Common sense is unfortunately a rare commodity in clown world, and it’s becoming rarer as the very people who are supposed to be the voice of Reason in the vast nuthouse North America has become sometimes seem bent on proving that they can be even dumber than Leftists when they really feel like it. Super-smart and diligent people on the so-called “Right” can descend to subterranean depths of stupidity far lower than that of merely dumb and feckless people, because smart and diligent people are willing to really work for it and have the brain-power it takes to bring forth brilliantly idiotic fruits from their efforts. They take things that, for the merely dumb and feckless, would be so much idle trash-talk and develop it into nothing less than a formal philosophical system, drawing out all the logical implications of the shit-axioms with full Scholastic rigour in a way that the average beer-addled hockey fan or whatever would lack the wherewithal or desire to prosecute. And where the average drunken hockey fan would still have enough basic class and sense not to talk this way when there are women and kids and/or respectable and serious people around, the Scholastics of shit of course post the results of their shit-disputations on the Internet where everybody can see it and get a good whiff of the aroma.
The so-called Rightists then indignantly complain about being subject to censorship and generally regarded as leprous Dalits on pig steroids by the common man, the very people Reactionaries are supposed to be the champion of. The Reactionaries have obviously been put on this green Earth by Providence for the purpose of using their rare gifts to say the things the common man intuits in his heart but isn’t smart or bold enough to say explicitly- in other words, to pronounce the Law, one of the very highest of human callings (even if you have to follow this calling in near-total obscurity in the dissident underground). But here are a few examples of what the jurisprudents sometimes pronounce instead. Concerning the correct disposition of illegitimate children, they determine that:
Letting bastards live incentivizes female hypergamy.
[B]astards are not wives and children of the ingroup, nor are they an outgroup that we might get into war with, nor do they have an outroup sovereign that our ingroup sovereign needs to keep the peace with. So, should not be the sovereign’s problem or his business.
And if he makes it his problem, he is undermining the property rights of his warriors and his taxpayers in their wives and their children, pretty much as he does if he sleeps with the wives of aristocrats, which is a notorious cause of the fall of Kings.
It keeps going like that. This position is formally grounded on the following argument from Natural law: Cats when taking a new queen will kill existing kittens sired by other cats. Since cats do it this way, it follows that you should too.
How I wish I were making any of this up. You can’t make this stuff up. Well actually you can, but only if you mean it, or at least say it as if you mean it, and moreover say it over and over again in public as though some impelled by some sort of uncontrollable tic- Tourette’s syndrome, perhaps- all the while affecting aristocratic aspirations while neglecting that an aristocrat never says everything he thinks.
Here are a few rejoinders to this jurisprudence which agree with both formal deontology and common sense:
- Cats also lick their own ass and drink from the toilet bowl. This probably isn’t a great idea for the human being which unlike the cat is defined in his species being by various purity taboos. (Every reasonable man agrees that the person who licks around his own ass and drinks from the toilet has degenerated to a subhuman level).
- The reason people have taboos is that unlike cats they live in big and complex social groups and utterly depend upon them for their survival. Aside from purity one of the taboos that makes this group life possible is the one on murder, especially when it comes to little kids. Proof from universal human Nature: the most depraved killers and gangsters locked up behind bars nonetheless acknowledge that hurting a little kid is one of the worst things a human being can do. In fact, child killers and molesters occupy the lowest social status in the world of jail; these Dalits of the Dalits are often deemed fair game for any young buck to stab to death in order to impress some gang he wants to join.
- It follows that cats and men aren’t the same animal, and the law of the cat isn’t necessarily lawful for Man.
- If your wife has in fact borne you a bastard through adultery, by murdering him you announce your disgrace to the world where there would otherwise have been a presumption of paternity in your favour, and add the appellation of cuckold to your public infamy. The course of action is perfectly self-defeating and thus perfectly irrational.
- Don’t know about cats, but authority between men works in such a way that the Sovereign’s power and prestige increase as a function of the number of people under his protection. This means that there’s a pretty good chance that the Sovereign or ruling body is going to take a very dim view of your decision to make like a cat and kill the kids of the THOT you’re foolish enough to get seriously involved with (as though the presence of these brats is the only baggage that comes with used/damaged goods, but this is a digression). It is additionally likely that you won’t be able to enter the argument from cats as a defense at your criminal trial, or rationally persuade the Sovereign to forfeit his hard-won rights on those grounds. (It will turn out that he’s every bit as fond of his patrimonial rights as you are of yours- but he has a lot more firepower).
There are, to be sure, extremely important and urgent things to argue about when it comes to the last point, namely defining, in a rigorous and convincing way, the proper jurisdiction and boundaries of the big household of the Sovereign as opposed to the little household of the legally free family man. But the legitimacy of killing an illegitimate child isn’t one of them- and in any case the right or duty to kill a person because he lacks full civil status, as bastards often do, cannot possibly devolve onto private persons in highly urbanized societies with market economies, which must, and in practice always do, reserve the right to kill to the State except in cases of immediate self-defense of life or property. (Sure, your Roman patriarch could lawfully cause the death of any of his children- but this same gentleman as a corollary can’t sell or transfer his own property without a fictive adoption, which would cramp the capitalist style in a fatal way).
Moreover, the argument in favour of the legitimacy of killing the illegitimate at will evidently isn’t even a serious argument to begin with:
Impressing girls is potentially dangerous. I take the appearance of considerable risks often, and sometimes real risks.
However, fortunately girls don’t really want what impresses men, confrontations between alpha male and alpha male. That would indeed be dangerous.
The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him kill her kittens.
Male understanding of alpha is exemplified by cowboy movies. Girls do not watch cowboy movies.
Heartiste regularly gives us examples of alpha as women perceive alpha.
So there you have it. It’s all part of some cheap tough-guy act designed to impress girls without incurring the risk of getting into a fight with the tough guys. Mind you, putting on tough guy acts to impress girls is a Natural, necessary, and perfectly healthy thing to do and every heterosexual guy has done it without exception. But why oh why does it have to get to mixed up with serious discourse and broadcast to the world right along with the serious stuff, the important stuff, the stuff on which the revival of true civilization depends. Reactionaries should be the very ones speaking out against the post-modernist vice of blurring the distinction between the frivolous and serious in law, morality, and politics- one of the very worst vices of the present pigsty of a social order North America has become and one that menaces it at an existential level in a much more immediate way than uncontrolled migration or debased currency or the other things people usually worry about. The University has long since been ruined by this sort of thing, and the State itself rapidly following in the University’s footsteps, with results that are abundantly and alarmingly evident.
By sinking to this level, dissidents unintentionally self-fulfill the see-I-told-you-so social prophecy that goes hand-in-hand with their marginalized social status, namely by proving that they are unfit to come anywhere near the reins of power, and that their ideas deserve to be censored more vigilantly than they are already. They should instead strive to keep their dignity in the face of their social dishabilitation and take themselves seriously- for if you don’t take yourself seriously then nobody else will. “But nobody reads it anyways”, you might say. Actually, they do- and if they don’t, why even bother at all?