From where does religious (or any group) prejudice arise? According to modern cultural theory, as developed from the Frankfurt School’s critical theory, phobias about a group arise in the diseased minds of European haters. No other group’s antipathies have been pathologised, and a few special cases have even had their hatreds sactified.
One day a spontaneous dislike for the “other” (the hatee) appears and like Iago’s jealousy, it grows by feeding upon itself. The hatee remains wholly irreproachable, “dindu nuffin” as the saying is. The most often cited explanation is that the haters’ failure leads to resentment of the hatees’ success.
The list of religious and other prejudices that warp the diseased European mind are relatively few. Wiki has a list of religious and irreligious affiliations, 21 in total that cover the world’s 7.8 billion souls. Of these religions only two have their own designation, i.e. anti-semitism or history’s oldest hatred and islamophobia. What factors make these two religions a target for our irrational ire? It isn’t the competition for souls as although lslam is the second largest category (25% of world population), Judaism is eleventh on the list at 0.2%. It can’t be longevity as islamophobia has arisen in the last two decades. Before mass muslim immigration starting in the 1970s, lslam was little talked about.
Buddism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Materialist creeds all occur in significant numbers on the list and in the population of the UK. Yet there is no significant negative sentiment surrounding these beliefs or their adherents. We in Britain are very particular about those whom we despise.
Likewise, the UK is known for its systemic racism, i.e. racism so prevalent within our institutions that it’s difficult to give specific examples. What’s more, we’re so racist we devised a system that allows almost every ethnicity to outperform native Britons academically and financially (the recent long-list of candidates for leadership of the Tories was diversity in spades). All of the UK’s racial prejudice is directed wholly, exclusively and spontaneously at Bantus. Although Bantus “dindu nuffin” the UK arranges the totality of society to ensure that Bantus fail from childhood onward. More inexplicability, apart from the physical and intellectual inadequacies of the haters. A real head scratcher!
…by which I mean their own schools. Let the LGBTQI+ zealots found their own schools, run them according to their ideology and recruit pupils on a prospectus that flamingly states the entire panoply of sexual proclivities and identities will be affirmed and celebrated (except cis hetero, obvi).
That way parents and pupils can be certain that the whole site will be a safe space for teachers and pupils wholly signed up for a thoroughly progressive education which will be lovingly and gratefully received.
It will also reduce tensions between principals and governors and a tiny minority (2% at absolute max) of staff and students at schools founded on a different, or even antithetical, ideology.
Another Catholic school is besieged by the gays because a school self-evidently offering parents a Catholic education for their children will not allow pupils to be exposed to a hostile ideology. The school is The Saint John Fisher School in Croydon, a much-enriched borough of South London.
The teachers who invited an anti-Catholic gay children’s author to speak at the school should be summarily dismissed for a breach of trust with parents. Teachers who joined a picket line, necessitating the closure of the school, should have their pay docked and be subject to disciplinary procedures. The Principal should make it clear that any teacher who seeks to undermine the Catholic ethos of the school will be dismissed sans reference. So the termites would be advised to move on…to a gay school.
Gay schools would embody the freedom to choose mantra of progressives. No parent would need fear cis-hetero bias in the curriculum, or bullying in the playground…what gay paradises there would be. Gay schools would be the next phase in Britain’s glorious, multi-identity rainbow nation.
Synopsis: Immigration is the Devil’s Lotttery because the cost/benefit outcomes for an individual, or UK society, are the inverse of a lottery, i.e. the upside is zero but the downside is a catastrophic loss. Because the first-order effect of immigration is negative, anyone who supports it is morally culpable for all the crimes committed by immigrants.
The Economics of Immigration
- There are two methods to calculate the “value” of mass immigration to the UK. It will be easier to show how they are applied by showing the analagous calculations for a lottery, e.g. the UK’s Lotto. The valuation methods are;
- 1) Expected Value and
- 2) Binary Option
1) The Expected Value (EV) of a ticket for Lotto is the probability-weighted value of a win minus the cost.
For Lotto, the probability of a win for a single ticket is 45 million to 1 against, i.e. 1/45,000,000. The value of a win averages about £5 million. Therefore, the probability-weighted payout, EV(win) = 5*1/45 or 1/9 or £0.11.
The cost of a ticket, EV(loss) = £2 with 100% certainty.
Therefore, the EV(Lotto) = EV(win)-EV(loss) is £0.11-£2.00 = -£1.89, which is why lotteries are called a “tax on the stupid”.
2) The Binary Option valuation separates the value of a win from the cost of a ticket. In effect, because the cost of a ticket is de minimus with respect to the weekly household budget, the downside approximates to zero, i.e. there is no negative value associated with the purchase of a ticket. Conversely, the upside, if it happens is worth £5 million. Although everyone knows the odds of any particular ticket winning are effectively zero, somebody is going to win the lottery, sooner or later.
For an individual, a lottery ticket is a binary option without cost, that offers a small chance of a large gain. Mathematically…
- EV(win) = £5 million or
- EV(loss) = 0
One lottery ticket is a binary call option on the Lotto prize, or an effectively costless opportunity to improve the life of an individual overnight. Everybody knows this to be true which is why lotteries are popular the world over. The vast majority of us operate as individuals, trying to optimise outcomes based on our personal goals.
So much for a lottery. What about the analagous data for immigration? The data are fuzzier, i.e. subject to larger error terms, but the principle is the same. Because immigration is the diabolical inversion of a lottery, I will use the same terms for the high (“loss”) and low (“win”) probability events, but add inverted commas to indicate that the costs and benefits are inverted, i.e. to “win” the immigration lottery is to be a victim of immigrant belligerence.
The benefits of immigration, EV(“loss”)…
…to an individual are zero. No immigrant does anything for anyone that couldn’t be done by a Briton. Immigrants don’t have any particular skills without which any individual couldn’t manage. This is true for any one of us, including OUR NHS, which is the immigrationists’ most effective Trojan Horse. By working, paying tax, supporting the UK’s institutions and abstaining from predatory behaviour, an immigrant adds nothing to any individual’s life – it suffices that his impact is zero, i.e. transactions with him are costless and EV(“lose”) = 0. The same applies to any well-behaved immigrant or Briton, whose EV = 0 too. There have been no labour shortages in th UK since the Black Death and consequent Peasants’ Revolt. At the same time West Indians were “desperately” needed after WWII, Brits left the UK for Australia as £10 Poms in search of better wages.
Immigration EV(“loss”) = 0
The costs of immigration, EV(“win”)…
…are life-changingly negative. How negative depends on the nature of the injury. Many earlier societies operated a sliding scale of “blood price” depending on who injured whom and how. Is there any parent who would name a price they would accept to allow their child to be murdered? Or suffer “life-changing injuries”? Or to be brutalised such that their child was physically alive but psychologically dead, meaning normal life was impossible? There is no actuarial “fair value” calculation because EV(“win”) is for an individual, not society. Therefore, the value of the immigration lottery jackpot is any egregiously large number you like. For illustration, I will say the average payout required to compensate the family of a victim of immigrant crime is £50 million.
- Immigration EV(“loss”) = 0 or
- Immigration EV(“win”) = -£50 million
For an individual, the immigration binary option has an upside of 0 and a downside that ruins the life of the victim and those of close family members.
That is why immigration is the Devil’s Lottery.
The Expected Value calculation for immigration for UK society is also negative, and therefore, can be implacably opposed on moral grounds.
Group attribution error is bullshit
Immigration EV(benefit) is much more difficult to calculate because there are tangible and intangible effects of immigration. And also short-term and long-term impacts of flooding a sophisticated society with unassimilable and antagonistic new members.
The only case made for immigration is economic necessity because, “Immigrants do the jobs Britons won’t”. The elided phrase is …”at a wage”…High wages are what makes for a robust, fair economy. By virtue of their alienation from a sophisticated society, immigrants’ labour is necessarily worth less. There may be individual cases where an immigrant is more skilled than the native he replaces, but on average, immigrants reduce wages.
The only economic “benefit” immigration brings is that it increases the debt-carrying capacity of the UK economy. The global financial system is supported by the disgusting twin pillars of debt-based money and usury. A new immigrant, even should he have zero skills allows the banks to issue debt on his behalf. Without new borrowers, the Ponzi scheme that is debt-based money will collapse.
Immigration EV(cost) is difficult to quantify, but it is easy to see that immigrants cost money for society to hire. There is the immediate cost to locals of wage reduction necessary to compete with immigrant labour. There are all the welfare costs necessary to support good immigrants while they find a job. But the jobs are low value-added service jobs and immigrants will not pay enough tax over their working lives to meet the costs of the goods and services they will extract from a sophisticated economy.
Then there are the directly negative effects of accepting immigrants. These costs include the welfare costs of immigrants who refuse to work; immigrants who commit crimes and need to be maintained in prison; the additional public and private security costs required to avoid being a victim of crime. There are indirect costs, including the reduction of public life to the lowest common denominator, necessary to accommodate immigrants.
The purely economic contribution of immigrants is negative. Taking into account their impact on intangible assets like social capital and erosion of public trust, the negative is substantial.
And that is why “group attribution error” is bullshit. Immigrationists say because not every immigrant is an unemployed criminal we must accept all immigrants on the basis that the probability is low we will be unlucky enough to “win” the immigrant lottery.
But following the maths, it does not matter whether the proportion of evil immigrants is 20% or 2% or 0.2%. The probability on its own has no significance. The Immigration EV(cost) is the probability multiplied by the effect, which is negative. Therefore, whatever proportion of immigrants are evil wasters, the cost is negative.
In conclusion, whether calculated for an individual or for the UK, the effect of immigration is negative. And because it is negative, it can be opposed in good conscience.
Summary: “I do not wish to reduce the sceptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and creeds. Try doubting something else.” C. S. Lewis
I have not had nor do I, for the present, intend to get vaccinated for covid (I had covid last year, #naturalimmunity). My unvaxed state has cost me both money and lost opportunities for work and leisure because I am not free to travel. Consequently I am in a militantly anti-vax frame of mind. This has led me to engage with social media by responding exclusively to posts in praise of the rationality of the vaxed, versus the paranoid irrationality of the unvaxed. I often use some version of the Lewis quotation, advising scepticism regarding global issues. What invariably follows is a tsunami of vituperation from 1990s atheists-inspired midwits, who can’t wait to unload their Dawkins script (it’s obvious that the demand for pro-religious comments exceeds the supply by an order of magnitude).
Although I only claim the right to be sceptical about science, this is treated as synonymous with religious conviction. It is clear that they have learned a little script which they regurgitate at the sound of the religious bell, i.e. religion is the manipulation of weak minds because it is unprovable, but science is rational and unbiased. They might even throw in a bit about falsifiability, meaning scientific mistakes will be identified by peer review. So, the vaxed have “science” on their side, and as we know the covid science is settled. The same way that the science is settled for other projects pushed onto us by the “New World Order” or as they style themselves currently, the Great Resetters, e.g. AGW, mass immigration, trans rights and white privilege…to name a few instruments of their tyranny. All of these phenomemena have data and algorithms that prove the claims of their efficacy. And the imprimatur of the powers-that-be.
But what happens to the science if the scientists have been bought and paid for? Why should I swallow whole the claims of government-paid scientists, when everyone agrees that politicians are venal liars, paid by corporations and banks to make laws that allow them to obtain wealth beyond the dreams of avarice?
Therefore, because government insiders in every country have flouted the laws they impose on us, it is not just a character flaw in the apparachiks, it is falsification of the hypothesis and proof-positive that science is just another “religion”. And I refuse to believe just coz they say so. I am also fond of quoting Pitt the Younger…
The term “white privilege” was promulgated by American academic Peggy McIntosh in her 1987 essay, “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”. Her screed was not research but ethnic warfare, being a slanderous attack on Europeans in America, and subsequently everywhere. The knapsack was invisible because there were no data to support her argument, but she knew her thesis was correct. This is similar to “systemic racism”, which applies to organisations against which there are no provable instances of racism, but again since the thesis is proven, the missing data are embedded in the “DNA of the organisation”.
It has taken over three decades, but thanks to research by The National Museum of African American History & Culture (NMAAHC) we now know exactly what are the components of white privilege. The museum has provided a list called, “Aspects and Assumptions of Whiteness and White Culture in the United States”. The list itemises behaviours and characteristics of white Americans and could be said to constitute white Americans’ privilege. Coincidentally, many aspects are shared by other European populations – and generally those non-Europeans living in successful countries, i.e. many of them apply to Asians and Africans who live a “white” life.
Furthermore, the list coincides with the targets of the revolutionaries who have sought to inflict as much chaos on ordinary people as they could these last 70 years. Of course, the Church’s hirelings have not defended their flock because they are venal placemen. There are criticisms of the list from a Catholic Social Teaching perspective, tied to America’s proddy roots. But almost every item meets or is close to the natural law standard. Unsurprisingly those whose preferred lifestyle runs contrary to the list do not thrive – regardless of ethnicity – and they project their guilt onto the law-abiding majority.
“White privilege” is warfare by subversion and I reject it in toto.
Summary: In the natural state women took care of children and men hunted in groups. Hunting is risky and requires cooperation between hunters. Toddlers cannot be reasoned with, but need to be protected from harm, therefore women demand immediate obedience. So women, when looking down the hierarchy are very disagreeable, i.e. “bossy”, but looking up the hierarchy they are highly agreeable (because they are physically vulnerable). This is why women are notoriously bad bosses. The dictatorial behaviour of sundry female states’ attorneys and governors during the scamdemic is typical of ladybosses.
The reason the Church has lasted longer than any other institution is that women are excluded from the C-suite. Of course, the Church has venerated many women since her inception, in particular Our Blessed Mother. But women have never held the key decision-making roles and that is why women cannot become priestesses, because if women were ordained they would eventually become bishops, cardinals and popes. There have been notable women leaders in history, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule (Boadicea, St. Joan of Arc, Indira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher).
There is no doubt that altar girls, women lectors and liturgists are part of the softening-up process to habituate the Church hierarchy to the presence of the ladies. Then, salami slice by salami slice, women will be deaconised, then ordained and that will be that. The Church’s enemies (John 15:18) are pushing hard for wimmin priests because they know nothing will destroy an organisation as surely as a ladyboss. The current Church hierarchy is not keen on lady bishops, but bishops are not motivated by adherence to Christ’s example and tradition. No, their concern is that the presence of women amongst an almost all-homosexual male hierarchy would lead to their outing for crimes against the few remaining altar boys.
Sheryl Sandberg, COO of facebook since 2008, said, “I want every little girl who is told she is bossy, to think instead that she has leadership skills.” (my emphasis) This statement is the apotheosis of why women aren’t natural leaders.
bossy (adj) given to ordering people about; overly authoritative; domineering; micromanaging. leadership (noun) the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal; macromanaging.
It is obvious that being bossy is in no way synonymous with leadership, even in inchoate form. The fact that wahmin think their bossy disposition is indeed unacknowledged leadership shows how unsuited they are for leadership. Being bossy is fine for achieving short-term, low value added results (atavistically, pulling a toddler away from a snake), but you cannot boss those with talent into finding creative solutions. The talented will walk away and become your competition, or if coerced into staying they will not produce anything new, merely work to undermine you.
Once wimmin bring their bossy disposition to the Church, real men will leave immediately. Those who remain will be beta male simps who were habituated to a shrewish mother who dominated their father. It is only the force of the state that that prevents men from reacting in a masculine fashion to these “strong wahmin”.
Another couple of interesting quotations from Sandberg: “Women don’t take enough risks. Men are just ‘foot on the gas pedal.’ We’re not going to close the achievement gap until we close the ambition gap.” This is another false equivalency. Ambition and initiative are not synonyms. In fact women’s “ambition” for resources is naturally unbounded – as divorce settlements show – but they lack the initiative to create value (because they are highly risk-averse). Women always follow where men lead. For example, the Men’s and Ladies’ prizes for tennis are the same, because equality. Men would agree to pool the two prize funds and play in a single tournament, but women would not because no women would be ranked in the top 500.
Sandberg also said, “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.” (my emphasis). This strategy worked for a generation (Sandberg is 50) and was programmed into men by many Paedowood films, but young men are wise to it now. A man who marries a slut once she can’t secure even the short-term attentions of an alpha male is called a “beta provider”. No man is going to pick up the crumbs from 2-200 other men’s tables. As Gen X and Gen Y tramps found out, and Zoomer bikes are going to find out, there will be no escape pod in their 30s with the invisible beta. The internet is full of deprogramming videos for this white knightery, and men can live without a wife, by being celibate or frequenting sex workers. However, even feminists get baby rabies sooner or later, but Chad will be chasing their 20 y-o niece and they’ll be invisible. Without “Plan Beta” many women are going to enter middle age childless.
One of the most specious arguments for the so-called “reformation” was the Church’s practice of selling indulgences. Prods swapped the small, voluntary purchase of indulgences for the massive compulsory payment of usury. Sadly, now the rest of us have to live in usury world too.
The story goes that the pope (Julius II) gulled the credulous faithful of billions to build his palace next-the-Tiber. So Fr. Luther was rightly indignant in condemning this filching of the Poor’s pocket. Wherever the reformation took hold, i.e. it was supported by the local princelings, they legalised usury, where before it had been condemned as immoral. “But,” the Prods will say, “Luther condemned usury. Gotcha!” Au contraire, this proves Luther was used as a tool by the landed gentry to privatise Church (then common) land and to institute usury. Calvin was a usury enthusiast because the Church was against it (the retard).
Here are the wages of the sin of usury, paid by us all today because Sixteenth Century barons in Germany and Whigs in England could only see as far as the next quarter date when they would be paid interest. Myopic assholes!
Savings in name only…
Compound interest is unnatural
The chart shows that an economy growing at a natural rate of 5% cannot keep pace with a compound interest rate of 5%. Why don’t the world’s socialist parties complain about usury? Because they are owned by the usurers.
With usury you pay twice, or more
The data are in nominal terms. When interest rates are low, cash is scarce and the capital repayments absorb a lot of wages. When interest rates are high, the interest payments absorb all wages, i.e. bankruptcies.
So, to claim that proddyism was a great victory for the working man over popish greed is to profess egregious economic ignorance.
What percentage of priests are gay? 40%-60%?
What percentage of bishops are gay? 80-90%?
What percentage of cardinals are gay? 90-95%?
What percentage of popes* are gay? 100!
* I doubt Bergoglio is the pope, but I’m certain masonic hatred of the Church runs through him like a stick of rock. Benedict may be the pope, but he’s a koran-kisser like the other Conciliar “popes”; not a strengthener of the bretheren.
How many of these men believe in a transcendent God? 0%
How many of these men believe in the resurrection of Christ? 0%
How many of these men’s vocations are to the comfort of living in an episcopal residence? 100%
Here are the alternative creeds these creatures try to foist on us, using the Church’s moral authority – which they have despoiled over 50 years with their man-boy love activities:
Usury
Pan-sexuality
Mass migration
Life-destroying lockdowns
COVID vaccine
Altar girls
Women lectors/deacons/priests/bishops/popes
The myth of black victimisation, all the time, everywhere, that explains everything (see Colin Flaherty)
All of the above are instruments to destroy the faith of Catholics and to raze the Catholic Church.
Do not go to Mass if the priest is in any way swishy. Find another parish.
The Turkish President has affronted Christianity by repurposing Hagia Sophia as a mosque. Therefore, I expect the bishops to formulate a new and realistic relationship with Islam. The Catholic Church is Christ’s church on earth. Neither Islam nor Judaism are fraternal branches of God’s covenant with Abraham.
Since the bishops will do nothing about this “turkish slap” (the last three “popes“ kissed the koran), Catholics have to act. Therefore, never holiday in Turkey. Greece offers more – unless you want to see the sites where the Turks sold millions of young European women as sex slaves and castrated youths.
Abraham Lincoln said that the test of a man’s character is not under adversity, for most men can bear it. No, he said if you want to know a man’s true character you should give him power and see how he acts.
In summary, you didn’t have sex with me, so the kid ain’t mine. I’m not paying for your bad choices! Go make the alpha daddy pay or find a charity.
I must have learned about Darwinism and child benefit at about the same time, (when I was 13-14), because my immediate thought on hearing about the latter was, “That’s evolutionary madness”. Of course, now I know Darwinism to be evolutionary madness too. But as a young Catholic I dutifully imbibed the natural selection creed and wondered at what point God ensouled Adam?
The survival of the fittest makes one very straightforward claim i.e. those with genetic characteristics best adapted to their environment have the greatest breeding success. I may not like the capitalistic ecosystem in which we must live, but those who compel us to live it should honour it in full, and not give us the worst of both worlds.
Women have the eggs, so they choose which man will fertilise them. Their choice of man is supposed to be according to the tenets of natural selection, i.e. will the man be a good provider for her offspring? So he needs access to an abundance of resources. This means he has to be dominant – tall, muscular, able to be aggressive and/or win fights, be physically attractive. So far so easy.
But if the dominant male impregnates her and does not share sufficient resources, because he’s always in demand, then her bad choice Darwinistically falls on her offspring. Or at least it should. But instead of weighing up the attractiveness of the alpha with the probability that he’ll stick around (nearly zero), she can plough on heedless of the consequences of her bad choices. She has the best of both worlds; her sexual partners are all alphas, but she can use state coercion to extract resources from the beta males who are invisible to her. This is egregiously unjust.
In a world operating according to Catholic social teaching*, child benefit is completely immoral because it is an invitation to concupiscence and sloth. In a world that subscribes to Darwinism, it is a programme of dysgenics and societal degeneration. Sadly, in the flour mill of our capitalistic democracy, the easy-to-tax wage workers are pulverised between the nether stone of usury and the upper stone of expropriatory taxation to fund the free shit army and its sexual couplings.
*I mean the true, pre-Vatican II social teachings, not the gay “poz” nonsense spewed out since
Vix Pervenit 