook, but I don't see religion as being significant. The key differences seem to be between different personality types.

    There’s a divide between the Secular Puritans and non-Puritans.

    To think of it, this correlates with the Czechs (known hedonists among Slavs, who live for their beer, pork and pastries) saying goodbye to lockdown in late April. I wouldn’t assume about Belarusian national character, because in their case that was the whim of an absolute ruler and ordinary people on the ground aren’t so happy with the crowded hospitals it got them.

  63. @AaronB
    Religion is definitely a part of it - although it doesn't have to be God and the afterlife. I'm sure genuine Buddhists - who see the world as an illusion and unimportant anyways - are not too bothered.

    However, I quarantined for 5 weeks in a wealthy Jewish suburb in New Jersey where I happened to be at the time - mostly high-end professional types. They were modern orthodox Jews who took their religion very seriously, but at the same time, took the virus very seriously as well, and were aghast at the behavior of the ultra orthodox.

    Personally, I took it as a sign that their religion was not quite up to par.

    For myself, I take the approach of taking reasonable precautions, but not being too bothered. The risk doesn't seem too high, and I try and cultivate acceptance of death. And while I'm not an aggressive covid further, I'm not fully convinced this thing is real, either.

    I kind of admire the attitude of the ultra orthodox Jews - if you want to take risks for your religious practices, I completely respect that. The only thing that would have made their attitude perfect was if they at the same time, they quarantined their community from the larger public - that's only partially the case now - and agreed they would not over burden the medical system but die at home.

    However, Jewish religion places an extremely high value on human life - you are allowed to break all religious laws to save a life, and suspend all practices. So I suspect the attitude of the ultra orthodox was more based on ignorance and isolation, and perhaps distrust or dismissal of the outside world, then anything else. Although I'm sure a greater acceptance of death played into it.

    I do think, however, that modern materialism has led to a pathological preoccupation with safety. Quite before this pandemic, especially in the last 10 years, I have noticed an increasingly hysterical attempt to banish all risk - and adventure - from life.

    I regard this as a perfectly natural development of materialism. So I think our reaction to this is bound to be on some level pathological, however serious it is or isn't.

    I also think the technological mindset that desires total control - which goes together with pathological fear and is another natural development of materialism - is also conditioning our reaction. The attitude that we can control everything and should do so.

    One of the joys of travel to the right third world countries - not the really extreme ones - is the exhilaration of being in an environment that gets the balance between safety and adventure much better than we do. You feel freer there, and you realize people can live well without tightly controlling everything.

    One of the ironies of this is that modern civilization - with its themes of total control and safety - might kill itself precisely by implementing that agenda. Hoisted on its own petard, as they say.

    That would be a fitting end to the drama.

    I have noticed an increasingly hysterical attempt to banish all risk – and adventure – from life.

    Indeed. R.R. Reno at First Things called this materialist notion out as “death’s dominion”. Materialism can’t seem to decide if life has no value or infinite value. As in many things, there is wisdom in moderation. We should call out callous disregard for life where it exists, yet recognize that some things are more important than life. This has to be true for life to have any meaning. Of course, for this we’ll be called “pro-life hypocrites”.

    Growing up in the 80s, the children of the 70s regarded me as utterly coddled. But as a new father I see now the borderline-insane coddling going on around me, to excesses unheard of in the 80s, and I’m trying to figure out how I’m going to navigate around it.

    On a related note, boys apparently don’t get into fights anymore. I haven’t heard a great explanation for this, but it seems to be the supreme victory of the coddlers. On one hand, I got into a lot of fights just standing up for myself against bullies. It was unpleasant, and I’m glad my kids apparently won’t have to do that. On the other, fights were at least a means of airing and settling grievances, and I don’t want my son growing up *afraid* of a fight. This seems to make martial arts or wrestling basically mandatory.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    Schools no longer tolerate self defense and will punish the aggressee as well as the aggressor.
  64. @Nodwink

    Presumably the religious are more accepting of their own mortality, and therefore they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque. By contrast, confronting the atheist with his own mortality—even at a 0.1% dilution—drives him into a semi-panic.
     
    When religious folks are confronted with their own mortality, the lizard brain kicks in pretty quick
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EamBdM2kc9E

    What’s your point with this video? Almost Missouri didn’t say that religious people don’t have an instinct for self-preservation, just that perhaps “they find extravagant measures to stave off mortality to be grotesque.” I would hardly classify running from falling debris to be an extravagant measure.

  65. @Stan d Mute

    Everyone above a certain level of intelligence at some point comes to recognize that the existence of the universe is an incredible and awe-inspiring fact, and that somewhere in the origins of that fact lies an ineffable power and mystery beyond human reckoning or imagination.

    To say, “Yeah, but that’s not God though!” — word games.
     
    I thought to reply to Almost Missouri’s comment but you’ve struck a bit closer. If anything, the Bible thumpers are narcissistic, megalomaniacal, and self-aggrandizing to presume that they know this entity (if it exists) and especially that they “have a personal relationship with” it. How lofty one must be to chat amicably every night with an entity capable of creating the Universe. An atheist or agnostic has the humility to accept that he is less than a grain of sand in the Universal scheme of things. What hubris does it take to believe that one can comprehend the infinite?

    What irks me the most however is that all the thumpers are convinced that Bronze Age Semitic Jews had everything figured out, were in fact blood related to the creator of the Universe, and that my ancestors were retarded barbarians fighting off brown bears and wolves under several feet of snow. And yet these same geniuses complain incessantly about Jews controlling the Narrative and dictating our livelihoods. Hmm. Seems like a “can’t see the forest for the trees” problem.

    That the JewGod thumpers coopted our “pagan” traditions and holidays, made their “New and Improved” “JewGod & Son” brand supersede the qualities of our gods like Dionysus is obvious and undisputed. Nobody thinks Easter is anything but our ancient Spring Festival or Christmas more than our winter equinox festival - they readily concede that they have no idea when JewGod Jr was born nor when/where he died. They just plastered “JewGod & Son” logos over all our pagan billboards and told us it was better this way.

    We may in fact (many of us) need religion for a properly functioning civilization, but I’m certain that we don’t need the Jew’s God or his putative bastard. I’m certain that no Bronze Age Jew had a better understanding of Reality than I do. And given the skepticism around these parts of Jews and their motives and methods, it’s ironic that so many Jew-believers comment here in defense of this Jewish fable.

    “Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron.” – Stan d Mute and obwandiyag.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Wency
    I mean, the guy's got more wisdom and understanding than the entire Bronze Age, you could at least set aside your hubris and recognize it.
  66. @Jtgw
    Would be interested in more analysis of how Covid attitude relates to ideology or political persuasion. And also how these relationships shifted over time. Eg both mainstream left and right downplayed threat to start; panic confined to intellectual fringe. Then somehow it became this tribal thing where Team Red was muh economy and Team Blue muh lives.

    I’d like to see how attitudes about the lockdown relate to media consumption. I don’t watch TV news, but from what I understand, it’s wall to wall panic about the virus. I would guess people who watch a lot of that are influenced to be more pro-lockdown.

  67. I think the secular right is a lot smarter than the religious right. Tbh, the openers are mostly irresponsible, selfish and stupid. I don’t think I have much in common with people who think an epidemic should freely spread, can’t be bothered to think of others and believe old/sick people don’t really count.

    I would say I’d like some of them to get sick, but that’d make me as morally degenerate as them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    Tbh, the openers are mostly irresponsible, selfish and stupid.
     
    What do you think of the Cuomo government, which forces nursing homes to take back residents who have active NVcorona infections?

    I'm an "opener" now, but we should have already developed the capability to do millions of both viral RNA and antibody tests per day and have massive amounts of cheap prophylaxis like hydroxychloroquine, zinc and Vit. D on hand.  The staff in places like nursing homes should be taking the prophylaxis, and anyplace an infection appears should have all residents treated with the same (unless otherwise contraindicated).  The idea should be to spread immunity with minimal loss of life and little money spent, while letting people get on with their lives.
  68. @dfordoom

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?
     
    Have you considered the possibility that there's no chess-playing mastermind (or masterminds)? Maybe there's just a bunch of people in government, the bureaucracy, academia, business and the media all just doing foolish things out of incompetence, fear, panic and opportunism?

    Maybe that's just the way history usually works. It's a series of foolish mistakes. When a crisis hits nobody has a plan so they just blunder from disaster to disaster.

    People tend to be disorganised. Has there ever been a disaster in history in which governments have acted swiftly, wisely and efficiently?

    I don't buy grandiose conspiracy theories because I don't think human beings are capable of organising vast interlocking conspiracies. People are too selfish, too chaotic, too driven by emotion, too prone to misjudgments, too unwilling to trust each other, too short-term in their thinking.

    History is more a comedy of errors (or sometimes a tragedy of errors) than a conspiracy.

    “Maybe that’s just the way history works.”

    This is heartening to know. I look forward to never again having to hear about racism, slavery, Jim Crow, the self-styled Holocaust, the organized fire-bombing campaigns of the Second World War, the Red Terror, the French Terror, all the other Terrors, the Irish famine, the Holodomor, or the campaigns of the U.S. Army and Cavalry against the Lakota, the Comanche and the Paiute. Nobody was in charge, it all just sort of happened. What a relief, it was all just the “spirit of the age.”

    Quick question: at what time did the U.S. government spend more public money and take on more debt… the Second World War, or the past three months? At least with WWII, you know what you got for your money — world domination for decades. What are you getting this time around?

  69. @Wency

    I have noticed an increasingly hysterical attempt to banish all risk – and adventure – from life.
     
    Indeed. R.R. Reno at First Things called this materialist notion out as "death's dominion". Materialism can't seem to decide if life has no value or infinite value. As in many things, there is wisdom in moderation. We should call out callous disregard for life where it exists, yet recognize that some things are more important than life. This has to be true for life to have any meaning. Of course, for this we'll be called "pro-life hypocrites".

    Growing up in the 80s, the children of the 70s regarded me as utterly coddled. But as a new father I see now the borderline-insane coddling going on around me, to excesses unheard of in the 80s, and I'm trying to figure out how I'm going to navigate around it.

    On a related note, boys apparently don't get into fights anymore. I haven't heard a great explanation for this, but it seems to be the supreme victory of the coddlers. On one hand, I got into a lot of fights just standing up for myself against bullies. It was unpleasant, and I'm glad my kids apparently won't have to do that. On the other, fights were at least a means of airing and settling grievances, and I don't want my son growing up *afraid* of a fight. This seems to make martial arts or wrestling basically mandatory.

    Schools no longer tolerate self defense and will punish the aggressee as well as the aggressor.

    • Agree: iffen
  70. @Anonymous
    I thought we were over all this religious stuff given 2016. I always smirk whenever some conservative Christian leader is asked if they think Trump is a Bible-believing Christian and responds with "well, only Christ knows what it's a man's heart" or some other kind of non-answer answer. Yet you still have people saying "oh, you have to be Christian or else you support all this globohomo crap." And this is coming from people who are big fans of Trump! Do they not see the irony there?

    On second thought, there is a twisted logic to it. When Trump was running on immigration restriction, he had groups like VDARE actually asking him to get stuff done and getting mad at him when he didn't get stuff done. With Christianity, no policy changes are required. Just call yourself a Christian and cling to that Bible.

    I think Trump’s appeal to the Religious Right was not his own religiosity (he obviously is not religious) but his lack of the hatred for conservative Christians that abounds on the Left.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Wency
    I can't recall who first made this point, but year after year it rings true to me:

    People will vote for someone they hate. They will *not* vote for someone whom they perceive to hate *them*.
  71. @Dutch Boy
    I think Trump's appeal to the Religious Right was not his own religiosity (he obviously is not religious) but his lack of the hatred for conservative Christians that abounds on the Left.

    I can’t recall who first made this point, but year after year it rings true to me:

    People will vote for someone they hate. They will *not* vote for someone whom they perceive to hate *them*.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  72. @Saint Louis
    "Everyone who disagrees with me is a moron." - Stan d Mute and obwandiyag.

    I mean, the guy’s got more wisdom and understanding than the entire Bronze Age, you could at least set aside your hubris and recognize it.

  73. @obwandiyag
    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he's-smart-but-isn't response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having "opinions" because you are so stupid.

    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he’s-smart-but-isn’t response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having “opinions” because you are so stupid.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Yes, I am, you fucking stinking liar. You are the one who is incapable of intelligent thought.
  74. @dfordoom

    In the game of Lockdown that is being played right now, who, in your opinion, has the better overall position? Who controls the center? Who controls the flanks? Who has the better pawn structure? Who is gaining tempo? Who is up, or down, in material? Who is attacking, who is defending?
     
    Have you considered the possibility that there's no chess-playing mastermind (or masterminds)? Maybe there's just a bunch of people in government, the bureaucracy, academia, business and the media all just doing foolish things out of incompetence, fear, panic and opportunism?

    Maybe that's just the way history usually works. It's a series of foolish mistakes. When a crisis hits nobody has a plan so they just blunder from disaster to disaster.

    People tend to be disorganised. Has there ever been a disaster in history in which governments have acted swiftly, wisely and efficiently?

    I don't buy grandiose conspiracy theories because I don't think human beings are capable of organising vast interlocking conspiracies. People are too selfish, too chaotic, too driven by emotion, too prone to misjudgments, too unwilling to trust each other, too short-term in their thinking.

    History is more a comedy of errors (or sometimes a tragedy of errors) than a conspiracy.

    Maybe that’s just the way history usually works. It’s a series of foolish mistakes.

    Some things are definitely NOT mistakes.  The effort to suppress the chloroquine/amoxicillin/zinc/Vitamin D treatment is no mistake whatsoever.  If we had a way to knock down these infections as soon as symptoms appeared and get people to recover and develop antibodies with negligible mortality or morbidity, we could un-lock and just swat outbreaks while rapidly developing herd immunity.  Given how chloroquine can be made for a few cents a dose (which is what it sells for in the third world) this should have been our go-to solution.

    Instead we have governments banning chloroquine and holding out for expensive new antivirals or a vaccine we don’t have yet… a vaccine which would be very profitable for certain people.  No accident whatsoever.  Definitely attempting to profit from the crisis rather than solve it, selling out the public.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Instead we have governments banning chloroquine..."

    It's not the panacea as people make it out to be.

    https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavirus-medicine-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid19-treatment/
  75. @Maciano
    I think the secular right is a lot smarter than the religious right. Tbh, the openers are mostly irresponsible, selfish and stupid. I don't think I have much in common with people who think an epidemic should freely spread, can't be bothered to think of others and believe old/sick people don't really count.

    I would say I'd like some of them to get sick, but that'd make me as morally degenerate as them.

    Tbh, the openers are mostly irresponsible, selfish and stupid.

    What do you think of the Cuomo government, which forces nursing homes to take back residents who have active NVcorona infections?

    I’m an “opener” now, but we should have already developed the capability to do millions of both viral RNA and antibody tests per day and have massive amounts of cheap prophylaxis like hydroxychloroquine, zinc and Vit. D on hand.  The staff in places like nursing homes should be taking the prophylaxis, and anyplace an infection appears should have all residents treated with the same (unless otherwise contraindicated).  The idea should be to spread immunity with minimal loss of life and little money spent, while letting people get on with their lives.

  76. @James Bowery

    How do you convince literally hundreds of millions of Americans that they should abandon constitutional government principles and immediately endear themselves to your “arrangement”?
     
    That question is a non sequitur.

    See this video I just uploaded.

    A constitution without sovereignty is without force. If you don't believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won't find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty. I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia's notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is the closest thing in US history to an assertion of legitimacy consistent with the Treaty of Westphalia. The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery. Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy's rejection of prisons.

    “That question is a non sequitur.”

    Not in the slightest.

    “If you don’t believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won’t find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty.”

    The problem here is that you are not offering specific ways to convince Americans that your “upgrade” is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper. How do you plan to ensure it comes to fruition? What is your specific course of action?

    “I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution.”

    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.

    “The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery.”

    The Civil War was an inevitable conflict between North and South over this and other issues.

    “Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy’s rejection of prisons.”

    Are we not all slaves to a system?

    • Replies: @James Bowery


    “I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution.”
     
    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.
     
    This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me.

    If you would like to address me here's a more pertinent question:

    How do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable?
     
    In a treaty after at least 1 in 5 Americans have been killed in the modern equivalent of a Thirty Years War over religious liberty -- in the worst case -- as happened with the Treaty of Westphalia.

    There are better cases, of course.
  77. @Mr. Rational

    Maybe that’s just the way history usually works. It’s a series of foolish mistakes.
     
    Some things are definitely NOT mistakes.  The effort to suppress the chloroquine/amoxicillin/zinc/Vitamin D treatment is no mistake whatsoever.  If we had a way to knock down these infections as soon as symptoms appeared and get people to recover and develop antibodies with negligible mortality or morbidity, we could un-lock and just swat outbreaks while rapidly developing herd immunity.  Given how chloroquine can be made for a few cents a dose (which is what it sells for in the third world) this should have been our go-to solution.

    Instead we have governments banning chloroquine and holding out for expensive new antivirals or a vaccine we don't have yet... a vaccine which would be very profitable for certain people.  No accident whatsoever.  Definitely attempting to profit from the crisis rather than solve it, selling out the public.

    “Instead we have governments banning chloroquine…”

    It’s not the panacea as people make it out to be.

    https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavirus-medicine-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-as-covid19-treatment/

  78. @dfordoom

    The issue of trust in institutions and “experts” is likely a pivot point for many.
     
    Yes. The childlike faith in experts displayed by so many people has been quite extraordinary. It's been particularly amusing to see so many people on the far Right believing the parade of experts trotted out by the media.

    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.

    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.

    That’s because we know that scientists and their media purveyors, unlike politicians and God, do not have personal agendas, biases, hidden motivations and selfish desires.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    In my case, it's because I can examine the facts behind the judgements of scientists and understand why they came to their conclusion and whether or not it is justified.  I have no such ability to examine the basis of a religious authority who declares "because $deity says so".

    This was basic to my rejection of religion.  Things like the Great Flood are objectively insane to believe.  Extreme amounts of water, greater than the total volume of the oceans, would have to be brought to the surface and then taken elsewhere again in a matter of a few weeks.  Pretty much all land plants would have been rendered extinct, not to mention land animals from elephants down to nematodes.  There would have been an extreme genetic bottleneck for every remaining species other than aquatic ones.

    The world has way too much diversity of life for anything like the Great Flood to have happened during the existence of Homo sapiens sapiens.  It would require evolution at an absolutely blistering pace to re-create so much genetic diversity in just a few thousand (or even million) years.  Ironically, it's the believers who have to believe in evolution... except they aren't bright enough to see the contradictions in their own theology, or handwave it all away with "it's a miracle".

    The biology required by the Bible bears no resemblance to what we actually see.  Neither does the cosmology.  And if the people allegedly passing on the words of the creator of the universe got such basics so badly wrong, how can I take them as authoritative on anything else?  How do I know they didn't get all of that messed up too?

  79. @fish
    What kind of an asshole bullshit thinks-he’s-smart-but-isn’t response is that. You unbelievable clod. You are incapable of having “opinions” because you are so stupid.

    Yes, I am, you fucking stinking liar. You are the one who is incapable of intelligent thought.

  80. RSDB says:
    @Dutch Boy
    My own opinion is that churches should have remained open with proper precautions (masks, gel, etc.). If super markets, liquor stores and pot shops can operate, so should churches.

    I tend to agree, but it’s wise to remember that when the bishops made the decision they did we knew a great deal less about the risks than we do now (this was way back when, for instance, official guidance was for healthy people not to wear a mask) and their decision may well have saved lives, given, for instance, that the most elderly-skewed parishes also tend to be the most huggy.

    Twinkie also has a good point that pews are often set somewhat close together for comfort. However, this is a problem that can be solved, whether by removing some pews, blocking off some pews or sections, or some other method.

  81. @iffen
    The one faith that people are reluctant to give up is the faith in Science as a substitute for God.


    That's because we know that scientists and their media purveyors, unlike politicians and God, do not have personal agendas, biases, hidden motivations and selfish desires.

    In my case, it’s because I can examine the facts behind the judgements of scientists and understand why they came to their conclusion and whether or not it is justified.  I have no such ability to examine the basis of a religious authority who declares “because $deity says so”.

    This was basic to my rejection of religion.  Things like the Great Flood are objectively insane to believe.  Extreme amounts of water, greater than the total volume of the oceans, would have to be brought to the surface and then taken elsewhere again in a matter of a few weeks.  Pretty much all land plants would have been rendered extinct, not to mention land animals from elephants down to nematodes.  There would have been an extreme genetic bottleneck for every remaining species other than aquatic ones.

    The world has way too much diversity of life for anything like the Great Flood to have happened during the existence of Homo sapiens sapiens.  It would require evolution at an absolutely blistering pace to re-create so much genetic diversity in just a few thousand (or even million) years.  Ironically, it’s the believers who have to believe in evolution… except they aren’t bright enough to see the contradictions in their own theology, or handwave it all away with “it’s a miracle”.

    The biology required by the Bible bears no resemblance to what we actually see.  Neither does the cosmology.  And if the people allegedly passing on the words of the creator of the universe got such basics so badly wrong, how can I take them as authoritative on anything else?  How do I know they didn’t get all of that messed up too?

    • Replies: @iffen
    This was basic to my rejection of religion.

    The fact that some ancient chronicler recorded the legend of a thousand year flood on the plains of Babylon does not have anything to do with whether God, a god, or gods exist. If you were as handy with "facts" as you claim, you could see that a legend cannot impact the existence of God.
  82. @The Alarmist
    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    The main point is that if one does not believe in a diety and his or her purpose for the circle of life, one grasps desperately to cheat certain death. I've had a few near-death experiences where things seemed to go into slow motion, and a slightly amused voice in my head said, "So this is how I die." I've somehow managed to cheat death ... so far ... but I'm kind of amazed at how calmly I was prepared to meet my maker. I'm not a particularly religious type, but I accept that my time on Earth is limited and subject to the caprice of nature.

    We'll get past COVID-19 ... models say that there is only a 2.7% probability that the asteroid Apophis will hit Earth in 2029.

    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    What are Elon Musk’s politics?

    • Replies: @Wency
    I don't think Musk is all that political. He's basically a modernist. He's not religious, doesn't really seem to care about cultural, social, or civilizational issues. He thinks the most important work of our time (other than making sure Elon Musk is taken care of) is man's destiny in the stars and the survival of the species.
  83. @Corvinus
    "That question is a non sequitur."

    Not in the slightest.

    "If you don’t believe the egregious violations of rule of law are leading us to imminent war, then you won’t find much common ground with those of us wrestling with notions of sovereignty."

    The problem here is that you are not offering specific ways to convince Americans that your "upgrade" is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper. How do you plan to ensure it comes to fruition? What is your specific course of action?

    "I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution."

    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.

    "The US War Between the States was poisoned by the issue of slavery."

    The Civil War was an inevitable conflict between North and South over this and other issues.

    "Slavery is rendered illegitimate by Sortocracy’s rejection of prisons."

    Are we not all slaves to a system?

    “I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution.”

    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.

    This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me.

    If you would like to address me here’s a more pertinent question:

    How do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable?

    In a treaty after at least 1 in 5 Americans have been killed in the modern equivalent of a Thirty Years War over religious liberty — in the worst case — as happened with the Treaty of Westphalia.

    There are better cases, of course.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me."

    No, I am addressing YOU, considering what you are proposing has decided constitutional implications on modern Americans.

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper...

  84. @AaronB
    Btw, why are my comments now being held up in moderation and soft censored? They never used to before, this is new.

    Is that you AE, or is that our fearless leader Ron trying to suppress my free speech even as he rails against facebook banning him lol :)

    It is not me but I don’t think it’s Ron, either, at least not intentionally. More comments have been getting caught in the filter lately.

  85. @James Bowery


    “I want to upgrade the Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty. Doolittle wants to upgrade The United States Constitution.”
     
    I would imagine that a great deal of Americans also want to raise the Constitution to a higher standard. How do you persuade them to think otherwise? That is where it starts.
     
    This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me.

    If you would like to address me here's a more pertinent question:

    How do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable?
     
    In a treaty after at least 1 in 5 Americans have been killed in the modern equivalent of a Thirty Years War over religious liberty -- in the worst case -- as happened with the Treaty of Westphalia.

    There are better cases, of course.

    “This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me.”

    No, I am addressing YOU, considering what you are proposing has decided constitutional implications on modern Americans.

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper…

    • Replies: @James Bowery

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper…
     
    Now we're talkin'...

    The conditions under which a conflict like the Thirty Years War for religious freedom come to an end do not involve anything remotely like the universal franchise presumed in peacetime. It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty.

    One must not fool one's self about the word "religious" here. We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution -- and it is more oppressive in that it is hell-bent on parasitically castrating men, white men in particular -- not just its own Galli. Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities.

    So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as "populism", there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted. This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power, a simple and obviously "GREAT" (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war.

  86. @RSDB
    Is the Mass really much more likely to be a disease vector than any other place where people gather?

    The only thing I could see being an issue is the Holy Eucharist, which could, perhaps, be not given to the public at Mass but carried later to those at home as it has been carried for centuries to those in hospital. There are probably other solutions; though I personally haven't given this much thought there are probably other people who have.

    Even if Mass normally would be an issue, there are various means for making it less of an issue; Mass outside, for instance, like below but with distance:

    http://licatholic.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NH-1045831.jpg

    Or pews could be regularly disinfected, or removed and the floor regularly disinfected, or some other set of protocols drawn up by someone who, unlike me, actually knows what he is talking about in this regard.

    Our irreligious politicians are trying to use the pandemic to weaken the Church
     
    Irrespective of whether the policies they advise are good or bad, you don't think this is true? Personally I wonder if you could replace "pandemic" in that sentence with any other issue and still have a correct statement.

    The Sacred Host is the Body of God – you won’t get sick from it
     
    I'm curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.

    I’m curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.

    There is historical experience. Russian deacon and writer Andrey Kuraev said in an interview concerning mass infections of priests and nuns:

    When in early March the “chrysostoms” chatted about communion being by definition safe and in itself is a cure for all illnesses, I cited as an example an excerpt from Pidalion, a collection of church rules of the late 18th century. Its author, Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, gave specific instructions on how to receive Communion of infectious patients: it turns out that they need to leave holy gifts in a separate vessel, they themselves should be communed at home, then they can wash the vessel and spoon in vinegar. This is concrete evidence that two centuries ago the church recognized the possibility of contagion through communion. And the Patriarchy remembered about this text three weeks later…

    You say you can’t get infected through the sacrament? Well, people were even murdered via communion! The wine cup was poisoned, and that was it. And not only among Catholics, but also in our Orthodox world. In 985, Archbishop Hilarion brought such poison to Georgian King David. On Easter, by the way. And in 1451, Prince Mikhail Sigismundovich was poisoned in Moscow.
    https://www.mk.ru/social/2020/04/28/andrey-kuraev-rezko-vyskazalsya-o-zarazhenii-svyashhennikov-koronavirusom.html

    By the way, a Croatian cardinal released the special guidelines for sacraments in reopened churches yesterday, as his country is out of lockdown and even letting in cross-border travelers (not ones with tourist visas though). It’s on news site dnevnik.hr and probably translated somewhere.

    • Replies: @RSDB
    Thanks, very interesting.

    I wasn't thinking so much of instances of miraculous intervention as of the general risk of infectious disease in normal practice, an issue as I mentioned of great relevance to the ~18% Catholic/Orthodox population.

    There is actually research available on the risk of infectious disease from the use of a common cup for Communion, but not much as far as I can tell on other, more common, methods.

    And not only among Catholics, but also in our Orthodox world
     
    Incidentally, this specific method would historically have been difficult to use to poison Catholics, as for a very long period of time the Precious Blood in the form of wine was not given to the laity.
  87. RSDB says:
    @Toronto Russian

    I’m curious as to what research has actually been done on this in other connections. It would seem to be a topic of great importance to epidemiology given that about 15% of the world population is Catholic and another 3% is Orthodox.
     
    There is historical experience. Russian deacon and writer Andrey Kuraev said in an interview concerning mass infections of priests and nuns:

    When in early March the "chrysostoms" chatted about communion being by definition safe and in itself is a cure for all illnesses, I cited as an example an excerpt from Pidalion, a collection of church rules of the late 18th century. Its author, Saint Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, gave specific instructions on how to receive Communion of infectious patients: it turns out that they need to leave holy gifts in a separate vessel, they themselves should be communed at home, then they can wash the vessel and spoon in vinegar. This is concrete evidence that two centuries ago the church recognized the possibility of contagion through communion. And the Patriarchy remembered about this text three weeks later...

    You say you can't get infected through the sacrament? Well, people were even murdered via communion! The wine cup was poisoned, and that was it. And not only among Catholics, but also in our Orthodox world. In 985, Archbishop Hilarion brought such poison to Georgian King David. On Easter, by the way. And in 1451, Prince Mikhail Sigismundovich was poisoned in Moscow.
    https://www.mk.ru/social/2020/04/28/andrey-kuraev-rezko-vyskazalsya-o-zarazhenii-svyashhennikov-koronavirusom.html
     
    By the way, a Croatian cardinal released the special guidelines for sacraments in reopened churches yesterday, as his country is out of lockdown and even letting in cross-border travelers (not ones with tourist visas though). It's on news site dnevnik.hr and probably translated somewhere.

    Thanks, very interesting.

    I wasn’t thinking so much of instances of miraculous intervention as of the general risk of infectious disease in normal practice, an issue as I mentioned of great relevance to the ~18% Catholic/Orthodox population.

    There is actually research available on the risk of infectious disease from the use of a common cup for Communion, but not much as far as I can tell on other, more common, methods.

    And not only among Catholics, but also in our Orthodox world

    Incidentally, this specific method would historically have been difficult to use to poison Catholics, as for a very long period of time the Precious Blood in the form of wine was not given to the laity.

  88. @Mr. Rational
    In my case, it's because I can examine the facts behind the judgements of scientists and understand why they came to their conclusion and whether or not it is justified.  I have no such ability to examine the basis of a religious authority who declares "because $deity says so".

    This was basic to my rejection of religion.  Things like the Great Flood are objectively insane to believe.  Extreme amounts of water, greater than the total volume of the oceans, would have to be brought to the surface and then taken elsewhere again in a matter of a few weeks.  Pretty much all land plants would have been rendered extinct, not to mention land animals from elephants down to nematodes.  There would have been an extreme genetic bottleneck for every remaining species other than aquatic ones.

    The world has way too much diversity of life for anything like the Great Flood to have happened during the existence of Homo sapiens sapiens.  It would require evolution at an absolutely blistering pace to re-create so much genetic diversity in just a few thousand (or even million) years.  Ironically, it's the believers who have to believe in evolution... except they aren't bright enough to see the contradictions in their own theology, or handwave it all away with "it's a miracle".

    The biology required by the Bible bears no resemblance to what we actually see.  Neither does the cosmology.  And if the people allegedly passing on the words of the creator of the universe got such basics so badly wrong, how can I take them as authoritative on anything else?  How do I know they didn't get all of that messed up too?

    This was basic to my rejection of religion.

    The fact that some ancient chronicler recorded the legend of a thousand year flood on the plains of Babylon does not have anything to do with whether God, a god, or gods exist. If you were as handy with “facts” as you claim, you could see that a legend cannot impact the existence of God.

    • Replies: @Wency
    Indeed, what strikes me as "literally insane", in Mr. Rational's words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man's purpose and how life ought to be lived. The Bible is a series of meditations, illustrations, and teachings on these most important things -- you can believe it true or false, but you can't just flippantly dismiss it, its central claims, or its subject matter by going after its noncentral claims.

    It's not, however, insane to believe the Flood literally happened, or that it didn't happen. The literal facts of the story itself don't even matter; all that is important is the inferences that it leads you to on things that actually do matter. In this case, Mr. Rational spectacularly failed at the inference part (again, this would be objectively and obviously true whether the Bible was true or false), so it's of no service to him if he knows everything there is to know about water.
  89. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    Of course, the logic could just as easily be flipped: religious people, believing in the immeasurable value of human life at all stages, might support the lockdown, while atheist utilitarians might see the ill effect on the "economy" and quality of life and want to re-open, a few worthless boomers be dammed. In the early stages of the virus, left-wing "rationalist" types were among the most dismissive.

    I do agree that allowing restaurants and bars to re-open while church services are still limited will rub a lot of believers, including myself, the wrong way. But that's due to a specific government policy, not any deep-seated psychological effect.

    When some kind of speculative causation is just as easily argued from both sides, I tend to be very skeptical.

    a few worthless boomers be dammed.

    Hey! Hey! Hey!

    Well, okay.

  90. @Audacious Epigone
    Are there any re-openers on the Left? It almost seems universal that they want to milk this crisis for all it is worth.

    What are Elon Musk's politics?

    I don’t think Musk is all that political. He’s basically a modernist. He’s not religious, doesn’t really seem to care about cultural, social, or civilizational issues. He thinks the most important work of our time (other than making sure Elon Musk is taken care of) is man’s destiny in the stars and the survival of the species.

  91. @iffen
    This was basic to my rejection of religion.

    The fact that some ancient chronicler recorded the legend of a thousand year flood on the plains of Babylon does not have anything to do with whether God, a god, or gods exist. If you were as handy with "facts" as you claim, you could see that a legend cannot impact the existence of God.

    Indeed, what strikes me as “literally insane”, in Mr. Rational’s words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man’s purpose and how life ought to be lived. The Bible is a series of meditations, illustrations, and teachings on these most important things — you can believe it true or false, but you can’t just flippantly dismiss it, its central claims, or its subject matter by going after its noncentral claims.

    It’s not, however, insane to believe the Flood literally happened, or that it didn’t happen. The literal facts of the story itself don’t even matter; all that is important is the inferences that it leads you to on things that actually do matter. In this case, Mr. Rational spectacularly failed at the inference part (again, this would be objectively and obviously true whether the Bible was true or false), so it’s of no service to him if he knows everything there is to know about water.

    • Replies: @iffen
    without giving serious thought to man’s purpose

    First you have to show that we have a purpose, then you can work on what it might be.
    , @Mr. Rational

    Indeed, what strikes me as “literally insane”, in Mr. Rational’s words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man’s purpose and how life ought to be lived.
     
    So you're saying "ignorance is strength"?

    If a source is trustworthy, you'll be able to verify its claims.  The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.  How, then, can I trust what it says about anything else?  I'm going to put the lousy thing down and go to other sources.
  92. @Wency
    Indeed, what strikes me as "literally insane", in Mr. Rational's words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man's purpose and how life ought to be lived. The Bible is a series of meditations, illustrations, and teachings on these most important things -- you can believe it true or false, but you can't just flippantly dismiss it, its central claims, or its subject matter by going after its noncentral claims.

    It's not, however, insane to believe the Flood literally happened, or that it didn't happen. The literal facts of the story itself don't even matter; all that is important is the inferences that it leads you to on things that actually do matter. In this case, Mr. Rational spectacularly failed at the inference part (again, this would be objectively and obviously true whether the Bible was true or false), so it's of no service to him if he knows everything there is to know about water.

    without giving serious thought to man’s purpose

    First you have to show that we have a purpose, then you can work on what it might be.

  93. @Corvinus
    "This is why I said your question was a non sequitur: You are addressing Doolittle, not me."

    No, I am addressing YOU, considering what you are proposing has decided constitutional implications on modern Americans.

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper...

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper…

    Now we’re talkin’…

    The conditions under which a conflict like the Thirty Years War for religious freedom come to an end do not involve anything remotely like the universal franchise presumed in peacetime. It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty.

    One must not fool one’s self about the word “religious” here. We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution — and it is more oppressive in that it is hell-bent on parasitically castrating men, white men in particular — not just its own Galli. Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities.

    So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as “populism”, there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted. This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power, a simple and obviously “GREAT” (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty."

    No, you must convince John Q. Public and his family. I was afraid you would only discuss matters in philosophical terms, rather than real-world application. So do you have or do you not have a specific course of action to convince the "grunts on the ground"? You do realize THEY are decidedly the linchpin, correct? Perhaps a primer is in order, with pictures. Propaganda works wonders.

    "One must not fool one’s self about the word “religious” here."

    More like you are fooling yourself.

    "We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution..."

    You're going to have to explain yourself here, as on the surface, you're offering a false premise.

    "Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities."

    Not quasi, but substantial, robust differences.

    "So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as “populism”..."

    Perhaps it is YOU that is mischaracterizing this phenomenon?

    "there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted."

    And what exactly is this "good reason"?

    "This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power..."

    Who are these men? What are their motivations? Who are these centers of power that should be "killed"?

    "a simple and obviously “GREAT” (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war."

    I employed the term "GREAT" because Ivory Tower principles that you tout generally do not round out to form. You are engaging in an intellectual exercise here. Wonderful. However, you are lacking in practicality and realism. Thus, without a specific plan of persuasion, this "Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty" falls upon deaf ears. You are not getting any younger, so are there any Nick Feuntes-esque characters that will take up your allegedly worthy cause?
  94. @Wency
    Indeed, what strikes me as "literally insane", in Mr. Rational's words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man's purpose and how life ought to be lived. The Bible is a series of meditations, illustrations, and teachings on these most important things -- you can believe it true or false, but you can't just flippantly dismiss it, its central claims, or its subject matter by going after its noncentral claims.

    It's not, however, insane to believe the Flood literally happened, or that it didn't happen. The literal facts of the story itself don't even matter; all that is important is the inferences that it leads you to on things that actually do matter. In this case, Mr. Rational spectacularly failed at the inference part (again, this would be objectively and obviously true whether the Bible was true or false), so it's of no service to him if he knows everything there is to know about water.

    Indeed, what strikes me as “literally insane”, in Mr. Rational’s words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man’s purpose and how life ought to be lived.

    So you’re saying “ignorance is strength”?

    If a source is trustworthy, you’ll be able to verify its claims.  The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.  How, then, can I trust what it says about anything else?  I’m going to put the lousy thing down and go to other sources.

    • Replies: @Wency
    My point is not that ignorance is strength, but that the precise details of the Earth's geologic history are trivia. Like knowing the names of the actresses in Sex and the City. Nothing wrong with knowing them, but they're really not important. Not to day-to-day life, let alone to true understanding and wisdom.

    The author of the primeval history really doesn't seem to have thought these details were important, as he seems to be intentionally offering two different accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, to illustrate that this is a mythic history, wrapped in legend and not fully understood. This is in contrast to the Gospels, which use literary devices to indicate that they are meant to be taken as eyewitness-supported biographical accounts.

    So you can't use noncentral claims in the primeval history to dismiss the points it's actually making, let alone use them to dismiss the rest of Scripture -- barely referencing it, and disconnected from it by author, genre, and centuries -- any more than I can use any errors you make in Biblical exegesis to dismiss your claims about science.
    , @Saint Louis

    The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.
     
    No. They're not "claims" at all in the sense you're using that term. The OT is not a science book. I don't judge scientific papers on their poetic beauty, or lack thereof. You find the OT wanting because you're judging it by the wrong standard.
  95. 1. The really important questions in life cannot be answered empirically (i.e., via the Scientific Method.)

    2. There are several systems that exist to offer people “answers” to those questions.

    3. People who prefer different systems for those answers should NOT attempt to live together geographically and under the same political regime.

    Christianity offers (offered) a specific set of answers. I strongly suspect that interpretation of such systems differs markedly between people whose ancestors spent most of the last 2000 (or 50,000) years under very different environmental and social selection pressures.

    No, Virginia, we cannot all “get along” (so long as we attempt to coexist under the same political framework.) All that happens is that we develop a hierarchy of exploitation. Today’s hierarchy has those of mostly Ashkenazi ancestry exploiting those of mostly European ancestry, and the former instilling a subservient attitude in the latter by creating a black/brown/female/sexual-deviant exploitation layer ABOVE the European-descendant normies.

    Peace will become scarce until we all agree to separate. While this would benefit me and mine (we’re the Productive Class), the Parasite Class will fight it tooth and nail. They are the scorpion who seeks a continuous ride across the river on the back of the frog.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "3. People who prefer different systems for those answers should NOT attempt to live together geographically and under the same political regime."

    Fortunately, that is not your unilateral decision to make.

    "Christianity offers (offered) a specific set of answers."

    You mean organized religion, which includes Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.

    "I strongly suspect that interpretation of such systems differs markedly between people whose ancestors spent most of the last 2000 (or 50,000) years under very different environmental and social selection pressures."

    Maybe not.

    https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Why%20We%20Believe%20-%20Religion%20as%20a%20Human%20Universal.pdf

    "No, Virginia, we cannot all “get along” (so long as we attempt to coexist under the same political framework.)"

    Actually, we have and we can, dc.sunsets.

    "Today’s hierarchy has those of mostly Ashkenazi ancestry exploiting those of mostly European ancestry, and the former instilling a subservient attitude in the latter by creating a black/brown/female/sexual-deviant exploitation layer ABOVE the European-descendant normies."

    You mean people from across different races and ethnicities have exploited one another. It's in our DNA.

    "Peace will become scarce until we all agree to separate."

    But we have agreed to separate, just not in the way you prefer.
  96. @James Bowery

    Regardless, by all means, address how do you persuade Americans that your upgrade to the Treaty of Westphalia is desirable. Again, it sounds GREAT on paper…
     
    Now we're talkin'...

    The conditions under which a conflict like the Thirty Years War for religious freedom come to an end do not involve anything remotely like the universal franchise presumed in peacetime. It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty.

    One must not fool one's self about the word "religious" here. We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution -- and it is more oppressive in that it is hell-bent on parasitically castrating men, white men in particular -- not just its own Galli. Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities.

    So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as "populism", there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted. This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power, a simple and obviously "GREAT" (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war.

    “It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty.”

    No, you must convince John Q. Public and his family. I was afraid you would only discuss matters in philosophical terms, rather than real-world application. So do you have or do you not have a specific course of action to convince the “grunts on the ground”? You do realize THEY are decidedly the linchpin, correct? Perhaps a primer is in order, with pictures. Propaganda works wonders.

    “One must not fool one’s self about the word “religious” here.”

    More like you are fooling yourself.

    “We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution…”

    You’re going to have to explain yourself here, as on the surface, you’re offering a false premise.

    “Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities.”

    Not quasi, but substantial, robust differences.

    “So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as “populism”…”

    Perhaps it is YOU that is mischaracterizing this phenomenon?

    “there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted.”

    And what exactly is this “good reason”?

    “This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power…”

    Who are these men? What are their motivations? Who are these centers of power that should be “killed”?

    “a simple and obviously “GREAT” (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war.”

    I employed the term “GREAT” because Ivory Tower principles that you tout generally do not round out to form. You are engaging in an intellectual exercise here. Wonderful. However, you are lacking in practicality and realism. Thus, without a specific plan of persuasion, this “Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty” falls upon deaf ears. You are not getting any younger, so are there any Nick Feuntes-esque characters that will take up your allegedly worthy cause?

    • Replies: @James Bowery

    More like you are fooling yourself.
     
    Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas "must convince John Q. public and his family" of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality.
  97. @dc.sunsets
    1. The really important questions in life cannot be answered empirically (i.e., via the Scientific Method.)

    2. There are several systems that exist to offer people "answers" to those questions.

    3. People who prefer different systems for those answers should NOT attempt to live together geographically and under the same political regime.

    Christianity offers (offered) a specific set of answers. I strongly suspect that interpretation of such systems differs markedly between people whose ancestors spent most of the last 2000 (or 50,000) years under very different environmental and social selection pressures.

    No, Virginia, we cannot all "get along" (so long as we attempt to coexist under the same political framework.) All that happens is that we develop a hierarchy of exploitation. Today's hierarchy has those of mostly Ashkenazi ancestry exploiting those of mostly European ancestry, and the former instilling a subservient attitude in the latter by creating a black/brown/female/sexual-deviant exploitation layer ABOVE the European-descendant normies.

    Peace will become scarce until we all agree to separate. While this would benefit me and mine (we're the Productive Class), the Parasite Class will fight it tooth and nail. They are the scorpion who seeks a continuous ride across the river on the back of the frog.

    “3. People who prefer different systems for those answers should NOT attempt to live together geographically and under the same political regime.”

    Fortunately, that is not your unilateral decision to make.

    “Christianity offers (offered) a specific set of answers.”

    You mean organized religion, which includes Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism.

    “I strongly suspect that interpretation of such systems differs markedly between people whose ancestors spent most of the last 2000 (or 50,000) years under very different environmental and social selection pressures.”

    Maybe not.

    https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Why%20We%20Believe%20-%20Religion%20as%20a%20Human%20Universal.pdf

    “No, Virginia, we cannot all “get along” (so long as we attempt to coexist under the same political framework.)”

    Actually, we have and we can, dc.sunsets.

    “Today’s hierarchy has those of mostly Ashkenazi ancestry exploiting those of mostly European ancestry, and the former instilling a subservient attitude in the latter by creating a black/brown/female/sexual-deviant exploitation layer ABOVE the European-descendant normies.”

    You mean people from across different races and ethnicities have exploited one another. It’s in our DNA.

    “Peace will become scarce until we all agree to separate.”

    But we have agreed to separate, just not in the way you prefer.

  98. @Corvinus
    "It involves men who are militarily competent deciding to cease dismantling the life support infrastructure of civilization. So you have to convinced them that they have religious freedom in the treaty."

    No, you must convince John Q. Public and his family. I was afraid you would only discuss matters in philosophical terms, rather than real-world application. So do you have or do you not have a specific course of action to convince the "grunts on the ground"? You do realize THEY are decidedly the linchpin, correct? Perhaps a primer is in order, with pictures. Propaganda works wonders.

    "One must not fool one’s self about the word “religious” here."

    More like you are fooling yourself.

    "We live under a theocracy even more supremacist than the Catholic Church during the Gutenberg Revolution..."

    You're going to have to explain yourself here, as on the surface, you're offering a false premise.

    "Moreover, there are bound to be quasi-religious differences among the insurgents in the form of differing beliefs, adopted as quasi-morals, about how social policy affects the viability of their moral communities."

    Not quasi, but substantial, robust differences.

    "So in this new Gutenberg era of the Internet with its consequent protestant eruptions portrayed as “populism”..."

    Perhaps it is YOU that is mischaracterizing this phenomenon?

    "there is good reason to believe that the terms of the peace will be similar to the Treaty of Westphalia that supported assortative migration of believers to different regions within which their respective religions were permitted."

    And what exactly is this "good reason"?

    "This is fertile ground for an improvement in those terms if, among the men most motivated to kill the centers of power..."

    Who are these men? What are their motivations? Who are these centers of power that should be "killed"?

    "a simple and obviously “GREAT” (in your words) improvement to those terms is set forth prior to the outbreak of the fog of war."

    I employed the term "GREAT" because Ivory Tower principles that you tout generally do not round out to form. You are engaging in an intellectual exercise here. Wonderful. However, you are lacking in practicality and realism. Thus, without a specific plan of persuasion, this "Treaty of Westphalia’s notion of legitimate sovereignty" falls upon deaf ears. You are not getting any younger, so are there any Nick Feuntes-esque characters that will take up your allegedly worthy cause?

    More like you are fooling yourself.

    Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas “must convince John Q. public and his family” of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas “must convince John Q. public and his family” of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality."

    Enjoy your strawman?

    You talk "pie in the sky" ideas, with flowery language, and paint a desirable picture. But when it comes to down to execution, you color any which way. The result? A mess on canvas.

    So, I will make this even more elementary for you. You claim to have above average intelligence, so this exercise should be a breeze. Take your brush. Be deliberate and concise in your strokes.

    1. Do you not advocate for "Sortocracy"? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    2. Do you not advocate for the "seven points of agreement between individuals"? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    , @Mr. Rational
    Don't. Feed. The. Troll.
  99. @Mr. Rational

    Indeed, what strikes me as “literally insane”, in Mr. Rational’s words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man’s purpose and how life ought to be lived.
     
    So you're saying "ignorance is strength"?

    If a source is trustworthy, you'll be able to verify its claims.  The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.  How, then, can I trust what it says about anything else?  I'm going to put the lousy thing down and go to other sources.

    My point is not that ignorance is strength, but that the precise details of the Earth’s geologic history are trivia. Like knowing the names of the actresses in Sex and the City. Nothing wrong with knowing them, but they’re really not important. Not to day-to-day life, let alone to true understanding and wisdom.

    The author of the primeval history really doesn’t seem to have thought these details were important, as he seems to be intentionally offering two different accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, to illustrate that this is a mythic history, wrapped in legend and not fully understood. This is in contrast to the Gospels, which use literary devices to indicate that they are meant to be taken as eyewitness-supported biographical accounts.

    So you can’t use noncentral claims in the primeval history to dismiss the points it’s actually making, let alone use them to dismiss the rest of Scripture — barely referencing it, and disconnected from it by author, genre, and centuries — any more than I can use any errors you make in Biblical exegesis to dismiss your claims about science.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    And @St. Louis too.  This is precisely the sort of excuse-making which made me fed up with Christianity.  Is it a cafeteria thing, where you pick and choose what's factual and what's allegorical based on what you're willing to believe?  The supposed word of God?

    Every time I think about taking it seriously again, someone like you comes along and gives me a firm reminder of why I left in the first place.

  100. @James Bowery

    More like you are fooling yourself.
     
    Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas "must convince John Q. public and his family" of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality.

    “Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas “must convince John Q. public and his family” of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality.”

    Enjoy your strawman?

    You talk “pie in the sky” ideas, with flowery language, and paint a desirable picture. But when it comes to down to execution, you color any which way. The result? A mess on canvas.

    So, I will make this even more elementary for you. You claim to have above average intelligence, so this exercise should be a breeze. Take your brush. Be deliberate and concise in your strokes.

    1. Do you not advocate for “Sortocracy”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    2. Do you not advocate for the “seven points of agreement between individuals”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    In the same spirit of "Please help me understand, I really want to understand!", Corvus, tell me how exactly is going to come to pass that with the demographic shift of the voting public to the Democrats, the Federal government is not going to, in the foreseeable future, go after the guns of the white working class men?
  101. @Mr. Rational

    Indeed, what strikes me as “literally insane”, in Mr. Rational’s words, is trying to accumulate knowledge of so many facts about the nature of matter without giving serious thought to man’s purpose and how life ought to be lived.
     
    So you're saying "ignorance is strength"?

    If a source is trustworthy, you'll be able to verify its claims.  The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.  How, then, can I trust what it says about anything else?  I'm going to put the lousy thing down and go to other sources.

    The direct and implied biological, geological and cosmological claims in the Old Testament are unverifiable and often flat wrong.

    No. They’re not “claims” at all in the sense you’re using that term. The OT is not a science book. I don’t judge scientific papers on their poetic beauty, or lack thereof. You find the OT wanting because you’re judging it by the wrong standard.

  102. @Harold
    Early on I thought the coronavirus was going to be bad, and have supported drastic actions and stringent lockdowns. They seemed sensible and rational to me.

    I am young and slim and healthy and work from home, nor do I really know anyone in the vulnerable category.

    Apparently I am part of a ‘panic’, which is strange because I have never felt even slightly perturbed.

    The use of the word ‘panic’, with its connotations of irrationality and unmanliness, reminds me of the sort of verbal tactics the left uses.

    Now, about those people panicking over the economy (due to their extreme modern materialism) and getting their panties in a bunch: a little lockdown will only kill sick economies with comorbidities anyway. In fact, better a little shake up causes a collapse now than the inevitable more violent collapse if the economy is left to grow further out of control. So it’s a good thing when you think about it. Yes, I am trolling.

    In fact, better a little shake up causes a collapse now than the inevitable more violent collapse if the economy is left to grow further out of control.

    Qualified agreement, though I had a hope we might revolutionize our way out–nuclear fusion, negligible senescence, CRISPR revolution, AI revolution–before the collapse.

  103. @Corvinus
    "Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas “must convince John Q. public and his family” of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality."

    Enjoy your strawman?

    You talk "pie in the sky" ideas, with flowery language, and paint a desirable picture. But when it comes to down to execution, you color any which way. The result? A mess on canvas.

    So, I will make this even more elementary for you. You claim to have above average intelligence, so this exercise should be a breeze. Take your brush. Be deliberate and concise in your strokes.

    1. Do you not advocate for "Sortocracy"? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    2. Do you not advocate for the "seven points of agreement between individuals"? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    In the same spirit of “Please help me understand, I really want to understand!”, Corvus, tell me how exactly is going to come to pass that with the demographic shift of the voting public to the Democrats, the Federal government is not going to, in the foreseeable future, go after the guns of the white working class men?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You just splattered paint all over the walls, Jim. I am patently disinterested in your red herring. Focus on the task at hand. If you are unable to offer a cogent response to two direct questions, perhaps it is the time to retire your easel and palette.

    Indeed, I really want to understand, that is the point of my inquiries.
  104. @James Bowery
    In the same spirit of "Please help me understand, I really want to understand!", Corvus, tell me how exactly is going to come to pass that with the demographic shift of the voting public to the Democrats, the Federal government is not going to, in the foreseeable future, go after the guns of the white working class men?

    You just splattered paint all over the walls, Jim. I am patently disinterested in your red herring. Focus on the task at hand. If you are unable to offer a cogent response to two direct questions, perhaps it is the time to retire your easel and palette.

    Indeed, I really want to understand, that is the point of my inquiries.

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    You've denied my premise of a Thirty Years War and I'm merely attempting to have you explain to me why my thinking is in error regarding this premise rather than merely accepting your denial because you say so.

    Please answer my question or admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.

  105. @Corvinus
    You just splattered paint all over the walls, Jim. I am patently disinterested in your red herring. Focus on the task at hand. If you are unable to offer a cogent response to two direct questions, perhaps it is the time to retire your easel and palette.

    Indeed, I really want to understand, that is the point of my inquiries.

    You’ve denied my premise of a Thirty Years War and I’m merely attempting to have you explain to me why my thinking is in error regarding this premise rather than merely accepting your denial because you say so.

    Please answer my question or admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    You dumped your easel on the floor, Jim.

    As I suspected, you remain steadfast in your obstruction. I am NOT falling for your trick. I am dedicated to honest discourse. In order to move our discussion forward, you need to respond directly to my inquiries, which I had stripped down to its barest necessity.

    1. Do you not advocate for “Sortocracy”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    2. Do you not advocate for the “seven points of agreement between individuals”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.
    , @res

    admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.
     
    It's Corvinus. You can take two things for granted.
    1. He is not interested in honest discourse.
    2. He will never admit it.
  106. @James Bowery
    You've denied my premise of a Thirty Years War and I'm merely attempting to have you explain to me why my thinking is in error regarding this premise rather than merely accepting your denial because you say so.

    Please answer my question or admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.

    You dumped your easel on the floor, Jim.

    As I suspected, you remain steadfast in your obstruction. I am NOT falling for your trick. I am dedicated to honest discourse. In order to move our discussion forward, you need to respond directly to my inquiries, which I had stripped down to its barest necessity.

    1. Do you not advocate for “Sortocracy”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

    2. Do you not advocate for the “seven points of agreement between individuals”? How do you envision it being implemented? How do you convince John Q. Public and family of its bona fides? Please offer it in clear, understandable steps.

  107. In, without justification, denying me my premise of violent conflict, you are denying the basis of your own question — a question which presumes YOUR premise: the consent of “John Q. Public and his family” as authoritative in the adoption of Sortocracy.

    In a violent conflict, not only are the majority of people not active participants, even among the minority active participants, those in a treaty negotiating position are in an even smaller minority. Certainly, those in a treaty negotiating position must take into account those under their command and, to a lesser extent, the potential threat posed by inactive but potential participants represented by “John Q. Public”; but that consideration is a matter, first, of compliance.

    Your pretense that waging war and treaty making are some sort of democratic process while pretending to be a “realist” is so ridiculous on the face of it that one can only presume you to be utterly delusional.

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    I should state for the record that it is unclear which delusion @Corvinus most-labors under:

    * That there will be no violent conflict on the scale of a Thirty Years War, or
    * That treaty negotiation in a conflict of that scale is under the authority of "John Q. Public and his family"

    In my request that he walk me through the flaw(s) in my thinking about my premise of a violent conflict, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, since even our own AE is under the lesser delusion that a large scale violent conflict is unlikely.
    , @Corvinus
    “In, without justification, denying me my premise of violent conflict…”

    I get what you are doing here. Pile on strawman and accusations to divert attention from your refusal to address direct questions. As Vox Day states, you “disqualify, disqualify, disqualify”.

    “you are denying the basis of your own question — a question which presumes YOUR premise: the consent of “John Q. Public and his family” as authoritative in the adoption of Sortocracy.”

    No, my questions are entirely separate. They are stand alone. Again, you "disqualify, disqualify, disqualify".

    “In a violent conflict, not only are the majority of people not active participants…”

    As soldiers? No. As propagandists? Yes. As machinists to fuel the engine of war? Yes. As barefoot and pregnant women whose offspring suckle at their teat to be future men at arms? Yes. Each actor here is an active participant.

    “even among the minority active participants, those in a treaty negotiating position are in an even smaller minority.”

    
And the orders of treaty making comes directly from the citizenry as far as what to get, what to give, and what to receive. Especially today, where information is instantly and readily available compared to 50, 100, and 200 years ago.

    “Your pretense that waging war and treaty making are some sort of democratic process while pretending to be a “realist” is so ridiculous on the face of it that one can only presume you to be utterly delusional.”

    I never directly nor indirectly made that assertion. Rather, I am asking you to state the means by which you seek to convince the general public of “Sortocracy”. It is a VERY SIMPLE request.

  108. @James Bowery
    In, without justification, denying me my premise of violent conflict, you are denying the basis of your own question -- a question which presumes YOUR premise: the consent of "John Q. Public and his family" as authoritative in the adoption of Sortocracy.

    In a violent conflict, not only are the majority of people not active participants, even among the minority active participants, those in a treaty negotiating position are in an even smaller minority. Certainly, those in a treaty negotiating position must take into account those under their command and, to a lesser extent, the potential threat posed by inactive but potential participants represented by "John Q. Public"; but that consideration is a matter, first, of compliance.

    Your pretense that waging war and treaty making are some sort of democratic process while pretending to be a "realist" is so ridiculous on the face of it that one can only presume you to be utterly delusional.

    I should state for the record that it is unclear which delusion most-labors under:

    * That there will be no violent conflict on the scale of a Thirty Years War, or
    * That treaty negotiation in a conflict of that scale is under the authority of “John Q. Public and his family”

    In my request that he walk me through the flaw(s) in my thinking about my premise of a violent conflict, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt, since even our own AE is under the lesser delusion that a large scale violent conflict is unlikely.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm more confident in the auguring I began offering years ago, that the only thing holding these disunited states together was a combination of economic expediency and inertia, and that once it made financial sense to run from DC's obligations so as to avoid being left holding the bag instead of continuing to look to DC for perpetual financing, dissolution would suddenly start sounding very real. I don't think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out". That and contemporary America is old, soft, and extremely risk-averse--not the profile of a warrior nation.
  109. @James Bowery

    More like you are fooling yourself.
     
    Perhaps in that I seem to be trying to talk sense to someone who says that a treaty reached after a war killing 20% or more of the public, mainly in the urban areas "must convince John Q. public and his family" of its terms before hostilities cease and who, from this risible position, asserts his relative handle on reality.

    Don’t. Feed. The. Troll.

    • Replies: @James Bowery
    Sometimes it's fun to pull the legs off cockroaches put them in the middle of a dark room and turn on the lights. You will agree, I hope, this is a lesser vice than watching Netflix.
    , @Corvinus
    LOL, just like James, you run away when I ask substantial questions, because the answers would expose logical flaws in your answers and force you to ponder alternatives. That makes both of you uncomfortable.
  110. @Wency
    My point is not that ignorance is strength, but that the precise details of the Earth's geologic history are trivia. Like knowing the names of the actresses in Sex and the City. Nothing wrong with knowing them, but they're really not important. Not to day-to-day life, let alone to true understanding and wisdom.

    The author of the primeval history really doesn't seem to have thought these details were important, as he seems to be intentionally offering two different accounts of Creation in Genesis 1 and 2, to illustrate that this is a mythic history, wrapped in legend and not fully understood. This is in contrast to the Gospels, which use literary devices to indicate that they are meant to be taken as eyewitness-supported biographical accounts.

    So you can't use noncentral claims in the primeval history to dismiss the points it's actually making, let alone use them to dismiss the rest of Scripture -- barely referencing it, and disconnected from it by author, genre, and centuries -- any more than I can use any errors you make in Biblical exegesis to dismiss your claims about science.

    And @St. Louis too.  This is precisely the sort of excuse-making which made me fed up with Christianity.  Is it a cafeteria thing, where you pick and choose what’s factual and what’s allegorical based on what you’re willing to believe?  The supposed word of God?

    Every time I think about taking it seriously again, someone like you comes along and gives me a firm reminder of why I left in the first place.

    • Replies: @Wency
    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It's a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I'm hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.

    I'm quite certain this is false. Even if every event described in the Bible was a lie, Ecclesiastes would still have worth. Even if the author of that book was deeply misguided, it would be important to know why he's misguided as he grapples with the nature of life and God.

    Either human beings are accidental bags of meat of no more significance than a salami sandwich, and nothing we do matters either way, or there is intent and purpose behind our existence, in which case it's worth grappling with these questions.
  111. @Mr. Rational
    Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

    Sometimes it’s fun to pull the legs off cockroaches put them in the middle of a dark room and turn on the lights. You will agree, I hope, this is a lesser vice than watching Netflix.

    • LOL: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Except all you are doing here is running away from defending your philosophy. What is the benefit if your pithy insights that are only designed for your cognitively elite crowd? If you truly seek radical change and have designs on hoping that a movement is facilitated, you need to deconstruct your theories into practical terms for the "normies" of the world to either embrace it, question it, or reject it. Otherwise, you are punching at waterfalls...
  112. @Mr. Rational
    And @St. Louis too.  This is precisely the sort of excuse-making which made me fed up with Christianity.  Is it a cafeteria thing, where you pick and choose what's factual and what's allegorical based on what you're willing to believe?  The supposed word of God?

    Every time I think about taking it seriously again, someone like you comes along and gives me a firm reminder of why I left in the first place.

    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It’s a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I’m hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.

    I’m quite certain this is false. Even if every event described in the Bible was a lie, Ecclesiastes would still have worth. Even if the author of that book was deeply misguided, it would be important to know why he’s misguided as he grapples with the nature of life and God.

    Either human beings are accidental bags of meat of no more significance than a salami sandwich, and nothing we do matters either way, or there is intent and purpose behind our existence, in which case it’s worth grappling with these questions.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It’s a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I’m hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.
     
    And if we do have an immortal soul, and its fate ultimately depends on getting that interpretation right, what hope do we have?

    Is this something a loving God would do to us?
  113. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:

    Audacious, you know the answer to this.

    Religious people everywhere are dumb. Doesn’t matter if they are progressive or conservative.

    Dumb fundies *want* to meet their God so they don’t mind dying from coronavirus.

    Coronavirus isn’t a left vs right issue. It’s a dumb vs smart issue and a secular vs religious issue.

  114. @Mr. Rational
    Don't. Feed. The. Troll.

    LOL, just like James, you run away when I ask substantial questions, because the answers would expose logical flaws in your answers and force you to ponder alternatives. That makes both of you uncomfortable.

  115. @James Bowery
    Sometimes it's fun to pull the legs off cockroaches put them in the middle of a dark room and turn on the lights. You will agree, I hope, this is a lesser vice than watching Netflix.

    Except all you are doing here is running away from defending your philosophy. What is the benefit if your pithy insights that are only designed for your cognitively elite crowd? If you truly seek radical change and have designs on hoping that a movement is facilitated, you need to deconstruct your theories into practical terms for the “normies” of the world to either embrace it, question it, or reject it. Otherwise, you are punching at waterfalls…

  116. @Wency
    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It's a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I'm hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.

    I'm quite certain this is false. Even if every event described in the Bible was a lie, Ecclesiastes would still have worth. Even if the author of that book was deeply misguided, it would be important to know why he's misguided as he grapples with the nature of life and God.

    Either human beings are accidental bags of meat of no more significance than a salami sandwich, and nothing we do matters either way, or there is intent and purpose behind our existence, in which case it's worth grappling with these questions.

    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It’s a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I’m hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.

    And if we do have an immortal soul, and its fate ultimately depends on getting that interpretation right, what hope do we have?

    Is this something a loving God would do to us?

    • Replies: @Wency
    How good does one's understanding of Scripture need to be in order to be saved? Not very good at all, I would say -- fortunately. Seeking a better understanding of Scripture is still wise and helpful, but neither necessary or sufficient.

    The problem of evil has never really troubled me. Others have addressed it far better than I can, for those who are inclined to worry about it. I accept that God knows more about good, evil, and love than man ever could, and move on.
  117. @James Bowery
    I should state for the record that it is unclear which delusion @Corvinus most-labors under:

    * That there will be no violent conflict on the scale of a Thirty Years War, or
    * That treaty negotiation in a conflict of that scale is under the authority of "John Q. Public and his family"

    In my request that he walk me through the flaw(s) in my thinking about my premise of a violent conflict, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, since even our own AE is under the lesser delusion that a large scale violent conflict is unlikely.

    I’m more confident in the auguring I began offering years ago, that the only thing holding these disunited states together was a combination of economic expediency and inertia, and that once it made financial sense to run from DC’s obligations so as to avoid being left holding the bag instead of continuing to look to DC for perpetual financing, dissolution would suddenly start sounding very real. I don’t think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”. That and contemporary America is old, soft, and extremely risk-averse–not the profile of a warrior nation.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t think it will be violent

    What makes you think that we won't end up like The Ukraine where a small number of people with guns and the willingness to use them end up controlling things?

    , @res

    I don’t think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.
     
    Do you really think that will be the case when the people (states) paying for the party try to leave?
  118. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm more confident in the auguring I began offering years ago, that the only thing holding these disunited states together was a combination of economic expediency and inertia, and that once it made financial sense to run from DC's obligations so as to avoid being left holding the bag instead of continuing to look to DC for perpetual financing, dissolution would suddenly start sounding very real. I don't think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out". That and contemporary America is old, soft, and extremely risk-averse--not the profile of a warrior nation.

    I don’t think it will be violent

    What makes you think that we won’t end up like The Ukraine where a small number of people with guns and the willingness to use them end up controlling things?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Suppose it's possible, but states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police. If it doesn't come from within those, it would have to contend with them.
  119. @iffen
    I don’t think it will be violent

    What makes you think that we won't end up like The Ukraine where a small number of people with guns and the willingness to use them end up controlling things?

    Suppose it’s possible, but states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police. If it doesn’t come from within those, it would have to contend with them.

    • Replies: @James Bowery

    states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police
     
    States have a witches brew of:

    * Governments that have degenerated into little more than agents of the Federal government and, as such, have cultivated a corresponding contempt for "populism" that has an inertia of its own.
    * An obligation to enforce property rights even in the event of dissolution of the US.
    * A very recent and intensely resented foreign occupation of both territory and information infrastructure supported by the defunct Federal government's deadly embrace with the centralization of property rights by Conservatism, Inc.
    * An economy dependent on the central monetary authority that is already in a position to "blow the bolts" from the Federal government on the strength merely of the network effect they enjoy:
    The Federal Reserve's much-vaunted "independence" come home to roost.

    State governments, even if freed from their Federal masters, will have a court system that enforces the property rights of the bailed out financial institutions holding the mortgages of their citizenry. Those courts, long-corrupted by denial of the fundamental principles of common law, hence essentially hostile to the power of jury nullification and abuse of jurisdictional arbitrage for jury selection, will rule in favor of the eviction of families from their homes, just as they did during the last financial crisis. This, in turn, will pit the law enforcement officers of the states, carrying out the will of the financial institutions, against the militia. The state governments will, freed from the 2nd amendment, attempt to disarm the "racist" white working class men so as to enforce those property rights.
    , @iffen
    So you are predicting a total collapse of the economy and the institutions and structure at the national level, but state and local will just be hunky-dory?
    , @Wency
    I agree there are forces pulling this country apart. But I also agree with Sailer, who made the observation that the military wants the country together -- it likes being the best-armed military in the world, and it more or less has its own cohesive internal culture, especially among the career officers. This sounds about right to me, from military men I've known. So no, America is not a warrior culture, but the military -- or at least key sections of it -- is.

    I think Catalonia's independence movement is a good model for what a more serious and popular US secession movement would look like in the foreseeable future. Lots of popular division -- you won't have the 75%+ secession support that happened in the Confederacy, more like 55% at most. And almost no one will be prepared to die for it -- the politicians, the police, the masses in a soft culture will cow before military force that is eager to crush them.

    So secession relies on the Federal Government not using force. Which it has one argument for not doing: weakening the other side's representation at the Federal level. I don't buy it though; if the Center has the ability to hold the Empire together, it always does. It was far, far tougher to hold America together in 1861 than it would be today.

    So I don't know what the future holds, dissolution or not, but I don't believe the country can dissolve until the military dissolves, or huge changes happen to its and America's culture. And even if an immense budget crisis caused the US military's funding to be cut by 75%, it would still be an awesome force next to anything the states could muster.
  120. @James Bowery
    You've denied my premise of a Thirty Years War and I'm merely attempting to have you explain to me why my thinking is in error regarding this premise rather than merely accepting your denial because you say so.

    Please answer my question or admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.

    admit that you have no interest in honest discourse.

    It’s Corvinus. You can take two things for granted.
    1. He is not interested in honest discourse.
    2. He will never admit it.

    • Disagree: Corvinus
  121. @Audacious Epigone
    I'm more confident in the auguring I began offering years ago, that the only thing holding these disunited states together was a combination of economic expediency and inertia, and that once it made financial sense to run from DC's obligations so as to avoid being left holding the bag instead of continuing to look to DC for perpetual financing, dissolution would suddenly start sounding very real. I don't think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be "don't let the door hit you on the way out". That and contemporary America is old, soft, and extremely risk-averse--not the profile of a warrior nation.

    I don’t think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.

    Do you really think that will be the case when the people (states) paying for the party try to leave?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    A host of foreign nations, China first among them, are paying for the party. Once they stop, no state will be in the creditor column.
  122. @Audacious Epigone
    Suppose it's possible, but states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police. If it doesn't come from within those, it would have to contend with them.

    states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police

    States have a witches brew of:

    * Governments that have degenerated into little more than agents of the Federal government and, as such, have cultivated a corresponding contempt for “populism” that has an inertia of its own.
    * An obligation to enforce property rights even in the event of dissolution of the US.
    * A very recent and intensely resented foreign occupation of both territory and information infrastructure supported by the defunct Federal government’s deadly embrace with the centralization of property rights by Conservatism, Inc.
    * An economy dependent on the central monetary authority that is already in a position to “blow the bolts” from the Federal government on the strength merely of the network effect they enjoy:
    The Federal Reserve’s much-vaunted “independence” come home to roost.

    State governments, even if freed from their Federal masters, will have a court system that enforces the property rights of the bailed out financial institutions holding the mortgages of their citizenry. Those courts, long-corrupted by denial of the fundamental principles of common law, hence essentially hostile to the power of jury nullification and abuse of jurisdictional arbitrage for jury selection, will rule in favor of the eviction of families from their homes, just as they did during the last financial crisis. This, in turn, will pit the law enforcement officers of the states, carrying out the will of the financial institutions, against the militia. The state governments will, freed from the 2nd amendment, attempt to disarm the “racist” white working class men so as to enforce those property rights.

  123. @res

    I don’t think it will be violent because the most common sentiment will be “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”.
     
    Do you really think that will be the case when the people (states) paying for the party try to leave?

    A host of foreign nations, China first among them, are paying for the party. Once they stop, no state will be in the creditor column.

  124. @Audacious Epigone
    Suppose it's possible, but states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police. If it doesn't come from within those, it would have to contend with them.

    So you are predicting a total collapse of the economy and the institutions and structure at the national level, but state and local will just be hunky-dory?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's easier to see that something is coming apart than it is to see what will replace it. Claiming the first is audacious enough, so I won't try with the second beyond saying that the rump's of existing institutions will be repurposed for smaller scale.
  125. @James Bowery
    In, without justification, denying me my premise of violent conflict, you are denying the basis of your own question -- a question which presumes YOUR premise: the consent of "John Q. Public and his family" as authoritative in the adoption of Sortocracy.

    In a violent conflict, not only are the majority of people not active participants, even among the minority active participants, those in a treaty negotiating position are in an even smaller minority. Certainly, those in a treaty negotiating position must take into account those under their command and, to a lesser extent, the potential threat posed by inactive but potential participants represented by "John Q. Public"; but that consideration is a matter, first, of compliance.

    Your pretense that waging war and treaty making are some sort of democratic process while pretending to be a "realist" is so ridiculous on the face of it that one can only presume you to be utterly delusional.

    “In, without justification, denying me my premise of violent conflict…”

    I get what you are doing here. Pile on strawman and accusations to divert attention from your refusal to address direct questions. As Vox Day states, you “disqualify, disqualify, disqualify”.

    “you are denying the basis of your own question — a question which presumes YOUR premise: the consent of “John Q. Public and his family” as authoritative in the adoption of Sortocracy.”

    No, my questions are entirely separate. They are stand alone. Again, you “disqualify, disqualify, disqualify”.

    “In a violent conflict, not only are the majority of people not active participants…”

    As soldiers? No. As propagandists? Yes. As machinists to fuel the engine of war? Yes. As barefoot and pregnant women whose offspring suckle at their teat to be future men at arms? Yes. Each actor here is an active participant.

    “even among the minority active participants, those in a treaty negotiating position are in an even smaller minority.”

    
And the orders of treaty making comes directly from the citizenry as far as what to get, what to give, and what to receive. Especially today, where information is instantly and readily available compared to 50, 100, and 200 years ago.

    “Your pretense that waging war and treaty making are some sort of democratic process while pretending to be a “realist” is so ridiculous on the face of it that one can only presume you to be utterly delusional.”

    I never directly nor indirectly made that assertion. Rather, I am asking you to state the means by which you seek to convince the general public of “Sortocracy”. It is a VERY SIMPLE request.

  126. @iffen
    So you are predicting a total collapse of the economy and the institutions and structure at the national level, but state and local will just be hunky-dory?

    It’s easier to see that something is coming apart than it is to see what will replace it. Claiming the first is audacious enough, so I won’t try with the second beyond saying that the rump’s of existing institutions will be repurposed for smaller scale.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  127. @Mr. Rational

    There are a lot of ways to interpret the Bible. Most of them are nuanced. It’s a complex document, written by many people in different cultures, languages, and centuries. What I’m hearing you say is that only the least nuanced approaches can possibly be right: everything in it is literally true, or the whole thing is bunk and unworthy of consideration.
     
    And if we do have an immortal soul, and its fate ultimately depends on getting that interpretation right, what hope do we have?

    Is this something a loving God would do to us?

    How good does one’s understanding of Scripture need to be in order to be saved? Not very good at all, I would say — fortunately. Seeking a better understanding of Scripture is still wise and helpful, but neither necessary or sufficient.

    The problem of evil has never really troubled me. Others have addressed it far better than I can, for those who are inclined to worry about it. I accept that God knows more about good, evil, and love than man ever could, and move on.

  128. @Audacious Epigone
    Suppose it's possible, but states have highway patrols, counties have sheriffs, cities have police. If it doesn't come from within those, it would have to contend with them.

    I agree there are forces pulling this country apart. But I also agree with Sailer, who made the observation that the military wants the country together — it likes being the best-armed military in the world, and it more or less has its own cohesive internal culture, especially among the career officers. This sounds about right to me, from military men I’ve known. So no, America is not a warrior culture, but the military — or at least key sections of it — is.

    I think Catalonia’s independence movement is a good model for what a more serious and popular US secession movement would look like in the foreseeable future. Lots of popular division — you won’t have the 75%+ secession support that happened in the Confederacy, more like 55% at most. And almost no one will be prepared to die for it — the politicians, the police, the masses in a soft culture will cow before military force that is eager to crush them.

    So secession relies on the Federal Government not using force. Which it has one argument for not doing: weakening the other side’s representation at the Federal level. I don’t buy it though; if the Center has the ability to hold the Empire together, it always does. It was far, far tougher to hold America together in 1861 than it would be today.

    So I don’t know what the future holds, dissolution or not, but I don’t believe the country can dissolve until the military dissolves, or huge changes happen to its and America’s culture. And even if an immense budget crisis caused the US military’s funding to be cut by 75%, it would still be an awesome force next to anything the states could muster.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS