There was a thoughtful and thought-provoking article on Unz the other day about the author E. Michael Jones and his take on the libertarian take on porn. If I understand his position correctly, he thinks libertarians are wrong about their claims that individuals have an absolute right to do as they like provided no harm is caused as a result.
He asserts that harm is sometimes caused in a subtler and more diffuse way than the obvious way – such as someone hitting someone else, or taking/damaging their property (and so on) – when people choose to be – for instance – licentious, as by watching pornography. He argues – and it is hard to argue the contrary – that widespread, easy access to porn (and license, generally) corrupts the individual, which then corrupts the family and thereby, the community – and ultimately, the culture. He points out that porn has been used as a weapon; that the intelligence apparatuses of various countries have used it to foster narcissism, nihilism and moral corruption, which can work even more effectively than a direct (military) attack, provided the purveyor is willing to give it time to work.
His article is worth reading, especially if you consider yourself a libertarian or an anarchist.
On the one hand, the libertarian concept of “no victim, no crime” is hugely appealing because it is binary; there either is – or there is not – a victim. Someone who has been in some tangible way harmed by the actions of someone else. The position is especially appealing in the context of the litany of manufactured “offenses” – such as not wearing a seatbelt, for instance – that seem to clearly be offenses in themselves, since (as in the case of not wearing a seatbelt) it is very difficult to see how the unbuckled person has harmed anyone else. There are so many other examples it is hardly necessary to go through them.
How about porn? How about what is now styled “sex work” – the updated term for prostitution? Jones argues that there are victims. That everyone is a victim.
Not just the woman (or the man) who sells her (or his) body for money.
The libertarian/anarchist position is that if no coercion is involved – and only consenting adults are involved – the transaction (while perhaps distasteful to some and arguably degrading to the parties involved) then it is a matter between the parties involved and no business of other people, let alone the state. It is equally difficult to argue with this argument, mainly because if one does, one concedes a principle that has the potential to undermine the entirety of libertarian-anarchist theory. It is simple. If prostitution (sex work) as well as porn is actionable because of the demonstrable generally negative effect it has then one can just as cogently make a similar argument in support of many other things would fall under what is commonly referred to as Nanny State or For Your Own Good legislation. For example, it is not hard to argue that kids accessing social media has had a generally negative effect. This effect is not, however, clearly particularized – as is equally true with regard to prostitution/porn.
There are kids who, having attentive and appropriately supervisory parents, aren’t harmed in any obvious way by limited and monitored access to social media. Similarly, it is certainly true that some women are very well-paid for the sex work/pornography they participate in and do not consider themselves victims. Who is someone else to step in and say they are? On what basis? There is certainly an issue with underage women (and girls) who are victimized – but to say all women who engage in sex work (including porn, etc.) are victims is dubious because for it to be true, all women who engage in or have engaged in sex work would have to agree that they had been victimized. It is not the case that all do. Going further, you’d have to establish they’d been literally victimized; i.e., that they had not freely chosen to engage in the activities they participated in.
That is going too far – and not just for the obvious reason.
The less obvious reason is that if one takes the position that sex work/porn necessarily victimizes all who engage in it because some say it is a degradation, unhealthy, etc – then you have taken the position that anything that is arguably unhealthy or which some say degrades those who engage in it is something that ought to be forbidden, with the implication that it ought to be criminalized or at least made an actionable “offense” to some lesser degree.
Is it unhealthy to eat to excess? Obviously, it can be. Is it degrading for a grown man to wear the jersey of his favorite sportsball team and paint his face and emotionally invest in his “team”? Arguably, it is. There are countless examples of things we do that others might – with some justification – regard as unhealthy or degrading; some of these things are certainly not “good for society,” either. But do they rise to the level of criminality?
To the level of actionable “offenses”?
In the libertarian schema, things that arguably ought not to be done for reasons of health or because they are degrading are refrained from as a consequence of rational thought; i.e., reason says that to do an unhealthy thing is contrary to one’s rational self interest and it is irrational to participate in degrading things. Granted, not everyone has the self-control and self-will to restrain themselves. But should they be restrained externally? More specifically, should the state be involved?
Why not, instead, involve the family – and friends? The community? In a voluntary manner? More finely put, isn’t it the obligation of families and friends to assume the responsibility for themselves?
The individual is free to not associate with people and things he does not want to be associated with. Families have the right to freely associate – and to not associate. This scales. Individuals and families are the community. This community has the power to – as Nancy Reagan used to say – Just Say No to things it does not consider to be healthful or that it considers to be degrading. It does not mean unhealthful and degrading things will entirely go away, of course. That is the false premise often used by critics of the libertarian/anarchist ideas of individual (and thereby, community) autonomy. These critics posit an implicit and imaginary perfect scenario to malign a better (or at least, preferable) actual one. A good example of this being the reply to libertarian/anarchist objections to being compelled to pay taxes for police, which holds that without police, criminals would commit crimes with impunity. Yet they still do exactly that, despite tax-financed police. And they would continue to do so absent tax-financed police. The difference is people would not be taxed to pay for it.
Just the same, there will always be porn and sex work because there will always be people who want to pay for it and that creates a market for it. The market can be forced underground; it can be punished. It cannot be eliminated. Yes, it can be reduced – but at what cost? Is it better to have less porn and more state? Some will say yes. Others will say no. Which is the right view? I suppose it all depends upon one’s view of what’s right!
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $25 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you’d like a Baaaaa hat or other EPautos gear, see here!
Al Pacino’s character (Satan) in “The Devil’s Advocate” says something to the effect of:
God gives you human nature,
then sets the rules in opposition.
At one point in the movie, Keanu Reeve’s character asks “Is this a test?”
Al Pacino’s character then answers, “Isn’t everything?”.
As a man endowed with free will and morality and made in the Creator’s image, I know I am free to do anything I want within boundaries I set for myself and will be made to answer for it at some point by my Creator.
For me, the State has no relevance, except if and when it applies arbitrary and inconsistent force into my life. Any action I take against the State, I consider justifiable self defense.
It’s easy to see the reason for such vitriol directed at personal individual religious beliefs by all State worshippers. It displaces the State, makes it irrelevant, impotent, powerless.
As a libertarian and Christian, I’m not trying to save the world, just myself from it. You do you.
P.S. A coworker once told me “you do you” and I told her that was the same as saying “Go fuck yourself”. She agreed so I helped her. No money was exchanged.
Hi Philo!
I’m about to go live with Gard, but maybe I can dash this out quickly: I regard the idea that we are evil by nature – because we have evil thoughts – to be execrable. We have no control over our thoughts. We do not need to be forgiven for what we think. It is our actions that matter. I will apologize when my actions are wrong; when I have done something to cause harm. But I utterly reject the idea that I am “sinful” because I have thoughts sometimes that aren’t shall we say pure. That Bronze Age guilt trip doesn’t work on me.
If God made me “sinful” by making me the inheritor of someone else’s wrongful actions – then (summoning my best Conan) to hell with him.
We are all equally capable of good and evil. It’s what makes us human and free. Evil thoughts have no significance until acted upon. Our thoughts are our own and they are how we navigate the world, internally. Those of us capable of higher order thinking know that we have the capacity to do great evil, yet we willingly restrain ourselves, which makes us good.
Blessed is the man who carries a well sharpened sword, knows how to use it, and keeps it sheathed.
Volkswagen considering 100,000 job cuts:
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/volkswagen-ceo-aims-cut-up-100000-jobs-next-years-manager-magazin-reports-2026-06-26/
Thank God the workers will be able to sit around all day and watch porn after they lose their jobs…
I hate porn, and I hate whores. I hate drugs. I hate lots of things….but I never let that cause me to imagine that I somehow have any right over the lives of others who don’t hate those things, to prevent them from practicing such things or to punish them for doing so.
And to any Libertarian who objects: Who would enforce such nonsense, or define what constitutes acceptable vs. non-acceptable behavior? Oh….a group of people (as in a ruling class) who are given special rights and privileges over everyone else, via armed goons and courts and fines….. My, my…isn’t that remarkably similar to what we already have?
There are few current libertarian authors/commentators whom I pay any attention to anymore. It’s pretty much down to Eric, James Corbett, and Larken Rose. I firmly believe that a majority of modern libertarian pundits are either clueless; phonies just looking for a profitable niche other than the overcrowded Conserve-a-turd and Libtard fields, or stealth saboteurs who are trawling for those who are close to coming to the reality of self-ownership, and leading them astray and or keeping them in the statist mindset.
The spectacle of so many “libertarian” pundits vigorously stumping for Trump in the last election really made it obvious. [Not necessarily because they specifically supported Trump- but that they supported voting for a master and legitimizing ‘democracy’- regardless of whom they would have supported; and the fact that they were so easily fooled by Trump’s lies, despite having experienced 4 years previously of what he is really about].
Morning, Arthur!
Like you, I am just a guy who wants straight talk. I don’t need to agree with a person to discuss things with a person. But I do need respect for facts. I sometimes get into discussions with people who will not acknowledge a simple fact – there it is – or who avoid answering direct, yes/no questions (and proceed to go off on subject-changing tangents) which I find very aggravating. For me, the core/crux of the libertarian/anarchist idea is simply live – and let live. This can be expressed also as mind your own business, which used to be something generally taught to kids as I recall from my own childhood. I think the world would be an infinitely happier place if people did that. Don’t like something? Then don’t do it! (Of course a necessary corollary is not being forced to subsidize it.)
Social friction will always exist but it is made far worse when force is introduced. The trick is getting a majority of people to understand that force – when used aggressively, against people who’ve done you no tangible harm – is evil in and of itself.
VERY well-said, Eric!
Ya know, so much of what has been written and discussed about libertarianism only really needs to exist because we have been so conditioned from childhood to believe in rulers and the authority of the state, and the near religious sanctity of ‘democracy’. It’s harder to unlearn error than it is to simply observe what is right.
I agree with you philosophically as do most I assume here but I’d suggest a thought experiment.
I see you complain often about “clovers” who drive too slow. Isn’t that a judgement that assumes yourself in a position of superiority? Your speed is a subjective question since each person has the free will to drive as fast as they wish for whatever reason they might have. If you’re stuck behind a slow driver they might just as easily say a lack of time planning on your part doesn’t justify an emergency on my part.
I’d probably agree that there’s a social aspect in so far as it is courteous to not impede someone but there is no requirement as long as you’re being peaceful and aren’t threatening anyone who tries to pass.
Fact is, I don’t really disagree with you other than to remind myself that getting upset at someone’s non-violent behavior is my problem, not their. The world is stressful enough with things I wish I could control but can’t, I see no need to raise my blood pressure unnecessarily.
Hi Anon,
Of course! The only issue, as I see it, is common courtesy. It isn’t a requirement to be courteous. But it sure does help make life more pleasant for others. I sometimes drive slow, as when hauling a load in my old truck. If I look in the rearview and see a car behind me that clearly would like to go faster than I am driving, I let the other driver know it’s ok to pass by extending my left arm out of the window and waving them to pass while also easing over as far to the right as I can to help them pass.
I see this as being essentially the same as being aware that there are other people at the supermarket and moving your cart out of the way of others who are trying to get past you,
Libertarianism is an attractive proposition – no violence except in defense, live and let live. I concur wholeheartedly. But, like Marxism and other ideologies, it doesn’t play well in the real world with real human beings. It’s essentially utopian in that it does not comport with reality. As soon as governance arrives in any form (and it always does, even in the most primitive possible societies), the principle of non-violence is lost first, and everything else follows.
” it doesn’t play well in the real world”
It does with most of us who profess it. I pretty much live my life by it’s principles, with the only hindrance being government and the necessity of avoiding it.
It wouldn’t play well for the majority of current earthlings, because they are more than content to give up essential liberty for perceived security and free shit- even though they get no security, and the shit they think is free isn’t.
I don’t think it would play well with a lot of libertarians either.
Maybe some day we’ll get to a point where those of us who are content to accept the cost of liberty will be the only ones left, but I doubt it, ’cause the violent larcenous psychopaths have no morals, and the majority are willing to be bought-off by their promises, whether those promises are ever fulfilled or not.
Well-said, Arthur!
I often discuss libertarian ideas with an old friend of mine, who is a “conservative.” He took issue with me over property taxes – even though he despises the income tax. His argument is that property taxes fund local stuff, such as “the schools” and the cops. I told him I see no difference in that both taxes are based on the idea that because some people consider a thing worth “funding” – I despise the banal wording – then it is ok to make others “fund” it.
I told him I do not use or support “the schools.” That I consider it to be the obligation of parents to raise (and educate) the children they create and that – more fundamentally – “the schools” are government warehouses that instill conformity and stifle independent thought and I vehemently despise them for that. As for cops, I pointed out to him the fact that we both live in a rural area and that we are functionally on our own, which I am fine with. I am not fine with having to “help” subsidize the salary and benefits of some guy who drives around in a $40k Explorer hassling people over “speeding” and so on.
He didn’t see it. It’s not that he is unintelligent. It’s just a kind of willful dissonance. It’s very strange but also extremely common.
Wow, Eric. It never ceases to amaze me how people like that can justify such logical contradictions to themselves- and even attempt to justify it to us! It’s absurd- Your friend is basically saying “One type of institutionalized legalized theft is bad, but another form of the same thing is perfectly fine….as long as the ill-gotten loot is used for things I approve of”.
The sad thing is that such a mentality is the norm rather than the exception. It’s bad enough that they abdicate their own liberties. If doing that had no effect on us, and only upon them, then fine- but that their philosophy and actions affect every aspect of our lives and property- THAT is a problem. Such people are no different than a chattel slave who believes that he is legitimately the property of his master, and who works to uphold his master’s interests while suppressing his own and those of his fellows.
This is why I have always maintained that there will be no revolution for liberty- because the masses are not the least bit interested in liberty, but rather in getting what they want at the expense of others.
This discussion has veered off into so many tangents that no matter what I might say I can’r be sure any of us are even talking about the same thing(s).
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I am BIG believer in minding my own business, live and let live, all that.
I make a stark distinction between crimes and sins.
Being a Christian is by no means the same thing as being a theocrat.
I don’t look at Christianity in any sort of utilitarian terms. All I want to know about it is this: is it true or not?
If it is *not * true then I don’t give a hoot how useful or good it is for what is called “society.”
There have always been, and still are, those who don’t believe a word of it but still advocate for it as a “stabilizing” influence. The ancient pagan Romans sure didn’t see Christianity that way at all. They saw it as very subversive.
The heart — or you might say the *crux* — of the matter is whether Jesus rose from the dead or not.
If He did not, then the whole thing is pointless and meaningless. It says so very plainly right there in the New Testament. I won’t cite you that chapter and verse again because that just gets me accused of being a crazed Bible-thumper.
But, supposing He did, I don’t get how that supposedly “makes *everything *okay.” I don’t think the Bible says anything like that, or if it does I missed it. I seem to recall it saying things like Satan, the prince of the powers of the air, is the god of *this* world, and that Christians are up against powers and principalities and can expect to be in for a pretty hard time regardless.
On a related note here’s something I put on my own Facebook page about 24 hours ago. Read it and then tell me again all about how I believe things just because I *want* to or because I find them “comforting.”
“From where would I get the idea that the world isn’t right if I didn’t have some idea of how it was supposed to be right?”
— variously attributed (it *looks* like a paraphrase of something G.K. Chesterton or C.S. Lewis said)
Yeah, a big problem with relying too much on the Argument From Design is that there are a whole lot flaws and imperfections in the design, which kind of goes against the motto or idea that “God’s in His heaven, all’s right with the world,” and that this is “the best of all possible worlds.”
‘ “The best of all possible worlds” is the famous satirical catchphrase from Voltaire’s 1759 novel Candide.
Parodying philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Voltaire uses the character Dr. Pangloss to constantly repeat this mantra despite experiencing endless catastrophes like earthquakes, wars, and disease.
Philosophical Meaning
Voltaire uses the phrase to attack the doctrine of optimism. While Leibniz argued that an all-good God must have created the best possible universe, Voltaire viewed this as naive and complacent.
By having characters spout the phrase in the face of horrific suffering, Voltaire argues that the universe is indifferent and that claiming “everything happens for the best” ignores real-world injustice.
Key Takeaways
Dr. Pangloss: The tutor of the main character, Candide. He is a living caricature of blind optimism, representing the philosophy of Leibniz.
Panglossian: Derived from the character, this term describes a person who is excessively optimistic or believes we live in the best of all possible worlds regardless of evidence.
“We must cultivate our garden”: This famous concluding line of the book is Candide’s final realization. It means that instead of debating abstract philosophical optimism, we must focus on practical, actionable work to improve our own immediate lives.’
‘Voltaire argues that the universe is indifferent and that claiming “everything happens for the best” ignores real-world injustice.’
And this brings us back around to my first quote at the top. How indeed would we know that the world is unjust unless we had some idea of what justice is and what a just world would be like? Where do we we get that idea from?
.
And now it’s time for another quote that’s *not* a just Bible verse.
‘ … Syme saw, with thunder-struck clearness, that the face was the broad, almost ape-like face of his old friend Gregory, with its rank red hair and its insulting smile.
“Gregory!” gasped Syme, half-rising from his seat. “Why, this is the real anarchist!”
“Yes,” said Gregory, with a great and dangerous restraint, “I am the real anarchist.”
“‘Now there was a day,’” murmured Bull, who seemed really to have fallen asleep, “‘when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.’”
“You are right,” said Gregory, and gazed all round. “I am a destroyer. I would destroy the world if I could.”
A sense of a pathos far under the earth stirred up in Syme, and he spoke brokenly and without sequence.
“Oh, most unhappy man,” he cried, “try to be happy! You have red hair like your sister.”
“My red hair, like red flames, shall burn up the world,” said Gregory. “I thought I hated everything more than common men can hate anything; but I find that I do not hate everything so much as I hate you!”
“I never hated you,” said Syme very sadly.
Then out of this unintelligible creature the last thunders broke.
“You!” he cried. “You never hated because you never lived. I know what you are all of you, from first to last—you are the people in power! You are the police—the great fat, smiling men in blue and buttons!
You are the Law, and you have never been broken. But is there a free soul alive that does not long to break you, only because you have never been broken?
We in revolt talk all kind of nonsense doubtless about this crime or that crime of the Government. It is all folly! The only crime of the Government is that it governs. The unpardonable sin of the supreme power is that it is supreme.
I do not curse you for being cruel. I do not curse you (though I might) for being kind. I curse you for being safe! You sit in your chairs of stone, and have never come down from them. You are the seven angels of heaven, and you have had no troubles.
Oh, I could forgive you everything, you that rule all mankind, if I could feel for once that you had suffered for one hour a real agony such as I—”
Syme sprang to his feet, shaking from head to foot.
“I see everything,” he cried, “everything that there is. Why does each thing on the earth war against each other thing? Why does each small thing in the world have to fight against the world itself? Why does a fly have to fight the whole universe? Why does a dandelion have to fight the whole universe?
For the same reason that I had to be alone in the dreadful Council of the Days.
So that each thing that obeys law may have the glory and isolation of the anarchist. So that each man fighting for order may be as brave and good a man as the dynamiter.
So that the real lie of Satan may be flung back in the face of this blasphemer, so that by tears and torture we may earn the right to say to this man, ‘You lie!’
No agonies can be too great to buy the right to say to this accuser, ‘We also have suffered.’
“It is not true that we have never been broken. We have been broken upon the wheel.
It is not true that we have never descended from these thrones. We have descended into hell.
We were complaining of unforgettable miseries even at the very moment when this man entered insolently to accuse us of happiness.
I repel the slander; we have not been happy. I can answer for every one of the great guards of Law whom he has accused. At least—”
He had turned his eyes so as to see suddenly the great face of Sunday, which wore a strange smile.
“Have you,” he cried in a dreadful voice, “have you ever suffered?”
As he gazed, the great face grew to an awful size, grew larger than the colossal mask of Memnon, which had made him scream as a child. It grew larger and larger, filling the whole sky; then everything went black.
Only in the blackness before it entirely destroyed his brain he seemed to hear a distant voice saying a commonplace text that he had heard somewhere, “Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?” ‘
— G.K. Chesterton, _The Man Who Was Thursday_ (1908)
Morning, David!
Humans are thinking beings; at least, humans are capable of thinking. That is, of conceptual/abstract thought. So of course we have the ability to imagine the concept of the perfect as juxtaposed with the reality of imperfection. There is nothing mystical about this that I can see. The problem – as I see it – is imagining that there ever was (or can be) a state of perfection – and that we have somehow “fallen” from it. I see no evidence to substantiate this idea. It seems to me we are what we are – notwithstanding that we can imagine something better. We can and ought certainly to strive to be better; to look upon the concept of the perfect as the ideal – even though it is an ideal that can never be full realized.
So, yes, I think the world is “fallen” – if you want to use that word. But I do not think it was ever “un-fallen,” so to speak. I think that to believe it was is – forgive me – wishful thinking and also destructive because it implies we did something wrong to account for this fallen-ness. The doctrine is the original man and woman (setting aside for a moment any critique of this idea) did something wrong and that caused the fallenness. This is a (to put it mildly) problematic idea in that it seems to be the idea of inherited guilt – and worse.
There are many wise things in the Bible. There are also many wise things in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. I take from both the things that strike me as sensible, just and humane.
Well, I am not a biblical Inerrantist. I am not a Young Earth Creationist. I don’t take the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as literal historical or scientific fact, but rather a metaphor, of some subtlety, for conveying some truth it would otherwise be hard to convey
I don’t take the Noah’s Ark story as literal historical or scientific fact either, nor much of the book of Genesis until around chapter twelve-ish where Abram/Abraham comes in.
I can’t prove it definitively but I tend to think he was real historical person, living somewhere between 2,000 and 1,800 B.C.. I think he was before Hammurabi, but I can’t narrow his timeline down any more precisely than that.
I’ve skipped around a little in the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
There are are things in the Bible –even in those parts I think are more-or-less accurate history — that bother me too. Especially in the Old Testament, where most of the stuff about collective guilt and hereditary sin/guilt is.
But some things in the New Testament bother me as well. That’s where nearly everything about Hell is said.
From what I can gather nearly everyone goes to Hell. Almost everyone I ever knew or loved, and me too, most likely. Why would I *want* to believe in that, or find it comforting?
Make America Goy Again
Yukon Jack for President. Vote anti septic, and be an ingrate in 2028.
Anarchism doesn’t necessarily hold the same position as libertarian, and in this case, does not. Anarchism is no rulers, not no rules. A community could choose to ban porn or greed or drugs or bell bottoms, with punishment up to and including death by torture. What they could not do is force anyone to stay. If anyone does not like the rules that guide that society, they have to be free to leave.
Spot on. Lack of government (anarchy) does not mean total chaos or free-for-all. A spontaneous order will occur that may or may not suit you. Think of the Amish society, which would look pretty the same were there no U.S.A. thorn in their side and I doubt many who not already Amish would call that a libertarian utopia in social aspects.
That’s what they say about Gaza. Being “free to leave” is bullshit. That means nothing.
As pointless as this will surely be, the Gazans had the opportunity to set their own rules. They chose to hand that over to Hamas, with the quite predictable outcome.
I don’t think the majority of humanity is civilized enough to be able to handle libertarianism. Some, yes, but not many, and by no means all. What’s more, governments are necessary to deal with the uncivilized, even though more often than not make things worse, not better.
You just summed up the problem, for humanity to be civilized enough to be able to handle libertarianism then the process of voting to take other’s rights away must be ended. For instance, many voters are single issue voters, like the Christian right which wants to ban abortions. Well if I was like them using the voting booth to impose my will I would vote to ban their religion.
The problem with Libertarians is they tolerate others while others have no tolerance. Religious extremists would gladly ban sex outside of marriage while also enforcing mandatory war service. They claim pre-marital sex a sin and wish to make it a crime while killing others for the state not only justified but glorious. So which group is more immoral, the fornicators or the war mongers?
Hypocrisy is far from a rare human attribute even among the best libertarian minds.
Governments are not needed to constrain outlaws. We have a rich history of vigilance committees, sometimes when there is no government presence, sometimes when government refuses to deal with the uncivilized. Even lynching, which terribly few people realize originally meant simply extrajudicial punishment, having been indoctrinated into what progs want you to believe it means.
All we have to do is study history to know that prohibition never works. We also know that government can not legislate morality. Banning porno is not going to fix any of our social problems. That’s like my home state of Louisiana passing a law to prohibite homelessness while not going after the root causes of homelessness. Of course the root cause is the government itself.
Marxist-Democrats proclaim freedom only in the sex-drugs-and Rock & Roll kind of way. This is their seduction to the masses. After they acquire power, it is all about force. Ban this, control that, new rules and regulations to control human behavior. One giant leap beyond making laws telling you want you can’t do are laws compelling you to do what they want you to do. Speech codes, forced acknowledgement of pronouns, longer jail sentences for *hate* crimes against their support groups. Seat belt laws and being forced to answer questions at a traffic stop. Also, being forced to bake a wedding cake for someone who is committing a mortal sin in the baker’s opinion. (In those cases, if I were the cake baker I would have made them the Soviet version of state cake baking… rock hard uneatable.)
Another Rubicon is children. Marxist-Democrats have no problem indoctrinating your kids into gender-ideology and without your knowledge giving children puberty blockers which are chemical castration drugs. As for invoking any libertarians to the idea that freedom means children are allowed to do this with or without parental consent is ridiculously evil.
Same with all Marxist-Democrats ideology going on in public schools (there is no reform-get your kids out). There are limits to freedom when it comes to evil that libertarians must agree.
At least the one consistent principle of Libertarianism is *leave me alone*.
Easy to sum up with “Live and let live.” I really don’t care what any other person, honestly any sentient being capable of thought and feeling, does as long as they respect my privacy and independence. That’s the root of all issues, politically left or right. Having some shrill Karen telling me I’m bad is no different than a shrill preacher telling me I’m immoral. None of us is perfect framed from another person’s series of experiences so when you internalize another’s flaws and determine it’s your job to fix them is when conflict becomes inevitable.
Let’s not forget the LGBTQXYZ push which is not only promoted and controlled by jews but is a major part of jewish doctrine. The push for normalization of such behaviors is another feather in the cap for the jews whose ultimate goal is the destabilization of gentile societies.
Keep in mind that israel (tel aviv) is the LGBTQXYZ capital of the world where “anything goes” no different than Wiemar Germany.
Criminal jewish child diddlers and pedophiles routinely escape to israel in order to avoid responsibility for their crimes in gentile societies. israel does not extradite pedophiles.
The Talmud, a huge and authoritative compendium of Jewish legal traditions, contains in fact no less than eight gender designations including:
1. Zachar, male.
2. Nekevah, female.
3. Androgynos, having both male and female characteristics.
4. Tumtum, lacking sexual characteristics.
5. Aylonit hamah, identified female at birth but later naturally developing male characteristics.
6. Aylonit adam, identified female at birth but later developing male characteristics through human intervention.
7. Saris hamah, identified male at birth but later naturally developing female characteristics.
8. Saris adam, identified male at birth and later developing female characteristics through human intervention.
Notice that # 6 and # 8 are achieved through surgical intervention. Sound familiar?
“Keep in mind that israel (tel aviv) is the LGBTQXYZ capital of the world”
Yes and they advertize Israel as the world’s #1 gay destination. This is directly against what God says in the Torah. Using Ai, I quickly find the exact verses:
Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
“Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.
Israel claims they have a right to Palestinian land based on Torah verse
Genesis 15:18: “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, ‘To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates.'”
So how is it Israel can use the Torah to justify land theft yet at the same time violate the very code God demands of them?
Correct answer: the Holy Bible is utter horseshit, fake ass Jews from Europe are not the same as the Israelites of the Torah, modern Jews have no claim to any land anywhere, modern Jews are thieves and murderers using ancient holy text to justify the most despicable crimes ever committed. Plus the fact the Bible is fiction, not true, not history, just racist tribal propaganda written up in a fictional story of a relationship with a fake deity.
Modern Jews are Sodomites, they are weirdos who prefer anal homosexual sex because of their warped and twisted minds. Why any modern Christian would favor them and follow them is beyond my comprehension.
I despise pornography not for prudish or religious reasons, I despise it for the same reason I despise greed, obesity, gaudy materialism, drug addiction, drunkenness, and rap music — for its excess and purposelessness. Plato argued that the good life was only possible when people were governed by prudence, moderation, justice and fortitude. Aristotle argued that virtue was the “mean between extremes” — and porn is extreme.
Although Christianity was the main institution that promulgated these pagan virtues in the West, mostly through the Seven Deadly Sins of Greed, Lust, Envy, Wrath, Gluttony, Sloth and Pride (all of which describe the culture of pornography) the argument against porn is not exclusively religious. The argument is that it is unnatural, excessive and corrupting.
Mammals naturally enjoy sex because Nature utilizes it as a way to perpetuate the species. Paying money to watch other people fuck while you jerk off is profoundly unnatural. If we were university biologists and we were studying giraffes in Africa, we would think it extremely odd if the the male giraffes stopped copulating with female giraffes and instead watched one male and female mate while they jerked off. As the giraffe birthrate declined, we’d wonder what to do to prevent their eventual extinction.
Well, as the porn culture has developed and human sexual behavior has become “entertainment” and “recreation,” we are also seeing a precipitous decline in the white birthrate in ALL Western developed countries — at the same time they are being invaded by hordes of nonwhites.
We are going extinct, folks, because our culture has become completely corrupt and decadent. One need not be a Bible-thumping prude to see this… a hardcore atheist evolutionary biologist should be able to see it, too.
Your points are solid, X –
I do not fundamentally disagree with any of them. That said, there is another factor that accounts at least to some degree for the declining birth rate among, shall we say, historic Americans. It is the cost and hassle that government has imposed on people who have kids. The stupid child “safety” seat stuff is an example. Who wants to have to deal with that, every day, for years? It makes every trip by car a hassle and a degradation – for the parent and the kid. It is also serves to effectively limit family size because if you have more than two kids, you will need a three-row vehicle – to accommodate more than two “safety” seats – and these are generally much more expensive.
But it’s the cost of the dependents that is the real killed of families. Yes, of course – it is possible to have/raise kids on a tight budget. But it has gotten tighter – and harder. A family-sized load of groceries for a week can easily cost $200 (or more). Yes, there are ways to reduce this. But only up to a point and I think the larger point is that a point comes when the idea of living at or near the poverty line becomes an incentive to not have kids.
Then there is the likelihood of divorce. I think the stat is that 50 percent of all first marriages end in in divorce. This is catastrophic for all concerned. Especially financially and especially when kids are involved. A man might be forced to pay exorbitant spousal and child support for years while also having to support himself in a separate residence.
I think it’s fair to say that people tend to be interested in having kids when they can comfortably have them. And are less interested when they see it as a probable fast-track to lifelong impoverishment.
Well, porn is a poor substitute for the white guys who cannot afford to have kids. Basically it is a “Brave New World” scenario where the totalitarian government keeps the proles quiescent with soma and recreational sex. That’s exactly where we’re at — you can smoke legal weed and watch porn, goy, so you should be happy with your “freedom.” And while you’re stoned and watching porn you are not challenging The System that is fucking you over and making it impossible for an average dude to afford the most basic shit, like a house, a wife, and kids.
That’s one of the main reasons I despise porn, ultimately it is a swindle. The chicks making the porn and the Jews disseminating it are making money off hapless suckers by baiting them with their natural interest in sex that they ultimately cannot fulfill.
Would you rather live in a country full of obese, single young men jerking off the porn disseminated by Jewish billionaires while “our” mercenary soldiers fight for Israel, or would you rather live in a country of sturdy, fit, yeomen who father five or six kids and fight for their own country like the Minutemen of the 1770s?
All true, X – and sad.
What’s the answer? I think at least part of it would be a repeal of the property tax and also zoning restrictions. If a young man could own an acre or two of land and put a small house he built (or bought) or a trailer, etc. on it he would be in a position to be able to afford a wife to stay home and raise their kids. But when an average house costs $400k and you never own it? No wonder so many of them smoke dope, watch porn and go back to sleep.
I believe the answer is to repeal the no-fault divorce laws and/or to mandate a default outcome in case of divorce which awards fathers custody of children. The author of the following is a PhD researcher specializing in totalitarian ideology.
https://stephenbaskerville.substack.com/p/father-custody-will-restore-america
Yes. This would be very helpful. Remember all the rogue judges always ruling against enforcing our countries borders language and culture? Many of them made their bones destroying men in the family courts. I know this for an absolute certainty. Fortune smiled on me as I found a really smart legal mind who helped me successfully navigate my way out of it.
“The System that is fucking you over and making it impossible for an average dude to afford the most basic shit, like a house, a wife, and kids.”
Bingo. The “system” is run by Jews to transfer the wealth of society to the top tier. This is proven by many writers like Charles Hugh Smith. The Federal Reserve is running a Ponzi scheme of endless debt, with each financial crisis the Fed inflates, which transfers the wealth up the chain to the big debtors. The top 0.1% now have more wealth than the bottom 80%
https://inequality.org/article/billionaire-wealth-concentration-is-even-worse-than-you-imagine/
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WFRBLTP1246
The Fed says it is targeting inflation at 2%. In ten years that means USDollars will have declined 20% in purchasing power. Where did that wealth magically go? To the debtor class.
The Fed charter says it’s job is price stability. 2% a year inflation in NOT price stability. Inflation is actually much higher than 2%.
The Fed is a scam run by the rich to asset strip the poor. No wonder people are voting socialist, to claw back the wealth from the rich.
Where did these “Experts” come-up with the 2% target? It is nearly universally said, this is best for the economy yet it seems it’s only best for long-term debtors. If deflation in a good economy is so bad, the electronic industry would be in shambles. How was lowering the price of the Model T bad for Ford?
The 2% is just made up like stand 6′ apart during Covid hysteria. When the government is running multi-trillion dollar yearly deficits, the Fed can not pretend it is stabilizing the price level, they must inflate to keep the government solvent – the national debt can only be paid by monetization.
In 2020, the Fed jacked M1 up 16 trillion overnight
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
As a result inflation is a permanent thing, probably will accelerate and become out of control in the near future. 2% is a joke. We would be lucky only to see a 2% increase in the CPI per year.
Correct, and I would add that “health care” (NOT) system in the US is a major factor as well. The system of “employer provided” health insurance is the WORST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS, much worse than even state-run “single payer” systems in that it literally creates a system of indentured servitude where one dare not rock the boat, and subject themselves to employer abuse and “mandates” lest they lose “insurance” if their kid(s) have an get sick/have an accident and lead to bankruptcy and financial ruin. This is a SERIOUS disincentive to have children on top of the nanny state “safety” cult.
I am sick to death of the endless complaining-mostly from men, mostly on the “right” about the declining birthrates of “Heritage Americans” (I hate that term, just say “White” and be honest about it – also East Asians have even lower birthrates than Whites). Said men also love to blame women for being “selfish” when the economics of having kids increasing make no sense, not to mention the dystopian hellscape of a future that we are increasingly facing. This is not the fault of “porn” or birth control availability, or the desire for recreational sex.
How about fixing these problems instead of complaining about them? (Not directed at you, Eric, you understand these problems perfectly)
I have no problem saying White Americans. I prefer to use the term Heritage Americans in the spirit of inclusiveness. White, black, brown, red, yellow. At least where I live, some that share my right wing outlook are not White. If someone was born here and tends to be in the 80-20 camp against government and its endless schemes I will stand alongside them and welcome them. White replacement is another issue that many of the aforementioned groups see more clearly than even the whites being replaced.
Not all right wing White men are the feckless monsters you rail about, MQ. I went in the military because at 18 it was my best option. I had the summer after high school to move out on my own. No college, no trust fund, shitty job, no help from parents. My younger sister, otoh, well, she lived at home with no accountability until she was in her mid 20s. Favoring girl children was a common thing among early boomer parents. It’s where all the deference to the P-pass came from. I’m not complaining per se, made me grow up faster. and got to see the world and realize there is much to love outside the US. This was probably a primary driver for my jaded view on American women.
The warring is over. The right wing, Israeli loving war mongers you complain about constantly are mostly all boomers, and all on their way out. The vast majority of those under 40, even 60 reject these never ending no win wars. Most people of fighting age these days will refuse to fight or die for Israel, trump, or any other newly minted boggyman.
Of course not all right-leaning white men are monsters, most are not monsters at all but unfortunately I have found that the majority of them tend to lash out and blame everyone but themselves for the predicament we find ourselves in today. The economic issues that have resulted in the subterranean birthrate are the fault of those in power (not limited to the government) and that so many love to blame women (collectively) for it gets under my skin big time. I would really like to see young right-leaning men confront the issue of the de-facto indentured servitude of employer provided “health insurance” for example, but instead most of what I find is griping and blaming. That is why I rant.
Fair enough. Lord knows I do my share of ranting. Not sure about what “health insurance” has to do with it. The younger males (late 20s) I know, on a recent fishing trip, were all concerned about the high cost of living and being able to afford a house. They were all pissed that Trump sold out to Israel. None of them cared about ICE overreach, and all four of them were upset that not enough was being done to remove illegal Aliens fast enough.
Never had health insurance myself, so I always try to convince people to opt out, or become self employed. It is one of the great grifts of our time. The gripping and blaming is true among males as well as females. My wish is that younger females would disavow the radical feminism that seems to make so many women so unhappy. I know this as a father of a daughter who complains about her options, while taking no responsibility for how her own choices resulted in her reduced market value. It works both ways and is a problem that, if we are bing honest with each other. probably came about through some jewish group, or some sinister doctrine advocating for enmity between the sexes.
My point about health insurance being tied to employment is that it is one of the major impediments to family formation that never seems to come up with the “ranting men of the right”, similar to student debt it creates a kind of indentured servitude that limits the kind of actual independence that one might want to raise kids in. You actually might want to query some of the young men you talk to I bet it is a factor.
The only actual part I can see about health insurance being an anchor to servitude is govco increasing the penalty for not having it. So far, thats easily avoidable. None of them seem worried about that, even the two with wifes and kids. None of them went to college, all picked up trades in the military, went to a trade school, or, have their own small business. They all grew up together in Vegas, went in the military about the same time.
All 4 of them discourage anyone else from ever joining the military. Which is great, but then again none of them listened to me when I told them that as teen agers. So now, 2 of them have PTSD type issues from being down range.
It’s pretty comical to listen as the married ones argue with the single ones on the virtues of American women. Add in some alcohol and you get much testosterone filled hubris to observe. I’m mostly glad none of them made babies out of wedlock like I did, and none of them have been divorce raped like I was.
Sounds like E. Michael Jones might be a puritan at heart employing sophistry.
We’re supposed to be grown-ass adults free to make our own choices. There are things in life that we’re able to do, but ought not to do. Respecting the NAP of course, that’s our choice. That’s what being a grown-ass adult allows.
He employs the sinister tactic of using one’s own principles to argue against one’s own principles (in this case, eviscerating the foundation of libertarianism with anti-government libertarianism):
“He points out that porn has been used as a weapon; that the intelligence apparatuses of various countries have used it to foster narcissism, nihilism and moral corruption, which can work even more effectively than a direct (military) attack, provided the purveyor is willing to give it time to work.”
This is a lot like using Christian scripture (think Scofield, Huckabee, Ted Cruz, et al) to get Christians to disregard basic tenets of Christianity in order to worship non-Christian “chosen ones” in Israel that commit systematic murder, tyranny and theft on a daily basis. It’s literally diabolical.
Agree totally. I gave up on that article about halfway through because it was the same old tired “social conservative” gripes that NEVER address the underlying issues. One gets weary of hearing it.
If a society is going to use GovCo to make a society “moral” beyond punishing the actual initiation of force and fraud, why do we need churches?
As far as belief in God goes, it doesn’t make “sense”. That’s why it’s called “Faith”. However, if you don’t think your Rights are Endowed by the Creator, you put yourself in a situation where GovCo can convince the masses that their Rights come from it. )See the lyrics to God Bless the USA for clarification.) Hence, GovCo becomes God. (See the religious ceremony performed before every NFL game for clarification.)
Having rights endowed by your Creator for me is fundamental to individual liberty. If you are not born free by virtue of a perfect and just over-watch then the liberal stance that rights are a different spelling of privileges simply bestowed by mortal humans has arguable merit.
This alternative is you bestowed these rights upon yourself and relies upon agreement by peers. This person gave himself equal rights and then it’s a survival of the strongest question. Or what’s to stop this other person from granting himself higher rights and calling himself the king? The stronger does in fact have the ability to take away your rights since there is nothing higher or lower than the immediate.
Whether I believe in the campfire stories of a religion doesn’t change the faith that I have in a higher power or energy or whatever. What that is I can’t ever comprehend with the severely limited meatbag I was issued at birth but I do deeply sense that what is around us can’t be the whole picture. What drives me is that the pursuit is the underlying point.
Some very good points, anon.
My faith in all things being made up of vibrational energy is not swayed by campfire stories. In fact, I find the campfire stories contain truths which sometimes complement my belief in the higher power. There is a source beyond our tiny pea brains ability to fully understand where all energy and life comes from. But, to think that one tribe got an exclusive on the story, with no one else receiving the enlightenment is ludicrous and defies reason and probability.
I’m beginning to realize that this prison planet, this gilded cage, is what you make of it. We are all free to walk right out of our cells at anytime. Most cant comprehend that, and most don’t want to leave the comforts of the world behind. The birds stay in the open cage because they fear the limitless expanse of the sky.
I do believe we’re on the same wavelength, so to speak.
I am far from anti-religion. I was raised Catholic and I think having those boundaries to test worked precisely like the guardrails they were intended to be. Imagine an out of control, testosterone poisoned teenager as the equivalent of a Camaro with a stuck accelerator and no brakes. Hitting those guardrails hard and occasionally getting stuck on one is a damn sight better than careening into the abyss before you’re mentally and physically mature enough to question things.
I think in this way organized religion provides (and probably intentionally going back only God knows how many human generations) an easy to understand explanation and rules of the Universe. Some religions are more perverse or have become positively corrosive. This I do not dispute.
Just that a person living true to genuine Christian principles taken generally will be a humble and decent person, no different than a secular who takes to heart the equivalents. Being a good neighbor, loyal to friends and family, good protector, provider and parent doesn’t require the word of God but being a member of congregation or at least have a bible as reference can help some people achieve it.
I like your analogy of the Camaro with no brakes, accelerator stuck, careening down the hill. That was me at age 13-18 after my parents got divorced. Chose to live with dad because he traveled about 150 days a year for work. Excelled in Basketball and baseball, not so much in class. Did just enough to be a solid C student. But, I also got a world class education in human nature.
Being raised in a southern baptist type church when I was younger, I suppose it did do me some good. Although the hypocrisy was off the charts and easy to spot even from a young age. Also, the way they taught me the Bible made no sense to my young mind. It was like some dead letter written in a language I didn’t understand.
40+ years later, and a small bible study not related to any church for me to really get interested. The cool thing about this Bible study is no dogma, and no judgement. In fact they were very open discussing related historical parallels to modern Christianity. Starting with the Ethiopian Bible and all the stories left on the cutting room floor of Nicea. I am not so dogmatic in my faith that I am unable to look at things I’ve never seen with an open heart. I find that all these historical fiction stories have common connective threads. The Essene’s, Hermeticism, the Gnostics, all of them complement each other in my view. All of their stories are similar enough. In fact, I seem to find more truth in the versions that don’t require gatekeepers or translators.
The universe is full of wonders and it would be mathematically impossible for one tiny sect to have a monopoly on all the truth and all the stories surrounding any given age. Those who insist on this really crack me up.
So, I’ve seen people who profess Christian principles and I’ve seen people who live Christian principles. All I can do with that is try to be humble, which I regularly fail epically at, and try to be a good neighbor which I seem to be getting better at with time.
Morning, Norman!
Yup. Anyone who has been a hormone addled teenager knows the truth of what you have stated. I also like the Camaro analogy. Or Trans-Am analogy! I’d have killed myself, probably, if I had my TA when I was 16. I surely would have wrecked it. To get back on point… Guardrails are important. Wen we were kids, there were taboos/expectations that served that purpose; of course we sometimes went ahead and did stupid/dangerous stuff anyhow, but I think the guardrails are pretty much down now, except – ironically – as regards saaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety. We – our generation was driving cars without air bags and not wearing seat belts when we were 16. Today’s generation has air bags and seat belts and saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaafety seats – but are almost totally un-guardrailed when it comes to sex stuff. We had to furtively snatch a copy of dad’s Playboy (or a friend’s dad’s Playboy) to see nekkid women. Today’s kids can see the hardest core porn as easily as we could get Bazooka bubble gum at the corner store.
Good morning, Eric.
Dad didn’t have any playboys, but I found out later he did have a habit of banging his secretaries. A friend and I were walking down the alley once when I was around 10 or 11. We found a box of playboys. As I carried them back home, a policeman pulled up behind us and gave us a quick blast of his siren, my friend ran but I dint, thinking I had done no wrong. The cop tried telling me it was verboten to take things from peoples trash. I argued a little, and ended up getting a ride home in the back of his cruiser with my box of girlie mags.
Mom wasn’t too thrilled when the cop told her what I’d done. When dad got home he poured himself a drink and told her ‘boys will be boys.’ or some such. Shocker, the cop kept the magazines after lecturing me about THE LAW.
It’s amazing we made it to adulthood mostly unscathed. I got to drive regularly in 1980 starting around 15. Had a friend who got to drive to school everyday from freshman year on. His dad was dead, his mom couldn’t drive, so he got the keys whenever he wanted. The freedom that existed back then was pretty unbelievable, as anyone here over 50 would attest.
And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 18:9
There is the fourth pillar: Religion. I know that’s not a popular topic ’round these parts, mostly because traditional churches have become worthless as they’ve gone after the dazzling urbanites. But the longer I live the more I feel compelled to believe in a higher power, and higher order. One that absolutely wants me to live a moral life.
But Satan is happy to have you believe that God is dead, morals are relative and as long as everyone is connecting (and by extension, compensated), no one is going to hell.
It’s one of the big problems I have with most libertarian arguments. The belief that Randian self-interest is the only thing keeping everything on the up and up. And one could argue that people trying to avoid Hell might only have eternal life on their mind when they don’t try to screw you on a transaction. Maybe that’s OK. But I think most of us outgrew the cartoon versions of biblical analysis a long time ago, even though many churches have not. So libertarians try to come up with some justification for moral behavior that doesn’t involve God. And try as they might, they can’t. God matters. And without God your life will be hell.
Higher power? Sure.
Organized religion? There’s aspects of it that may have some value, maybe it’s a good starting point, but increasingly as i get older i find myself leaving it farther & farther behind. They’ve been systematically dumbing it down & casting aside the stuff that I liked or found interesting or challenging for so long there is practically nothing of value left, just feelgood pablum. The absolute last straw was when they all rolled over & played dead because the government said so in 2020, without so much as a hint of protest save for a handful of evangelicals (who I normally tend to oppose).
You’re not wrong. Many churches became less relevant over the last 50 years and disbanded. Those that watched their declining numbers and attempted to adapt to “modern thinking” divided the congregation and made things worse. I attend a bible church that’s unaffiliated with any major religion. I first started going because I don’t like the direction this country is headed, and maybe hearing a good analysis of a few chapters of the bible every week does clarify things a bit. And my church clearly says no pornography, and I’m OK with that. My church also says no drunkenness, and I’m OK with that too. Is it biblical? Maybe, I don’t know. But I know that a few weeks ago the pastor announced that he had a bad cold and wouldn’t be shaking hands. No mask, no thought of not holding a service that week, or phoning it in on Zoom.
Morning, Publius!
I do not like the idea of inherited guilt/defectiveness. It strikes me as a psychological trick played on people because we are all aware that we are less than perfect, have bad thoughts and sometimes do bad things. In other words, it is a guilt trip laid on people for being normal. Then the answer is presented: You can be saved – if you believe a first century rabbi/preacher was actually the creator of everything and that he died on a cross for you and was resurrected. This makes everything ok again.
It has never made any sense to me, for a number of reasons. Among them it is not ok again. Kids still get bone cancer. Babies are born with horrible birth defects. I could go on.
Which is why I do not believe. Which is not something I can help. This is really important. No one can help what they believe. It is an automatic function of what your brain perceives and processes and decides is in accordance with objective reality and facts. No one, in other words, can choose whether to believe a thing. Thus, it strikes me as a horrible thing to say a man who does not believe a first century rabbi/preacher was (is) the creator of everything and died on a cross (incoherent; how does an eternal being die in any meaningful sense?) and then came back and on account of that, if we believe in that, we are “saved”?
I mean no offense to anyone else who does believe it. I understand that such beliefs are sincere. But it doesn’t work for me. Does that mean I am “sinful”? A man deserving of eternal punishment? If so, I am glad I do not believe!
“I do not like the idea of inherited guilt/defectiveness.” What does not liking something have to do with belief? Do you “like” that you are the creature and God is the creator, that everyone is not created equal in terms of intelligence, beauty, strength, longevity, color, etc., that God is always the smartest, strongest, most beautiful, infinite and you are always nothing in comparison? That God gets to make the rules and define, sin? Do you like that you don’t know when or how you’re going to die or what illnesses you will get or when anyone else is going to die or what they think or that you don’t know everything or even what’s going to happen in 1 minute?
“Among them it is not ok again.” Evil still exists. The question I have for you is what is your theory: why are we here? where did we come from? why do we die and why is their evil? or do you live with no theory just enjoying yourself as best you can from day to day and say you will worry about why you were born and where you are going when you die? Meanwhile, just say the beginning was a big bang and the ending too. Evil happens but let someone else take care of it. When it happens to me I ask my friends and family to help, but if they don’t do it or are all dead of the earthquake, plague, fire etc., that’s okay because I’m a libertarian and need to take care of myself (?)
“incoherent; how does an eternal being die in any meaningful sense” Only the human nature died. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. AI: “Through his divine nature, Jesus performed miracles and offered salvation; through his human nature, he experienced joy, temptation, suffering, and death.” You say it is incoherent in that YOU would never think of it. Just like YOU would never think of one God that is a Trinity (or water/ice/snow, electricity or gas fueling an engine). But does that make it not true?
“No one, in other words, can choose whether to believe a thing.” Do you believe Donald Trump? Do you believe OJ Simpson? Do you believe Jesus Christ? Do you believe the Bible? You can study Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism. I don’t know where you got the idea that if you “believe” you are saved. You can read the conclusion to the sermon on the mount (chapter 7 Matthew) YOU MUST DO the words. You can read about who is on the right (saved) and whose on the left (Matthew 25). You can read 1 Corinithians 13: if you have faith to move mountains without charity you are NOT saved; there is faith, hope and charity–but only charity remains. What does belief have to do with these two commandments (or the ten commandments) which you have to follow in your life to get to heaven: Love God and Love your neighbor. RC teaches if you belong to the Church and make a sincere effort follow the teachings, availing yourself of the sacraments and prayer you have a good chance to make it to heaven. BELIEF is only the first step. The devils believe and tremble (James 2:19) but God created hell for them (Matt 25:41)!
You say you don’t mean any offense to anyone, but you offend God if you willfully misrepresent His testimony in the Bible (exact words all over the internet). It would be just as if you misrepresent what OJ or Trump said and then say you don’t believe it. You are a liar and bear false witness if you willfully misrepresent Him and His teachings (and I believe Luther who threw out books of the Bible because they disagreed with his testimony (not God’s) to be such a false witness; same with Calvin and those protestant preachers on TV today). The Bible says you will be held accountable for every idle word (Matt 12:36). It also says that God gives everyone a measure of faith (Romans 12:3). What you do with it is a serious responsibility.
You are bothered by people wearing masks which is “unreasonable” (superstitious?) to you. You say nothing about all the people with tattoos (many over 50% of their body) which wasn’t the case in the halcyon 1970-1980s. Recently you said you had bought a “rune ring.” I assume to wear. (AI) “Rune rings are pieces of jewelry—often bands or signets—engraved with ancient Norse (Elder Futhark) or Anglo-Saxon (Futhorc) characters. Worn for aesthetic, spiritual, or protective reasons, each runic symbol is traditionally believed to hold specific magical intent or natural energy, like wealth (Fehu) or strength (Uruz). Popular Runes & Their MeaningsIf you are designing or selecting a ring, consider the traditional mythological meanings behind the symbols:Fehu (ᚠ): Represents wealth, abundance, and prosperity.Uruz (ᚢ): Symbolizes strength, physical health, and vitality.Algiz (ᛉ): Traditionally worn for protection and warding off negative energy.Gebo (ᚷ): Signifies partnerships, gifts, and harmony.”
The Trinity/a man-god who dies on a cross is ‘unbelievable,’ but how many men have made up a multiplicity of millionaire movie star and corrupt politician “gods” like these to worship: (AI) “The most prominent Germanic deities include:Wodanaz (Odin/Wotan): The chief of the gods. He was the god of war, wisdom, poetry, and the dead, revered particularly by rulers and warriors.Thunraz (Thor/Donar): The god of thunder, storms, and agriculture. Wielding a mighty hammer, he was heavily favored by the common people and warriors for his strength and protection.Tiwaz (Tyr): The original sky father and god of combat, honor, and tribal law. In earlier times, he was considered one of the absolute supreme deities, later taking a one-handed role in myths.Frijjō (Frigg/Frija): The supreme goddess of marriage, motherhood, and fertility.”
And of course not only animal sacrifice but human sacrifice is required to appease them: “Human sacrifice was practiced by Germanic and Norse peoples, though it was relatively rare and reserved for major crises, victories in war, or the execution of criminals. These ritual killings were often dedicated to specific Germanic gods, primarily Odin (Wodan), Thor, and Freyr.Evidence for these sacrifices comes from a combination of archaeological findings and historical accounts:1. The Gods and the MethodsDifferent deities required different offerings, and the methods of execution reflected the nature of the god:Odin (Wodan): The primary god associated with war and the gallows. Sacrifices to Odin often involved hanging, stabbing, or throwing captives into bogs as an offering of victory in war.Thor: The thunder god. Sacrifices to Thor were occasionally made during times of severe famine or social crisis.Nerthus & Freyr: Fertility gods. Offerings to deities like Nerthus frequently involved drowning or sinking victims, often in connection with sacred bogs.2. Who Was Sacrificed?The victims were rarely everyday citizens. They typically fell into one of three categories:Prisoners of War: Captured enemy fighters were often dedicated to the gods, particularly Odin, to thank them for victory in battle.Slaves: Slaves were sometimes sacrificed to accompany their masters to the afterlife (retainer sacrifice) or during large seasonal gatherings.Criminals: Historical Germanic laws (such as the Frisian Law) document executing individuals who had desecrated temples or committed treason. Because these executions were socially sanctioned ways of appeasing an angry deity, they served as both legal punishment and sacrifice”
Animal sacrifice in Germanic and Norse paganism was primarily practiced through Blót, a religious ceremony involving the ritual killing of an animal, followed by cooking and communally eating its meat to honor and commune with the gods.The Blót Ritual and FeastingThe Process: Animals (often horses, boars, oxen, or sheep) were slaughtered, and their blood was collected. The blood was then sprinkled on the attendees and the walls of the temple or sacred space.The Feast: Rather than wasting the animal, the meat was cooked in large cauldrons. Participants ate the meat and drank to the health of the gods, exchanging toasts to deities like Odin, Thor, and Freyr
These arguments are ridiculous and have no effect on those who are not already inclined to believe. I have no problem that you personally believe such things, but I am sick to death of the long winded tortured justifications that are used to back them and try to browbeat others who reject those views that they are rejecting The Truth (TM). It gets seriously old.
There’s an inherent contradiction in Christianity (and probably many other religions) that has bothered me since I was a kid (raised in the church). Which is: if god is omnipotent and all-loving, why would he create the universe and humanity knowing that a number of souls would end up suffering the torments of hell for eternity? So I don’t believe either, can’t help it.
On the other hand, religion has served to provide a moral spine to society and civilization that hasn’t been replaced by current neo-liberal ideology, with results that are becoming clearer day by day.
Remember Chesterton’s fence: don’t toss what worked in the past until you’ve clearly defined and understood why it was implemented in the first place.
“if god is omnipotent and all-loving, why would he create the universe and humanity knowing that a number of souls would end up suffering the torments of hell for eternity? So I don’t believe either, can’t help it.”
We are on a web site where people are saying you can’t force everyone to not watch porn or not create porn or not participate in creation of porn (even as they reject the creation/giving of life in favor of their physical spasm). But you think God should force everyone to go to heaven/enter His Kingdom. AI: “According to Catholic theology, angels cannot repent because their choices are definitive, eternal, and made with total intellectual clarity. Unlike humans, who exist in time and can change their minds, angels are pure spirits outside of linear time; their initial decision for or against God was a fixed, permanent commitment.” Angels have free will and certain ones rejected God’s kingdom so He created hell for them. If you reject God’s kingdom, by definition you choose the opposite (only men will weep and gnash their teeth when they see what they gave up).
Why worry about souls suffering for all eternity in hell? Some people are born with no legs, retarded, blind from birth, in abject poverty–they spend their whole life in suffering. Why would a good and omnipotent God create that? You can find all kinds of flaws in how the Christian God created the universe–but what is your alternative?
“You can find all kinds of flaws in how the Christian God created the universe–but what is your alternative?”
That’s an excellent question, and I don’t have an answer. But an unsatisfactory explanation remains exactly that. It’s like saying ‘So you don’t agree with X, but you can’t provide a better answer, therefore X must be true.’
That logic doesn’t work.
What little that remains, for me, is very very very abstracted. I dont really take any of it literally.
I think one of the most important things that religion does, is to hold up something/someone that is by definition above & beyond any possibility of human control, to somehow define what “good” is (and by extension also “evil”). Which is important because if you get rid of that there are charlatans lurking everywhere (even within the various churches) who will redefine & twist those concepts to suit their own purposes.
And I think there is value in reminding us that we’re all corruptible, and we should all probably be a little nicer to each other, and that everyone is important in one way or another.
Most of the rest i could take or leave. (Especially the part where a certain kind of person starts to get ever so slightly too interested in other people’s bedroom goings-on.)
“But the longer I live the more I feel compelled to believe in a higher power, and higher order. One that absolutely wants me to live a moral life.”
I also believe in this higher power which wants me to live a moral life. This higher power is not “god” but aliens and the Rothschilds, which both benefit greatly from a moral populace they own and control. This is the very reason those with the money and power give religion tax free status – because it benefits both greatly.
———————-
“And without God your life will be hell.”
I would humbly point out belief in G-O-D is what is making hell in the Middle East. The entire Gaza genocide is being driven by Jews and Christians who believe in the HELL GOD of the (unholy) Bible.
Every single act of indecency, treachery, murder, rape, pillage are all straight out of the pages of the Old Testament. The Zionist Jews of Israel are acting out the horrible myth literally without any humanity at all. That proves the Holy Bible is alien to us, inhuman because aliens wrote it by influencing Bible writers telepathically.
Do I believe that they are living life as God would have it? No. And from what I’ve seen there are plenty of people who call themselves holy and commit horrible crimes. We can pick and choose examples all day. I don’t know the heart of Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, nor Donald Trump. Jesus said “By their fruits you will recognize them” referring to false prophets. The Middle East’s mixing of state and religion is pretty recognizable as false prophecy on a grand scale, amped up with petrodollars and international politics.
But to them, they’re living a holy life. I don’t judge them, that’s not my place. But I can choose to recognize their fruit and avoid it. I wish I could convince my fellow man that no one should interact with them, but the temptation to meddle and exploit is too great.
“Then Jesus began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a wine vat, and built a watchtower. Then he rented it out to some tenants and went away on a journey.
At harvest time, he sent a servant to the tenants to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But they seized the servant, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed.
Then he sent them another servant, and they struck him over the head and treated him shamefully.
He sent still another, and this one they killed.
He sent many others; some they beat and others they killed.
Finally, having one beloved son, he sent him to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.
But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ So they seized the son, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.
What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
The problem is you are trying to narrow it down to one singular concept of “God” when even members of the same religion (or even sub-sects of that religion) cannot agree of the exact nature of that “God”. That is why religion should NOT be the source of “public policy”, except for small communities where there is general agreement (i.e. like the Amish).
Very well argued.
The violence and crimes of prohibition were brought to us by these totalitarian moral crusaders. One should be very careful of repercussions before trying to ban others from their vices.
Are we currently in the same position as American Indians were in a hundred to four hundred years or so ago? When the Europeans showed up they brought diseases and substances that the Indians had no experience with nor any natural immunity (alcohol, smallpox, etc.). It turned out to be devastating to their population and culture.
We are being ravaged at the moment in ways harmful to our population and culture. Covid 19, invaders across the border, abortion, porn, loss of high trust society, smart screens and games, social media, large scale surveillance and governmental manipulation, etc., etc., etc……..
It appears that the vast majority of the heritage American population have no natural defenses to what is going on around us.
Will we look back sometime in the future – assuming that we are still around – and say: Hey! Now I understand what was going on back then as we shuffle along to our community meal at our assigned 15 minute city (the new and improved reservation).
Anon
Fantastic article by Eric. BTW Michael E. Jones is a Catholic, comment #9 basically sums it up:
Redpill Boomer says:
June 21, 2026 at 8:23 pm GMT • 4.1 days ago ↑
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” — H. L. Mencken
—————-
LOL, you have to give the unz commentors credit for their wit and humor. I was raised Catholic myself, an unnecessary thing which I had to endure. 12 long years in Catholic school, how many times did I fantasize about those Catholic school girls while dreadfully sitting quiet (while the sun was shining outside and I was stuck in the stale inside), of a boring classroom, about shit I did not care about, being told by nuns sex was a sin, while thinking of doing much sinning with those girls!
As soon as I got my first chance to sin at age 16, with some 16′ year old girl I met behind the pond, I did. Wow! No wonder those pricks were trying to stop sin, sin was fun, it was pleasurable – it was the exact opposite of sitting in some dull classroom with my clothes on listening to utter bullshit. Sex with a hot girl was the greatest thing ever! Even way back then, as a teenager, i fully realized that those school teacher pricks were getting in the way of my pleasure by shaming me, and I damned them for it back then as I do now.
Best of all, this girl I had first sexual intimacy with, was Presbyterian, and went to public school. Oh boy, I really had sinned, I had given god and his rules the double finger. Of course there is no god looking down on us, judging us, there are only other humans who use religion to control us through shame and guilt. They hate sex and love war. They say sex is a sin, but being a soldier killing others is godly. I say they are the actual immoral ones, they have inverted reality because of their adherence to that damn Jew Bible.
They have this whole repressive psycho volcabulary to control us, they call it “promiscuous behavior” or “carnal knowledge”. Just think how uptight some mother fucker has to be to come up with language like that. Instead of experiencing love, they chose to use their intellect to repress others, they use their intellect prowess to make everyone miserable and alone like they are.
E. Michael Jones is like any stern and repressive school teacher who comes up with some intellectual argument to dissuade you from having pleasure. In parochial school, this is emphasized by the teachers who were being paid to repress your consciousness to control your body – all because they chose to live in fear about the angry sky god – and believe the laughable religious text that this unprovable invisible and judgmental “divine” being, who lives up above the sky, who is watching you 24-7, to see if you deserve heaven upon death.
“ Sex with a hot girl was the greatest thing ever!”
Got news for you dude. That wasn’t a girl. It was a shape shifting alien.
It apparently ate your brain and replaced it with AI slop prone to posting and copy pasting endless amounts of excrement.
YJ: Did the nuns teach you that the purpose of the marital act was procreation? Did they teach you the responsibilities of a husband and father? You constantly say what a criminal Netanyahu is for murdering Gazan children. How many of your own children (your own seed) did you waste for your “pleasure” (“the sudden, intensely pleasurable release of accumulated sexual tension. It is the peak of sexual arousal, characterized by involuntary, rhythmic muscle contractions in the pelvic region, an elevated heart rate, and the release of brain chemicals like dopamine and oxytocin”).
How many babies have we murdered in the U.S.? (AI) “The Guttmacher Institute: Estimates that over 66 million abortions have occurred between 1973 and the present. Guttmacher generally tracks a slightly higher number by directly surveying abortion providers to capture clinics and procedures that may fall outside of official state registries.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): Reports a cumulative total of approximately 63 million legal abortions, relying primarily on voluntary data submitted directly by state and local health departments.
How much money spent preventing the reasonable/natural result of the marital act (just like how much money is spent on preventing reasonable result of gluttony): (AI): “An exact, comprehensive dollar amount for all money spent on contraception in the United States since 1960 does not exist in a single historical ledger, but data syntheses show the total runs well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.Because spending is deeply fragmented across out-of-pocket consumer purchases, private health insurance, and complex federal/state public programs, tracking a single running total is impossible. However, looking at the multi-billion-dollar scale of modern markets alongside multi-decade public program expenditures provides an accurate picture of this financial history”
Same old tired whining about abortion, like it didn’t happen before it was legalized and if it wasn’t available young people would mostly restrain from sex before marriage. Bullshit. Studies have been done to try to estimate the number/percentage of “shotgun” marriages by examining past marriage and birth records and guess what? Estimates of “shotgun” marriages run around 50% of all marriages pre-1960. Abortion rates are harder to determine since they were “illegal” in most places, however they were more commonplace than the anti-abortion crowd likes to claim and of course if you were wealthy and a female member of your family “got in trouble” you could pay a doctor for the problem to quietly go away.
Your argument illustrates perfectly why I dislike most “social conservatives”.
MQ, You write “hear, hear” to have pedophiles locked up (maybe it’s just Trump you want locked up), but those who murder babies get a free pass from you (why? because they are women? Maybe those burning bed and bobbit chicks also get a free pass) (?).
YJ writes a paeon to the pleasures of sex but he ignores the by products of conception. He is no different than Netanyahu who also kills children to further his own ends. Others, however, are saying they don’t have children because it costs too much or involves too much government compliance–meanwhile they are spending trillions on birth control, fornication and porn.
I agree with you if what you are saying is that if previous generations had the access to birth control and abortion that our generation has had these past 100 years, they would probably have destroyed themselves also. I agree with you that they did not have the choice to make.
Wow, such negative comments and comparing me to Nutjobyahoo as a baby killer – when you have no idea who I am and that I never caused an unwanted pregnancy. There are no abortions on my record, and I do not even like abortion, and certainly don’t want to pay for them with taxes. I did not say I was promiscuous, I said the theocratic mind wishing to control others invented repressive language condemning sex.
Personal attacks are indicative of a weak argument on your part. Life in modern society is wicked evil of work slavery for depreciating script – relationships are one of the few things making life on earth worth living.
Earth is hell. Humans are some kind of alien creation, badly formed genetically and spiritually, humans are miscreants and should not exist. Humans are ruled by bad myth and evil monsterous politicians like Trumpenstein.
AJC is so consumed with the rightness of his beliefs that he cannot be reasoned with. He is a fanatic that does recognize himself as such and like most True Believers would not have a problem with using the strong arm of the State to impose his version of Christianity on others. Best to just ignore.
What we’re seeing now is the disconnection of the conjugal act (i.e. fancy way of saying “sex”) from it’s intended purpose. That purpose being procreation of the species: an aspect of the Natural Law. Strictly speaking, *any deviation* from this purpose makes the act inherently disordered. Easiest example of this is gay sex. Homosexuality and the gay sex that comes along with it is inherently, and wholly, disordered to the Natural Law. Other examples are legion: Birth control, abortion (which is just a very violent form of birth control), pornography, fornication etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
This removal, or decoupling, of sex for procreation has the immediate consequence of the birthrate plummeting. (Be it wed or unwed mothers) It has secondary consequences all across the social structure. Primarily it makes women less feminine, and men less masculine. Hook up culture, postponed manhood, the War Between the Sexes… I could go on and on.
Largest contributor to all this was The Pill in 1960. I say, that single thing has caused the most destruction in our society. Especially, when you consider that the pill was the springboard to the sexual revolution and all the other societal effects from it that have since come.
Answer? Chastity needs to make a comeback. And chastity does not mean celibacy! It is intellectually dishonest to conflate the two. However, it does require for your practice of sexuality to be within the confines of your marriage. (Or if you’re someone who doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage, then your committed heterosexual relationship)
This whole thread here has been very stimulating (no not that way!) to read.
“YJ: Did the nuns teach you that the purpose of the marital act was procreation”
The nuns taught utter Bible bullshit. Nuns never had sex, who are they to speak of it? A woman who doesn’t want sex is a really messed up woman. The Bible morals are immoral. Look at what effect the Holy Bible is causing right now in the Middle East – massive death and destruction on a huge scale. The Holy Bible is the source of great immorality. Why anyone would believe that tribal book of jewish hate for others and make it their moral guide is beyond my comprehension. Only a very evil person thinks the Holy Bible is a “good book” and should be followed. Jews are evil, they should not be revered or followed, it is a huge “sin” to follow their lead.
Like all believers, nuns are brainwashed fools who have not thought things out for themselves. Maybe if a nun did have hot sex, they would change what they teach. I find it laughable that nuns decide to have a relationship with god (who doesn’t exist) and not with a man (who does exist). I am not going to take advice or live my life to some religious code which is based in fear, is intentionally repressive, and meant to control you for nefarious means like war. Religions want good little soldiers for war fodder. It has nothing to do with some deity, or what it wants – how could God be omnipotent and want something – as writer Neale Donald Walsch often explains, a deity is not all powerful if it wants something but does not have it. There are no deities, no god is wanting us to do or not do things. Religions are created by bad men and used to control the populace so they will do evil things for these bad men.
The so-called will of god is really the will of the bad judas priests who penned the holy text.
The Jews wrote the Holy Bible to mind control the Goyim – look at fruits of the evil Bible – hell on earth. Evil Jews wrote an evil holy book which creates endless evil on earth – and these sexless nuns endorse said book. That is all I need to know to never take advice or instruction from a (self repressed) nun who doesn’t want sex.
When the crackdown on kiddie porn started in the internet era, some thirty years ago, Big Gov pursued a familiar approach.
Long-standing federal crimes of ‘mail fraud’ and ‘wire fraud’ allow the fedgov to convict people of these derivative offenses without proving an underlying crime. Likewise, in an alleged effort to counter kiddie porn, mere possession of child pornography was made an extremely serious offense — despite 99 percent of its developmentally-warped consumers having no connection to the criminal abusers who actually shot those images.
It is of a piece with the Supreme Court’s notorious Wickard v Filburn decision, which affirmed the conviction of Ohio farmer Roscoe Filburn for growing wheat for his personal use in excess of Frank Roosevelt’s dictatorial quotas, because of an alleged nebulous connection to the market price of wheat. No victim of Filburn’s contraband wheat was ever presented to the court.
Now kiddie porn prosecution has gone turbo — the first convictions have been registered for possessing AI-generated kiddie porn, which involves no child victim at all.
It’s deplorable that some twisted souls get off on images of sexual exploitation of kids. This malady cries out for medical treatment. But when no child victim even exists, we have veered into the realm of Thoughtcrime.
Probably all of us have bizarre, socially unacceptable thoughts from time to time, though mine certainly don’t trend in the pedophilic direction of the Epstein class. Nevertheless, in a free society, victimless Thoughtcrime is an abomination. No one can see what you think or fantasize. Therefore, you can think what you damned well please.
“ Now kiddie porn prosecution has gone turbo” – Jim H.
Indeed it has, yet somehow Trumpenstein and the rest of the Epstein pedophiles still roam free when they should all be wearing orange jumpsuits and getting buttf*cked by Bubba in their cells.
Hear! Hear!
The only porn that is demonized is tgat targeted towards men (nudie pictures).
Porn that is targeted towards women (trashy romance novels) flues blissfully under the radar.
The problem with porn is that it is horribly addictive and leads to worse things. Every study shows that dopamine receptors and even brain chemistry can be altered tragically by images and videos that are easily available on a smart phone.
It is destructive to family formation and civilization in general. I’d say it’s worse than drugs. It’s not a harmless vice by any means. It’s far easier to have what the Atlanta Rhythm Section called an “Imaginary Lover” who doesn’t get pissed at you than having to deal with a real woman with needs and desires in a relationship.
Addicts will need more uniquely new stimuli, which can lead to downloading of illegal material. Like the great Guns N’ Roses song Mr. Brownstone said:
𝘐 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵
𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦
“𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘳𝘺𝘯𝘢 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳”
𝘚𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦
I hate pornography and I pray to the Lord that this scourge can be eliminated. But is it something I’d want to entrust more power to our already largely unlimited government? No.
What needs to happen is people harmed by this product should seek legal remedy in the courts and put these smut-peddling bastards out of business.
I don’t believe the “free speech” argument for pornography. The First Amendment was designed to protect political speech, especially unpopular speech.
The reason for the never ending spew of filth is due to a population that has moved away from the Christian underpinnings of this country. We worship ourselves and pleasure rather than the One True God and it shows.
One thing I find especially disturbing is that all of the major porn companies are owned by Jews. When the AIPAC donor and scumbag “Ukrainian” who owned Onlyfans died of cancer a few months earlier, I prayed in vain that he wouldn’t be Jewish. But of course he was.
I agree, Dr. Mantis –
That said, alcohol is also addictive, as is nicotine. And sugar, too. All of these substances can have deleterious effects on the individual as well as the family and the broader community. Inarguable. Yet do we want the state to restrict punish/prohibit? I and many others can handle our liquor – and so on. I can see how it may seem perhaps selfish to resent the idea of being – in effect – dumbed down due to problems others have with such things, for the sake of the “greater good.”
And yet, I chafe at my core to being held to standards based on what other people do or might do.
Contrary to what the moralists believe, our civilization was built by rugged men who drank tons of whiskey and frequented saloons with whore houses. Think the gold or silver rushes, think greed, theft, envy – that is what built our nation. Then along came the judges and preachers and enslaved the wild men with law and myth.
Back then people really lived, now they barely exist completely shackled by millions of rules, regulations, laws, courts, and churches on every block.
Where I live, the natives lived here for 10,000 years, they never polluted the water, they had no property taxes, they had no formal courts, no jails, and no police. Nobody got in trouble for riding their pony too fast. No one needed a building permit to put up a teepee or wigwam. We are so fucked I wonder why we are even alive.
Hi Jack!
I regard land rent (endless debt) as among the sources of our woes. If a man had the prospect of – the actuality of – one day owning his piece of land, free and clear, he’d have the prospect of one day being a truly free man in the sense that on his property, he’d be sovereign because it would truly be his. Self-sufficiency would be possible. Certainly it would be possible to live on a very small income since all the income you’d need would be for basic things such as food and other such things, which almost any part-time employment would pay for – assuming you did not have to pay rent (property tax) on the land you do not actually own.
Porn is ‘horribly addictive?’ To whom, exactly, and in what way? I’m single and I’ve looked at plenty of naked women but never acquired a destructive habit that resulted in compulsive sex or masturbation or required more and weirder images for gratification, a la the ‘Gateway Theory’ you seem to be a proponent of.
And what, exactly, is meant by ‘addiction?’ A man who can’t ejaculate without looking at certain images is in an unfortunate self-induced predicament which may constitute a ‘bad habit,’ but it’s NOT an addiction in the commonly understood medical sense. Addiction is dependence on a chemical whose absence causes a predictable and (often) potentially lethal physiological withdrawal syndrome (e.g., ethanol or benzodiazepines.)
I think a lot of the angst over porn has more to do with personal distaste for the sex acts that some people feel ‘porn’ facilitates or is ‘responsible for.’ Some people feel masturbation is a deadly evil, but I’ve never seen it become an all-consuming, life-destroying addiction like I have with alcoholics.
In my experience, some people are prone via nature and/or nurture to addictive behaviors. Others simply aren’t. I’ve known people who used various ‘addictive’ drugs occasionally and responsibly, for decades. I’ve also known people who could quickly develop a deleterious habit with almost ANY pleasurable activity and ALWAYS take it too far.
And anyway, what is ‘porn?’ The definition is dubious. To some, it’s women without burkas. To others, chicks in bikinis. Still others consider only graphic images of actual intercourse to constitute ‘porn.’ Where does that slippery slope end? Ban everything, for the children?
More often than not – like ‘ex-smokers’ or ‘ex-drinkers’ who still more-or-less subconsciously thirst for that puff or shot – some of the most zealous prohibitionists are those who lacked control, themselves, and acquired a bad habit. In some twisted display of ‘atonement,’ they set out to ‘fix’ in others the ‘sins’ they cannot seem to conquer within themselves. They view leaving OTHERS alone to decide or learn for themselves as ‘neglectful’ and perhaps the greatest ‘sin’ of all. People with such Puritanical mentalities are in my experience FAR MORE DANGEROUS than any image…especially when they wield the power of the state!
Face it, if given half a chance some folks would only ‘allow’ married folks one weekly act of strictly missionary intercourse with no eye contact and with the singular goal of producing offspring, all while under constant state monitoring. No thanks! I’m gonna have to go with the NAP and the libertarians on this one!
Very well-said, V!
I agree. Especially the point you made about: “More often than not – like ‘ex-smokers’ or ‘ex-drinkers’ who still more-or-less subconsciously thirst for that puff or shot – some of the most zealous prohibitionists are those who lacked control, themselves, and acquired a bad habit. In some twisted display of ‘atonement,’ they set out to ‘fix’ in others the ‘sins’ they cannot seem to conquer within themselves. “
It’s the reefer madness argument.
How does society have any standing in the matter? Society is an arbitrary construct just like corporation or government. You have a collection of voluntarily interacting individuals or you don’t. When you have freedom to associate you have the implied freedom to disassociate.
If there is coercion or actual crimes, kidnapping or assault, then it’s not voluntary and self descriptive as criminal. If there’s a 3rd party involved like a pimp who is acting on behalf of one or both then the agreement has to be entered into with full knowledge of the situation. It’s no different than knowingly buying stolen property in a justice sense.
Morality is therefore an extension of this collective agreements. By what right do you presume to impose your opinions on someone else? Who or what gives you the authority to tell others what to do or not do? You are the ultimate and only true owner of your mind and body. If you want to enter into a contract to buy and sell sex with another individual that is solely up to the two parties.
The libertarian fly in the ointment with sex is what about a society where the majority of individuals don’t respect the same opinion of yours. Such as sex we’d call rape being accepted in some cultures. Do your religious or cultural norms justify acting on behalf of someone you assume to be a victim? That’s the slippery slope that gets you a government prosecuting criminals representing “The State and People” in courts.
The extension of this being if you value a truly open and free society then do you tolerate living aside a group of people who don’t respect the freedom of the individual not to be sexual assaulted from our perspective?
“How does society have any standing in the matter? Society is an arbitrary construct just like corporation or government.”
They may be arbitrary constructs but they are real and necessary. Ignore that or try to change it at your peril.
I have read that in Viking society, killing was legal but there were rules. If you kill Ulf Bjornson, its OK so long as you stop at his next three neighbors and loudly announce that you’ve killed him, giving friends and family an honorable chance to avenge Ulf.
Up until very recently it was completely accepted that homosexuality was disreputable and to be discouraged, and as such fags were prohibited from adopting kids, and “gay marriage” was insane and absurd. Then a radical leftist court gave us the ridiculous Obergefell decision, setting up social turmoil and strife.
Point being, so long as humans live in groups, there will be some form of society, and some form of government.
“Point being, so long as humans live in groups, there will be some form of society, and some form of government.”
Precisely. Thus libertarianism ranks right up there with marxism as yet another utopian schema which can never practically exist in the real world, although it’s foundational principle of non-violence is compelling.
Well said, Eric. And fuck that guy.
You know what corrupts the commuuuuuuunity? In fact, do you know where the highest concentration of corruption invariably lies within the commmuuuuuunity?
In government.
…The commmuuuunity entity that dares claim the right to steal and coerce. Might that be a more dangerous and loathsome institution than porn, which is sought out voluntarily and whose creators earn honest money?
What true harm has porn done, if consenting adults are the only involved? Same with prostitution.
I’ve come to believe that the actual reason that prostitution is illegal is because it becomes too easy for women to acquire capital and influence. Being illegal, prostitution becomes more dangerous, and pimps become more necessary for protection. They, however, have a horrible habit of skimming more than they are worth.
Hmmm, sounds a lot like government. It’s an entity that sells its existence on safety and security, but then takes much more it is worth by force…
Secondly, on the subject of selling one’s body: Most young men learn early that the employment opportunities they are given when young involve selling their bodies as well. Only for them, it comes in the form of digging ditches, breaking up concrete, pulling up weeds and shoveling rocks in the fucking hot sun, and it doesn’t pay worth a shit either, unlike sexual prostitution.
No outrage about that, though. Shut up son, and put your back into it!
Well-said. No one counts the destruction of male bodies through hard labor. No one counts the deaths of men at dangerous jobs or military service. Conservative estimates of the Ukraine-Russia war show minimum 400,000 dead men. No one gives a fuck about them.
But hey, man up!
If men understood better just how The Powers That Should Not Be victimize them, there would be a lot more effort towards actually making things better and not just complaining and blaming others. Take the issue of the “Draft”. CONSCRIPTION IS SLAVERY. NO young man should EVER be forced to risk his life in mandated “military service”. Yet it has been “conservative” men who have been the ones griping about “draft dodgers” calling them “cowards” who refuse to “do their duty”. It is also most of these “men on the right” who cheer on the endless wars that they are potentially sacrificing their sons to, and often encourage them to join the “service” for “god and country” even though it may rob them of their life and future.
One cannot actually care about the lives of men and support conscription and “wars of choice”
Well, you’re right. I write articles published on other sites and post on my substack about this, not sure what more I can do. I certainly don’t support conscription and war and wonder frequently why so many men are willing to go off and kill and die for what are at best dubious causes. Please share your ideas on what else can be done.
I don’t unfortunately have the kind of power to put an end to conscription but I do recommend if your writings are read by young men you explain to them how “hell no we won’t go” should not be regarded as the rantings of “dirty hippies” but essential to their own survival. The post WWII idea that it the “patriotic” thing is to serve when called to participate in the state’s wars is actually NOT the norm in US history. Did you know that some of the fiercest anti-draft protests were during WWI? It was conscription itself that was regarded as unAmerican. This history needs to be revisited and communicated.
Morning, MQ!
Yup. When I was a young guy, I was thinking about the signing up because at the time I was bigly into airplanes and the idea of trying to qualify for military aviation was bigly appealing to me. But even then, I was so anti-being-told-what-to-do that I didn’t do it. Today, I do everything I can to inject some reality into the discussion of “serving” when it comes up among my friends, some of whom have teenage and slightly older kids. It is one thing to defend your family and community. It is quite another thing to be sent halfway around the world to fight for Raytheon.
I wasn’t aware of that WW1 history but have wondered what happened to the spirit of Kent State, or Mario Salvo and his ‘Bodies upon the Gears’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Savio) and other Vietnam war protestors I’ve read about.
The people have been beaten down, their energy lost. How did that happen? I believe a big part of the answer is The Great Feminization of society, and no, I don’t hate women.
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Indeed!
To put government in charge of anything is not going to improve that thing.
How could an organization founded upon its assumption of authority to kill you if you disobey be trusted with any moral judgement?
I’d argue that porn has increased dramatically in recent decades as a result of destruction of the family and the rise in power and sexual freedom of women. The Duluth model now applies in courts – women who freely offer sex in return for other considerations, such as cash, status, or a chance at stardom as in Harvey Weinstein’s case, are all victims who can retroactively charge rape and make it stick. Women who sell sex are victims, men who buy it are criminal scumbags. That’s the law.
Get married and have kids – end up in court being stripped of family and children and sentenced to life-long financial slavery. Make a pass at the wrong woman and get charged with ‘sexual assault.’ Accidentally get a girl pregnant – she alone chooses whether you both become parents or not, and your ‘parenthood’ will be limited to decades of writing monthly checks. Financially support a woman for more than a year and be prepared to do so for the rest of your life without benefit of a relationship.
Porn is obviously the smart choice for men to relieve sexual pressure. Engaging with women has become too dangerous for the average man. And the single moms/unmarried carousel riders can make a few extra bucks on OnlyFans too.
Canuckistan is leading the way. https://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/the-passionate-eye/how-an-olympic-medallist-is-using-onlyfans-for-additional-income-and-independence-9.6948672
It’s not the rise of sexual freedom for women, it is the transfer of all responsibility to and loss of all rights by men.
Who did this to us and why is the relevant question. Porn and prostitution has been around as long as humans have existed- the art is Pompeii is instructive. But no society has ever survived and thrived by subjugating men to women- and the communists/zionists/satanic fux who did it to us need to be answered for their destruction of the western world.
“It’s not the rise of sexual freedom for women, it is the transfer of all responsibility to and loss of all rights by men.”
Those two things go together. The second is the result of the first.
Hey Cobblestones,
I do especially feel for young men these days. Dating broads is a minefield these days, doubtless. Young ladies, likewise, are probably wondering where all the good men have gone. That would be to safer pastures, using the hand and the imagination.
Not that humanity isn’t doomed enough, but when android girls are reasonably perfected, mankind is going extinct. 😉
Yup, but don’t worry, android girls will be outlawed – can’t have men escaping the pussy trap. And while I’m here, the argument Eric outlined above is effectively irrelevant. The article he quoted is well-argued and well-written, as is Eric’s response. Neither matter. The only question is: who has control? Who dictates the narrative? Who creates the legislation?
It ain’t normal, ordinary men.
Feeling philosophical this morning, Eric? Let me add some fuel to the fire.
There are no good answers to these things. Everything is someone else’s vice. Abortion and gay “marriage” ought to be heavily discouraged by society because of the long term damage they do to a society. Gay “marriage” dilutes and demeans real marriage, which is a contract between a man and a woman for supporting children. “Gays” have always had the right to contract their own arrangements.
Similarly abortion, and unmarried “child support” work to decrease the birth rate, to society weakening and being overrun by generally barbaric and inferior cultures which don’t practice such things.
The best answer I’ve come up with is generally to mind my own business, and that most vices are no problem until they are a problem. Which is not something which can be legislated without causing acute injustice and societal unrest.
And because the average person is stupid, self centered, and mean (pun intended), democracy is a horrible, evil thing. And what little government is necessary should be run by men who generally mind their own business.
“And what little government is necessary should be run by men who generally mind their own business.”
Those who are like that would never want to run any government, because doing so would go against their fundamental principles.
Which is why we end up with what we have.
And that’s how we ended up with Mayor Ernie.
Talks a good libertarian game but when push comes to shove his statist philosophy shows.
Mayor is an honorific, I’m more of a stallion…
Please do inform me of what my statist philosophy is. Libertarianism is a stepping stone to anarchism. Anarchy is an unattainable ideal, though worthy of always striving towards.
But at least 2/3 of your fellow man are small thinking pack predators, who demand a leader and a place in the pack. They embrace titles like law abiding tax payer, and the enforcers love their costume jewelry, gleefully appropriating the 4 and 5 star heraldry of actual warriors.
Your choice is to be a victimized weirdo who whines about it ineffectually and generally takes what he’s given, like a prison bitch, or to learn the game and play it to win. I dare say most other people I’ve met in government are enthusiastic participating statists, elected anarchists like me are decidedly rare.