An alternative grand bargain on identity

A peculiar feature of our times is the inability to think amorally.  Ironically, this used to be liberalism’s great conceit, to be the neutral arbiter, impartially weighing competing interests, ensuring settlements each party can live with, forgoing the hope of imposing cosmic justice.  The liberal conceit has been replaced by the leftist conceit, that mankind is divided into innocent victims and evil oppressors, that the role of the righteous is to stand with the oppressed, that the oppressors have no legitimate interests that need worry us.  This is unfortunate, because in the matter of race relations, the liberal role of balancer of legitimate interests is not a bad paradigm to start from, at least if one values social peace.

Here’s an amoral question that I could never ask without a pseudonym:  are African-Americans patriotic Americans?  How dare I even raise such a question!  But wait, I have not questioned whether American blacks have the virtue of patriotism, only whether they are patriotic Americans.  Charles de Gaulle had the virtue of patriotism to an exemplary degree, but obviously he wasn’t a patriotic American.  Suppose blacks by and large see themselves as a separate people.  It would not be wrong for them to do so.  As I see it, identity (above the level of family and below the level of baptism) is a matter of pre-moral fact.  It’s just how your society happens to group people.  Morality only comes in when one wants to know one’s duties to insiders and to outsiders, however construed.  Two peoples in the same land is a problem.  Only one people’s culture and collective will can be imposed in a single place, and every people needs some such owned space in order to survive.  One begins to understand Lincoln’s plan to transplant the blacks to Liberia.  But surely it was unfair to expect people who had lived on a continent for generations to leave.  We may not be their people, but this is their home.  One also begins to understand how race-blind conservatism has gotten such a cool reception from the blacks, hispanics, and Asians.  “Stop revering your ancestors, start revering ours, and we shall all be brothers!”  Suppose that is the problem.  There are tens of millions of citizens who don’t regard George Washington and Co. as their fathers and never plan to, and tens of millions more streaming into our borders.

At this point, most people will be unable to restrain their moralism.  “It’s the white man’s fault!  He must be the one to surrender cultural primacy!”  Forget blame.  The problem exists, regardless of what happened in the past, and how much good will each side has or lacks.

Particularism is the defining feature of the Alt Right, as Dissenting Sociologist correctly observes.  It is also a core principle of the Orthosphere: the third of four, to be exact.

3) Loyalty to the particular

While we have some moral duties to everyone (e.g. not to murder them), it is proper that we hold a special love for our kin and countrymen.  To them, we owe a particular loyalty.  Not only is it right to love the members of our groups; it is right to love those groups themselves.  It is right to work for the preservation of one’s nation and culture.  It is proper for us to want descendants and to want for them to identify with our ancestors, so that the family maintains a spiritual as well as biological reality.  A necessary condition for a culture to survive is for it to be established as a way of life for some region.  Otherwise, it is not culture but personal idiosyncrasy.  Thus, to demand that every spot on Earth be multicultural is to demand the extinction of culture itself…I for one see no problem in the preference blacks, hispanics, and Jews have for their own, but I don’t see why white cultures should be regarded any differently.

It is possible, even likely, that whites will be demographically overwhelmed before any Alt Right awakening can make a difference, but this would only mean the triumph of the Alt Right in practice at the same time as its defeat in theory.  The Jews, Negros, Mexicans, Muslims, Indians, and Chinese aren’t going to stop openly pursuing their particular collective self-interests.  The only thing unique about Alt Right whites is our felt need to elevate particular loyalty to a universal principle, meaning that we recognize the propriety of every other group also favoring its own.  The various non-whites have never felt the need for any such reciprocity.  Enjoy your victory, universalists.

Regrettably, the Catholic Church has become an active facilitator of the Muslim invasion.  How far we have fallen from the days when Thomas Aquinas could assert the duty of natural justice to worship one’s ancestors, to the rejection of this duty under Jansenist pressure during the Chinese Rites controversy, to the disastrous condemnation of Action Francaise, to Pius XII’s insane “right” to immigration and the American bishops’ insane condemnation of “racism”.  We may well see a papal condemnation of the Alternative Right, worded so broadly as to impugn all particular loyalties–for the Vatican no longer cares overmuch for precision (especially when there is a Leftist bandwagon it thinks it can join).  It would be like a repeat of the Action Francaise condemnation, but with weaker consequences, because we have so much less left to preserve than early 20th-century France.

Ron Unz proposes a grand bargain on immigration.  He believes the two sides don’t actually have incompatible interests.  One wants to protect existing interests, while the other wants to avoid having its culture swamped by continuing influx.  Thus he proposes amnesty coupled with reduced legal immigration and a minimum wage hike to dis-incentivize future illegal immigration.  In theory, this is a nice, elegant solution.  In practice, restrictionists are right to be wary of bargains, because it always happens that what they sacrifice is easy and irrevocable, while what they gain requires work and is thus contingent on continued political will.  The adjustment to the citizenry and the example set by an amnesty cannot be undone, but stricter immigration limits set this year are very likely to be undone next year, since the pro-immigration side has no incentive to honor its side of the bargain.

Earlier, I proposed a grand bargain of my own.

After the Civil Rights Act and the apotheosis of Martin Luther King Jr. in the public imagination, Republicans and mainstream conservatives more-or-less made a decision:  discard segregation (either because it’s evil or because it’s untenable) and focus all our distinct-culture-preserving energies on restricting immigration.  So, basically, whites are not allowed to have their own neighborhoods, but they are kind of allowed to have their own country.  That is, the majority culture gets to keep being the majority culture, and nonwhites are allowed (and expected) to assimilate into it…

One might ask if it will soon be time to reconsider the decision to reject segregation for immigration restriction.  As America becomes truly multicultural, border control is ceasing to do anything for cultural homogeneity.  Segregation may be our only hope for cultural survival (e.g. for your grandchildren to speak English and to refer to the Northern power in the Mexican-American War as “we”).  Would open borders + racially segregated neighborhoods be a better compromise than what we’ve got now?

One might ask whether the question is academic.  Once America is majority nonwhite, why would they make any concessions to the white population?  That presumes that we regard segregation as a concession, but I don’t know that that’s how they see it.  Blacks and hispanics by and large dislike whites (they make this very, very clear), and I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to infer from this that they would just as soon not have to live with us.

That’s my idea:  mass immigration plus segregated neighborhoods.  Getting into the nation is easy; getting into a neighborhood is hard.

But don’t we already know that blacks and hispanics won’t accept this, since they wouldn’t accept segregation the last time?  Let us ask, though, why blacks wanted to go to white schools and live in white neighborhoods.  Because they find us so personally charming?  Don’t kid yourselves.  It’s because we were wealthier and had better schools, parks, etc.  Separate does not necessarily mean unequal, but the separation we had back then definitely was unequal.

Suppose we make a real effort to make separate-but-equal work, as strong an effort as we have made trying and failing to make integration work.  Dividing up each city among the different ethnicities is certainly a challenge, but probably less of one than we imagine.  The newspapers often bewail how segregated we really already are at the local level.  Equality can be enforced by massive redistributive taxation, for instance by ensuring that the median redistributed income of every ethnic group is the same.  The more productive races having paid this price, all ethnic neighborhoods would have the right to impose their own culture and feel secure in their legitimacy.

The other side would be to formalize affirmative action for all professions designated as elite or powerful.  For example, let us say that every department at my university should have so many faculty slots for whites, so many for blacks, so many for hispanics.  This would be much less corrupting than the current practice of demanding that every field of study bend its practices to the goal of promoting “diversity”.  Faculty hires within the white section of the chemistry department, say, shall be entirely merit-based.  No need to genuflect to diversity and “sensitivity” in hiring, broader impacts statements, or student socialization.  All that is handled structurally through affirmative action.  By construction, no ethnic group has hegemony, and if some groups publish more, bring in more grant money, and carry larger teaching loads, this isn’t the university’s fault.  The advantages for the uncorrupted pursuit of truth from formalization are so great, I almost don’t care how the ratios of faculty lines are set, how much deadwood has to be carried along.

The grand bargain can be stated this way:  whites make enormous short-term material sacrifices for long-term legitimacy.  Why would we consider doing such a thing?  Because we know that they are ultimately stronger than us.  Stronger because of the non-white races’ stronger faith, their absolute confidence in their own righteousness that we could never match.  If it comes to a race war, they will win, and then they’ll take everything.  Better to offer them a lot now in the hope that they don’t realize their own strength.

What’s wrong with being ruled by the New York Times?

In a democracy, ultimate power rests with those who dictate public opinion, that is with the press.  The existence of a centralized media complex for controlling public perception is a universal feature of a mature high-technology democracy.  Even if the office of opinion-controller is initially vacant, it will soon be filled, so great is the power that accrues to any corporation that advances toward such a role.  Even the 19th century setup of two rival press organs is unstable, because any small advantage can quickly amplify itself.  In the United States (and, by extension, those parts of the world under its dominion), this position of ultimate power belongs to the New York Times.

What’s wrong with being ruled by the New York Times?  As a conservative and an authoritarian, I shall not object to those aspects of the above description which will sound most sinister to an average reader.  I do not object to rule per se, nor that reporters and editorialists hold power without being chosen by their subjects.  The sovereign always exists; it is always ultimately unchecked; the grounds of rule are never a matter of free choice.  Nor do I object to the NYT telling people what to think for love of some specious ideal of people making up their minds “by themselves” without social assistance or pressure, as if such a thing has ever existed, or could ever exist, or would be desirable.  In an ideal reactionary state, the king would rule, and the Catholic Church would (in some matters) tell people what to think.

Conservatism is metaphysical politics, in that it refuses to build a political order out of mere neutral procedure, independent of the truths about God, morality, and human flourishing.  It is acceptable for us to say that rule by the NYT is unacceptable because the ideology taught by the NYT is false and immoral.  Nevertheless, in the case of rule by the press, the reactionary’s objection is to the procedure itself.  A clerical democracy, in which the episcopate took over the NYT, would have many of the same fundamental vices as the current system.  I suspect, what’s more, that the episcopate itself would soon take on the same vices as the current NYT, that rule by control of popular opinion is less like a neutral technology and more like the Ring of Power, which soon remakes any who wield it according to its own malevolent essence.

One strong objection to rule by the press is that it means power without responsibility.  The press does not officially rule, so it has no official responsibility for the outcomes of the policies it advocates.  Unofficial rule is irresponsible by definition.  Politicians have often been shamed for failed policies and lost wars, but when has a newspaperman ever lost status for having advocated a ruinous policy?  Even in the days of absolute monarchy, the idea of a power behind the throne was always a menacing one.  It could be assumed that the over-powerful minister or favorite mistress would pursue private interests rather than the common good.  Why expect anything different, when such persons aren’t even supposed to be responsible for the common good?  The consensus of mankind is for responsible government, even when accountability is only to God.

The reporter will reply, probably honestly, that he is only providing a service in giving his readers a picture of the world and telling them how to vote.  Providing information usually is regarded as a service.  I am a new homeowner and find there are a lot of things I don’t know about maintaining a house, buying appliances, etc.  Sometimes, I ask relatives, but more often I consult Google.  Certainly, Google can be biased, directing me toward certain vendors rather than others, but overall our intuition is that by directing me to practical information I want Google is empowering me, whereas the NYT telling me what to think about politics is me empowering the NYT.  There are good reasons for this impression.  With Google, I determine the question for the search.  With press propaganda, both question and answer are supplied to me.  For example, I never got to decide that the one question of education policy debate is how to close the gap between white and black performance.  I’m a little bothered by the way global warming has eclipsed all the other legitimate concerns of the environmentalist movement.  It angers me that debates over how to eliminate “sexism” and “homophobia” consider liberal beliefs on sex roles to be unquestionable from the start.  As I said, having been given both the questions to be concerned with and the answers to those questions, I am clearly the passive partner.  This isn’t necessarily bad, though.  We reactionaries don’t share the modern world’s excessive fear and envy of power.

Being given information can be a good thing, but this must be evaluated in light of a robust understanding of human flourishing.  Does reading the New York Times truly promote human excellence?  There are several ways providing information can help a man achieve his telos.  It can promote his salvation.  It can help give him mastery of his environment (like the youtube video I found on how to change my furnace filter).  It can promote the good of contemplation, helping him to more fully appreciate the world around him (as I hope to do in my introductory astronomy classes).  Lastly, in these and other cases in which knowledge is good for us, it provides a discipline to to the mind.  There is a reason real bodies of knowledge are called “disciplines”.  Learning algebra, Newtonian physics, computer programming, Catholic theology, or even Marxist dialectics is work.  One must conform one’s mind to a particular way of thinking; one must internalize the rules.  They are public and objective, in that others more deeply initiated into the discipline can discern whether one is applying it correctly, and correct reasoning leaves no trace of the reasoner’s personality.  One instinctively has respect for other accomplished practitioners of one’s discipline, even if one disagrees with them on some disputed problems.  In one sense, a discipline is the height of impersonality, in another of intellectual community.

Democracy under press rule (that is, democracy in its mature form) seems perversely designed to provide information (or misinformation) in ways that frustrate these virtues.  By teaching hatred of Christianity (as they all do), it impedes personal salvation.  Simply by drawing so much of our attention to itself, it atrophies local organization where independence and mastery of one’s environment can really flourish.  Like most people, I know much more about national and global affairs than about the issues in my own city which I might have directly affected.  The media is centralized (as will always be the case in a mature democracy), so we are forced to “think globally”, the realm in which we are completely passive.  By teaching a reductive ideology, the press reduces our appreciation for the world around us.  The attitudes it instills–incuriosity (because as a member of the Enlightened, what could one have to learn from anyone else?) and smug self-satisfaction–remove the desire to learn.  Press-induced thinking is undisciplined in every way.  There is no work to master a technique of thought; just sign on to the newspapermen’s beliefs, and one effortlessly becomes one of the Enlightened.  Logical consistency is not required, and a clear understanding of alternate positions is actively discouraged; all that matters is affirming the pre-approved correct position.  Or, more accurately, the correct attitude, the correct animus.  So far from personality being effaced by precise thought, one displays one’s superiority by outlandish accusations against the white-cis-hetero-patriarchy, that dastardly specter whose members are morons accomplishing a sinister conspiracy against the rest of humanity, utterly selfish brutes who don’t understand their own self-interest, materialistic boors in the grip of religious fanaticism, losers living in their moms’ basements who bestride the world with their privilege, defenders of an all-powerful establishment who must be exposed so they can lose their jobs.  The worldview of the press inculcates stupidity not because it is false, but because it is so crude and one-sided that it couldn’t even possibly be true.  Is it really possible that all the virtues are on one side, that everything is a matter of absolute good versus absolute evil, never a matter of balancing competing interests?  The ideal citizen would never think to wonder.

Reminder: why you shouldn’t vote

Each election we are told (from both sides) is the most important ever, the one that will place the nation irrevocably on one path or another.  It is a priori unlikely that this should turn out to be actually true this time.  Allowing oneself to be convinced of it leads one into an error much worse than just, say, misgauging when the USA did or will cross the demographic tipping point beyond which whites have no recourse from expropriation by the new vindictive majority.  One might say that the reactionary web is haunted by a specter–the specter of Hillary Clinton.  Mrs. Clinton is said to be a fanatical Leftist who will carry hostility toward Christians and whites far beyond what Mr. Obama has done.  Some of the same people who say this will also say, without noticing the contradiction, that she is an infirm old woman who only seems competent to lead the nation because of relentless media duplicity.  The trouble with both of these ideas is that they imagine that Mrs. Clinton would actually be leading us, rather than being a figurehead for the permanent government.  This would be to imagine that the things conservatives don’t like about liberal governance–the promotion of sexual degeneracy and family dissolution, the demoralization of men, the hostility toward whites, the intrusions against paternal authority, the anticlericalism–are just a matter of policy from the person at top, that the bureaucratic machine itself is a neutral mechanism that can be turned toward any end.

As I wrote at the Orthosphere,

Recall the three categories: correct/incorrect, moral/immoral, friend/enemy. Both nationalist and internationalist liberalism are false. Trump may well be more personally immoral–I don’t know either of them personally well enough to tell. Clinton, though, is a member of the Left-anticlerical party and is therefore an enemy in a way that the candidate of the other, unprincipled party isn’t. Recognizing this carries no personal enmity. No doubt Mrs. Clinton simply accepts the same principles taught in all our schools and newsrooms as self-evident truth, and she acts for what everyone she knows would say is the good. She is being chosen to preside over a system whose character is already fixed, one that can operate without her input by a thousand zealots and career civil servants, that will giver her orders rather than vice versa. If Mrs. Clinton were to die tomorrow and continue to be carried around by her handlers, “Weekend at Bernie’s” style, she would be the perfect liberal president. The nationalists, on the other hand, have put there hopes on Trump actually ruling and not only presiding, ruling against the wishes of the state’s current agents, as if such a thing were done any more, as if any mortal could possibly be up to such a task.

So, yes, Mrs. Clinton is full of evil beliefs, but she’s no extremist, because these evil beliefs are what our ruling class deem common sense.

The United States is ruled from the New York Times, which dictates what belief is acceptable and what belief results in unemployment and ostracism, not the White House.  The White House is an intermediary for passing orders from the New York Times to the federal civil service; the figurehead at its top can be bypassed easily if needed.  An uncooperative president would likely not win a fight with his indoctrinated servants, who only need hold off till the next election to get a new nominal head.  In any case, the New York Times rules America both through government and through corporate employers.  Recalcitrant heretics can be released to the private arm no matter who is president.

Well, could we change the country by taking over the New York Times?  Not likely (although it’s a better idea than voting).  Democracy is rule by media.  Liberalism is social control by technocrats, although it tends to understand itself in terms of its critique of all rival systems.  The media and civil service can’t decide to drop democracy and liberalism and rule by another ideology.  As long as they rule, these ideologies will be in force.  They can only be eclipsed by the rise of nondemocratic, nonliberal power structures.  Taking over the New York Times would only be a good thing because then we could blow it up, but even that would be only a start.

To the extent that elected officials like President Obama have influence, it is usually to restrain their zealots.  For example, Mr. Obama refuses to go along with the folly of suing Saudi Arabia and the Vatican, thus implicitly taking a stand for the validity of the political as opposed to the legal realm, simply because he must deal with political realities.  My reading of Mrs. Clinton is that she is also a cautious person, always wary of political realities, and she would only launch a major liberal crusade (domestic or foreign) if the zealots manage to make restraint seem to her more risky.

What does voting say?  Above all, it denotes one’s assent to the democratic system.  This is something one should not do.  Democracy is a bad system of government.  It conceals power, making it irresponsible.  It lends unlimited power without responsibility to the press.  Its elections promote all the worst impulses, the selfishness and self-righteousness, of the populace.  It inculcates a false notion of authority as rising from the will of the people rather than descending from the sovereignty of God.  Even if one admits the bare fact that democracy can be a legitimate form of government (meaning one must to obey its laws if one is a citizen of such a polity), one can still recognize that it is the worst and most corrupting of legitimate forms, and one should not provide it the ritual affirmation of a vote.

Secondarily, voting denotes one’s endorsement of one or the other candidate.  If you wouldn’t say to a friend “Hillary Clinton is an acceptable ruler for my country” or “Donald Trump is an acceptable ruler for my country”, without getting to add any qualifications about “…at least is better than…”, then you shouldn’t say it to the world by voting for either.

What does voting do?  Mostly, it adds an aura of legitimacy to the process.  Democracy produced a candidate you were willing to say was acceptable to you, so what do you have to complain about?  It has a tiny effect on the outcome, which in turn has a small effect on how the country is governed, as I explain above.  We conservatives are waiting for a new Augustus to deliver us from democratic degeneracy, and I don’t see how democratic politics is ever going to get us closer to this (except, perhaps, by failing spectacularly).  Lastly, it has a small effect on the future of the Republican Party.  When the Republican candidate loses an election (as he will in two weeks), the articles always appear claiming that it was the social conservatives’ fault, that if the Republican Party would only ditch conservative Christians, it could win over all those hip abortion-and-sodomy-loving young people who are just waiting to be sold the party’s message of unrestrained capitalism and world policing.  This election has, I would say, offered very little to social conservatives, so I feel particularly entitled to let the Republicans go down in flames on their own without having us to blame for once.


I am not confused

Cardinal-elect Farrell tweets

If you find Pope Francis “confusing”, you have not read or do not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I quite agree, although not in the way he would like.  I’ve never found Pope Francis “confusing”.  Certainly, if one tries to parse individual sentences according to the rules of grammar and logic, one can often show them to be nonsense, but it’s always pretty clear what he’s getting at.  Namely, something completely inimical to the way of holiness preached by Jesus Christ.

Willed incomprehension is a Catholic hobby.  Once dissenters would say silly things such as that the real teaching of Catholicism on homosexuality is “unclear” and could only be unearthed by the esoteric arts of heterodox academics.  Today, it’s the conservatives who affect to be “confused” or who misunderstand statements of the Pope that are, in themselves, quite clear.  For example, Jeff Mirus and I have at various times tried to “explain” the Pope to be teaching that Catholics who commit adultery may be engaging in venial sin if the difficulties in abstaining are too great.  (Mirus refers to a woman having sex to keep a man around for their children.  I was willing to be even more indulgent and consider that giving into lust can be a venial sin if one is at least putting up a fight.)  In fact, Amoris laetitia says nothing of the sort.  Recall the key paragraph.

Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal.

This is, in fact, admirably clear.  The couples engaging in adulterous sex are not sinning at all, not even venially, because God Himself does not ask that they comply with the 6th commandment, meaning it is in fact not a moral requirement at all in their case.  The text clearly claims that the human conscience possesses at least two capabilities.  First, it is able to come to a knowledge of the moral law, and above this of the “overall demands of the Gospel” and also to recognize the applicability of one of these “overall demands” to one’s own situation.  Second, conscience contains within itself some sort of faculty for recognizing that one is personally exempt from these demands in a particular case.  This is indeed an astounding claim.  I admit that I have never sensed in myself the operation of this faculty for knowing which of God’s universal rules do and don’t apply to me personally, as opposed to my well-honed sense of when a particular rule is going to be inconvenient for me and my imperfect will to obey.  One could argue that this position is philosophically confused, in that the norm against adultery is at once universal and not universal.  (If it is not universal, but adultery is only wrong under certain circumstances, then there would have been no need to posit this hitherto-never-noticed operation of the conscience.  One could simply say that conscience can refine its understanding of the demands of the gospel, and given the more precise demands see that one is not in violation, at least “for now”.)  However, whether it is defensible or not, His Holiness has stated his position clearly.

The lesbian catastrophe

My imagination is out of whack with that of the population at large.  Of all the dangers facing the humanity, the ones I find frightening often don’t match what everybody else worries about.  For example, I find antibiotic-resistant bacteria scarier than a couple degrees of global warming.  Maybe I shouldn’t, but that’s my first impression.  Or here’s another one.  Serious people worry about the gender imbalance in China.  Sex-selective abortion is leaving a surplus of Chinese men compared to Chinese women.  That’s a lot of men who won’t be able to marry, and that can’t be good.  I don’t buy the theory, by the way, that sexually frustrated men go off and start wars.  The heads of state who initiated the Great War weren’t suffering from involuntary celibacy, and the men who fought were doing their unpleasant patriotic duty.  But, regardless, having many more of one sex than the other is sure to mess up one’s society in profound ways.

From a link on a comment at Chateau Heartiste:

The report, based on data collected between 2011 and 2013, found that 5.5 percent of women and 2 percent of men identify as bisexual. Compare that to the CDC’s last report on the topic, published in 2011, which found that 3.5 percent of women and 1.1 percent of men claim the sexual identity.

Sexuality is more complex than chosen labels, though: Far more women and men report having had same-sex sexual contact—17.4 and 6.2 percent, respectively—than identify as bisexual. That means almost one-fifth of women have fooled around with another woman. These numbers have also risen since the last survey, which found same-sex nookie reported by 12.5 percent of women and 5.2 percent of men.

There were similar findings on the attraction front: 16.9 percent of women and 5.8 percent of men report sexual attraction that isn’t exclusively to the opposite sex or the same sex.

Female sexuality is more malleable than male sexuality, more easily manipulable by social expectations.  As lesbianism becomes high status, the female id responds.  We see the status of lesbianism rise in two ways.  First, there is the level of political conviction:  homosexuality is now celebrated, and its critics are ostracized.  Second, there is what one might call the level of pornographic status, the impression that men find lesbianism sexy.  Of course, a woman responding to the latter incentive must remain at least somewhat bisexual, because there’s the idea in the background of a future man’s titillation to be exploited.  Against this, society is still heavily heteronormative, not in the sense of heterosexuality being morally normative, but in the sense of it being the default.  Most girls grow up with a mother and father in a heterosexual relationship, and most of the older women they know, who provide their image of what a woman’s life at 40 or at 50 looks like, have husbands.  All the Disney princesses are heterosexual.  One might say that homosexuality is celebrated, but heterosexuality is expected.  Given the state of the culture, one could argue that this is a reasonable compromise, but neither traditionalists nor feminists are happy with it.  Traditionalists have no power, but feminists do, so we can expect the expectation of heterosexuality to be eroded by government and media campaigns.

According to that report, at least 17 percent of women have sufficient same-sex attraction that they could identify as lesbians with the appropriate social conditioning.  Probably social conditioning could raise this number even higher.  Suppose, though, that 17% of women and 6% of men is the cap on homosexuality.  That would mean we’re heading for a situation with around 88 heterosexual women for each 100 heterosexual man.  As I said, my guess is that the true extent of female erotic malleability has not yet been seen.  If the Chinese have trouble, we have trouble too.

Rule by law

How much better it would have been if that would have been the expression, rather than “rule of law”.  It might have saved us the confusion of imagining “law” as something somehow existing and possessing authority apart from the expressed will of the sovereign.  The implied opposite of “rule of law” is “rule of men”, as if there weren’t always men deciding what the law should be.  The opposite of “rule by law” would be “rule by direct prescription”.

Law is one way the sovereign rules–by general rather than specific commands.  It is often a good way, making the operation of government generally predictable so that subjects can plan their actions accordingly.  In some cases, justice may even require it.  For instance, ex post facto punishments are unjust unless the behavior newly proscribed by positive law is already proscribed by natural law (and I would not favor retroactive punishments even then).  It is even a good practice to separate the legislative and executive functions, not so they can “check” each other, but to force the legislature to formulate laws abstractly, knowing someone else of possibly unlike mind might be charged with their execution.  Similar things might be said of the English custom of common law, which English conservatives often praise for being an expression of “spontaneous order” rather than parliamentary fiat.  Perhaps there are reasons that a judge ruling with an eye to precedent gives better results than a legislature ruling with an eye to the common good (or ideological misconceptions thereof), but either way we are dealing with authoritative acts of the collective sovereign, with “rule by men”.

The sovereign certainly can, in his duty to protect the common good, issue specific orders.  Suppose I’m a wizard who invents a spell that will change the Earth’s rotation period to one year, putting half the world in permanent day and half in permanent night.  Desperately, the lawyers search, but there is no law that forbids tampering with the angular momentum of the Earth or any other planet.  No one would say that the state could not forbid me to do such a thing, or intervene to stop me if necessary.  Perhaps you will find some law that says the state may take unspecified acts to avert urgent dangers to the public, but this is just an acknowledgement that the state is not restricted to rule by law.

Bishops sink Polish anti-abortion law

From Syndey Trads:

Fourthly, the protests of the feminists forced Law and Justice to convene in a hastily and embarrassing manner an arguably illegal session of a Parliamentary committee and recommend the rejection of the popular initiative to the Sejm (the Lower House). That same day – and this must be especially emphasized – the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons responsible for conducting an abortion, including women who allow their children to be killed.

Fifthly, the Law and Justice government rejected the popular initiative by a crushing majority in the second stage of the legislative process (in the Polish Sejm legislative process is divided into 3 stages) effectively blocking any substantive discussion concerning the Bill and the posing of questions. The authors of the bill (i.e. the Catholics in the aforementioned NGO’s) were informed that a discussion on the bill would take place just a few hours before the committee meeting and before the final vote, despite the fact that the rules of the Sejm require that this happen three days in advance. As a result, some of the representatives of the authors  of the Bill did not make on time to the Sejm.

Sixthly, throughout the duration of the controversy, certain Law and Justice politicians would declare their discomfort with the notion of punishing women, which was stipulated under the Bill. Despite having the means to simply expunge this section of the Bill and continue to work on it without the penal consequences for women who decide to kill their children, they refrained from doing this. This reflected the position of the Polish Bishops who on the same day decided to reject the Bill in its entirety. The Sejm rejected the popular initiative. Out of 460 MP’s, barely 50 voted for the bill.

Seventhly, Law and Justice MP’s who all of a sudden changed their position made references to the decision of the Bishops. Krystyna Pawłowicz wrote openly on her Facebook page that “it was the Episcopate that authorized us to do this”.

The Polish Church is one of the more conservative ones, but even for it, the Fifth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill) is trumped by the Zeroth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Criticize or Punish a Woman for Anything, Not Even for Contracting the Murder of Her Own Child).  Human beings will die because of this “women are the second victim” nonsense being propagated by a feminism-corrupted Catholic Church.