My very own blog…

It's me.

I’ve archived here years of myspace blogs, the last few months of facebook notes, and I’ll be adding a few things here and there – dated to the time it occurred.

I’m now porting this blog over to my personal facebook account, and it should show up on my twitter feed, though I don’t like twitter, other people I like DO, and I want them to know I’ve posted something here. I’m on freindfeed as well, but it’s all too much and since it has my twitter, facebook and blog feeds, it’s going to be very very redundant.

I’ve put everything in a category, at least one. “MySpace Archive” and “Facebook Archive” are self-explanatory.

As of this writing, I have the following categories:

Archivalist : Stuff I scan/document.

Arty : Um, art stuff. Things I or others do.

Bibliophile : I, book nerd.

Blog Notes : Just shit like this – who fucking cares.

Boorish : Me ranting, i.e. “commentary” and “sophistry”.

Crafty : Projects around the house. Sewing, sawing, silk-screening, building.

Design : Design projects for Underworld Amusements, freelance design that won’t scandalize the client, etc.

Outside My House : Vacations, events, etc.

Quote : Things other people have said, with or without commentary.

Skeptic : Things having to do with skepticism, atheism, critical thinking.

Slaughter House : When I pretend to be a professional photographer.

Two Cents : Much overlap with “Boorish”, but quieter.

Underworld Amusements : Notes on my projects that aren’t important enough to go on that site.

I suppose if I start adding things from the past, I’ll add a category called “Historical Revisionism“…

I’ve “tagged” only a few of the posts here, I suppose future postings will have them, and maybe I’ll get around to the backlog of items. I’ve always been terrible at documenting my work. I’ve had one or two websites about me, but nothing public. It’s been a tightrope walk, owing to the fact that I do freelance work and have a “straight job”.  I haven’t gone out of my way to hide my opinions, I just haven’t gone out of my way to publicize them in a public way like this. Take, for example, the description of  “Design” above… I won’t be posting all my freelance work here because some of my clients wouldn’t like it. Some of them have had no idea of my interests outside of graphic design. That’s a good thing. It may not be a secret, but most politically vocal graphic designers are on the left.

Obama X-Press - Snow Balls, Food Stamps, Newport
Obama X-Press - Snow Balls, Food Stamps, Newport

I consider myself a secular conservative… a “little ‘l’ libertarian”. I disagree with libertarians on a few points – death penalty being one of them… it’s not used enough.

Well, we’ll see what happens. This way I have control, and I can push my thoughts out from one location.

I will do my best to restrict posts to something worth sharing. You may disagree, but luckily for you it’ll be really easy to ignore it all.

This is me, some 13 years ago. I was in an industrial/performance group called URILLIAsekt, and the performance was called “Lycanthropy Ritual”. I don’t know if I’ve gotten more weird or less.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn0be_CXIT0

This blog is found at kevinislaughter.com, but .net and .org get you there as well.

Law of the Roman Republic…

(originally a MySpace blog, but during the transfer over to this blog, I slipped up and forgot to enter the date… I’m not going  back through 20 pages of blogs on myspace to figure it out, and it’s not time-sensitive anyway)

Roman law has its beginnings in the code known as the Twelve Tables (449 BC). From there Roman law became highly advanced for its time, developing over the centuries many of the legal institutions that are taken for granted today.
Here are some excerpts from those tables:

  • “A father shall immediately put to death a son recently born, who is a monster, or has a form different from that of members of the human race.”
  • “If one has maimed another and does not buy his peace, let there be retaliation in kind.”
  • “Where anyone commits a theft by night, and having been caught in the act is killed, he is legally killed.”
  • “When a judge, or an arbiter appointed to hear a case, accepts money, or other gifts, for the purpose of influencing his decision, he shall suffer the penalty of death.”
  • “If anyone should stir up war against his country, or delivers a Roman citizen into the hands of the enemy, he shall be punished with death.”

Tampon terrorism…

(originally a MySpace blog, but during the transfer over to this blog, I slipped up and forgot to enter the date… I’m not going  back through 20 pages of blogs on myspace to figure it out, and it’s not time-sensitive anyway)
A bulletin was posted recently by a friend about tampons having asbestos in them. It’s a lie that’s been circulating around the internet since 1998. I responded with a link to the snopes.com article about the subject: http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/tampon.asp

My well meaning friend said in response: “…it gets women thinking about the things that they put into their body… without thinking. So myth or no myth sparking conversation and debate is important to me, especially dealing with womens issues.”

What follows is my response:
——————————-
Xxxxx,
.I agree that it’s important that everyone is considerate of what they put into their bodies.
But sparking a debate based on a complete fabrication is not the way to go about it. It’s actually detrimental to any “cause” to promote lies about it.
This urban legend doesn’t seem to promote critical thinking about the hygiene of women as much as it is a  conspiratorial tale of the sinister collusion of government and “big business”.
What’s funny, is that every agency that has researched the subject has found that not only are modern tampons safe (aside from the concerns of Toxic Shock Syndrome) but that there are risks with all cotton tampons that you do not have with regular tampons. What this means is that the “organic alternative” solution is either no better or possibly worse than the ones manufactured by “big business”. The major difference between the two is that the “organic alternative” will cost you around $2.00 more per box (plus shipping if you can’t find them locally).
So in effect, what you’re doing is being a fear mongering shill for a company that charges more for a product without based in fallacious claims and vague “feel good” sentiment. This does not promote healthy intellectual debate, it stifles it with outlandish claims.
There are many lousy businesses that have done their best to lie, cheat and steal to get your last dollar. There are plenty of corrupt politicians that will take a bribe to benefit themselves over the people they are supposed to represent, and there are also well meaning folks who are willing to pass along lies unchallenged because of vague notions that it sparks debate.
If it did indeed spark debate, you would have looked into it instead of just passing it along. If it sparked debate, the message wouldn’t have continued to circulate around the internet for NINE years!
The real target of this report is not “women’s issues”, it bolsters fear and promulgate the idea that government and corporations are in cahoots to fuck over the “common woman”. It’s not true certainly in this situation, and not only is it not true – it’s a libelous statement. Not only that – but it takes away from debate and concern for actual, real, legit problems that women face!
Women’s oppression in muslim countries is real, and has real work consequences. For all the blather about women being oppressed in the United States, they’ve got nothing on the brain washing and shame and actual mutilation and murder that muslim women are subject to.
I have a pretty cynical view of the average persons ability to be reflective and considerate of truth. The continued propagation of urban myths is proof of this to me. The fact that most people believe in “god” is proof of this to me. So if you’re going to spend your time and effort advocating something you see as positive or denouncing something you think is negative, start the ball rolling and be considerate and reflective first! Fact check it!

KIS

Life At The Bottom – Theodore Dalrymple – Excerpt

This is an excerpt from “Life at the Bottom: The Worldview That Makes the Underclass” by Theodore Dalrymple. I OCRed the text without really proofreading, so there may be quirks in the conversion, and it’s not the entire chapter…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple
Anthony (A.M.) Daniels (born 1949) is a British writer and retired physician (prison doctor and psychiatrist), who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple. He has also used the pen name Edward Theberton[1] and two other pen names.[2][3] He is a critic of liberal thinking and utopian thinking in general. Before his retirement in 2005 he worked as a doctor and psychiatrist in a hospital and nearby prison in a slum area in Birmingham. His philosophical position is “compassionate conservative”.

Tough Love

LAST WEEK, a seventeen-year-old girl was admitted to
my ward with such acute alcohol poisoning that she could
scarcely breathe by her own unaided efforts, alcohol being a
respiratory depressant. When finally she woke, twelve hours
later, she told me that she had been a heavy drinker since the
age of twelve.
She had abjured alcohol for four months before her admis‑
sion, she told me, but had just returned to the bottle because of
a crisis. Her boyfriend, aged sixteen, had just been sentenced to
three years’ detention for a series of burglaries and assaults. He
was what she called her “third long-term relationship”—the
first two having lasted your and six weeks, respectively. But
after four months of life with the young burglar, the prospect of
separation from him was painful enough to drive her back to
drink.
It happened that I also knew her mother, a chronic alcoholic
with a taste for violent boyfriends, the latest of whom had been
stabbed in the heart a few weeks before in a pub brawl. The
surgeons in my hospital saved his life; and to celebrate his re‑
covery and discharge, he had gone straight to the pub. From
there he went home, drunk, and beat up my patient’s mother.
My patient was intelligent but badly educated, as only prod‑
ucts of the British educational system can be after eleven years
of compulsory school attendance. She thought the Second
World War took place in the 197os and could give me not a sin‑
gle correct historical date.
I asked her whether she thought a young and violent burglar
would have proved much of a companion. She admitted that he
wouldn’t, but said that he was the type she liked; besides
which—in slight contradiction—all boys were the same.
I warned her as graphically as I could that she was already
well down the slippery slope leading to poverty and misery—
that, as I knew from the experience of untold patients, she
would soon have a succession of possessive, exploitative, and
violent boyfriends unless she changed her life. I told her that in
the past few days I had seen two women patients who had had
their heads rammed down the lavatory, one who had had her
head smashed through a window and her throat cut on the
shards of glass, one who had had her arm, jaw, and skull bro‑
ken, and one who had been suspended by her ankles from a
tenth-floor window to the tune of, “Die, you bitch!”
“I can look after myself,” said my seventeen-year-old.
“But men are stronger than women,” said. “When it
comes to violence, they are at an advantage.”
“That’s a sexist thing to say,” she replied.
A girl who had absorbed nothing at school had nevertheless
absorbed the shibboleths of political correctness in general and
of feminism in particular.
“But it’s a plain, straightforward, and inescapable fact,” I
said.
“It’s sexist,” she reiterated firmly.
A stubborn refusal to face inconvenient facts, no matter
how obvious, now pervades our attitude towards relations be‑
tween the sexes. An ideological filter of wishful thinking strains
out anything we’d prefer not to acknowledge about these eter‑
nally difficult and contested relations, with predictably disas‑
trous results.
I meet with this refusal everywhere, even among the nursing
staff of my ward. intelligent and capable, as decent and dedi‑
sated a group of people as I know, they seem, in the matter of
judging the character of men, utterly, almost willfully, incompe‑
tent.
In my toxicology ward, for example, 98 percent of the thir‑
teen hundred patients we see each year have attempted suicide
by overdose. Just over half of them are men, at least 7o percent
of whom have recently perpetrated domestic violence. After
stabbing, strangling, or merely striking those who now appear
in medical records as their partners, they take an overdose for
at least one of three reasons, and sometimes for all three: to
avoid a court appearance; to apply emotional blackmail to their
victims; and to present their own violence as a medical condi‑
tion that it is the doctor’s duty to cure. As for our women pa‑
tients who’ve attempted suicide, some 70 percent have suffered
domestic violence
In the circumstances, it isn’t altogether surprising that I can
now tell at a glance—with a fair degree of accuracy—that a
man is violent towards his significant other. (it doesn’t follow,
of course, that I can tell when a man isn’t violent towards her
In truth, the clues are not particularly subtle. A closely shaven
head with many scars on the scalp from collisions with broken
bottles or glasses; a broken nose; blue tattoos on the hands,
arms, and neck, relaying messages of love, hate, and challenge;
but above all, a facial expression of concentrated malignity,
outraged egotism, and feral suspiciousness—all these give the
game away. Indeed, I no longer analyze the clues and deduce a
conclusion: a man’s propensity to violence is as immediately
legible in his face and bearing as any other strongly marked
character trait.
All the more surprising is it to me, therefore, that the nurses
perceive things differently. They do not see a man’s violence in
his face, his gestures, his deportment, and his bodily adorn‑
ments, even though they have the same experience of the pa‑
tients as I. They hear the same stories, they see the same signs,
hut they do not make the same judgments. What’s more, they
seem never to learn; for experience—like chance, in the famous
dictum of Louis Pasteur—favors only the mind prepared. And
when I guess at a glance that a man is an inveterate wife beater
(I use the term “wife” loosely), they are appalled at the harsh‑
ness of my judgment, even when it proves right once more.
This is not a matter of merely theoretical interest to the
nurses, for many of them in their private lives have themselves
been the compliant victims of violent men. For example, the
lover of one of the senior nurses, an attractive and lively young
woman, recently held her at gunpoint and threatened her with
death, after having repeatedly blacked her eye during the previ‑
ous months. I met him once when he came looking for her in
the hospital: he was just the kind of ferocious young egotist to
whom I would give a wide berth in the broadest daylight.
Why are the nurses so reluctant to come to the most in‑
escapable of conclusions? Their training tells them, quite
rightly, that it is their duty to care for everyone without regard
for personal merit or deserts; but for them, there is no differ‑
ence between suspending judgment for certain restricted pur‑
poses and making no judgment at ail in any circumstances
whatsoever. It is as if they were more afraid of passing an ad‑
verse verdict on someone than of getting a punch in the face—a
likely enough consequence, incidentally, of their failure of dis‑
cernment. Since it is scarcely possible to recognize a wife beater
without inwardly condemning him, it is safer not to recognize
him as one in the first place.
This failure of recognition is almost universal among my vi‑
olently abused’, women patients, but its function for them is
somewhat different from what it is for the nurses. The nurses
need to retain a certain positive regard for their patients in
order to do their job. But for the abused women, the failure to
perceive in advance the violence of their chosen men serves to
absolve them of all responsibility for whatever happens there‑
after, allowing them to think of themselves as victims alone
rather than the victims and accomplices they are. Moreover, it
licenses them to obey their impulses and whims, allowing them to suppose that sexual attractiveness is the measure of all things and that prudence in the selection of a male companion is nei­ther possible nor desirable.
Often their imprudence would be laughable were it not tragic: many times in my ward I’ve watched liaisons form be­tween an abused female patient and an abusing male patient within half an hour of their striking up an acquaintance. By now I can often predict the formation of such a Øliaison-and predict that it will as certainly end in violence as that the sun will rise tomorrow.
At first, of course, my female patients deny that the violence of their men was foreseeable. But when I ask them whether they think I would have recognized it in advance, the great major­ity—nine out of ten—reply, yes, of course. And when asked how they think I would have done so, they enumerate precisely the factors that would have led me to that conclusion. So their blindness is willful.
Today’s disastrous insouciance about so serious a matter as the relationship between the sexes is surely something new in history: even thirty years ago, people showed vastly more cir­cumspection in the formation of liaisons than they do now. The change represents, of course, the fulfillment of the sexual revo­lution. The prophets of that revolution wished to empty the re­lationship between the sexes of all moral significance and to destroy the customs and institutions that governed it. The ento­mologist Alfred Kinsey reacted against his own repressed and puritanical upbringing by concluding that all. forms of sexual restraint were unjustified and psychologically harmful; the novelist Norman Mailer, having taken racial stereotypes as seri­ously as any Ku Klux Klansman, saw in the supposedly unin­hibited sexuality of the Negro the hope 01 the World for a more abundant and richer life; the Cambridge social anthropologist Edmund Leach informed the thinking British public over the radio that the nuclear family was responsible for
contents (this, in the century of Hitler and Stalin!); and the psychiatrist R. D. Laing blamed the family structure for serious
mental illness. In their different ways, Norman 0. Brown, Paul
Goodman, Herbert Marcuse, and Wilhelm Reich joined in the
campaign to convince the Western world that untrammeled sex‑
uality was the secret of happiness and that sexual repression,
along with the bourgeois family life that had once contained
and channeled sexuality, were nothing more than engines of
pathology.
All these enthusiasts believed that if sexual relations could
be liberated from artificial social inhibitions and legal restric‑
tions, something beautiful would emerge: a life in which no de‑
sire need be frustrated, a life in which human pettiness would
melt away like snow in spring. Conflict and inequality between
the sexes would likewise disappear, because everyone would get
what he or she wanted, when and where he or she wanted it.
The grounds for such petty bourgeois emotions as jealousy and
envy would vanish: in a world of perfect fulfillment, each per‑
son would be as happy as the next.
The program of the sexual revolutionaries has more or less
been carried out, especially in the lower reaches of society, but
the results have been vastly different from those so foolishly an‑
ticipated. The revolution foundered on the rock of unacknowl‑
edged reality: that women are more vulnerable to abuse than
men by virtue of their biology alone, and that the desire for the
exclusive sexual possession of another has remained just as
strong as ever. This desire is incompatible, of course, with the
equally powerful desire—eternal in the human breast hut hith‑
erto controlled by social and legal inhibitions—for complete
sexual freedom. Because of these biological and psychological
realities, the harvest of the sexual revolution has not been a
brave new world of human happiness hut rather an enormous
increase in violence between the sexes, for readily understand‑
able reasons.

Finding the right type…

The closest type faces I can find are Perpetua and Arno Pro, but both of them are wrong.
No “Th” ligature in Perpetua, and the one in Arno has a rising serif that the orig. doesn’t. The italics of both Perpetua and Arno are totally different than the orig. found on TSR.
There’s a typeface I don’t have called Lapidary 333, but there’s just a really good chance that I won’t find a digital version of the typeface.
Notice that the two books are actually set in different faces, or, at least, variations of the same face. The lowercase "y" in both are drastically different (see 5 at the bottom of image).

Finding the type

HL Mencken Club “The Egalitarian Temptation” Report

I have hardly edited the following for content, much less style.

(edit – august 31st, 2009 – adding some hyperlinks, making a few edits)

HL Mencken Club, 1st Annual Meeting
“The Egalitarian Temptation”

(see announcement by Richard Spencer for it)

Sitting beside Paul Gottfried, behind Peter Brimelow (for a short bit) in a few seats over from John Derbyshire and Jared Taylor, I set in a room filled with largely older white men feeling quite the odd duck. I was not the only attendee in his early 30s, but I was on the low end of the age spectrum. I wasn’t able to join a kickoff ceremony tonight before, so I arrived early on Saturday in hopes that tickets would still be available for the days series of panels and lectures, they were.

One of the two women registering attendees identified herself as Paul Gottfried’s wife, and I guess I thought that was a bit strange, because the one photo of Paul Gottfried I’d seen, he looked like a black man. Seeing him in person, rectified that… he is an old white guy. Go to TakiMag.com for yourself and tell me if you’d think he was black or white from that head-shot.

I am not a political junkie, and it’s obvious to anybody reading this blog, or knowing me personally. I’m an idea junkie, I’m a truth seeker, if you will, though that phrase just sounds too smarmy. I would never tell somebody “hey, I’m a truth seeker”. I would more quickly say, “I’m a skeptic.” But the word skeptic, much like the word atheist, just tells people how you respond to something. It’s not a positive assertion, like Christian or pedophile, or Christian pedophile.

For me, it’s all best wrapped up by saying “I’m a Satanist“, though it rarely clarifies my position to anyone else – quite the opposite in most cases.

The day was broken down into three main panel discussions and two meals with speakers. The first panel was probably the least interesting to me personally. And it was on the Habsburg Empire and World War I in the fall of the Western civilization. I think a point made in the next panel was quite appropriate here, as I was educated in public school in the 1980s, and we didn’t learn about the Habsburg Empire. But we did learn about Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. Which is more important to world history in Western civilization? I think an argument could easily be made for the former, in fact… I don’t think any argument needs to be made, just look at the events, and then looked up at how much time is given to teaching one versus the other in our classrooms

I wasn’t disinterested in the topic. Indeed, I was interested, I understood the importance of it, but I eagerly awaited the panels on education and egalitarianism, followed by a panel on “Mencken, Nietzsche, and their American Disciples”

My pathetic knowledge of history allowed me to be quite lost during a significant amount of this first panel. James Kurth, political science professor at Swarthmore College, had a wonderful voice and read almost verbatim from an article of his published in the Journal Modern Age, from the fall of 2007. He had photocopies available, so I read along with him. T. Hunt Tooley, a professor of history at Austin College in Texas did me the favor of mentioning two names I am quite familiar with, Otto Dix and Machiavelli, in the first few minutes of his lecture “The Cost of the Great War.”

Tooley ended his speech by quoting some liberal who said something and upon reflection I’m not exactly sure what it was. Ultimately it was something to the effect of “war being the greatest ally of democracy”. To be clear he was not endorsing this quote, but using it to illustrate how war can be integral to a democratic ideology, since it is most commonly attributed to the right. It was later in the night that I asked him about the quote, so I actually had a second time to help me remember it, and it was in that discussion but I told him about the first person to really affect the way I view war in a significant way. That was Francis Galton, when he pointed out how dysgenic war was. It had never been framed in that light before, and I had never considered the fact that ultimately war killed off giant numbers of the best men in our society, and left alive to reproduce some of the worst. It is the sick, the deformed, the stupid, and the cowardly that get out of military service. Although I’m sure a the best of the best will survive the war, I would imagine that disproportionately it is the cowards hiding and foxholes that make it out alive. I do not have any great coherent body of thought on the subject, just a few fragmented ideas, but I think there’s something significant here that I haven’t seen explored… but this could easily be because I haven’t looked for it explicitly. I see an obvious tension in the idea that we will encourage those men who would be best at war to reproduce, and at the same time not actually send them to war to aid in the selection process… whether that selection process is a natural selection, or a more formalized eugenic policy.

The second panel was, for me, the best of the day. Really though, there is no reason for it to be. The three speakers discussed education, and I have no practical reason for being interested in education, in any formal sense. In my sophomore year of high school, when all of my peers went on summer vacation, I enrolled in an adult high school program offered by the local community college. What aspect of high school I didn’t hate, I was ambivalent about. I was an outsider, with few friends, and little respect for the piece of paper that would’ve been handed over to me for enduring one more year of subpar education among subhuman people. This was not a GED program, you took individual classes to gain individual class credits for high school diploma. Since it was on a college campus, I had the added bonus of being able to smoke on without fear of being pounced upon by an assistant principal hiding in a dormant school bus (as did happen). The people who attended the school was a mix of juvenile delinquents and empty nest house wives going back to get their diploma. All of them seemed to be of below average intelligence. This is my compromise though, I had no respect for high school diploma, and I wasn’t planning on attending a university, but at the same time this allowed me to not technically be a high school dropout. Most of the delinquents stopped showing up out after the first couple of weeks anyway (being delinquents, doing what comes naturally), so the environment was a far cry from being an institute of learning, but certainly the same metaphorical distance from being the environment of a public high school.

Let me modify that with the phrase “government school”. Marshall DeRosa, a speaker on the second panel, use that term instead of the phrase public school. I think it’s much better descriptive, as it is more evocative of going to the DMV, and thus more reflective of the experience I had.

The second main reason why I should have no interest in education, in a formal setting, is that I don’t have children… or at least none I kept. I haven’t ruled out the option of having children, but even disregarding the economic concerns of raising a child, I haven’t yet decided if bringing a child in the world at all in this day and age constitutes child abuse. The only internal response to this that I have come up with, that has any merit, is to remind myself that there was no golden age, there will probably be no golden age, so any disadvantages to raising a child now are just a trade off from the disadvantages of the past.

Charles Murray‘s talk during this panel was titled “Nurture vs. Nature”. I had just recently listened to a lecture that he had given to the Cato Institute regarding his most recent book on education. Learning is probably best known for his book the Bell curve that he co-authored with Richard Herrnstein, but I also have his book “Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950“. When I first heard about the book I thought “how Galtonian”, and pretty early on in the book he makes reference to “Hereditary Genius“, appropriately enough. I am pleased to say that my copy is now signed, and takes its place in my library would sign books from G. Gordon Liddy, John Waters, Peter H. Gilmore and others. I had also brought along Jared Taylor’s “Paved with Good Intentions“, and was pleased to have it signed as well.

When Murray was signing my book, he was in a rush to leave. His son was there, and had just arrived in town. I could not fault the man for wanting to spend time with him over any of us, and I have to thank his son for speaking up to say “I think that man wants his book signed”. Out of respect I did not want to take up more of his time than was needed for the signing, so I kept my comments to the line “I’ve very much enjoyed the work you’ve done, but must admit I’m glad to see your most recent book is much thinner.” His “Human Accomplishment” is over 600 pages, the Bell Curve was 900 pages, but “Real Education” is just 224.

Murray’s discussion was basically “we are not equal in ability, and it ain’t because of mean people”. The mass hallucination that all inequality of outcome is the effect of social forces instead of a combination of genetic and environmental factors not only promotes hostility, but wastes millions and millions of dollars and man-hours on what is effectively a snipe hunt.

There’s a commercial that bugs me, I haven’t seen them run recently, but I’m sure some variation will pop up soon enough, they’re a series of public service ads that encouraged parents to eat breakfast with their children. The commercial states that there is a strong correlation between children’s eating breakfast with their parents and their academic performance, implying that there is some sort of causation. This is absurd, aside from the fact that children should probably eat some food. It seems obvious to me that it is not the mere fact that a parent sitting next to their child of a consumed breakfast that makes the child do better in school. Even ignoring Judith Rich Harris‘ theory that parents have very little power to shape their children’s intellectual or behavioral ability, I would imagine that it is more likely that when a parent is inclined to prepare breakfast for the child they are also more inclined to make sure their child is doing their homework, feed them regularly and other meals, care for them, etc. etc. it is indicative of somebody who is investing time and attention and their child to a much larger extent. A stupid child who is given breakfast will still be a stupid child when he arrives at school. The stupid child who is given love and attention, intellectual and emotional encouragement and support, new computers filled with educational software, and the most gifted tutors, will still be a stupid child and grow up to be a stupid adult. The best testing has shown that adjusting the environmental factors has at best only a temporary boost in IQ.

It was Kopff who very briefly discussed the Trivium and Quadrivum, in his lecture about the need to reinstate a classical education. I was totally unaware of these two words, much less concepts behind them, until recently reading some of the Deep Satanism articles by James Sass. These are two educational systems, originally found in medieval universities. The former is constituted of the three subjects of logic grammar and rhetoric. The trivium was preparation for the quadrivium, and as you might expect, the latter consists of four subjects. These subjects are arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. After learning about these two educational methods, I immediately became depressed. In the 12 years I attended school, I don’t remember a single instance where a teacher explicitly discussed logic or rhetoric, much less said about teaching us principles of those two. It is ironic that it was only after rejecting Christianity explicitly, I began to look into these two subjects. It is ironic because the trivium and quadrivium were developed when education in the Western world was exclusively controlled by Christians. In doing some research it seems that the “classical education movement” is dominated still by Christians.

Though a monumental undertaking, it is my sincere hope that James Sass’s Project Faust will come to fruition and be one of the most important contributions of Satanic thought regarding children, though I would encourage everyone to take the basic concepts and do with it what they can. Though there is a significant brouhaha about neural plasticity, I’m inclined to believe that there is a prime aged between 14 and 20 (roughly) where we humans become pretty set in their ways as far as intellectual habits go.

In fact, once this Project Faust is completed, I would encourage him to whitewash it and look for a publisher to release it to the homeschooling market as a secular alternative.

I spoke with Robert Weissberg a bit after the lectures, as I was intrigued that he’d emphatically endorsed home schooling during the Q&A period.

The theme of the entire event was supposed to be “The Egalitarian Temptation.” I was very excited about that topic, and all the more vexed when I realized a significant number of attendees were Christian, and specifically Catholic. John Derbyshire was asked to sit in on the Mencken panel, because one of the speakers didn’t show up. When it was his turn to talk, he mentioned that he was a bit confused by the fact that the inaugural dinner the night before had started with a prayer. I was taken aback by this, as I was not there, and I would’ve seen it is quite incongruous as well. Derbyshire made the comment that he felt like he was back at his grandmother’s house.

John Zmirak is a Catholic, in fact, every single thing he said, or at least 9/10 things he said, had to do with Catholicism. He was really hung up on it. He’s a writer at Taki Mag and wasn’t a speaker, but he frequently got up to the microphone for a question or comment during the Q&A sessions. The one line that I felt I needed to congratulate him on was when he said flat out, “you must be ready to fight whenever you hear the words social justice.” I told him afterward, but it was brilliant just hearing somebody say that in a room of 80 people and not one of them getting upset. The catchphrase is never used sincerely, it is always used for people jockeying for social power, to gain privileges… not equality, but privileges above and beyond others.

Paul Gottfried’s lecture on Mencken and Nietzsche was good, but a bit dull in presentation. I think I would’ve gotten more out of reading it online or in a book.

It’s strange that the Mencken panel was the least populated, and not the most engaging. There was some talk by Richard Spencer, the managing editor of TakiMag, of how to reclaim Mencken and Nietzsche as symbols of the right. At the end of the discussion, it seemed that he had at least partially come to the conclusion that Mencken could not fully be reclaimed. I was largely left with the impression that Mencken was a symbol of convenience, a sort of codeword. I saw no great love of the iconoclasm that Mencken embodied. The not infrequent attacks on neoconservatives did not seem radical as much as it seemed obvious and necessary. Just as obvious and necessary as attacks on liberals. My dreams of finding in the HL Mencken club a secular, atheist, conservative think tank were dashed. Spencer did end his speech by stating that he believed that he thought the group should be considered radicals, the statement was met with no enthusiasm, no applause. I think this is partially due to his poor delivery of the line, however sincere.

John Derbyshire was the last man to talk, and that was after the dinner. He immediately engage my full attention by starting off his discussion, titled “Equality: the Elusive Ideal” (full text at link), by describing how he organized his books and his office. His desk is situated in the middle of the room, and all four walls are filled with books. He organizes them in a clockwise fashion, from the most concrete in fact the least. Starting with reference books immediately behind him, next comes the mathematics (his specialty) on his left, then Earth sciences etc., flowing into sociology philosophy and finally ending in a few poetry books at the furthest point on the right-hand wall.

He discussed a few of the problems that any of us who have a significant amount of books come across were not using a formalized system of shelving, such as the Dewey decimal system. He stated he kept the biographies of mathematicians in with his section on math books, though the rest of his biographies are in a section to themselves. This echoes my own resolution of keeping George Lincoln Rockwell‘s biographies along with his other books, though my biographies of Havelock Ellis, Larry Flynt, and Russ Meyer are not with my sexology and nonfiction dirty books, but with the rest of my biographies. I do however keep Nile Southern’s book The Candy Men sitting next to Venus Bound, a book on Olympia Press in with my dirty books even though they are significantly biographical.

To digress, yet again, it is because I am the type of person I would have biographies on these two disparate areas that exclude me from being a good candidate for representing any organization outside of the Church of Satan. I will admit I’m a little self-conscious about my outsider status, and the inevitable tension that would arise from largely normal people knowing that I have such an affinity for such figures as Yukio Mishima and Jim Tully, Anton LaVey and Savirtri Devi, Francis Galton and Tod Browning. I certainly have no love for the politics of James Watson, and I find GL Rockwell’s views on homosexuality to be deplorable.

Derbyshire was floating the word “culturalist” to refer to the folks that believe that environment is a single causal factor in developing intelligence and IQ. The terms used in this area of of obvious interest to anyone with a dog in the fight. The left will easily just call anyone who has a view that genes inform IQ and behavior, at least in part, as racists. They have their word, and it works for them. The right, out of a mixed need to a) not be called a racist and b) not be seen as forming epithets to describe their opponents, have had a hard time coming to agree on a single term for either themselves or those who hold opposite views.

Richard Lynn, in his book “The Science of Human Diversity” uses Henry E. Garrett‘s term “equalitarian” coined in 1961, and I’ll quote Garret by way of Lynn:

“The weight of the evidence favors the proposition that racial differences in mental ability (and perhaps in personality and character) are innate and genetic. The evidence is not all in, and further inquiry is needed… at best, the equalitarian dogma represents a sincere if misguided effort to help the Negro by ignoring or even suppressing evidence of his mental and social immaturity. At worst, equalitarianism is the scientific hoax of the century.”

Some writers in this field have used the term environmentalist in place of equalitarian or culturalist, and the word itself is in greater accord with the views, but culturally the word is owned by people who care about trees, rare owls, and littering. There is no possible way that hereditarians will be able to redefine that word in the minds of the majority of Americans.

In an unfinished essay of my own, I set about the problem of terminology and proposed my own set of classifications:

Racist: Someone who believes in races as either a biological reality or a social construct and wants to foster or maintain a hierarchical division between them. A collectivist view relating to their own race is usually implicit.

Racial Hereditarian: Someone who believes in the biological reality of race, but does not necessarily believe in an implicit hierarchy based on racial divisions. Collectivist beliefs are not implicit in Racial Hereditarianism.

Racial Equalitarian: Someone who believes that race is not a valid biological concept, and that it is socially constructed division. Collectivist beliefs are not implicit in Racial Environmentalism.

Anti-Racist: Someone who may believe that race is either a biological reality or a social construction, but will either ignore or promote the dissolution of those divisions through social, economic, legal or biological (miscegenation) means. They usually have collectivist beliefs.

Derbyshire is an atheist, and his talk had the most meat and the most laughs. He referenced the findings neuroscience, the work of Cochran, Hardy and Harpending that I discussed when hosting the podcast episode of Satanism Today (11-08-2007), Stephen Pinker, etc. After his talk I approached him to thank him for the lecture, and jokingly said “You’re going to have to tell me something terrible about yourself, because for every lecture today I’ve found at least one thing that’s made me bristle a bit, except for yours. I found nothing to object to at all.” He responded, jokingly “I’m a Wiccan that attends Black Masses and Sacrifices babies”… I could only simply respond, “I’m a member of the Church of Satan, so you’ll have to do better than that.”

Introducing Underworld Amusements…

Introducing Underworld Amusements, a publisher and seller of curious sundries and callous broadsides.

You can purchase these titles directly from Lulu. com, and in the near future we will have a fully functional website with MANY items of interest available for purchase.

The Anti-Christ

The Anti-Christ
Curse on Christianity
by Friedrich Neitzsche
Translated and Introduced by H.L.
Mencken
Afterword by James D.
Sass

“What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.
What is evil?—Whatever springs from weakness.
What is happiness?—The feeling that power increases—that resistance is overcome.
Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency (virtue in the Renaissance sense, virtu, virtue free of moral acid).
The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.
What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity….”

Ladies In The Parlor

Ladies in the Parlor
by Jim Tully

This is the saga of Madame Rosenbloom’s fashionable establishment in Chicago and of the ladies in her domain. And here is the Jim Tully of “Circus Parade”—the forthright Tully whose language is as frank as life itself. Tully does not pull his punches. The big men and the little ladies for whom Madame Rosenbloom’s house is a social center are portrayed with vigor and hon­esty. The novel is crammed with incident and penetrating word pictures. It is not a story for the squeamish. But if life itself, —that robust, lusty segment of life that is here so honestly and brilliantly de­picted—does not frighten or shock you, this novel will hold your deepest interest.

Upon initial printing of this book in 1935, copies were seized from the publisher and destroyed by police based on allegations that the material was obscene and blasphemous. It is unknown how many copies survived. This is the first printing since that time.

Iron Youth Reader, Vol. 1

The Iron Youth Reader, Vol. 1
Robert Eisler, Marquis deSade, Oswald Spengler, Savitri Devi, Gustave LeBon, Sir Francis Galton

This is the first annual installment of “Studies Beyond Good and Evil”– the Iron Youth Reader.
These largely out-of-print works have been selected as a guide to assist the explorer of the taboo and left-hand paths. Neglected, infamous and infernal texts from philosophy, sociology, history and psychology are compiled, with blank pages for notes after each selection.
Starting this collection is Robert Eisler‘s exploration of sadism, masochism and lycanthropy; Man Into Wolf.
Appearing next in the volume is a short anti-religious tract from Marquis deSade- A Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man followed by Oswald Spengler‘s Man and Technics.
Savitri Devi‘s Rocks of the Sun is an excerpt from her book Pilgrimage.
Gustave LeBon‘s The Psychology of the Crowd, a landmark work giving insight into what happens when an individual finds himself one of many.
The final contribution to the Reader is Sir Francis Galton‘s Essays In Eugenics.

Decree Against Christianity

Decree Against Christianity
Declared on the day of salvation,
on the first day of the Year One
(—on September 30, 1888 of the false time-chronology)

War to the death against depravity: depravity is Christianity

First proposition.— Every type of anti-nature is depraved. The most depraved type of man is the priest: He teaches anti-nature. Against the priest one doesn’t use arguments, one uses the penitentiary.

Second proposition.— Every participation in divine service is an assassination attempt on public morality. One should be more severe toward Protestants than toward Catholics, more severe toward liberal Protestants than toward the orthodox. The criminal character of a Christian increases when he approaches knowledge . The criminal of criminals is consequently the philosopher.

Third proposition.— The accursed places, in which Christianity has hatched its basilisk eggs, should be razed to the ground and be, as vile places of the earth, the terror of all posterity. One should breed poisonous snakes there.

Fourth proposition.— The sermon on chastity is a public instigation to anti-nature. Every display of contempt for sexual love, and every defilement of it through the concept “dirty” is original sin against the holy spirit of life.

Fifth proposition.— With a priest at one’s table food is pushed aside: one excommunicates oneself therewith from honest society. The priest is our chandala—he should be ostracized, starved, and driven into every kind of desert.

Sixth proposition.— One should call the “holy” story by the name that it deserves, as the accursed story; one should use the words “God,” “Saviour,” “redeemer,” “saint” as invectives, as criminal badges.

Seventh proposition.— The rest follows therefrom.

F.N.

From Chapter 1 of A Jew In Love by Ben Hecht

JO BOSHERE (born Abe Nussbaum) was a man of thirty—a dark-skinned little Jew with a vulturous and moody face, a reedy body and a sense of posture.

The Jews now and then hatch a face which for Jewishness surpasses the caricatures of the entire anti-Semitic press. These Jew faces in which race leers and burns like some biologic disease are rather shocking to a mongrelized world.

People dislike being reminded of their origins. They shudder a bit mystically at the sight of anyone who looks too much like a fish, a lizard, a chimpanzee or a Jew. This is probably nonsense. The Jew face is an enemy totem, an ancient target for spittle and, like a thing long hated, a sort of magic propagandist of hate. Its persistence in the world is that of some repulsive and hostile fauna, half crippled, yet containing in its in­effaceable Yiddish outline the taunt and challenge of the unfinished victim. This, of course, is true only of the worst looking Jew faces and the worst Jew haters.

Boshere was not quite so bad as this. The racial de­cadence which had popped so Hebraic a nosegay out of his mother’s womb was of finer stuff than that glandu­lar degeneration which produces the Jew with the sau­sage face; the bulbous, diabetic half-monsters who look as if they had been fished out of the water a month too late.

These bloaters are truly a vicious drag on the vanity of the race, and nobody winces at the sight of them so much as the Jew.

Boshere was no matter for wincing, yet he had an un­comfortably Semitic face, a face stamped with the hieroglyphic curl of the Hebrew alphabet. For this face, however, he had invented such unJewish expressions, surrounded it with such delicate mannerisms (although he never quite outgrew the semi onanistic activities of his hands) that his personality had almost lost its Semitic flavor.

He had a way of standing, one hand spread genteely over his epigastrium, his skimpy shoulders hunched for­ward, his slightly enlarged eyelids drooped in an artificial and brooding smile, his red-lipped mouth widened in an actorish grimace of meditation; a way of posturing, purring and smiling in the teeth, as it were, of his Jewishness, that gave him the look of a Prince Charming in the midst of a pogrom.

Boshere was wealthy. He had won a million in the stock market, a fact which he disdained. He also dis­dained his calling, which was that of book publisher. He considered his wealth and his vocation as accidents which in no way reflected his true soul and genius.

It was because of this true soul and genius that Boshere caused his face to wear, whenever he thought of it, a brooding, ironic smile. Originally this expression had been invented by Boshere to reveal his superiority to his Jewishness. During his pathologic Jew-conscious adolescence this smile had done varied service. It had hinted at De Medici ancestors, philosophic preoccupa­tions, eerie and delicate dreams; it had played its mysterious and transforming lights over the synagogic façade; it had battled so tirelessly with the racial en­zymes that even in his sleep Boshere looked as much the poseur as the Jew.

Now at thirty, this smile revealed to people his amuse­ment with their estimates of him. He was much superior to the Boshere they knew. It was his obsession that people either admired him or envied him—but not enough.

There was a Boshere, said this brooding, ironic smile, who was beyond the reach of people to understand or appreciate. Inasmuch as he had not yet taken the time to develop some form of self-expression which might advertise this true soul and genius to a dull world, his critics appealed to him as superficial. He snorted at all their fumbling estimates. His knowledge of literature? His ability to publish successful books? His luck in the stock market? His brilliant and alluring personality? These were small matters to the Boshere ego. One had to be Boshere to taste the inner flavor of his greatness.

This biologic handicap he sought to overcome, in those he wished to know him, by making them fall in love with him. He regarded an overwhelming love in either man or woman as the only critical approach to an understanding of him. Or perhaps he looked on love as the only attitude which those who really knew him must feel. In either case, he devoted most of his time, ener­gies and even money (despite his fantastic miserliness) to inspiring this emotion in the hearts of his chosen audience. He carried on a sort of Messianic campaign for disciples of Boshere.

For this business of breathing his soul into another and converting him or her into a Siamese twin, Boshere had a disastrous aptitude. But in the process of attaching a fellow human to himself, he invariably ended by coil­ing his own spirit, temperament, mannerisms and ex­citements so avidly around his conquest as to smother it—were it man or woman—and leave an aftermath of anger and revulsion. He was hated most by those on whom, from time to time, he had pounced in this quest for love and Siamese kinship.

His face, ugly, vulturous, malformed though it was, figured importantly in these conquests. It provoked analyses, stuck in the memory and personalized rela­tionships to a point of abnormality.

For his intimates, there was something peculiar in the look of this face, as if it were unduly naked, as if it had been plucked and deprived of some essential cover­ing. Freshly shaved, he reminded one of an evil birdling, all bill and no feathers, or of the breast of a thin chicken ready for the roasting pan.

His centered eyes, flat, negroid, slightly upturned—their stare indefinably tipped with mania—seemed un­duly exposed. In their look, there was something too close, too intimate. Too much of himself filled these eyes—a love-haunted self smiling in an obscene Narcist embrace.

Sensitivity was Boshere’s most treasured character­istic. He was almost professionally sensitive. His sensi­tivity found its most perfect reflection in the contours of the lower part of his face, the protruding, Spanish looking jaws, the orthopteran, girlish neck. Elsewhere, in his studied gestures, his fish wife angers, his Prince Charming purrings and sadist explosions, he was a pe­culiar enough but still worldly creature. He was domi­nant and full of that fearlessness to be found in puny men who bombinate behind the feminine certainty that  a strong, valorous antagonist will never stoop to attack them physically.

But in this lower half of his face was stamped another story. Here a timid and veritably cringing soul obtruded. Boshere was as conscious of his cheeks, jaws and neck as if they were a peculiarly crippled part of his body, crippled not with the stamp of Jewishness but with the deeper disfiguration of inferiority. He felt most at ease unshaven.

The sensitivity that was the vital basis of Boshere’s nature was not a matter which refined his tastes and his intellectual powers. His mental life was in the main a process of kleptomania. He was clever enough to absorb and appropriate informations and attitudes which at times gave him the air of a considerable fellow. His nimbleness and his unscrupulous parrotings enabled him to shine, even among his betters, as an anarch and an original. But through all such essays in objective thinking, through even his most successfully worded paradoxes and stolen unconventionalities, there remained obvious the uncreative fibre of his mind.

In matters, however, which related to himself, which had to do with the tormented turnings and hungers of his egomania, he was an inspired and shockingly pene­trant observer.

Boshere’s gift, in fact, lay in a realm beyond thought. He owned an organism whose sensitiveness bordered on mania. A stranger’s hand resting in his during a greeting could become an appalling phenomenon. His conscious­ness could enlarge such a contact to nightmarish un­reality. The pressure of palm and fingers, the texture of the stranger’s skin, the pulse beating in the stranger’s flesh—these took on such disproportionate significance that the stranger himself appeared to Boshere for the moment as unreal, fabulous—a veritable monster. In the same manner, a strange voice speaking, strange people laughing, a strange woman smiling or any human antic performed in his presence assumed for him, if he made no effort to control himself, an overwhelming existence —a gigantism beyond life.

Against this hysterical concept of reality, Boshere had engaged for years in a violent inner struggle. He had spent his youth steadying himself before the onrush of gigantism, combating within him this maniacal cringing which translated the simple surfaces of life into hor­rendous and menacing Goliaths.

This psychic battle with life had fitted him in an amusing way for success. As the mania ebbed, as the disordered senses of his adolescence subsided into mere worldly eccentricities, he looked about him with de­tached, ironic eyes. He who had fought and vanquished giants found reality pleasurably small. The violence with which in his youth he had ridden into the teeth of hallucinations and scattered them, left a habit of assault in his nature. Only now it was not against giants he charged, but against an absurdly shrunken, unintimi­dating reality of people. And it was he who felt a giant among pygmies.

LaVey’s bookshelf 1995

This is obviously just one of many bookshelves, but because it was caught on film, we get to browse. From the Nick Bougas Documentary “Speak of the Devil”.
I’d gone through this a few years back on the VCR and a pad of paper, but because of a comment on my myspace blog I thought I’d do a photocollage since I had the docu. on my hard drive and could easily take screen shots and photoshop them together… BECAUSE I’M A NERD.

LaVey's Bookshelf 1995
I’m typing the below list on the fly, there’s a few titles I know I have at home that I haven’t identified here and can’t remember the title of…

Shelf A
2. …Magic?
3. …Magic?
6. A Little treasury of ?

Shelf B
2. Psychopathia Sexualis
3. … Sex
4. The Sex Life of the Foot and Shoe
5. Sex…
14. Funeral Customs The World Over

Shelf C
1. Divine Horsemen: the Voodoo giods of Haiti
2. Human Curiosities
3. Man Into Wolf
4. The Werewolf
5. Encylcopedia of Esoteric Man
6. A ___ of The File Story of Bram Stoker
7. Dracula
9. The Piranha Book
10. Freaks
11. Very Special People
12. something from Julian Press
13. It’s a Small World
14. Animal Hypnosis
15. The Frankenstein Legend

LaVey's Bookshelf 1995 - Detail 1
LaVey's Bookshelf 1995 - Detail 2
LaVey's Bookshelf 1995 - Detail 3