Response To Richard Carrier

Sorry I’ve slowed down my writing. I just haven’t been feeling it lately. I’ve got a new job that doesn’t make me hate life, so it’s hard to write about everything wrong with the world.

An atheist friend has shown me a video and asked for a response. He of course claims that the speaker Richard Carrier totally explains everything and debunks Christianity once and for all. So you know about what it’s going to sound like. I’m not really recommending you watch it. I’ve got my commentary below as a kind of stream of conscious.

And notice this guy isn’t making a video debunking Islam in depth. Only the Christians have the courage to take on Islam. Atheists are cowards. They go after low-hanging fruit. Anyone can criticize Christianity and know they will probably be safe. And nobody is bitter at Mormons or Buddhists. Atheists’ obsession with Christ is proof of their thirst for Christ.

Anyway, here we go:



Carrier says the Gospels are fiction and that the word “myth” means the same thing.

This is false. The word “myth” means story. Over time it has become connotated to mean fiction or lie, but in a strict scholarly sense (which seems to be how he wants to be taken), it means story.

For example, World War II is a foundational myth of our society. This does not mean that World War II was a lie. Just that the story of World War II and the way we interpret it has had a major influence on our society.

The Latin equivalent of the Greek word “mythos” is “fabula”, where we get our word “fable.”

So already he has set me up to be doubtful of anything he says.


Carrier talks about “vivid narration”, that if the Gospels give lots of details, then Christians say it must be true but that actually it would mean it would be even more likely to be made up.

Actually the Gospels skip out on a lot of details. Often you cannot tell if the characters are being serious or sarcastic.

For example, Luke 22:36-38:

“But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. […] So they said, “Lord, look, here are two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Does Jesus mean that two swords are enough or that He is tired of the disciples interrupting with mundane talk and misunderstandings? The passage is vague.

When Christian apologists claim that the Gospels are vividly narrated, they are referring to small details like how a fire was made out of coal or the names of background characters. Small things that you wouldn’t think up because they are not relevant to the story.

It’s inherent in having multiple witnesses that they will contradict each other in small ways. One Gospel says that Jesus cursed the fig tree on the Monday before His death, and another Gospel says it was the Tuesday. Which is it? Well, it’s not the point of the story, so it doesn’t matter.

That the Gospels have weird mundane details and then gloss over other details we would like to know and have small contradictions is a strong case that it was written by people who were actually there (or who knew people who were actually there).


Carrier talks about emulation criteria, that the stories in the Gospels sound like other stories in history.

I knew he was going to go there. I’ll break this down real quick and hopefully we can skip over this section when he goes into detail. This argument is painfully tiring.

Throughout ancient history and ancient mythology, there are numerous similarities. Atheists say that these prove that the Bible just adapted myths from other cultures.

For example, most cultures have a flood myth. The atheist could say that Genesis stole this myth from a neighboring culture. More likely, there was actually a major flood in the ancient world, and different cultures remember this in different ways.

I wrote a paper in college about how the Iliad was based on history and was just exaggerated over time. There was a mighty warrior named Achilles who fought against Troy, who had a mighty warrior named Hector. And Achilles killed Hector and it was assumed that he was invincible. Then he was shot in the foot and died. Everyone thought it was kind of funny that the greatest warrior of all time was killed in such a way, and they told the story over and over until it was embellished into the myth we know today.

In the late 1800s, there was a German self-taught archaeologist named Heinrich Schliemann who was convinced that Troy was a real place. At the time, every respected scholar in the world believed Troy was fictional and would laugh you out of the room for suggesting otherwise. Schliemann used the Iliad as a kind of map, and based on the geography in the book, he found a place on the coast of Turkey to start digging. And he found a city underneath. And as it turns out, there are nine layers of city underneath. So then the academic world said, “Okay fine Troy is real, but everything else in the Iliad is just a story.” And to this day most scholars still consider him to be a lunatic even though he was right.

I think they are just jealous that Schliemann truly adored and internalized these stories that they had sucked the life out of. Nietzsche said that literature is a vast field of grain and academia is like sitting in a dark silo trying to crush each kernel with your fingers.

Sometimes atheists claim that earlier myths from other cultures talk about specific things about Jesus. There are three possibilities here.

1) The myth is a coincidence.

2) The myth is a foreshadow of Christ.

3) The atheist is fake news.


He says the Gospels don’t look like normal histories. Yeah, that’s the point. The purpose of the Gospels isn’t to answer every question and give you something to write a dissertation on. The purpose of the Gospels is to teach you how to live life. It’s a different genre.


He says the Gospels don’t name their sources but most ancient histories do. Two problems with this.

1) The Gospels were either eyewitness accounts or were by someone who was around the disciples. The source is implied.

2) Most ancient histories do not citate their sources. I think Pliny the Elder did. But it’s pretty rare. Ancient historians were more like rumor collectors. Nobody discounts Livy, even though we know a lot of it was myth and a lot of it was political propaganda.

It reminds me of my Ancient Philosophy class in college. The professor was talking about how the synoptic Gospels and how there must have been a prior source we don’t know about because the three writers weren’t witnesses. I said that Matthew was there. He laughed and said that of course Matthew was not present and then continued on without explaining. You can see why I don’t take atheists seriously.

Richard Carrier is clearly a cut rate internet scholar who knows just barely enough to make himself sound authoritative. In fairness, so are most pastors who think they understand Greek.

I can tell that I’m going to have to stop the video every thirty seconds if I have to respond to everything. So I’m going to gloss over a lot of things and just hit the highlights that stick out to me. You know how people say that if you were to respond to everything that Anita Sarkeesian gets wrong in a one-hour video that it would take you days? Well this is one of those.


Carrier talks about how Jesus walks up to Peter and Andrew and within a few minutes convinces them to drop everything and follow him.

Obviously, the Bible is not telling the whole story because the Bible is not intended to be a regular history. Peter and Andrew already had some knowledge of who Jesus was. The narrative doesn’t tell the backstory on that, because it’s not important. The point of the story is about how following Jesus is more important than your day job.

It’s odd that Carrier is in some sense more of a Biblical literalist than any Christian.


Carrier says that the disciples are dumber than a bag of hammers because they continue to fail to learn.

Yeah, that’s a major frustration of Jesus. He’s spent three years explaining things to them over and over, and they still do not understand even the basics. They have no faith. They only want Him for the status He provides. Jesus’s hour of death is approaching, and the disciples are totally unprepared.

This isn’t a plot hole. It’s a core concept of the narrative.

You would think that if the disciples intended to write a fictional biography of Jesus, they would make a point to make themselves look good. How are you supposed to lead a cult if you paint yourself to be an idiot?

I feel like Carrier just skimmed through the Gospels but didn’t actually read them. Like he did a once-over but was just looking for ammunition and then plagiarized from a real scholar. He starts with the premise that the Gospels are silly, and from there he makes no attempt to understand the characters’ motivations.


Carrier says that many stories of Jesus are just updates from the Old Testament and are therefore false. I’m kind of surprised. I genuinely thought I had heard every atheist argument in existence.

Of course the story of Jesus parallels Old Testament stories! That’s the point! The Epistles even make a point to elaborate on it, because the core concept of the Old Testament is to point to Christ. They aren’t merely historical stories.

The name “Jesus” is just the Greek version of “Joshua.” Joshua crosses the Jordan river and begins trying to establish the state of Israel. Jesus is baptized in the Jordan river and begins his ministry trying to establish the Kingdom of God.

Judah sells Joseph — an innocent man and the future ruler of them all — into slavery for 20 coins. Judas sells Jesus — an innocent man and the future ruler of the all — into slavery for 30 coins. Do you see a parallel? Is that a coincidence? Is it plagiarism? Like a dog whistle that you are supposed to both be fooled by and totally pick up on?

Things can be both allegorical and historical. Those are not mutually exclusive categories. God guides history.

There are countless sermons throughout history explaining how the Old Testament points to Christ. This isn’t a new insight that destroys the foundations of Christianity. It’s always something that’s been in plain sight.

Why, it’s almost like the writers of the New Testament totally understood the Old Testament and weren’t just inventing a new religion. And again, the Gospels were not written to be a regular point-for-point history.

This applies to what he says a little later about how the Gospels are internally cyclical.


He says it’s weird that a woman anointed Jesus for burial days before He was killed. (Matthew 26). Yeah, the woman understood Jesus’s message. She knew that He was going to be killed. The disciples couldn’t understand it because they were full of pride. But this unnamed woman who was an outsider came to Jesus to worship. She came to give, not to demand. That’s the point of the story. Why, it’s almost like Jesus had been saying this for three years.

If all of this poetic ring structure is designed to be mere literature, why did the writers intend for it to be taken literally? Why were they willing to die for their story? Because Carrier seems to claim that they not only just made it up but wanted the reader to understand it was made up.


Carrier claims that John was Jesus’s erotic lover because he refers to himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Not really worth responding to, but it reminds me of a deeper point I’ve made before.

It goes back to my point that in our society, “love” is another word for orgasm. It has nothing to do with closeness, vulnerability, or deeply caring about the others’ interest. No, it’s just a rush of physical pleasure. Love at first sight. The highest Truth possible.

Again, never take atheists seriously. I can count on one hand the number of atheists I’ve met that I respect as intellectuals.


Carrier says that our Gospel of John is an edit and not the original. Of course he doesn’t explain how he knows that. And he doesn’t even say it’s a guess — just that it’s absolute fact. And you the viewer should be dumb enough to trust him with full blind faith

He after a few minutes of this, he finally gives the big reveal of how he knows it. You can tell by the way the text seems to reflect other parts of the text. Yes, it’s just a big conspiracy theory, but it’s actually true this time, because Carrier has a PhD and a lecture tour. Christians are the ones who believe everything without evidence, but atheists have the intelligence to piece together disjointed magazine clippings and come up with the real story.

Didn’t Carrier criticize the Gospels for not citating their sources? At least he makes a point to say that being peer reviewed is a worthless criterion. Academia is dead. If your book has Ivy League approval, I’m more likely to dismiss it as Pravda.


Carrier touches on an important point. Some scholars have tried to cut away the supernatural in the Gospels and create what was the historical Jesus. And they discovered that it was impossible.

Yes, exactly. The Bible is meant to be taken as a whole. You can’t pick and choose what you don’t like. Jesus absolutely did not intend to be taken as “just a good teacher who was all about love and tolerance.” Either the New Testament is entirely true or is completely ridiculous, but there is no middle ground.

(The Old Testament is like that to a lesser extent. On one hand, most of the historical narrative is written rather plainly and is plausible even from a secular perspective. You can tell by the attention given to numbers, lineage and geography. At the same time, the intervention of the supernatural is so pervasive that it is hard to make a narrative of what happened without the supernatural.)

And really, if you think the Bible is ridiculous, why are you spending your life studying it? I may read the Koran or the Book of Mormon in order to debunk it, but I don’t devote my life to it. I don’t write a dissertation on the literary elements and how passages reflect each other. I don’t pour try to connect all the possible dots within the text as though there’s a hidden richness that I’m thirsty to discover.

As I said above, the atheist is obsessed with Christ because he is thirsty for Christ but has no way to connect to Him except through dry academic study. I’ve met a few atheists who think religion is stupid but otherwise don’t care, and I actually respect that on some level.


After an hour Carrier finishes his presentation and takes questions from the people. I’ll just make some quick notes on some of the things he says.

1) Carrier claims that he will exclude any scholar who believes the Bible is “literally true” (which I realize that’s a loaded term, but we’ll take it at face value for the sake of the argument).

It must be easy to be an atheist when you can just write off any evidence or argument that doesn’t fit your worldview. How are these people any different from the fundamentalists they hate? They just took the same psychology and inversed the ideology.

2) Carrier starts talking about the Greek of the Old Testament (more on that below) and how clearly the authors were educated in Greek schools (and I suppose therefore came from money instead of being poor fishermen).

I don’t know if I have told you guys this yet, but I minored in Classical Greek in college. It really annoys me when people start talking about Greek who know nothing about Greek. Maybe at the most this guy took a couple semesters of baby Greek in undergrad. I devoted three years to real Greek and even learned to write in it.

Luke and Paul were well educated, though perhaps not in Greek literature. The other writers, no of course not.

The First Epistle of John is like the Green Eggs and Ham of the Bible. Less than fifty words and like two and a half sentence structures yet explains complex philosophical ideas in a way that anyone can understand. I bet you couldn’t do that.

He both claims the Gospels are brilliant and also claims they are full of obvious holes. It’s almost like Carrier just hates the Gospels for the sake of hating the Gospels.

3) I more or less agree with what he said about Revelation, that it was more about their contemporary times and that it is very easy to read into it what you want. Really, I think it was a double prophecy, both about John’s contemporary world and the end of the world centuries later. However, it’s best not to think we can line up our own events with Revelation and just know what it’s talking about. The book was obviously designed to be a mystery.

4) He says that on the sermon on the mount, it is alluding to the Septuagint, which is the Greek Old Testament. He says this as though it’s unique that the Bible refers to the Greek instead of the Hebrew. When in actuality, usually the New Testament is quoting the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew or another language. That was the norm. Hebrew was a dead language and is difficult to interpret, and the Septuagint was clear and commonly available. Everyone had a basic knowledge of Greek (even though the Septuagint is written in a very weird form of Greek).

Sorry to burst your bubble, protestants, but your Biblia Hebraica isn’t the golden key. You cannot understand the Greek New Testament without the Greek Old Testament, because that’s where the allusions come from. It’s amazing how this is totally glossed over in protestant seminaries. They teach classes called Biblical Greek that ignore over half of the Greek Bible!

5) At mark 1:17:00, Carrier talks about the Q, that there is an unknown source that the synoptic Gospels were based on. I mentioned this above. It’s a dumb theory, but whatever. I point it out, because he straight up admits that there isn’t very good evidence at all. As in, non-existent except for our conspiracy theory.

What?! But I thought atheists only believe things that are proven like evolution and global warming and gender fluidity.

And yes I realize he says he thinks it’s false. But it’s still a very common theory and is considered reputable in his precious peer reviewed literature. Many well respected scholars consider it to have been a real thing.

6) He says that some atheists will say that Jesus didn’t exist, and then Christians will say, “But the mainstream consensus says he did,” thus shutting down the argument. And then he says that you can tell them, “The mainstream consensus says that Jesus was nothing like you claim he was,” and then demand they be consistent with appealing to the mainstream consensus.

No, you tool. We make the argument that the mainstream consensus says Jesus existed because we are defeating your argument on your own terms. We don’t actually care about the mainstream consensus. The point is that even people who think that Christianity is totally ridiculous will agree with us on this point.


Well, that was horrible. I had to fight myself to keep listening and paying attention. The whole thing was a collection of circular logic.

For kicks and giggles, I looked him up on Wikipedia. He has a PhD in Ancient History, specializing in the History of Science. Hmm, not quite a Biblical scholar, is he?

Oh, and this shouldn’t surprise anyone:

Carrier announced in 2015 that he and his wife had ended their 20-year marriage. He also revealed that he is polyamorous, and that the last two years of his marriage had an open relationship agreement, after informing his wife of his extramarital affairs.

Once you get rid of God, there’s really no morality. Even the social contract “do no harm to others” special pleading seems to be a weak artifice. Atheists can claim they can make a workable morality out of ex nihilo, but practically it rarely turns out to be anything more than convenience. There’s a reason atheists used to not be allowed to take an oath in court (which I intend to do more research on in the future).

And yes, Carrier’s sexual deviancy is relevant to his argument. What one believes about the nature of the world affects how he interacts with the world. The aspects of a person do not exist in isolation from one another.

Atheism is terrible, if for no other reason, than that it is destructive to society.

Another interesting thing:

In his contribution to The Empty Tomb, Carrier argues that the earliest Christians probably believed Jesus had received a new spiritual body in the resurrection, and that stories of his old body disappearing from its tomb were developed later.

That’s just ridiculous. Christianity is the only religion that is disprovable. By that I don’t mean that Christianity is disproven. Only that it has a criterion to disprove it. If you went to the ancient Greeks and told them that Zeus doesn’t live on Olympus, they would say, “So what?” Islam is full of glaring holes, and most Muslims don’t really know anything about it. Hinduism is just a collection of folk traditions, and Buddhism is often atheistic and more concerned with self-mastery.

But in Christianity, if the resurrection is just a metaphor, then it is all worthless. Without the resurrection, Christ is not God. And without Christ being God, there is no reason to build a religion out of him anymore than one would build a religion out of Plato. There would be no reason for the Romans to kill Christians, nor would Christians desire to be killed. There would be no reason for the Sanhedrin to put Jesus to death for blasphemy.

You can make the argument that the resurrection did not happen, but you absolutely cannot claim that the early Christians thought it was just a lovely story.

And uh, I guess here would go some kind of summary concluding paragraph about how Richard Carrier is a teenage hack or something. Whatever.

Read More: “Dumb Kind Of Atheist” Landing Page


How Should The Young Listen To The Old?

Blair has become an old man. 27 years old. I know, you‘re thinking that’s really young, but I already have the chronic back pain and think the music I liked in high school is just noise.

It’s inherent in the nature of youth to question the wisdom of the elders. Normally the elders provide guidance based on their own history of troubles and the young people test it to see if it’s trustworthy but generally listen because the old have proven they can survive.

Today the dynamics are all different. The old people are frustrated that the young don’t listen and so the old totally write off the young as a loss, unaware that they are the ones who raised the “tide-eating millennials”.

The young people think the old assume the world is the same as it was in the 70s and can’t possibly relate to how the world is today. Plus they’ve watched the old ruin their own lives.

So neither group trusts the other, and both feel left behind. Here in the non-mainstream right wing, we often talk about the deterioration between men and women, but rarely do we discuss the same fracturing between old and young.


Whenever a young person annoys me with some dumb shit worldview they’ll abandon in three years, I never say, “You’re too young to know what you’re talking about.”

For one thing, it never works. So anyone who uses that line is just bolstering their own ego and doesn’t actually care about the young person.

Also, it’s not an argument. It doesn’t say why the young person is wrong. It just declares him to be inferior. This is an insult, not the advice that the old person claims is valuable.

Respect is earned. If you want people to value your advice, you have to prove to them that your advice is valuable. A lot of these old people are like whiny millennials with victim complexes who demand it’s not fair that people don’t notice them.


What’s my advice to young people in regards to the old?

Most old people are worthless. In fact, most people in any demographic have terrible life advice and will lead you to ruin.

What you want to do is question every bit of everything you’ve ever been taught on any subject. Get used to being wrong, because public schools and churches and your idiot parents have taught you all kinds of warm safe cowardly things.

While you are deconstructing your worldview and rebuilding it through painful self analysis, look for people who can help guide you. Usually they will be older than you. How do you know if an older person is trustworthy? Ask yourself these questions:

Do they have the kind of life I would want? Is this person truly selfless, or is he only helping to make himself feel good? Does this person have any beliefs that are unpopular and could cost him something, or does he just believe whatever is safe? Has this person undergone significant life trauma, and how did he handle it?

Every generation has a minority of heroes and a mass of cowards. The baby boomers and the millennials are no exceptions. If you want good role models, they do exist.

And really, most people are somewhere in between hero and coward.

If you want to be a role model, you can’t demand others imitate you just by virtue of your position in life. Live in a respectable way, and people will naturally respect you.

The Inherent Narrowness Of American Politics; Religiously Neutral Reasons To Oppose Gay Marriage, Immigration, Abortion, etc.

The inherent narrowness of American politics is that we disagree on everything except what the foundational goal is. For most Americans, the purpose of politics is to create opportunity. For the far left-wing, this means putting down whites and males to make room for non-whites and women. For the libertarians, this means removing barriers so that everyone can try to figure life out the best they can. For Trump supporters, this means creating more jobs so that everyone can have a middle class income. For neoconservatives, this means…I’m really not sure if the neocons even have a goal.

One reason I was profoundly uninterested in politics until a couple years ago is because I entirely disagree with this foundational goal. The purpose in government should be to develop a civilization. This changes everything, and it is totally inconceivable to most people. They look at me like I’m speaking a foreign language when I explain. It’s like I’m telling them I believe in the flying spaghetti monster or some kind of authoritarian dystopia. Our entire society is founded upon the idea that we should do what we like instead of doing what we should. Understanding this also gives you a better understanding into why past societies — including ours just a hundred years ago — acted how they did.


So, for example, the liberals argue that gay marriage must be legal because you can’t have a perfect definition of marriage (true) and that it doesn’t affect anyone else individually (usually true) and that otherwise they won’t have the same rights as straight people (false). Inherent in this claim is the assumption that homosexuality is always innate and cannot be influenced by outside factors. They never discuss what causes homosexuality or if there even is a cause.

An assumption made by both sides is that the government defines marriage. The second assumption is that it is possible for the individual to define marriage, or at least that a good attempt should be made at it. The third assumption is that this issue is merely about homosexuality.

I think the first thing to do is to put aside the notion that ideas and words have perfect definitions. These should be more defined as connotations or patterns. You can’t define why you love your spouse. You say you hate liars, but you would tell a lie to save someone’s life or to avoid getting fired from work. You go to your particular church more out of familiarity than conviction. You know that Mozart is better than Justin Bieber, but you cannot quantify why. You cannot tell me what about Picasso that you see that is beautiful that I am missing. If you understand that your dog only loves you because we have bred them to be loyal and submissive in exchange for food, that doesn’t mean you won’t cry when he dies.

So you cannot perfectly define marriage. We can just say it has certain patterns. It’s normally a life-long covenant, but of course the Romans frequently married and divorced as a legal matter. We say it should be between one man and one woman, but the Old Testament law — though not condoning polygamy — made rules for polygamy. We say a marriage is a union between a man and a woman, but we wouldn’t say that a married couple with kids who has grown distant should divorce. We say a marriage is a promise for life, but we wouldn’t hold two 14-year-olds accountable when they promise to be in love forever. We say it’s a sacrament, but we wouldn’t say two atheists getting married at the courthouse don’t owe anything to each other. We could say that it’s a man offering his masculinity and a woman offering her femininity, but today we live in a time of androgyny, where masculinity and femininity are cheap caricatures in a kind of lumpy oatmeal.

That’s the second assumption. Before I get to the first assumption, I’ll briefly touch on the third. For decades divorce has soared, and Christians have responded by making group therapy available at church. Traditional sex roles (as in “gender”, not intercourse) have almost died out as churches have bought into the trendy new feminism, entirely twisting Proverbs 31 for social credit. The nuclear family died long ago. Gay marriage or any legality won’t change the American family, because our decay of social values has already done it for us. If you want to bring back the American family, then you should work on being selfless to your spouse and produce lots of children. It really bothers me when divorced Christians — or Christians who stopped reproducing after only one child — rant about gay marriage or general family values.

As for our first assumption, if we cannot perfectly define marriage, then we at least have to ask its function. And since this is a political issue, we have to ask what the government’s role is and how much it matters if the government doesn’t do its role.

And because I believe the purpose of government is to nourish a civilization, and because I believe that traditional sex roles are necessary for a healthy civilization, I therefore oppose gay marriage for the sole reason that it breaks down traditional sex roles. The notions of rights, equality, opportunity, discrimination, hospital visits, tax breaks, nature vs nurture, the Bible, family values, sexualizing children, normalizing perversion, democracy, or any other common talking point on either side of the debate are irrelevant. No, I’m not saying women should be banned from working or going to school, but I believe that motherhood should be encouraged. Sexual intercourse should be closely tied to procreation, whereas the normalizing of homosexual sex reduces heterosexual sex to masturbation.


The same is true with Trump’s first attempt at an immigration ban. It was poorly planned out (perhaps intentionally), and it’s unfortunate what’s happened, but I don’t really see a reason to care. The abstract notion of justice for people outside my sphere seems to be a uniquely modern idea. If we base government on the notion of justice, then we must define justice (impossible) and then apply it to every situation ever (might as well be impossible). If we base government on the notion of creating a civilization, then it doesn’t really matter what situation people are in who have a radically different values system from us. When you move from one country to another, you are taking a chance, especially with a new renegade president, and so, while I think Trump should have gone about it at another angle, I couldn’t muster up the false sympathy to be angry about it.

What about abortion? Filter it through the question, What does this do for our civilization? It is demographic suicide. It creates a top-heavy age dispersion, where there are not enough young people to support the elderly. It also trivializes motherhood and hence traditional sex roles, and therefore I do not need the Bible in order to oppose abortion or any other contraception.

Free speech? In a democracy, you must have free speech, because otherwise it quickly turns into the ruling party making the opposition illegal. But really, I see only benefits in making scientology and Islam illegal. However, you must be careful not to turn your ideological opponents into martyrs.

Public schools? It only delays adulthood. Cut all schooling except for those who score in the top 10%. The masses should go to trade school and marry at age 15, because realistically very few of them would succeed in STEM and most of them would waste a decade trying. By the time a woman is 30, she has only 10% of her eggs left. By waiting until 25 after she’s finished college and gotten bored with her career, she will have lost ten golden years. Younger marriage will cut down on fornication, STDs, and bastardy. It will also do a lot to fix the economy, since young single women are more likely to spend their money on the next iPhone instead of a carseat or lasagna ingredients. The only objection is that teenagers are too immature to get married, but that is only because we have a society that expects sexually functional humans to act like emotionally fragile children.


Half of this comes from simply asking a different question. Instead of “How does this help people do what they want with their life?”, I ask “How does this create a healthy normative civilization that can support a flourishing exchange of ideas without descending into decadence?” The other half comes from viewing the world more by patterns and connotations than rigid autistic definitions. Otherwise, and somewhat ironically, society descends into relativism, hedonism, and general apathy.

I Do Not Take Conservative Homosexuals Seriously

Within the last few years, self-proclaimed conservative and darling of every obnoxious classical liberal Milo Yiannopoulos has roared onto the scene in a burst of glitter and flair to defend masculinity against the evils of feminism. Well hold on, Chuckles. Just because you hate all the right people doesn’t mean you’re batting for the right team. The enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend.

The major flaw of every right wing movement with the exception of ROK is the same flaw of every left wing movement. They want to burn something down but have no plan on what to build it with.

Milo is only anti-feminist because today that’s the easiest way to get attention. Homosexuals are, almost by definition, attention whores – the lispy affectations and glaring fashion fails are a willful choice to stick a middle finger to normal America. Milo has a lot of good reasons for attacking feminism, but he just wants to replace it with a catty male chauvinism. Milo doesn’t love masculinity so much as he just hates women, hence him “marrying” another man.

Now, I’m not criticizing everything he’s said and done. There’s a lot I would agree with him on, and his “I’m Catholic. I know God loves me. Because even though God hates fags, he hates feminists more.” is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard.

But let’s not make him our token gay conservathot. He’s just repeating what others have said better, only this time with gay sarcasm.

Milo and Ben Shapiro are the latest edition of Anne Coulters and Glenn Becks – a glorified comedian who has witty insults for your enemies but doesn’t have a philosophy to build upon. Comedy in politics, theology, or any kind of worldview should always be the icing, not the cake itself. Comedy is the sour cream on top of a baked potato. The tomato and vinegar sauce drizzled on a pork shoulder that has been hickory smoking for 24 hours. The mushrooms on the steak.

The Milos and Shapiros are the right wing version of Jon Stewart – except only mildly annoying instead of ruining-a-whole-generation annoying.

Milo isn’t exactly advocating for traditional sex roles. He doesn’t support chastity until marriage. He isn’t interested in creating a stable nuclear family to propogate his beliefs. He doesn’t have a philosophy about sexual intercourse except that it’s fun. His sense of fashion is ugly, loud, and fake. How is he any different from the feminists he claims to oppose?

“But what about Jack Donovan?”

I’d be lying if I said I didn’t love A Sky Without Eagles and bought copies for my friends. I’ve interacted with him a little on the internet, and he’s always been a very polite, open person. I don’t want to criticize him, because I really like most of what I’ve read from him, but people keep bringing him up as a special exception, and I feel like we need to be internally consistent.

Jack Donovan’s vision of masculinity is sterile. He says it’s about the tribe, but a tribe for him is just friends. The masculine for Donovan is defined almost entirely in reference to itself instead of to the feminine and posterity. You don’t get a sense in his writing that masculinity and femininity are designed to fit together as two pieces of a whole humanity.

Donovan rightly teaches that masculinity is about power, but for him there is no direction in which power should be applied. He admits this in “Train For Honor”. You can work on your muscles and sleep with a hundred women in a year and prove to everyone who was mean to you in high school that you aren’t a loser anymore, but then you’re still defining yourself by others’ standards. Why are you working on your muscles? Why are you obsessing on your notch count? Is there something you’re trying to create, or do you just want to look good on Facebook?

The philosophy of Donovan doesn’t build society. It builds a a neo-Viking meadhall in the woods of Virginia that sounds totally awesome, but it doesn’t affect the broader society. His philosophy is entirely inward looking. Donovan’s philosophy is sterile, because it’s just another off-shoot of hedonism.

And here we get to a core problem with homosexuality (or any form of sexual hedonism). Because sodomy separates the sexual act from procreation, it has to find other ways to create something. And so for most homosexuals in the West, that’s a huge subculture. And because they cannot (or rather, choose not to) naturally propogate their line, they must grow their ranks by recruitment. The hedonist is never satisfied with just breaking society’s conventional morals – he must demand you accept them as normal. You must join him. The great of crime of Sodom in Genesis wasn’t merely the sodomy – it was the attempted rape of their visitors.

“But I’m not gay!”

Before the 1972 pornography classic Deep Throat, very few heterosexual couples in America engaged in oral sex. And it still wasn’t very common until Bill Clinton. I meet more and more men who have engaged in anal sex with a woman. Are you sure the pinkos haven’t recruited you to their lifestyle?

The homosexuals of America have turned our culture into a giant gay pride parade. Straight people attend and bring their children. Elected officials give speeches about how important it is. The pride parades have been stretched into pride week and now pride month. It never stops. It’s a cancer that must consume everything, both defining itself by how different it is and seeking to become normal. It’s a lifestyle and a subculture best compared to a stagnant pond overgrown with moss and mold. The homosexual act itself is self-destructive and self-loathing. The only interest it has in “love” is to ruin the term for everyone else.

A few homosexuals like Jack Donovan understand this and hate the pride culture as much as the rest of us do, but those like Milo only perpetuate it. To buy his books and attend his speeches and give him internet attention just because he hates all the right people is to throw away the very essence of masculinity and femininity. It’s as ridiculous as feminists welcoming Muslims with open arms.

Melania Trump At The Inauguration


Michelle Obama is known for her bare arms, and at the inauguration last year she was outside without a coat with most of her arms showing. Nothing wrong with that, but notice how Melania Trump was dressed. She has that old Jackir Kennedy look with the gloves and the fully covered body with several layers around the neck. Our society has forgotten that a key element in sexual appeal is mystery.


Michelle Obama is no Miley Cyrus, obviously, but women who show off their skin usually are not attractive to begin with. Another key element in sexual appeal is the feminine, gentle spirit, which Melania has in excess. You can tell who wears the pants in the Trump family.

Without femininity and mystery, female beauty is all just lust appeal, entirely different from sex appeal. Perhaps Melania Trump will inspire a new era of Rita Hayworths, Eydie Gormes and Mary Weisses.

A good example of this is Julie Newmar as Catwoman from the first two seasons of the 1960s Batman. Great body, of course. But there’s much more to the appeal. The not-quite-tight leather clothing accentuates the features but also makes you wonder what exactly is under there. The belt on a one-piece suit adds to the mystery. Most importantly, she has this feminine charm at all times, like a tattoo on the heart. She also has a kind of childlike like of pretension. She’s a codependent psycho, yes, but that femininity gives her a magnetism entirely absent from our current borderline personality celebrities.


You may not have noticed any of this when watching the show, but your brain did. The youthful femininity and costume makes her a perfect character design for her category. Our superhero movies today can’t compete at all. The closest thing was Harley Quinn, who was painted up like a clown.

George Lincoln Rockwell Quote Week – Race Is Genetic

“Evolution shows that in the long run, if the superior mixes with the inferior, the product is halfway between, and inferior to what you started with in the original superior group – in other words, mongrelized.”

I don’t believe in macro evolution, but variation in the human species are as real as variations in dog breeds. Africans especially are so different, that new studies show that the rest of humanity descended from a single ancestor. But you can tell that just by looking at how different Africans look from the rest of humanity. And if you’ve ever worked around them, you’ll see they have a somewhat different thought process. Even Asians and Indians (both kinds) feel closer to whites.


Miscegenation isn’t inherently wrong, but a society where it is encouraged will be a schizophrenic society. Even the Bible strongly discouraged it, because of the differences in values (Israel was descended from Noah’s son Shem, and many of the surrounding tribes were descended from Ham).

Race may perhaps be a social construct, but it is an important one all the same. Race matters because race yields culture, and any first year sociology class will teach you that a society without culture will be chaos. And we see the loudest voices and most powerful movers in our society actively trying to dismantle our culture.

Most mulattos I’ve known acted more black than white, though back in the Civil War they identified more with whites. If you mix a German Shepherd with a common mutt, you will not get an animal as strong and intelligent as a German Shepherd. It will act like a common mutt.



All of that being said, it’s also true that after centuries of migrations, racial purity is a laughable myth. Especially in America. Here in East Tennessee, everyone claims some small amount of Cherokee, though almost no one knows how much or how far back.

“The most recent statistics show that around 21 percent of white Americans have an admixture of black blood, and 17 percent of blacks have an admixture of white blood.”

Yeah, no amount of social pressure can overcome the sex drive. You can’t have two cultures next to each other without some mixing. People will get their Thomas Jefferson fix no matter what the law says.

Mussolini understood this:

“But which race? Does there exist a German race? Has it ever existed? Will it ever exist? Reality, myth, or hoax of the theorists? Ah well, we respond, a Germanic race does not exist. Various movements. Curiosity. Stupor. We repeat. Does not exist. We don’t say so. Scientists say so. Hitler says so.”

“Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. Amusingly enough, not one of those who have proclaimed the “nobility” of the Teutonic race was himself a Teuton. Gobineau was a Frenchman, (Houston Stewart) Chamberlain, an Englishman; Woltmann, a Jew; Lapouge, another Frenchman.”

And there we go. I couldn’t say it better than the master. “Race is a feeling, not a reality.” And he doesn’t say that it’s not important or useful or unavoidable. Social construct, sure. But he’s going to make Italy great again anyway. The fuzziness of defining what it means to be Italian in no way dissuaded him from trying to restore the glory of Rome.

Despite a history of the American melting pot, racial and regional distinctions definitely exist. The South is mostly Scottish. The Northeast is … something else. The northern woods and plains are German. These regions vote differently, because they are settled by different people. A few niggers and Jews in the woodshed do not destroy the over-arching patterns.

Are these values merely social or are they genetic? It’s an interesting question, one I’m not sure we can answer. Surely temperaments are genetic, but that can only go so far. I think genetics plays a role, but that’s just speculation.

Categories exist for a reason. Often the categories are hard to define. The edges can get kind of fuzzy when talking about race. Are Greeks white? Are Russians and Poles the same race? What about Ukrainians? There’s not an easy answer. But a Russian is certain closer to a Pole than to an Englishman and far closer to an Englishman than a Chinaman.

George Lincoln Rockwell Quote Week – Morality Has Been Reversed

“Today’s liberal intellectuals, who pride themselves on scientific method and being “broadminded”, are the most narrow-minded, self-righteous and hate-filled bigots in the history of humanity. No primitive tribe worshipping with its witch-doctor was ever more vicious in its hatred and suppression of heretics than today’s Marxist intellectuals, anti-racists and liberals.”

“It is not the evil itself which is horrifying about our times – it is the way we not only tolerate evil, but have made a cult of positively worshipping weakness, depravity, rottenness and evil itself.”

Society reaches its lowest point when good is called evil and evil is called good (Isaiah 5:20). During the Obama years, liberalism became a contest to see how one could take the most conventionally repugnant behavior and rationalize it as a virtue, while taking the most conventionally universal virtue and rationalizing it as oppression.

Morality is a Halloween costume. You declare your position, put on a pink ribbon, and you no longer have to be a good person. You’ve already demonstrated your superiority. It’s easy, comfortable, weak morality for easy, comfortable, weak people.

I hate the weak. I hate people who take the bad they’ve been dealt in life and use it as a crutch. You’re only weak if you choose to. Embrace your suffering and conquer it. Become the over-man.

“Revolution is a spectators sport. The majority will sit in the stands and watch the factions fight. At the end they will choose side with the team that is winning.”

American morality is standing in line behind ten people at Costco so they can check your receipt at the door for the items you’ve already paid for. And it is getting angry at those of us who take possession of our items and refuse to give the door guy more than ten seconds. It is the morality of permission.

“If we are to be the last of the White men who conquered the world; if we are finally to be overwhelmed by a pack of rats, let us at least face the death of our race as our ancestors faced their death—like MEN. Let us not crawl down amongst the rats begging for mercy or trying to out-sneak them and pretend to be rats ourselves!”

It is the 1% of humanity who always make the world. The lower 99% just follow the pattern we set.

Dr House (from the tv show) said, “I’m sure this goes against everything you’ve been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don’t know what the right answer is, maybe there’s even no way you could know what the right answer is doesn’t make your answer right or even okay. It’s much simpler than that. It’s just plain wrong.”

The inconvenience of right in no way mollifies how right it is. Some morals like honesty may be partially contextual, but most morals are not. Find a hill to die on. Enter the arena willing to die in glory instead of watch safely.


To quote Modern Drunkard Magazine, “I think it a sad sign of the times that, in this age of entrenched nannyism and political correctness, a person is more likely to be judged by what he refrained from doing than what he actually did. It’s no longer important that you climbed the mountain, but rather how many boulders you didn’t “accidentally” dislodge and let roll down on the less daring hunkered in the valley below.”

Today morality is all about what you didn’t do. You didn’t say anything racist. You didn’t hate gay people. You didn’t expect any kind of standard out of women. Good boy. Have some sex and money.

This is Judeo morality at its worst. Christian morality is about becoming something. It is proactive. Virtue cannot exist without the conquering of vice.

You are supposed to make America great again. You have no neutral choice. Deus vult.