Occasionally I stumble upon discussions of myself within the internet community. I don’t see this often, but I found one particularly foolish discussion here.

Here’s the quote they’re discussing, for those who’d rather skip the link.

“White” Girls are “good to go” by 13, easy, with exceptions for those not yet “bleeding.” Some of the sub-Saharan’s may skew younger, as may some other particular breeds, but the age we’re taught to prefer in modern society, early 20’s, is about ten years late.

The peanut gallery responded with the usual nonsense without any bearing in reality, though I’m inclined to forgive ignorance. Here’s a choice comment.

Gross. And inaccurate to boot.

Girls are not “good to go” by 13 in any sense of the word beyond “Now I can force my penis into her without *me* being injured by it”.

13 year old girls are usually not physically developed enough for sex without sustaining at least minor vaginal trauma. They certainly aren’t physically or emotionally developed enough for any resulting pregnancies. They also aren’t mentally and emotionally mature enough to deal with the physical, social, mental, and emotional requirements of a relationship with anyone who isn’t also 13 years old.

How is that being “good to go” again?

For those that aren’t aware, first sexual intercourse usually involves some modest trauma. I’ll let ya’ll read up on the details. A separate question, “Are females age 13 more likely to experience trauma from intercourse than females age 23?” may be worth discussing. As with anything, individuals vary, but analyses of available population data (go do your research) reveal that the age of a mother does not correlate well with maternal mortality rates. Here’s a quote that tries to keep the “ew, gross” theme alive.

We conclude that the overall evidence of effect for very young maternal age (<15 years or <2 years post-menarche) on infant outcomes is moderate [in other words, not non-existent]; that is, future studies are likely to refine the estimate of effect or precision but not to change the conclusion. Evidence points to an impact of young maternal age on low birthweight and preterm birth, which may mediate other infant outcomes such as neonatal mortality. The evidence that young maternal age increases risk for maternal anaemia is also fairly strong, although information on other nutritional outcomes and maternal morbidity/mortality is less clear. [emphasis mine]

-The Impact of Early Age at First Childbirth on Maternal and Infant Healthppe_1290259..284 Cassandra M. Gibbs,a* Amanda Wendt,b* Stacey Peters,aCarol J. Hoguea aDepartment of Epidemiology, andbHubert Global Health Department, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

Here’s another, directly addressing infant mortality. As Heartiste says, science. Ya gotta love Dark Enlightenment.

The relationship between teenage fertility and infant mortality has been a controversial issue for some time. From a policy point of view, it is crucial to understand the nature of this relationship given that pregnancy among teenagers is on the rise globally. This study conducted a meta-analysis of the relationship between maternal age and infant mortality. Two important determinants, race and age, were considered; no evidence of a systematic relationship between age and infant mortality rates was found. The policy implications of this finding are considered.

-Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of North Texas, Denton 76203, USA. Health Care For Women International (Impact Factor: 0.63). 01/1997; 18(2):115-26.

So, yeah, sorry, but reality doesn’t agree with our moralistic presuppositions. I know it sucks. The universe doesn’t care.

Finally, toward the end of the comments, beneath the accusations of pedophilia, et al, there was this choice opinion.

“Good to go”? Sure, if you just breed girls to get the dowry. If, on the other hand, you have children because you love children, you probably won’t let your 13-year-old daughter marry some 40-year-old man, would you, tteclod? Oh, you weren’t thinking about girls as daughters, just as fuck-dolls, were you? Well, here’s news for you; every girl is someone’s daughter.

When my parents were expecting me, back in 1969 when they were 21 years old, older relatives muttered “children shouldn’t have children”. Was that also part of the modern society?

Why the scare-quotes around “bleeding”? You do know that it’s literal bleeding, for about a week every month, for some 40 years of our lives, right? The bleeding often starts when the girl has reached a certain weight, not when her body is physically and mentally ready to have children.

“Some of the sub-Saharan’s” are married off at 13, and many of them are mothers by the age of 14. Quite a few die in childbirth, though.

Ten years late, for what? Are you in a hurry? You do know that in the societies where it’s OK to marry off your 13-year-olds, it IS marriage that is the key, right? That good to go 13-yo will grow up and soon be early 20’s, and you’ll still be stuck with her. What then?

Anybody who’s been reading this blog will know a few little details about me. I’m in my 40’s. I’m married to the mother of my children. I have a teenage daughter. I have some concept of women, and living with them. Here’s a little more.

My first child was born when I was 25. This happens to match the age of my mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother upon first child-birth. I don’t anticipate much different from my own daughter. As with her female ancestors, I expect her to finish college and maintain something of a profession. That’s how I live my life.

None of that changes biological realities. “Girls” are “good to go” around 13 years old. That’s part of what makes teen pregnancy such a problem in a society where we’re trying to get our “girls” a little more education before we send them off into the world. Age of consent may be a worthwhile rule to enforce, but we’re not really enforcing it to care for the physical well-being of our young females. Implying that men are sexually aberrant for experiencing sexual attraction to sexually capable women is criminalizing natural male sexuality. Sure, I’ll agree not to fuck girls under age 18 and file that along with not fucking women to whom I’m not married. that’s civilization. It’s the Patriarchy that invented it, so we know.

But if you think nubile 14-year-old women aren’t sexually attractive, you’re an idiot. [Yeah, I added a year.]

As for me, my personal tastes skew a little older, about 28+, mostly because I’m 40-something, and women under 25 can’t carry a conversation. It’s a bit like talking to my daughter, or fielding pedophilia accusations from the peanut gallery. I spend way too much time educating, and not enough time learning.

[Post-script: It never ceases to amaze me that I am reliably categorized with fundamentalist religious zealots. I’m atheist.]

First, read this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2842451/Boxer-Jermain-Taylor-charged-Arkansas-shooting.html then read this http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/jan/19/police-questioning-boxer-discharging-weapon/ .

Here’s the rest of the story, behind a pay-wall at http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/jan/20/enraged-champion-fires-gun-arrested-201/#comments

Little Rock police arrested boxing champion Jermain Taylor on Monday after he allegedly threatened a family of five at gunpoint after attending the city’s annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day parade.

…

Investigators spoke to Thelton and Toya Smith, who said Taylor had shot at them and threatened their three kids during a confrontation shortly after the parade ended.

…

Taylor, …had purportedly brought his championship belt to the parade and been taking pictures with the Smiths and others before he became violent toward the family. Toya Smith told the Democrat-Gazette that her 5-year-old son dropped the belt and Taylor, citing the belt’s $100,000 value, flew into a rage. Smith said Taylor appeared intoxicated.

“He pulled out a gun. He ran up on my husband … He said, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ He put the gun on my husband’s temple and he said, ‘Oh, you think I’m playing.’ Then he shot up twice in the air and then he put it back to my husband’s head,” she said.

Toya Smith, 40, said Taylor fired another shot in the air. She said the bullet grazed her husband’s ear, leaving Thelton Smith on the ground and begging Taylor not to shoot him.

Police reported no injuries in the incident, but Toya Smith said late Monday that she was taking her husband to a hospital because he couldn’t hear in one ear.

…

Toya Smith said Taylor pointed the gun at her three kids — ages 5, 3 and 1 — and threatened to kill them before he drove away.

“He said, ‘I don’t give a f about those kids. F you and those kids.’ I’ve never encountered anything like this. That man is out of his mind,” she said. “For him to put the gun on my babies …”

Police reported recovering three .38-caliber bullet casings from the scene.

Toya Smith said she and her husband plan to pursue further legal action against Taylor, who threatened the family in front of two of his own children, ages 15 and 5.

Wait for it…

Taylor’s girlfriend, 22-year-old Skylar Harris, said the incident “got out of hand.”

“There was this argument about something. I really wasn’t listening to it, I was just picking the belt up and putting them in the truck so we could leave. And him and some guy were having an argument and it turned into something terrible, terrible,” she said.

Harris described Taylor as “cool and laid back,” and said she had never seen him behave the way he did Monday.

“He just snapped,” she said. “That’s not the Jermain I know. That kind of surprised me. It really surprised me.”

‘Cause he’s never done anything like this before. [See links above.] I guess she’s a new girlfriend.

Of course, all this can be excused because it’s part of the Martin Luther King, Jr., parade.

One parade watcher, Charlotte Marie Webb, uploaded a video to Faceback showing Taylor dancing to music and waving as cars and floats drove by. The video shows the boxer in a burgundy jacket and khakis with a red cup in his hand.

“He was just drunk having a good time,” Webb wrote, referring to Taylor’s behavior before his arrest, after posting the video.

All the above quotes were in the sports section of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. That’s right. The day after the Martin Luther King holiday, when reporting a shooting immediately following the parade, the story is reported in the sports section.

Ya’ll tell me: why is this story not on the front page of the local newspaper?

I present wisdom worth preserving.

the philosophy of absurdism seems like a good outlook to have

to explain it look at it this way
nihilism= atheism
absurdism= agnosticism

it refers to the conflict between (1) the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and (2) the human inability to find any

then what you have to do is accept this absurd fact and create your own meaning to life

albert camus who wrote about this philosophy giving example of archetypes that fit this lifestyle.

His first example of the absurd man is the famous seducer, Don Juan. He moves from woman to woman, seducing each one in turn with the same tactics—the same maneuvers—with which he seduced his previous lovers. He never stays with one woman too long before moving on to his next conquest.

Camus dismisses all accusations that Don Juan is desperately seeking true love, or that he is melancholy, or that he is unimaginatively repetitive, or that he is callously selfish, or that he will be a miserable old man. All these accusations seem to assume that Don Juan is ultimately hoping to achieve transcendence, to find something that will take him beyond his day-to-day seductions, and that he is totally incapable of finding that transcendence.

On the contrary, Camus portrays Don Juan as a man who lives for the passions of the present moment. He lives without hope of finding any transcendent significance in his life, and he recognizes the meaninglessness of his seductions. He is not looking for true love; he wants only to experience the continual repetition of his conquests. He is not melancholy; that would suppose that he hopes for something more or that he doesn’t know all that he needs to know. He is not unimaginatively repetitive in his seductions; he is interested in quantity, not quality, and so if the same techniques always get him the desired result there is no reason to alter them. He is not callously selfish; he may be selfish in his own way, but he does not seek to possess or control those whom he seduces. He will not suffer the consequences of his actions; he lives in full awareness of who he is and of where he is going. Therefore, old age and impotence can hardly catch him off-guard.

Original here: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/the-parable-of-the-tiger-and-the-strawberry/#comment-642322

September 25, 2014: Eric Holder announced his resignation as Attorney General of the United States. He will stay in the post until his successor is confirmed.

Back in early 2014, Jeffrey Toobin interviewed Eric Holder. Here’s the relevant portion.

Toobin: “And how long are you going to be the Attorney General? You mentioned ‘as long as I’m Attorney General’…”

Holder: “Well, you know, I’ve still got things I want to do. I mean, I’ve got this fight, this criminal justice reform stuff that I talked about, I guess, in August at the ABA. [Emphasis mine.] I’ve got financial cases I’m still working on. So I’m going to be here for a while.

Toobin: “Do you want to put any more specific – this is like journalism [101]… I have to ask all these questions. If you don’t want to tell me, don’t tell me. Like, do you know? A year? Two years?”

Holder: “I guess, I think what I’ve said is, I’m going to be here certainly into 2014.”

Toobin: “That’s a big commitment. It’s in like three weeks…”

Holder: “I think I’ve said, ‘well into 2014.’”

Toobin: “I see. ‘Well into’? OK, very good.”

So, it’s now 2015, and Holder’s still US AG. Who’s the nominee? Loretta Lynch, famous for prosecuting everything from bad cops to mobsters to corrupt politicians.

Interesting times.

So, the Patriarchy reviewed a blog post [edit 07 Jan 2014: by Peter Taylor, Dec 2012, at link] concerning the creation of religion. Henry, or some other person, linked to it on Twitter [why do we participate in something that sounds like “chatter” and makes us think of gossip], and from there, or perhaps for some unrelated reason, Neoreaction became very vocal about how one cannot create a religion from scratch on demand. We agree. One cannot create a religion without antecedent upon demand. We state this affirmatively for clarity. Religions arise from precedent organically.

These brief statements are nonetheless insufficient to describe the coming storm. Western society and culture circa 2015 has pushed to breaking the mores that served it well through many millennia. Among the exposed weaknesses are

• Broad acceptance of the substitution of homoerotic coupling for sexual coupling.
• General disregard of biological limitations imposed upon women (and men).
• Dogmatic insistence upon equality of outcome (for some) based upon purported equal competence of individuals.
• Rejection of the line of descent for both rule of law and rule of conscience.

These ideas oppose those notions Neoreaction generally espouses, namely,

• The value of fecund sexual marriage and the extended family relationships created thereby.
• Natural division of labor and authority according to sexual dimorphism within humanity.
• Recognition of the varied and stratified quality of human individuals within the race of men.
• Advocacy for traditional forms of government, divergent according to the heritage of men.

We all presume that the former foibles will eventually overcome the capacity of Western civilization to absorb debauchery and debasement. We all presume that we are correct in our hypothesis that the latter fortes sustain civilizations, including Western civilization, and that abandonment of those latter values for the former leads to collapse. If we are correct, one of two ends awaits us: successor cultures or barbarism.

The danger most pressing upon North America, for that is the continent upon which we live, and therefore the one about which we should concentrate our concern, is the very real possibility that all we have built will fall to ruin. Our culture may collapse under the pressure of international hybridization. Our stock may be subsumed into a broad genetic pool not equal to our ancestors upon the presumption that our blood heritage has no bearing upon our success. Our wealth may be distributed far and wide according to the premise that it is effectively limitless and renewable. Our lands may be freely ceded to aliens escaping civilization collapse within the homelands from which they flee. Even our own (former) slave race, imported here for that purpose, is being displaced by less demanding subjects, unwilling or unable to demand better treatment. Eventually, those that remain will reach a breaking point. We believe that the steel of restraint within the race that created our North American civilization has surpassed its yield and approaches its tensile limit.

Others within Neoreaction justly observe that there is no return to the past, just as steel cannot resume its original shape upon exceeding its yield strain. However, these men fail to recognize that the greater danger comes with tensile failure within the resisting system. Each yield to stress induces fatigue, increases the probability of fracture, and prohibits a return to a previous state. When the restraint finally fractures, it must be replaced. When once a restraint has fractured, it is replaced with a stronger restraint, often a restraint so strong that yield is not possible, and all paths to the restrain are likewise strengthened so there is no possibility of failure.

For North American civilization, what will this entail? Examine the previous restraints so far demolished.

• Non-sexual coupling will likely become utterly forbidden under pain of death. Some among us would welcome this new social mores and punishment. We caution that such justice may be so blind that it does not recognize innocence.
• The place of women and men within society may become utterly fixed beyond any sensible exception to norms.
• The natural talents of men may be ignored despite all supporting evidence, to be instead favor heritage and purported breeding.
• The free assembly of men may be suppressed, even of men seeking redress of grievance.

What has this to do with neo-religion? Mark Yuray advocates that “we choose to keep building [up]on (or at least, sustaining) our heritage, and avoid the temptation to toss it away in favor of our own modernist inventions.” In support of this plea, he offers this argument, among others.

If Christianity’s collapse merits its rejection for something new, then by the same logic the Englishman’s, or Frenchman’s, or Swede’s collapse merits their rejection for something new. I am not willing to leave behind Christianity, nor am I willing to leave behind Englishmen, Frenchmen or Swedes. All four are corrupted, weak, crippled and flailing, but they are not dead, and to abandon them would be a dishonorable breach of every imaginable Western moral code that has ever existed, pagan, Christian or otherwise. Instead of throwing the Swede to the Somalis, and the Christian to the leftists, how about we just teach the Swede about human biodiversity, and the Christian about the degenerative ratchet?

Our objection to this specious argument follows thusly.

Has Christianity collapsed, or not? If it has collapsed, there is nothing else but a corpse to abandon. If it has not collapsed, then we are obligated to examine its condition and repair (or heal) it as pragmatism requires. For, unlike Englishmen, Frenchmen, and Swedes (though we ought to take care we not confuse a tongue with a people, and make the same mistake as the Progressive), Christianity is not a people, it is an engine or a beast in service for a people. If it is to be of service for a people, then it must needs be put to service, even to the service of death, even to the most ignominious death that may be imagined. Yuray is correct to assert that some portions of Christianity may yet survive, but we must take care that we do not become so attached to the promise of salvation in a life hereafter that we damn the only lives we know with certainty. Elements of Christianity may yet survive, but what remains will be more hollow than a Norse myth if we do not carefully examine the parts and establish what can be salvaged, what must be salvaged, and those workings so integral to civilization that they must be retained, yet so hopelessly ruined that only parts obtained elsewhere, or created without antecedent upon demand by men attempting to reconstruct rather than construct upon failed foundations. The Swede already knows human biodiversity; the Somali dares not publicly admit such truth. The Christian (although not the Churchian) knows the degenerative ratchet, for what are the Books of Kings but the history of the fall of Israel and the sin of Jeroboam? The leftist cannot comprehend that the sin against God is the sin against life and living and the choice of death and dying and oblivion. How could he? When man shews him love, he sees hate. Shew him mercy and he understands condescension. Give him comfort and he feels pain. Teach him wisdom and he becomes a fool. No, we have our Swedes and our Frenchmen and our Englishmen and each righteous man knows what is required, yet he dare not call a kettle black lest he be called a pot, despite his value to all mankind and especially his kin exceeds his weight in gold.

For that, we reckon, is the value that must be retained: not the engine of our historic success, the sunk cost of a capital investment long since depreciated and degraded, but the People who use that engine for profit.

So, what is to be our approach to salvage what remains of this engine? Shall we await its utter collapse and hope for renewal or resurrection? We daresay, “No.” We know the beast is exhausted, old, and lame. It limps along, sighing and moaning, baying for mercy, yet we plead with it, whip it, castrate it, blind it, and – very occasionally – care for it. We give no thought for its offspring. Some of us even deride its cousins, calling such things impure. These are not the actions of wise men; this is the wisdom of fools. The beast is soon to die and we will have nothing sufficient appeal when we are “weary and heavy laden.” There will be no “rest for our soul[s],” there will be no “yoke upon” us from which we may learn, nothing “gentle and humble in heart.” What approaches is a world without recourse, and a faith that is no faith at all, for it is spent, wasted, as seed upon stone, as semen upon a whore’s visage.

Herein lies the division between Neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment. You men that still react must now turn to face the coming storm, the horror rising from the darkest depths. It is terrible to behold, but truth lies within those dark visions. Christianity and the West soon falls. It has no place into which it may retreat. It taught its greatest lessons to the entire globe; it has no secrets left to guard. There are no magic swords, no wizards’ incantations, not even parlor tricks remain. All has been revealed. So, the Men of the West, the Patriarchy of Ancient Lineage, must do as it has done from time immemorial. It must create anew, amaze the world, and show what can be done when the foundation rots, when earth is made sand under fortresses, and when all is lost.

Yes, there is wisdom from the ages. Men and women create children sexually. The scion reflects the ancestors. Men must lead and women must follow according to the worth of each. Yet there is nearly naught else upon which we may rely.

“Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.” Perhaps. What we know is that we cannot continue without a faith. Our present faith is failing. We are obliged to contemplate what comes after.