The Secular Case For Prohibiting Contraception Under Penalty Of Death
Version 1
“I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if I present the correct arguments with the appropriate facts & data.”
– “Hegel Borg”, Twitter/X user “@xxclusionary”
I. Introduction:
“I’m sorry if you’ve heard this before. I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself. Actually, no, I’m not sorry, because you clearly need to hear it again” – Nouman Ali Khan, speaking at the Bayyinah Islamic Institute in Euless (suburb of Dallas-Fort Worth), Texas, United States, 2013-08-22.
I am categorially opposed to contraception, consider it to be murder and genocide, and believe that any use of contraception should be punishable by death. I have assembled this document in order to explain and defend my views. Notably, my arguments are entirely secular (that is, they are based on scientific research, logic, and historical reasoning, rather than on religion). Opposition to contraception is commonly associated with religious groups – as of the date of this writing, notably, the Catholic Church. However, while I will occasionally mention religious individuals and viewpoints, I am not myself religious, and my argument is not a religious one. The goal of this document is not primarily to convince anyone that my beliefs are correct. Of course, I do think my beliefs are correct, and I am prepared to defend them, and I will defend them. However, my central goal is to explain what I believe and seek, in order to assess compatibility. I have had more-or-less identical conversations with approximately 200 women and men, and have spent thousands of hours explaining my values. In my experience, the majority of people that I communicate with refuse to believe, or try to intentionally misunderstand, what I say. I do not mean that people refuse to accept my values (though they do) – I mean, they refuse to believe that I hold the values I do indeed hold. I am therefore writing this document so that I won’t have to repeat myself hundreds of times, as I’ve done in the past.
II. Strong Categorial Opposition To Contraception: What It Means
“This is, like, SUPER unpopular take” – A Russian, to be unnamed, writing in English, regarding my categorical opposition to contraception, 2025-06-03.
I am categorically opposed to contraception. In order to alleviate any confusion, “contraception” means any device, technology, drug, technique, or behavior designed to prevent pregnancy from sex, including low-technology methods used since ancient times (such as withdrawal, i.e. “pulling out” or “not finishing inside”), modern high-tech methods (pills, operations, etc.), and any methods which might be invented in the future. It also includes abortion by any method. I recognize that abortion and contraception are distinct in some respects, but when I say “I am against contraception”, I mean that I am against any intentional action, before, during, or after sexual contact, that attempts to prevent the birth of a child, and this, of course, includes both abortion and contraception. To avoid confusion, here are some examples of methods of contraception:
1. Behavioral Methods: “Pulling out” (not ejaculating inside a woman during sex) and “natural family planning” or “the calendar method” (intentionally timing sex to avoid having sex when a woman is most fertile).
2. Physical Methods: Condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, sponges, etc.
3. Non-Hormonal Chemical Methods: Spermicides and copper-only IUDs (intra-uterine devices).
4. Hormonal Chemical Methods: Birth control pills containing estrogens or progestins or other hormones, implantable or injected long-acting contraception containing the same, any hormonal methods used in men (ex. anabolic steroids, which typically produce temporarily sterility at sufficient doses), etc.
5. Surgical Methods: Tubal Ligation (“getting one’s tubes tied”) in women, vasectomies in men, and any other method, regardless of invasiveness or reversibility.
This is not a complete list – new methods of contraception are being researched, invented, and tested all the time. To be absolutely clear, I am completely against any action or method of preventing pregnancy that is used today, has ever been used in the entire 170,000-year history of Humanity on Earth, or will ever be used in the future.
Notably, I do not consider sex in the context of natural or incidental forms of infertility, be they temporary or permenant, to be contraception. For example, the following are not contraception:
1. Sexual contact when a woman is meunstrating, at which time conception is very unlikely (though not impossible) – indeed, I’ve done this many times.
2. Sexual contact when a woman is currently pregnant, and (barring superfetation) cannot become pregnant again – likewise, I’ve done this many times.
3. Sexual contact with a woman over the age of menopause.
4. Sexual contact when a man, or woman, or both, are infertile due to some cause totally outside of their control. Infertility can result from a wide range of traumatic, infectious, and genetic conditions (and in many cases the cause is difficult to determine).
I am also strongly opposed to contraception and abortion. This means that I believe that anyone who practices any form of contraception, even once, regardless of reason or circumstances, must be executed (judicial Death Penalty), and that this penalty should be carried out by burning in a public place. Public burning of serious criminals (and I believe that the use of contraception is an extremely serious crime) is my recommendation, as it sends a strong message to others than this practice will absolutely not be tolerated. My opposition also extends to related activities. For example, I believe that anyone manufacturing, buying, selling, advertising, promoting, or prescribing contraceptive pills should be executed by being burned alive.
I believe that such laws should be enforced upon all people in all nations and for the entire future of humanity, absolutely without exception. I completely reject the idea of “family planning” – if a man and a woman fall in love, they should get married, have sex whenever they mutually desire to, and however many children they naturally have is the correct number.
I will expand upon this in a later section, but, to be absolutely crystal clear, I believe that contraception and abortion are murder and in fact genocide – they have resulted in hundreds of billions of lost human lives, and contraception is far worse than (for example) the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, various instances of mass death under Communist dictatorships, and indeed all wars, epidemics, and disasters (natural or man-made) in all of human history.
It is popular for Leftists, who typically support both contraception and abortion, to deny that Conservatives (such as myself) really mean what we say. An example of this is Steve Chapman’s 2018-04-27 article in the Chicago Tribune, entitled “I Don’t Think Abortion Is Murder, And Neither Do You” (link, archive).
This is really quite the title. Curiously, Chapman claims he can read the minds of all people reading his article, which is rather odd, considering that there is no well-established way to determine what someone else is thinking. I would even argue that it’s not entirely straightforward to know what one’s self is thinking. I recall getting a brain MRI following a head injury (all was well), and being told by the radiologist: “Don’t worry – we can’t read your mind with this”, which engendered from me a single, timid laugh. Despite the fact that shadowy government agencies and dubious individuals worldwide strongly desire some scientific, technological means to read other people’s minds (or to force people to tell the truth, or to determine if someone is telling the truth), no such technology exists. There are four major approaches that have been tried in terms of lie detection, mind-reading, or forced truth-telling:
1. The American-Israeli-Russian Approach: Polygraph tests, as used in these countries, aim to detect lies by measuring heart rate, respiration, skin conductivity (which is correlated with perspiration), blood pressure, and similar metrics, typically sampling them at reasonably high frequencies, at least once per second. These numerous metrics (hence the term “poly” – many) are charted over time, originally on paper but now digitally (hence the term “graph”). The idea is that lying produces more physiological arousal and is more of an “active” process than telling the truth, and as such, someone will sweat more when telling a lie, experience an increase in heart rate and blood pressure, etc.
2. The Japanese Approach: In Japan, the dominant approach has a goal similar to polygraph analysis (detecting lies), but rather than measuring physiological parameters, the respondent’s voice is recorded and then subject to spectral analysis, with the goal of detecting “vocal stress”. This “vocal stress” is interpreted as an indicator of lying, much like how a rise in blood pressure would be interpreted in a polygraph study.
3. The Indian Approach: In India, the most common goal is not lie-detection but rather direct mind-reading. Suspected traitors, spies, and other n’er-do-wells are never asked any explicit questions. Instead, they are subjected to fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) brain scans. fMRI measures cerebral oxygen use (specifically, it measures oxygen levels in the blood; when blood oxygenation falls in a certain area of the brain, that is identified as a sign that neurons near those blood vessels are active and have consumed the “missing” oxygen). During fMRI, the person undergoing investigation will be exposed to images, sounds, or video clips that are not generally available – for example, a photograph of a crime scene that has not been publicly released. If fRMI detects increased oxygen use in areas associated with memory (typically the amygdala, hippocampus, and neocortex), this is interpreted as a sign that the test subject is associating the stimulus to a memory, rather than experiencing it for the first time – for example, that he actually has seen the crime scene before, which would of course tie him to the crime under investigation.
4. The Truth-Serum Approach: Tried in many nations, this method does not attempt to detect lies or read the mind directly, but to force the interrogee to tell the truth. Typically, GABA-type depressant drugs are used, including alcohol (“In Vino Veritas” – “In Wine Lies Truth”), though barbiturates and benzodiazepines are more commonly used. Sub-anesthetic doses of various other drugs which have non-GABA-mediated (or at least partially non-GABA-mediated) mechanisms-of-action are also occasionally tried, including NMDA antagonists like Ketamine, and volatile anesthetics (whose mechanism of action is not fully understood).
What all four of these approaches have in common is that they don’t work. Mountains of peer-reviewed evidence have consistently shown that none of these methods is any more effective than chance. In short, there is absolutely no known way to (a) determine if someone is telling the truth, (b) force someone to tell the truth, or (c) read someone’s mind. There are strong arguments for ceasing these practices. In addition to the fact that they don’t work and are a waste of time and resources, and in addition to the fact that the truth-serum approach involves administering interrogees depressant drugs and hence subjecting them to the risks of side effects without any medical justification, there is the fact that the interpretation of results is entirely subjective. This means that an interrogator who is biased against a test subject (i.e., inclined to think the subject is dishonest or guilty) can claim the subject lied and then point to polygraph or voice-stress charts, or claim the subject saw the crime scene before and point to fMRI data, when in reality none of the data collected is evidence of anything whatsoever. In a world where our best brain-imaging technologies cannot even reliably tell if someone is awake or asleep (REM or Rapid Eye Movement sleep looks nearly identical to wakefulness), I consider Chapman’s claim – that he “knows” that I don’t consider abortion to be murder – absurdly arrogant and utterly unscientific.
In this article, Chapman states:
“The view that terminating a pregnancy amounts to baby-killing is standard among anti-abortion activists […] when pollsters ask Americans whether abortion is an act of murder or the taking of a human life, pluralities or majorities say that it is […] But this is a rhetorical device or a moral conceit, not a well-thought-out conviction. The vast majority of people who endorse it really don’t mean it. Even they exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.”
and
“But hardly anyone truly regards having an abortion as equal in evil to killing an adult or a child. Hardly anyone thinks a woman who has an abortion belongs in a cell next to a guy who strangles his child. About 1 of every 4 American women will have an abortion by age 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute. If you regard abortion as murder and think your sister, daughter, aunt, niece, cousin or friend should go to prison for decades — or be executed — if she ever terminated a pregnancy, you’re being consistent. If you regard abortion as murder and think they deserve a gentle path to healing, you’re not.”
Despite Chapman’s insistence to the contrary, I am “being consistent”. Despite Chapman’s insistence to the contrary, when I say that contraception and abortion are murder, this is a “well-thought-out conviction” I absolutely believe that every woman who has ever had an abortion, every doctor who has ever performed an abortion, and every man who has ever paid for (or encouraged) an abortion is a murderer in the same sense as someone who goes on a shooting spree in a school with an assault rifle. I believe the same about contraception – any man who uses a condom or “pulls out” so as not to ejaculate inside a woman, any woman who takes birth control pills or uses an IUD, any man who gets a vasectomy, any woman who gets a tubal ligation, and any person who manufacturers or sells or promotes any form of contraception is just as evil as the Son of Sam, Чикатило, or any serial killer, and deserves to be burned alive as punishment.
Having explained what contraception is, and having explained what I mean by “strong” opposition to contraception, I’ll now explain what I mean by “categorial” opposition to contraception. Here is an example of a conversation I have had more than 20 times:
-I am categorically opposed to contraception.
-What does it mean, that you’re opposed to contraception?
-It means that I don’t think any type of contraception should be used, and I think contraception should be illegal.
-Oh, you mean, you’re against abortion. I’m also against abortion.
-No, when I said “I am categorically opposed to contraception”, I mean, contraception. I am also opposed to abortion. I am completely opposed to all forms of contraception and all forms of abortion.
-You mean, condoms? I get it – nobody likes condoms. Everyone says that it’s men who don’t like condoms, but, you know, as a woman, it’s so much better without for me, too.
-No – I mean, I am categorically opposed to contraception. That means I am opposed to all contraception, in all forms, in all circumstances.
-But, what if there are not enough financial resources to support a child? What if a woman’s health is threatened by pregnancy? What if there is overpopulation?
Having had this conversation over and over is a major motivating factor in my writing this document, because it’s a situation in which I speak clearly, plainly, and in a straightforward manner but am constantly treated as if I am lying, and that is frustrating, as I’m sure you can understand. “Categorically”, in English as in Russian, means “under all circumstances, in all cases, without exception”. Therefore, when I say “I am categorically opposed to contraception”, I have already explained that I do not believe contraception has ever been, is ever, or will ever be acceptable, no matter what reasons might be raised to justify it. That is what the word “categorical” means. Categorical opposition is different from general opposition.
As a first example, I am generally opposed to heroin use, but I am not categorically opposed to heroin use. This is because heroin (chemically, diacetylmorphine) is used in medicine as a strong narcotic pain-relieving drug in many medical systems, including in the United Kingdom. When used medically, it seems to have a therapeutic index similar to other strong narcotics (morphine, oxymorphone, fentanyl, etc.), so it does not seem to be the case that heroin is significantly more dangerous (or significantly safer) than other substances with the same mechanism of action – the specific drugs used simply differ by country and over time, largely as a matter of history and medical culture, rather than one pharmacopoeia being greatly objectively superior to another. Of course, not everything has changed: Egyptian medical texts describe the use of opium to reduce pain in victims of pyramid-related construction accidents so that patients could be sufficiently calmed and put into traction to set broken bones, and morphine – opium’s main active ingredient – is still used for the same purpose today, more than five thousand years later. It seems an iron law that the ratio between analgesia and respiratory depression is broadly similar across all narcotics: you’re never going to invent a drug that has, milligram-for-milligram, the analgesic potency of sufentanil but the respiratory depressant potency of codeine. I am of course opposed to heroin abuse, as I am opposed to the abuse of all drugs (including legal drugs such as alcohol), but this is not categorical opposition. If someone has been in a terrible car crash and has mangled his leg, administering him heroin under medical supervision can be an appropriate course of action.
As a second example, I am generally opposed to nuclear war, but I am not categorically opposed to nuclear war. Self-evidently, nuclear weapons pose a significant (though far from existential) threat to humanity. It is not outside the realm of possibility that a nuclear war could break out in the immediate future (perhaps between Russia and America, or America and China, or China and India, or India and Pakistan, or Iran and Israel, or North Korea and South Korea, etc.). Similarly, it is possible that nuclear weapons could be acquired by a militant non-state actor and used to commit “terrorism” (or “freedom-fighting” – one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, after all). Beyond that, it is conceivable that one or more nuclear weapons could detonate unintentionally (or outside of normal controls) due to accidents during assembly, storage, and transport, or as a result of engineering and manufacturing defects, software bugs, false alarms, miscommunication, rogue actions within military chains-of-command, etc. – again, numerous close calls have occurred, and atomic bombs, like all technological products, are not 100% reliable. My personal guess is that the probability of nuclear war occurring in a given year (as of this writing) is somewhere between 1/1,000 and 1/100, probably closer to the upper end of that probability range. That ain’t coin-flip odds, but it ain’t lottery odds, either. It is in fact possible that, at the very moment I am writing this (or at the very moment you are reading this), nuclear war has already begun and we simply don’t know about it yet because the weapons are still en route. It is possible that, right now, in the stratosphere high over the Atlantic Ocean, Russian ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) and American ICBMs are muttering “Привет!” and “Howdy!” at each other as they cross paths, traversing the edge of space on their deadly paths. This is fortunately not very likely – but it is not impossible, either. Although I oppose all unnecessary violence and believe that the bar for justifying physical force (especially the use of weapons of mass destruction) should be extremely high, I consider the use of nuclear weapons by America against Japan in 1945 to be justified, and believe that circumstances could arise in the future where the use of nuclear weapons would be justified.
As a third example, I am generally opposed to chemical weapons, but I am not categorically opposed to chemical weapons. There exists a popular belief that the Geneva Protocol (of 1925) and the more recent CWC or “Chemical Weapons Convention” (of 1993) ban all production, handling, and use of specified chemical weapons (notably, acetylcholinesterase inhibitor nerve agents), but this is not true. These Conventions ban the use of such chemicals in warfare, and ban their weaponization, but allow for certain exceptions. Even in 2025, the year of this writing, small quantities of nerve agents (such as VX) are lawfully produced, sold, and used. In minute amounts in specialized, high-security laboratories in America, Russia, Israel, and China, these substances are employed in order to calibrate chemical-weapons-detection equipment, to research more-effective antidotes, to develop new insecticides, and for general biomedical research. Acetylcholine is an essential neurotransmitter, and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors have medical uses in treating glaucoma and certain neurological conditions – some of the research that went into developing these important medicines employed nerve agents in experiments. Similarly, alkylating chemical weapons (“mustards”, mainly involving nitrogen- and sulfur-based electrophiles) have played an important role in the development of chemotherapeutic drugs used in oncology. Although I oppose the use of chemical weapons against humans, I consider the careful, supervised use of these substances in research (particularly medical research) to be justified.
It is, of course, regrettable that anyone would ever be in such severe pain as to require narcotic analgesia with heroin. Indeed, in a perfect world, everyone would be healthy and free of pain, and there would be no need for narcotics or indeed analgesics of any sort (aspirin, acetaminophen / paracetamol, etc.) to treat pain either on an outpatient basis or during surgery. Surgery, after all, would be entirely unnecessary in a world of perfect health.
It is, of course, regrettable that the Japanese behaved themselves in such a way that nuclear war against them was an appropriate course of action. Indeed, in a perfect world, every man would behave himself admirably and there would be no need for weapons or violence of any sort – no firearms, no brass knuckles, no pepper spray, no electrical incapacitating weapons, etc. In such a world, we would never need to fight to protect ourselves, or even speak a stern word to a misbehaving child.
It is, of course, regrettable that chemical weapons need to be handled in order to develop antidotes to poisoning or in order to do medical research. Indeed, in a perfect world, nobody would ever think of harming another human with toxic chemicals (rendering the production of antidotes and the development of detectors unnecessary), and everyone would be in perfect health (rendering biomedical research unnecessary).
As you may have noticed, we do not live in a perfect world. We live in a world where sometimes people are in severe pain and do require surgery, and in such cases narcotics are indispensable. We live in a world where we cannot always treat the root cause of someone’s pain – sometimes, the most we can do is to ease their suffering as a disease progresses, and we should provide palliative care in such cases. We live in a world where nuclear attacks are sometimes necessary or prudent to stop lethal aggression (as was the case with the Empire of Japan in 1945). We live in a world where chemical weapons are used offensively, and as such we need to handle such chemicals in order to develop antidotes and calibrate detection equipment.
My opposition to heroin, nuclear weapons, and chemical weapons is an example of general opposition: I typically oppose the misuse of such entities, but believe that, in narrowly-defined situations, their use is morally acceptable, and, in fact, may be morally required. In contrast, my opposition to contraception is a case of categorical opposition – I completely reject contraception, absolutely without exception. While I am well capable of providing for a natural number of children – however many that may be – I will never accept anything but natural fertility, regardless of medical considerations, financial issues, war, famine, pestilence, natural disaster, alien invasion, or any other cause. I am committed absolutely to natural fertility, come Hell or high water. For example, suppose a couple has 20 children, and they (and their children) are starving. If the couple intentionally “pulls out” (not finishing inside), both parents should be taken to a public square and burned alive as a signal to others that contraception will never be tolerated, even if this will surely result in their 20 children, now orphans, all starving to death. When I say “I am categorically opposed to contraception”, this is not a lie or an exaggeration – I am telling the truth. Therefore, please do not ask me questions along the lines of “but what about this situation? what about that situation?”. When I say that I oppose contraception absolutely without exception, I mean it, and no real-world example you can recall (nor any hypothetical situation you can imagine) will change that.
III. Why Contraception Should Be Categorically Banned Under Penalty Of Death:
“I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if I present the correct arguments with the appropriate facts & data.” – Twitter/X user “@xxclusionary“, AKA “Hegel Borg”, 2025-10-17
I am well-aware that my views are unpopular in 2025 Russia (and indeed in 2025 America). I’ve been continuously spit on (usually figuratively; several times literally) because I believe in natural fertility and want a natural number of children. I’ve been subject to insult, harassment, and discrimination for the better part of a decade. I’ve been called a maniac, a retard, insane, a down-syndrome patient, a loony-bin escapee, a psychopath, a schizophrenic, and more. I’ve generally been at the receiving end of every sort of degrading statement you could imagine. In particular, women are fond of encouraging or even demanding that I commit suicide because I reject contraception. Indeed, most of these insults I’ve heard dozens or even hundreds of times, and I’ve learned many new words and phrases of abuse in the process. I’ve also been subject to physical attack because of my moral views – once with a weapon (a shattered piece of an intentionally-broken coffee mug) and once in an unarmed assault that in fact did more damage. Therefore, in this section, I’ll be explaining why I am so vehemently opposed to contraception. In 2025, the overwhelming majority of criticism of contraception comes from religious sources (Catholic sources dominate the English-language media, and Eastern Orthodox sources dominate the Russian-language media). Being non-religious myself, I’m enthusiastic about presenting my secular arguments.
1. Contraception Is A Form Of Murder Because The Past, Present, And Future Are All Equally Real:
“The distinction between the past, present, and future is only a stubbornly-persistent illusion” – Albert Einstein
Advocates for contraception (and for abortion) ceaselessly claim that any restrictions or prohibitions on such are an example of some religious group attempting to impose its views on the public. In an American context, this would be prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (link), which begins:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof […]”
An example of an argument that prohibiting contraception (or abortion) would violate the Separation of Church and State is Rob Boston’s 2012-04-20 (nice) article, “Barrier Methods: The Church’s Ceaseless Opposition to Birth Control”, published in The Humanist (link, archive). Mr. Boston, appropriately, is part of the association Americans United for Separation of Church and State. He writes:
By decoupling sex from procreation, the pill was seen as a great threat by entrenched religious interests holding prudish views on human sexuality. They went on the warpath.
In addition, he claims that:
Progressive religious groups made their peace with birth control early on, but the Catholic hierarchy and some extreme fundamentalist Protestants still maintain that contraception is a violation of God’s will or that “natural law” should govern how many children a woman has. These groups have worked to block every attempt at making birth control more accessible, both in the United States and abroad.
The claim that “progressive religious groups made their peace with birth control early on” is, of course, entirely false. Christianity (the religion he discusses) dates back 2,000 years, but Christians were almost entirely opposed to all forms of contraception (for example, withdrawal, animal-skin condoms, etc.) until the 1800s, and most major Christian denominations, including the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), Catholics, and Protestants (including Anglicans, whom I consider generally Protestant) were entirely opposed to contraception until the early- to mid-1900s. That is, widespread Christian acceptance of contraception dates back less than 100 years, or to the most recent 5% of Christian history, and that doesn’t seem very “early on” to me. The last 5% of a day occurs around 10:48 PM, and I don’t consider 72 minutes before midnight to be particularly “early on” in the day.
[THE LIE IS WEARING OFF]
Discussing time is apropos here, because my opposition to contraception did not begin with religious considerations (indeed, I have none) but rather, through an understanding of time grounded in the sciences. When I began studying physics at University, starting in 2006, I started to understand that time was a physical dimension, akin to the three dimensions of space. Time does not “flow” or “pass”, any more than a spatial dimension “flows” or “passes”. Suppose I approach a dead tree (one which is no longer growing), and discern that the tree is very wide at its base (so wide that ten men could not hold hands and encircle it), but very narrow at its top (so narrow that its final projection is thinner than my pinky finger). If I were to float upwards in space, and examine the circumference of the tree, I would observe that it was “shrinking”, growing narrower and narrower. If I were to start at the tree’s top and float downwards towards the ground, I would observe the opposite: that the tree was “expanding”, growing wider and wider. Yet this does not imply that the tree is actually expanding or shrinking – it merely implies that the tree has different widths at different points in space. The same is true with respect to time:
<START EMAIL BLOCK>
-contraception is literal murder (eternalism / all times equally real)
-contraception is genocide
-Contraception is dysgenic, destroying human potential.
-sex is pleasurable to encourage reproduction, just as eating is pleasurable to encourage farming, hunting, etc. Separate the instinct from the result and people will starve or go extinct. The snail and nicotine.
-I oppose all fake things. I will NOT have a fake intimate life.
-Contraception is transsexualism
-Contraception leads to casual sex which exposes both men and women to more abuse, and reduces pair bonding.
-Contraception leads to more sex partners which means less satisfaction overall (the most attractive is unlikely to be the smartest, the smartest – the richest, the richest – the best in bed, etc.)
-Contraception leads to more partners and more divorce.
-Contraception makes both men and women less responsible.
-Contraception is violence against women. It treats fertility like a disease. It treats pregnancy like something to be avoided.
-Contraception teaches that men are better than women.
-Contraception makes sex LESS pleasurable. Rejecting contraception does NOT mean rejecting sex for pleasure – COMPLETELY the opposite!
-contraception suppresses revolutions that could lead to more quality (revolutions happen when people’s children are starving). The “the wolves are mad the sheep aren’t breeding” claim is totally false.
-contraception plays into a fake claim of “independence”
-Independence is actually bad. It is interdependence that makes people respect each other. With contraception and independence, women respect men LESS. Example: INTERNET, world trade and world peace.
-contraception feeds into the fake “quality vs quantity” tradeoff. This mentality is causing the self-genocide of Western civilization. Education is a MARKER of intelligence, which is more than 80% genetic. In reality, harsh lives have allowed the most important people in history to achieve what they did.
-Contraception feeds into the fake “if everyone has 10 kids, we’ll turn into Africa” – NO. Africa is the way Africa is because Africans live there. South Africa has a low fertility rate, but is not a good place to live.
-Contraception feeds into the lie that natural fertility is slavery, pregnancy is violence, etc. Something natural CANNOT be violence.
-contraception feeds into the lie that people can’t control their sex drives. In reality if men can control their sex drives and not rape (and it IS reasonable to demand this of men), then everyone can control their sex drives and not have sex if not ready for children. Personally, I’m ready for ANY NUMBER of kids.
-Contraception means less thinking about the future (environmentalism, budget defecits, etc.).
-Contraception is dereliction of responsibility. Comparison to military enlistment. It is treachery.
-infantilizes men and women and women and children. Children should grow up caring for younger siblings. Many women complain about immature, irresponsible men (and I agree with this complaint). There are similar problems with women. Without contraception, by puberty, you are an adult.
**edit / append to / add to previous**-RE: “trivialization” – no casual sex? I agree, yet many women who reject casual sex want to use contraception. Contraception is what makes sex casual.
-sex is for adults. An adult is someone who takes responsibility for the natural consequences of their actions. If you’re too young to raise kids, then too young to have sex. Good news: at 16-18 you ARE ready to raise kids – as most of our ancestors did in 170.000 years of history.
-I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe men and women have equal value, but I do NOT believe we should try to turn women into men (or vice versa).
-Contraception actually results in LESS sex (yes, really)
-Contraception limits a person’s impact on the world. Raising children (and potentially having millions of descendants in a few generations) is FAR more impactful than almost anything almost anyone will ever do.
-Using contraception is an incredibly deep insult to both men and women.
-Contraceptive culture is forced on everyone. A woman who wants to reject contraception (and only have sex within marriage) will have an EXTREMELY hard time finding a man who will agree to this in the modern world, and the same with a man looking for this in a woman.
-I don’t believe in higher education, generally, or that most people should be taut to read and write. They aren’t using these skills, evidently (MANY examples – Stanford, scurvy, washer or dryer, the woman who couldn’t tell her left hand from her right)
-Contraception leads to aging and shrinking populations, which leads to immigration (and destruction of culture). Immigration is itself largely racist (we must do our OWN work), and destructive.
-Arguments for contraception on an economic basis are short-sighted and self-contradictory (especially when birthrates fall among the most intelligent).
-Arguments for contraception on a maternal health basis are short-sighted and self-contradictory. Yes, contraception reduces maternal mortality…because, if fewer women get pregnant, fewer will die in pregnancy, even if the RISK of death during delivery rises (in some cases). To reduce maternal mortality to zero, we could simply cut the testicles out of every man and rip the ovaries out of every woman – this would drive maternal mortality to zero, and soon the human race would go extinct. Even faster, if we simply killed everyone on Earth, the rate of death from all diseases, accidents, etc. Would go to zero. In reality, contraception means more children are born to older women, which is a risk for both mother and child (autism, Down Syndrome, etc.) and I suspect that changing oatterns of fertility are to blame for the rise in these diseases. Childbirth is like any extremely physically-demanding activity: best to start when you’re young.
-In general, contraception makes both men and women lazy and weak. Women complain about weak men – I AGREE! Without contraception, men will have to be ready to support 8+ children to have a change of having sex – that will make men stronger (and women also).
-Contraception is women’s betrayal of rights granted to them over time. I’m willing to give women more rights than they had 500 or 5000 years ago in exchange for nothing, but I’m not willing to give women more rights in exchange for LESS than nothing. If women treat men WORSE despite being given more rights, those Rights should be taken away. The same is true of men. Story of the German soldier.
RE: weakness (of character – a man who cheats; of honor – a man who fails to keep his promises; of body – a man who is fat and lazy and gets no exercise; of the mind – a man who knows nothing). Yes, men ARE weak. Hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, and weak men make hard times, etc. So, let’s embrace hardship.
-Encourages women to work and let others raise the kjds they do have. “husband who loves you or boss who doesn’t give a shit?”, “How much brainwashing to make women think THIS is oppressive and THIS is liberation.
– Preventing people from filling their own roles.
-A result of comparison (” Comparison is the thief of joy”
-Motivated by superficial concerns (we are all getting older. Stretch marks? Who cares?
—€liminating contraception should be the top priority for Nationalists, in their own lives and in their nations.
-encourages unrealistic beauty standards and lies (“men aren’t attracted to the postpartum body” – bullshit. If that were true, then why did early Neolithic people have 8+ children? Obviously men were fucking the women after they gave birth MANY times)
-Encourages pornography and prostitution and other evil businesses. But, perhaps, if pornography could be used to “fight fire with fire” (require than 100% of women performers be visibly pregnant). Hmm…
-Encourages EXCUSES. Find an excuse, or find a path forward. Our ancestors raised children through war and famine and plague and frost and heat that you probably cannot even imagine.
Now, not many people thought that the advent of the Internet would mean a total end to all forms of hatred and discrimination, or that, as soon as everyone was online, we would all sit around singing Kumbaya like the fever dream of a Boomer with a COEXIST bumper sticker. Not even many people with COEXIST bumper stickers thought this – the mood was optimistic, but not utopian. The expectation was radical improvement, but still, something short of perfection. However, what we got was the absolute opposite.
BoB: “It’s gonna take more than COEXIST bumper stickers” Nouman Ali Khan: “I’m sorry if you’ve heard this already. I’m sorry if I’m repeating myself. Actually, I’m not sorry at all, because you clearly need to hear it again”
I suppose my view (and my life experience) is that, if someone has morals which aren’t ironclad (“железные”), then in practice, that person doesn’t actually have any morals at all. Morals need to be absolute in order to mean anything, because otherwise people will claim to follow a moral code but then find endless excuses to break their promise. For example, “I believe that doing action X is morally required, but actually I’m not going to do it because, uh, it is dangerous, and, uh, it is not profitable to me, or, uh, it’s not popular and I want to be popular, or, uh, my husband or wife or friends are against it, or, uh, my culture says it’s wrong, or it’s illegal, or we’re just living in a different time, so, uh, I’m not actually going to do it”. Humans are EXPERTS at finding excuses to break their moral codes. But I’m not like that, at all.
I don’t know if you are interested in Nouman Ali Khan; he is a Muslim Imman based somewhere in Texas, I believe around San Antonio, but I know he is based in Texas, USA. I am not Muslim but I find him an interesting person, and have listened to his lectures and read the Koran. He is a very controversial figure in his own right, and I don’t personally think the effects of Islam on the world are very positive, but that is a very complex discussion for another time.
Of course, drinking alcohol recreationally is prohibited in Islam. The Koran, written around 700 years ago, mentions the kinds of alcohol that were available in the Arab world at the time (wine, beer, and mead – this is an alcoholic drink made from fermented honey). The Koran did not use the term “alcohol” or “ethanol” generically, because the chemical nature of ethanol as the active drug in alcoholic drinks wasn’t understood in the year 1300 AD (1300 После Рождении Христоса). Interestingly though, the word Alcohol, in both English and Russian, is an Arabic word, because Muslim alchemists were the first to distill and identify this compound, which is ironic, no?
Nouman Ali Khan has spoken and written about meeting “Muslims” (especially young “Muslim” men) who drink alcohol and make excuses for this, because they drink a type of alcohol that wasn’t mentioned in the Koran. They might say, in Russia, “The Koran prohibits wine, beer, and mead, but not Аперол Спритз, so, clearly, drinking Aperol Spritz is fine”. In Texas, America, they might say “well, the Koran doesn’t say anything about drinking tequila, so I can drink a liter of tequila every night, that is fine, yes?”. In reality, of course, the Koran doesn’t mention these drinks because they didn’t exist in the year 1300 when the Koran was written.
That is not entirely true; although not exactly tequila, the Mayans and Inca and Aztecs were fermenting Agave Cactus leaves in clay pots at the time to produce Mezcal mash for at least 14,000 years (and possibly more than 20,000 years) before Mohammed was born. While not distilled like tequila, Mezcal mash certainly tastes and smells much like tequila (at least in my opinion – I’ve been to Mexico and tried it), and it contains plenty of alcohol – but, again, the history of tequila is a story for another day. The point is that Europeans, Arabs, and Asians at the time hadn’t explored the jungles of the Americas in 1300 AD, so they didn’t know about this.
To me, a “Christian” who uses any form of contraception is exactly like a “Muslim” who makes the excuse that drinking tequila and Aperol is acceptable. Of course, the Bible does not mention IUDs or contraceptive pills or condoms, since they didn’t exist 4,000 years ago when the Old Testament was written. However, the Bible does contain passages like:
“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply” (KJV, Genesis 1:28)
“As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” (KJV, Psalms 127:4 – 127:5)
“And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also.” (KJV, Genesis 38:9 – 38:10).
The last passage explicitly prohibits the type of contraception you described (pulling out, not “finishing” inside) – because, that was a form of contraception that was known in Biblical times.
I see the use of contraception by “Christians” as a sort of cowardice and intentional avoidance of religious commandments. What the Bible says is clear (as clear as it could be for something written 4,000 years ago), and Christians are commanded to “be in this world but not of it” – they are commanded to follow the Bible absolutely without question, without regard to what is popular, common, legal, comfortable, safe, profitable, etc. in the worldly sense. A Christian who uses contraception is, to me, exactly like a Muslim who drinks alcohol: just someone who is looking for excuses to ignore their religion and do whatever they want. All arguments about using contraception to avoid danger and death mean nothing to a Christian: for a Christian, following the Bible is the absolute top priority in life, infinitely higher than avoiding poverty or suffering or even death, and the stories of Martyrs (Saints) are all about this: many could have lived in luxury and safety if they rejected the Bible, but they chose to suffer and die instead of betraying their faith. This is the attitude that I have.
Really, any use of contraception by “Christians” is a form of “Psychical Nomadism” (a technical term in philosophy for the practice in which people claim they identify with some moral teaching – religious or otherwise – but only take from it the rules or principles they want to follow, and reject the rest). A “Muslim” who drinks Tequila, a “Jew” who eats bacon, a “Hindu” who eats beef, a “Conservative” man who cheats on his wife, a “Liberal” who exploits the poor in his business practices, an “anti-drug” crusader who secretly gets high on morphine from his doctor by claiming to feel pain when he doesn’t – these are all “Psychical Nomads”.
<END EMAIL BLOCK>
block
“The rewards for tolerance are treachery and betrayal” – Gav Thorpe
“The purpose of a system is what it does (POSIWID)”- Safford Beer, speaking at the University of Valladolid, Castille/Leon, Spain, 2001-10-01.
BLOCk
BLOCK
blick
BLOCK
(B) I have traditional values, and seek someone with traditional values. In particular, I have values that were common in Western civilization before the Sexual Revolution (roughly the 1960s), before the French Revolution (roughly the 1780s – 1790s), and before the Industrial Revolution (roughly starting in the 1760s). If you are ignorant of history, I recommend reading about the family structures, roles of men and women, economic systems, political organizations, etc. that predominated in Europe from the rise of Christianity (around the year 200) to the start of the French Revolution (around the year 1770). It is worth noting that the French Revolution, Industrial Revolution, and Sexual Revolution were not “traditional” revolutions – on the contrary, they represented a break from tradition. A revolution, be it political or technological or social, is inherently not traditional – indeed, it represents a break from tradition. Therefore, I consider values that emerged after these events to be inherently non-traditional, and won’t be fooled by anyone who says “I have traditional values – for example, I believe in democracy, women’s right to use contraception, and wage labor”.
(D) I make an effort to have a wide perspective – you should do the same. This means that, when talking about what is “normal”, “typical”, “average”, or “common”, I make an effort to include the perspectives of all people who have ever lived in the ~170,000-year history of humanity on Earth, and to include the perspectives of all men and women and children of all cultures, nations, races, civilizations, ethnic groups, religions, etc. Of course, nobody can know everything, and even if one could assimilate all available information, there is much about the past (and even the present) that is unknown. I recognize that I have a bias towards looking at the world from the perspective of my own language, nationality, race, sex, and point in history. I also recognize that the historical record is biased in two major senses – first of all, historical accounts that do exist are biased (writers from a given civilization have a tendency to portray their own culture as superior to the cultures of other civilizations), and second of all, there is bias in terms of what exists per se (for example, cultures that developed writing tended to leave better records than cultures that did not, and within a culture, there is bias towards recording the views and activities of a small, wealthy, and predominantly-male minority). It is, therefore, impossible to have a fully balanced view – a view that equally weights the opinions, experiences, and beliefs of every one of the ~120 billion people who ever lived. However, I do make an effort to confront my biases and avail myself of what information does exist. For example, I will not be fooled by anyone who says “slavery is mostly an old phenomenon”. The reality is that slavery is an extremely new phenomenon on the timescale of humanity. Slavery didn’t exist to any major degree in hunter-gatherer societies for a range of reasons, including that (i) population density was too low to effectively coerce people to labor against their will, or indeed even to monitor them; (ii) under subsistence conditions, large differences in wealth between individuals could not be maintained because anyone significantly poorer than the average would quickly die of hunger or exposure; (iii) in order to be economically useful to a tribe, any slave would need to be equipped with the same tools and weapons (ex. hunting gear) as other members of the tribe, and in such a case, the enslavers would lack the technological force-multipliers needed to keep slaves under control. Suppose you are hunting mammoths in Siberia, and find a man you wish to enslave: if he is to be of any use, he’ll need to help with the hunt (otherwise he is a net drain on resources), and if he is to help with the hunt, he’ll need to be armed with the same spears as everyone else, and if he is so armed, how will you ever control him? Perhaps your tribesmen outnumber him, and can control him that way – yet when the mammoth is felled, you’ll need to feed him just as much as you feed anyone else (it’s not as if there is extra food to go around), or else he will starve and be of no use. Slavery in the modern sense did not develop significantly before ~11,000 BC, and wasn’t common until ~8,500 BC. Even if we take the origins of slavery to be ~13,000 years ago, this means that slavery dates to the most recent ~7.6% of human existence, making it a very recent phenomenon. Similarly, I would consider anyone who has enough to eat to be very wealthy, regardless of other factors. My estimate is that the average BMI (Body Mass Index) of all people who have ever lived is ~18 for men and ~20 for women. These levels would be considered very thin by modern standards, probably somewhere between the 2nd and 5th percentiles in most Western countries as of 2025 (that is, as of the date of this writing, 95% – 98% of people in Western countries have BMIs that are higher than the historical average, and most have BMIs that are far higher). It is of course true that overweight people did exist in the Paleolithic, that obesity does occur (though very rarely) among modern hunter-gatherers, and that Paleolithic art does glorify the rotund female form. However, the vast majority of people, living across the vast majority of human history, did not have nearly enough to eat. If you do, you should consider yourself among the wealthiest people to ever live – and I do, and I do. Similarly, if you have ever traveled by any power source other than your own muscles, or by any conveyance other than your own two feet (excepting small children carried by their parents), you are among the wealthiest people to ever live. Obviously, methods of travel other than walking have existed long before the Industrial Revolution. Humans have been riding (or traveling in carts towed by) horses, elephants, and camels since at least ~5,500 years ago. Seafaring in primitive boats dates back even further, probably at least ~50,000 years. However, manufacturing and maintaining and stocking and crewing boats and ships is very expensive. Domesticating and housing and feeding and training camels and horses and elephants (as well as manufacturing the necessary saddles, carts, reins, etc. needed for controllable transport) is very expensive. In the overwhelming majority of cases for the overwhelming majority of men and women who have ever lived, if you wanted to go somewhere, you had exactly one choice: walking. If you have ever traveled by any other means – by boat or by plane, by raft or by train, in a car, on the Metro, etc., you are among the most privileged people in human history.
(E) I make an effort to practice gratitude – you should do the same. Among the greatest character flaws is ungratefulness. Per my observations, there is a close connection between narrow perspectives and ungratefulness – people who choose to compare themselves to an extremely small segment of the human population (in space and/or in time) tend to be overwhelmed with feelings of jealousy, greed, and inadequacy, whereas those who maintain a broad perspective are more likely to “count their blessings” and experience gratitude. I am reminded of an interview given by a German (NSDAP) soldier who escaped from Stalingrad during World War 2 (the “Great Patriotic War” to Russians). I agree with Jochen Hellbeck’s assertion that Stalingrad was “the most ferocious and lethal battle in human history”, with both German and Russian forces suffering death tolls in the millions, the brutality of war compounded by severe winter cold, mass starvation, multiple overlapping epidemics of deadly disease, and an appalling insufficiency of medical care. I would also consider Stalingrad to be the most influential battle in human history, in the sense that the Russian-Soviet victory turned the tide of World War 2 against the Axis Powers. This German veteran, interviewed as an elderly man, was 19 years old when he found himself surrounded by Russian forces in Stalingrad in late January of 1943. He was in deplorable condition, with an open skull fracture from a Soviet artillery shell. His right hand (which had been more exposed to the elements, being his trigger hand) was frostbitten and black, gangrene climbing up his right arm already past his elbow. He hadn’t eaten in more than two weeks and was sleeping in a hollowed-out trench dug under concrete rubble and pierced by howling winds, with average temperatures around -40 degrees Celsius, completely useless to the war effort, hardly able to walk, and simultaneously dying of infection, exposure, and starvation. He had an idea. The Germans were at this point completely surrounded, with supplies not even a thousandth of that needed to replace lost ammunition or provide needed food and clothing, but the occasional supply plane still landed at an airstrip within the ever-shrinking German-held area of Stalingrad. Pilots were prohibited from bringing soldiers – even brutally injured ones – back to Berlin, despite the pleas of tens of thousands of desperate men. He wouldn’t be pleading. He wouldn’t be asking. Originally, he planned to threaten the pilots with a hand grenade, but had used the last of his grenades months ago, and couldn’t find a grenade anywhere. He did, however, find a small mortar shell, weighing perhaps a kilogram, which he concealed in his coat. When the supply plane landed, he climbed into the cockpit between the pilots, pulled the mortar shell from his coat, and clenched his teeth around the protective cap covering the impact-sensitive fuze, unscrewing the cap by rotating the shell in his left hand. With the cap removed, he raised the shell like a hammer above his head, threatening to strike the impact detonator against the aluminum siding of the cockpit. His conversation with the pilots went something like this:
“Have you gone mad? Put that cap back on and get out of the cockpit immediately!”
“Take me to Berlin.”
“We aren’t authorized to take anyone to Berlin.”
“I said, I have a head wound. I need to get to Berlin. I need medical attention!”
“I said, we are NOT authorized to take ANYONE to Berlin! Now, get out of the cockpit!”
“No.”
“Put the cap back on that shell! Then, we can discuss it!”
“No. I will put the cap back on once we are airborne. Let’s go to Berlin.”
The pilots spoke no more to their uninvited guest. They closed the cockpit door, started the engines, and the aircraft bounced along the airstrip and took off into the freezing night. The injured soldier handed the shell to one of the pilots, who replaced the fuze cap and threw the shell from the aircraft window, sending it plummeting to land a dud buried deep in the snow of the icy, burning ruins of Stalingrad. The wounded soldier thought about what he had done. He hadn’t intended to carry through on his threat – even if there was a struggle, his plan was never to detonate the artillery shell (or, in his original plan, the hand grenade). He knew that his plan might not have worked – perhaps the pilots would have shot him (they did carry pistols). The plan still might not work – he knew that, if the pilots reported him, he would be court-martialed and shot, or, more likely, simply summarily executed. Perhaps, he thought, the pilots might take pity on him, and not report him. If they did report him, perhaps, he thought, the report would be lost in the chaos of Germany’s collapse, and even if he was court-martialed, with any luck, the Russians or Americans would overrun Berlin before the sentence could be carried out. Perhaps, he thought, he could use his head wound to his advantage. He had already thrown away all of his identification papers, and in Berlin, he would claim that he couldn’t remember the last years of his life, that he had no idea where he was, that he didn’t know his enlistment number or where he lived before the war or even his own name – he would tell the doctors that he couldn’t recall anything that had happened before he received his head injury (and that he couldn’t recall the circumstances under which he was wounded), and with any luck, they would believe him, or at least, give him the benefit of the doubt. Even then, he knew that his survival wasn’t guaranteed – the gangrene was nearing his right shoulder as his arm rotted away, and at the least his entire arm would need to be amputated, but perhaps even that wouldn’t save him. Perhaps he was too frozen, too injured, too infected, and too starved to be saved, even by heroic medical care. He knew, and had known for months, that Stalingrad was lost, and with it, Germany was lost, and with it, that the cause of Nazism was lost – all lost. Perhaps, he thought, he too was lost – perhaps it was too late for him. But, then again – perhaps not. If he had stayed in Stalingrad, he had no chance of survival – he would have died to hypothermia or infection or starvation or a Russian shell or grenade or bullet. Why not put his plan into action? He had nothing to lose. Now, at least, he had a chance – not a good chance, he thought, but at least a chance. He slept. His next memory was of emerging from anesthesia in a Berlin hospital. His right arm had been amputated at the shoulder, and there were fresh bandages on his head. As he regained consciousness, a medic brought him a bowl of warm rice porridge. He was shaking too badly to use a spoon, and the medic was too busy to feed him, so he reached his left hand – now his only hand – into the bowl, and shoveled the rice porridge into his mouth. He ate. He felt a gratitude beyond all description. In that moment he was certain that the medic was an agent of Divine intervention, that of all the gifts of God or Man, throughout all the millennia of history and into the endless future, there was no gift greater than the bowl of rice porridge that he had received. That is what I mean by “gratitude”. This is not a defense of the actions taken by the German soldier in question, nor is it a defense of Nazism, which I oppose. Rather, it is a
It is also my experience that people who insist on narrow perspectives are intent on manipulating and deceiving others. For example, I met a woman who went on a date with a man who claimed to be 190 centimeters tall, but was actually a dwarf (a person with the disease achondroplastic dwarfism), and turned out to be only 120 centimeters tall when she met him in person. She was, of course, upset that this man had deceived her, and she had every right to be upset. There is ongoing debate as to whether women’s standards for height in men are unreasonable or unfair (after all, men cannot change their height – it is determined mainly by genetics and childhood diet). However, regardless of whether her standards were reasonable or not, discriminatory or not, etc., this man still committed a wrong action by intentionally deceiving her and wasting her time – she wasn’t going to date a man 120 centimeters tall, so there was no point to their meeting, and this man effectively stole time from her which she can never get back. I am personally 175 centimeters tall, which is a bit short for a man – it would be nice to be taller, of course (it would also be nice to swim like Michael Phelps, dance like Michael Jackson, have the stage presence of Freddie Mercury, play the violin like Yo-Yo Ma, do math like Albert Einstein, rap like Kendrick Lamar, and speak six languages fluently like Natalie Portman). However, I am not going to lie and claim that I am taller than I am, and you’re welcome to bring a tape measure when we meet – I’ll take off my shoes and you can measure me. There are “conferences” and meetings for people with achondroplasia (a type of dwarfism), and I could say “You know, I am very tall, taller than 99% of men” by comparing myself only to people with this disease. While technically correct (I am in fact much taller than a dwarf), this is deceptive because I am intentionally comparing myself to an extremely small subset of all people who have ever lived – most of whom are not dwarves. Very frequently, I encounter people who misrepresent themselves by comparing themselves to a very small subset of people. For example, someone who plans to use contraception might say “I have traditional values – compared to people living in Moscow in 2025”. This could be true, but “people living in Moscow in 2025” represent an extremely small proportion of all people who have ever lived. In fact, the sexual revolution and widespread use of modern contraception is only about 70 years old, or the last ~0.04% of human history, so claiming to be “traditional” compared to people living after the Sexual Revolution is similar to claiming to be “tall” compared to dwarves: the overwhelming majority of humans to ever live did not live after the Sexual Revolution, and the overwhelming majority of humans to ever live were not dwarves, so these comparisons are equally deceptive. Curiously, I notice that people who have extremely narrow perspectives in general will adopt broad perspectives when it suits them. For example, a woman who is studying at a college in Moscow asked me about the cost of University education in America (this is a common topic of interest to Russians, who frequently desire to study abroad – significantly more frequently than Americans so desire, in my experience). I explained to her that my tuition, over four years, came to roughly $150,000 in 2010 dollars (about $225,000 in 2025 dollars per CPI inflation – and, yes, I am aware that many are suspicious of the CPI, but this is the metric that I can most conveniently use). I explained that my parents paid for approximately $60,000 of the bill, and that the remaining $90,000 was debt that I took on, at fairly low interest, and paid off long ago. She exclaimed that this was “not normal”, but I advised her that, as of 2025, this was in fact less (both in nominal and in inflation-adjusted terms) than typical tuition at a competitive American university. She was quite hesitant to believe me, so I looked up current tuition at my Alma Mater, and found it to be $62,484 per year, which meant that the total over four years would be just shy of $250,000. This, of course, doesn’t account for year-to-year tuition increases, housing, lab fees, notoriously-expensive textbooks, or other incidentals, so a true figure could well be North of $300,000. I showed her search results on my phone, but she remained incredulous, explaining that such costs were simply “not normal”. She is, of course, correct in a broad sense – Tuition costs in America as of 2025 are vastly higher than in any other country, and indeed, vastly higher than they were in America for previous generations, such as Baby Boomers, and this is true even when adjusting for inflation. When deciding whether 2025 American tuition costs were “normal”, she took a broad perspective, looking across nations and across time. Yet she also claimed that the use of contraception was “normal”, which, of course, is not true if we take the same broad perspective of looking across all space and time.
When I make a claim or comparison without specific qualification (that is, without referencing what specific group, time period, nation, etc. I am comparing to), the comparison is relative to all people who lived in the ~170,000-year history of Mankind, to the best of my knowledge, and I expect others to make a similar good-faith effort to have wide perspectives.
(E) I am Conservative. Perhaps this seems counterintuitive, given that I just stated that I have a wide perspective. Conservatives are stereotyped as being narrow-minded, racist, xenophobic, and willfully ignorant of other cultures, languages, nations, religions, and time periods. In reality, I find the opposite to be true – when I meet a man who is more Liberal than I am, it is almost always the case that he has a narrower perspective than I do. My experience is that Liberal and Leftist people, who are supposedly open-minded, are actually extremely intolerant and ignorant of cultures other than their own. For example, the vast majority of Liberal and Leftist people consider Liberal Democracy (with universal or near-universal suffrage) to be the only “normal” or “standard” form of government, even though, in a statistical sense, Democratic systems of government are definitively not the norm: The vast majority of people who lived during the vast majority of history did not have the right to vote, and since the dawn of human civilization in the Neolithic, very few people had any meaningful say in the government to whose dictates they were subjected. This isn’t to say that Liberal Democracy is “good” or “bad” – that is a matter of opinion. However, Liberal Democracy is not the “norm” in human society – that is a matter of historical fact. The key to understanding Conservatism is understanding the difference between being “broad-minded” and “open-minded”. A “broad-minded” person is generally aware of a diverse range of present and past cultures, whereas an “open-minded” person is generally accepting of a diverse range of present and past cultural practices. In this sense, I am “broad-minded” but not “open-minded”. I’m extremely interested in cultures and time periods remote to my own – as an example, I’m fascinated by the Aṣṭādhyāyī, a Vedic text written in Sanskrit some 2,600 years ago. This is a text in six volumes, and the English translation is on the order of ten thousand pages, or roughly 30 times the length of a typical English-language novel. The Aṣṭādhyāyī is a masterwork of linguistics, unparalleled at the time and still impressive today, and is especially interesting because Indian scholars were the first to keep records long and detailed enough to detect and study linguistic drift, and the splitting and merging of languages, which typically occurs on timescales far longer than a human lifespan (for example, while Old English and Modern English are clearly distinct languages, as in, a speaker of one cannot comprehend the other, the transition between them took around 1,500 years, so no single person experienced this evolution in its entirety). At the time the Aṣṭādhyāyī was written, it was widely believed – at least, in the Western world – that language was somehow inherent in a person’s blood and was passed down from parents to children (in modern times we would describe this misconception as the belief that specific languages are genetic, though of course genetics weren’t understood until millennia later). The general thinking was that language was somehow “racial” – that is, people who “looked different” (different facial features, eye color, skin color, etc.) spoke different languages as the result of some common cause. To the Ancient Greeks and Romans, it was only natural that they–being olive-skinned–spoke one language, while the lighter-skinned people they encountered sailing North across the English Channel spoke a different language, and the darker-skinned people they encountered sailing South across the Mediterranean spoke yet another language.
(F) Notwithstanding my generally-traditional and Conservative outlook, I have certain Liberal values. I’ve toyed with creating a list of “Things Leftists Are Right About”. My Liberal/Leftist values include the following:
-I favor the abolition of slavery.
-In general, I believe that levels of material inequality in most nations are excessive.
-I support environmental conservation.
-I agree with the Hippies: “Corporations, maaaaaaaann…”, i.e., I believe that large corporations and their leaders have far too much power in the modern world.
-In general, I believe that men’s abandonment of their women and children is a severe problem, and must be more strictly punished – among other things, this means far higher child support payments for men who divorce their wives (or father children out of wedlock and fail to marry), and far stricter enforcement of payment.
II. Honesty in Good Faith:
I do not advocate “radical honesty”, which is the idea that all men should be completely honest all of the time. There are situations in which telling lies is morally acceptable, or even admirable, or even morally mandatory (that is, there are situations in which telling the truth would be immoral, even severely so). For example, if you are hiding Jews in your attic and the Schutzstaffel visits your house and asks “have you seen any Jews?”, I believe it is acceptable to lie in order to protect them. Of course, this example assumes the reader agrees that both (a) the Holocaust actually happened as accepted in mainstream media and historical record; and (b) the Holocaust was morally wrong. I am acutely aware that some readers will declare either “the Holocaust never happened; the story is just made-up propaganda!” or “The Jews deserved it!”; some will even declare both. While it is my belief that the Holocaust did occur (a question of fact) and that it was wrong (a matter of opinion), even those who differ in their thinking can consider other cases where telling a lie might be morally acceptable according to their own values and understanding of history. I also accept that lying can be appropriate in less-dramatic situations. For example, if my lover says “What do you want for dinner? I really want sushi”, I am likely to say “Yes, let’s get sushi, I want sushi as well”, even though I don’t truly like sushi. A lie such as this is in service of another person: in this case, such that we will go out and eat sushi (which she wants), while I spare her from the guilt of knowing that I would have preferred to eat something else. Lies-to-children are also a common case of morally-acceptable dishonesty – for example, telling a three-year-old that a hamster has “gone to live in the forest” when it has in fact died.
While I accept lies which are told to protect a third party, I do not accept self-serving lies – that is, lies intended to protect one’s self, often at the cost of another person or entity. This is what I mean by “honesty in good faith” – telling the truth in the interest of other people.
Communication is extremely important in romantic relationships. This is true for all stages – it’s important for a man and woman to communicate on their first date, and it’s important for a hundred-year-old man and his hundred-year-old wife to communicate after decades of marriage. It is also true for all aspects of romantic relationships: whether talking about finances, discussing goals, debating how to raise children, or in bed, communication is key. Of course, communication is also important in friendships, between parents and children, in business, in politics, and beyond – when I speak of the importance of communicating in good faith, I am primarily talking about romantic relationships, but the same principles apply to other types of relationships in many cases.
Honesty in good faith is important precisely because communication is important – if a man is dishonest (if his words are empty and meaningless), then it is impossible to communicate with him, because nothing he says corresponds to reality, or has any true meaning. I adore telling jokes, especially when I think I’ve come up with something clever (and surely, nobody could possibly be as confident in my cleverness, as I myself am – we’re all susceptible to becoming our own biggest fans, but I’m particularly guilty here). That said, when I speak about serious matters, such as life plans, values, and morals, please understand this:
I’m not joking.
I’m not kidding.
I’m not exaggerating.
I’m not speaking in riddles, in generalities, or in metaphors.
I’m not being vague.
I mean what I say, literally and truthfully.
When I speak with a woman for the purposes of determining if we might be compatible in a romantic relationship, I aim to respect her time. I don’t want to waste a woman’s time if I am not the man for her; she should instead use that time to speak with other men who might be a better fit, or indeed, spend her time however else she likes – certainly she has ten thousand things better to do than waste her time speaking with me, a man who isn’t compatible with her. At the same time, I ask others to respect my time. Therefore, please listen to what I say, because when I say something, I’m saying it because I mean it.
In a serious relationship, I both practice and expect honesty in good faith. This means that I expect the following:
1. When you tell me about yourself, your interests, your life plans, your morals and beliefs, and anything else, you will speak honestly in good faith, and not tell lies or make misrepresentations.
2. When I tell you about myself, my interests, my life plans, my morals and beliefs, and anything else, you will accept that I mean what I say; I’m not joking or lying. It is fine to ask me to clarify or present evidence; it is not acceptable to act as if I have said nothing at all, or ask me if I really mean what I have said, because I do mean what I say. If you do not trust me (which is of course your prerogative), you shouldn’t in any case be speaking with me; you would be better-served speaking with someone you consider trustworthy.
Here is an example of a conversation I have had more than 50 times:
-I have traditional family values, and I want a natural family.
-What does “natural family” mean?
-Well, for example, I want a natural number of children.
-What is a “natural number of children”?
-I mean, I want a natural number, however many there will be. I am opposed to contraception.
Anyone who asks what a “natural number of children” means, or a “natural family” means, is treating me as if I am a liar. When I say “natural”, I mean exactly what I say. I am not lying. “Natural” means “without anything artificial”, and everything man-made is artificial. Contraception (contraceptive pills, condoms, operations, etc.) are all man-made, and hence unnatural. By saying “I want a natural family”, any reasonable person should understand that I mean that I am opposed to contraception – after all, contraception is not natural. Do not act like I am lying when I say I want a natural family – I really mean it. Also, do not act like anyone who uses contraception will have a “natural family” – contraception is, inherently, not natural.
XXX
In addition to acting like I am lying when I am not, I have unfortunately had many, many people lie to me about their interest in relationships, their morals, their religion, etc. For example:
1. I have met people who claim to have “traditional family values” but plan to use contraception in their lives, or believe that contraception is acceptable. In the 180,000-year history of humanity, modern contraception has existed and been popular only since roughly the 1950s. This is approximately 0.03% of human history. If your “traditional, old-fashioned values” are from the last 0.03% of history, they are not “traditional” at all. Believing in the Sexual Revolution is not in any way “traditional”. No person who plans to ever use contraception in the future has “traditional” values – exactly the opposite. Do not lie to me about this; do not claim to have traditional family values if you do not.
2. I have met people who claim to follow a specific religion (mainly Russian Orthodox Christianity, but also Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam) who I later learned are lying about their religion. Roman Catholicism totally prohibits contraception, and Russian Orthodox Christianity is also strongly opposed. Judaism strictly prohibits pork, and Islam strictly prohibits alcohol. Therefore, if you plan to use contraception ever in your life, you are not Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christian – in fact, you are not Christian at all, since you are planning to disobey the commandment “be fruitful and multiply”. Likewise, the Bible prescribes the death penalty for “witchcraft” and “sorcery” (Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”), so if you do not believe that the death penalty should be applied to Satanists, numerologists, tarot readers, etc., you are by definition not Christian. Similarly, if you plan to eat pork at all in your life (except in emergencies, ex. starvation, where Judaism allows exceptions), you are not Jewish. Likewise, if you plan to drink alcohol at all in your life (except for medical purposes, ex. treatment of ethylene glycol poisoning, where Islam allows exceptions), you are not Muslim. All three religions (and many others) strictly prohibit sex outside of marriage, so if you believe that sex outside of marriage is ever acceptable, or plan to do it during your life going forward, you are not a follower of any Abrahamic religion. Obviously, I do not expect anyone to be perfect; I am far from perfect, and have not always lived by (or even held) the moral standards I do now. However, I expect that someone who says “I am Orthodox Christian”, “I am Catholic”, “I am Jewish”, “I am Muslim”, etc. is at least trying, and indeed trying with maximum effort, to follow the religion they claim to profess. I am not personally religious, but at the same time not opposed to religion, and am markedly interested in the study of world religions. I am not telling anyone that they should (or should not) be religious, or what religion they should (or should not) follow – I keep an open mind about such matters. However, if you say “I am a follower of a certain religion”, I expect that to be the truth, and I expect you to be making maximum effort at all times to actually follow that religion (even though you may fail from time to time, as we all do). Do not lie to me about religion; do not claim to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim (or a follower of any other religion) if you are not. Religion, by definition, involves membership in a group (this is what separates religion from spirituality: one person can take up a spiritual practice, but religion requires at least two people, since it is inherently a social activity). Do not claim to be a part of a group if you are not at least making a good-faith effort to follow the principles of that group. Infuriatingly, the vast majority of people I have met who claim to follow a certain religion (both men and women; both in Russia and America; for Islam and Christianity and Judaism) are not making maximum effort to follow the religion which they ostensibly profess. The Christian who actually makes an effort to follow the Bible, the Jew who actually makes an effort to follow the Torah, the Muslim who actually makes an effort to follow the Koran: These are in the vast minority of the “Christians”, “Jews”, and “Muslims” I meet, probably in the range of 0.2% – 0.5% (between 1 in 500 and 1 in 200). This is heartbreaking. Again, I am not telling anyone that they should be Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or an Atheist, but I am asking everyone to be honest about their religion.
I am acutely aware that, in the same sense that I’ve encountered extreme levels of dishonesty from women, so too have women encountered extreme levels of dishonesty from men. A somewhat-comical case is that of a young women who met a man from a dating app, only to find out that he had lied about his height and was in fact an achondroplastic dwarf. I’ve never understood why men lie about their height; I’m inclined to agree with Scott Adams in that it’s never a good idea (even from a selfish perspective) to lie about something that can be easily verified, and there are few things easier to verify than someone’s height; tape measures aren’t exactly a cutting-edge technology. More concerning, I personally know women who have met men who lied about being single while being in fact married, who lied about the use of alcohol and other drugs, who lied about their intentions in a relationship, who lied about their financial situations resulting in a woman and her children being thrust into poverty, etc. I feel great sorrow and empathy towards all women who have been deceived by men, and great anger towards dishonest men who give all men a bad reputation through their duplicitous behavior. Of course, self-serving dishonesty is something that will never be fully extinguished, and so every man and every woman of every nation will encounter at least some of it. Dishonesty seems to have a dose-response curve, as many things do: encountering a bit of dishonesty, like receiving the radiation dosage of a single CT (computed tomography X-ray) scan, is unlikely to cause any harm. Even ten CT scans would be unlikely to produce long-term harm, though such a dosage might cause mild, short-term, and asymptomatic leukopenia which could be detected with sufficiently-sensitive blood counting. One hundred CT scans administered rapidly, though not life-threatening, would produce symptomatic radiation poisoning (vomiting, diarrhea, etc.) and a meaningful increase in long-term cancer risk. One thousand CT scans, given rapidly, would not be survivable, even with aggressive treatment.
As with CT scans, so with dishonesty (though I won’t expound on any theories of “dishonesty hormesis”). The tragedy I see is that dishonesty in dating has reached such extreme levels that trust between the sexes is totally destroyed. Why would a woman believe a man when he says “I am single” when the last ten men she met, who claimed that, turned out to be married? Why would I believe a woman who says “Yes, I want a natural family, a natural number of children” when the last ten women I have met, who claimed that, actually wanted to artificially control their fertility with contraception? Indeed, they wouldn’t, and sadly, neither can I. This is a deplorable state of affairs, in which communication has become nearly impossible because words have lost all meaning, but it is nonetheless the state of affairs we find ourselves in.
I agree with John Oliver that “the conversation must shift from ‘what did we do wrong?’ to ‘what do we do now?’.” To that end, I make every effort to practice honesty in good faith, and I expect the same from you.
As of this writing, on 2025-10-24, I just had a conversation with a woman who had written in her profile that she was Православная (Russian Orthodox). The Russian Orthodox Church is in many ways similar to the Catholic Church. Some would argue (and I’m among the some that would argue) that the Orthodox are “more Catholic than Catholics”, as in, more High-Church. Despite having fewer adherents than the Catholic Church, and playing a smaller role in world history (which isn’t saying much – there are few organizations that have lasted as long, or influenced world history as much, as the Catholic Church), the Russian Orthodox Church has had more than its share of infighting (internal conflicts), outfighting (external conflicts with other religious organizations and governments), and general “drama” – its history makes interesting reading, and is in my opinion even more interesting than the history of the Catholic Church, which really is saying a lot. The Russian Orthodox Church has absolutely and vehemently opposed contraception for the vast majority of its thousand-some year history, dating back to 988 AD, and still takes a critical view of contraception today. In speaking with this woman who professed faith in Russian Orthodoxy, I was hopeful that–although I am not Russian Orthodox–she was not lying in declaring her faith, and actually did follow Russian Orthodox teachings, which would make us compatible at least in terms of having a natural family. She told me that she supported contraception, that she had a high libido, and wanted at most three children in her life, and wasn’t willing to limit herself to having sex only as much as would be necessary to conceive these children – yet the very idea of “planning” a certain number of children, as opposed to accepting each as a gift from God (“Сколько Бог даст” – “However many God will give”) is completely opposed to Russian Orthodoxy, and, I would argue, completely opposed to essentially all Christian teaching before the 1800s (that is, completely opposed to the vast majority of Christian teaching over the vast majority of the ~2,000 year history of Christianity). She told me that this was because she “wanted to LIVE” – meaning that she wanted freedoms that would be curtailed if she was the mother of, for example, 12 children. This mentality is, of course, completely inconsistent with Christianity (or with Islam, or Judaism, etc.). Essentially all major religions demand absolute obedience to their precepts, and state that this obedience is the highest of duties. A Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, etc.) absolutely must place following the Bible and relevant Church (or the Koran and relevant Imam, or the Torah and relevant Rabbi) above all other considerations. The Holy Book and the dictates of organized religion must be, to the follower, the highest priority – following them is more important than following the law, more important than following his own desires or interests, and indeed more important than his very survival. If a person is not willing to place the precepts of his religion above all else, he or she is definitively not a true member of that faith – at least, for the “Big Three” of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and indeed for the vast majority of religions that exist today or have existed in human history. When I explained this to her, she told me that she “didn’t like it that I was labeling her, or applying labels to her”. I took a screenshot of her profile, where she had written that she was Православная (Russian Orthodox), and even circled that text in red, asking her: “Was it I who labeled you? Was it I, who wrote in my profile, that I am Russian Orthodox?” – she immediately blocked me after this. That’s all well and good, of course – I’m not interesting in marrying a woman who lies through her teeth in any case – but experiences like this make up the vast majority, as in, somewhere between 99% and 99.9%, of my interactions with women. This is infuriating and immensely depressing. The levels of blatant dishonesty that I’ve encountered are so overwhelming that I’ve lost years of productive life to brutal depression, and I am sure that many women are in the same situation due to experiencing similar levels of dishonestly from men. I believe in good faith that this dishonesty is responsible for the record-high rates of suicide, especially acute among men, throughout the Western World. Of all the men who’ve shot themselves, of all the women who’ve slit their wrists, of everyone who has jumped out of a window or in front of a train: most would still be alive if we were honest to each other. It isn’t just because the sort of dishonesty I constantly encounter directly drives men and women to suicide (though it often does): it’s because this dishonesty corrodes our society and communities.
This behavior absolutely must stop, and is so egregious and so destructive that it presents an existential threat to Western nations and Western civilization in general; therefore, I believe that it is the role of the State to severely punish people who behave this way.
The lying women I’ve encountered (and the lying men they’ve encountered – indeed, many have told me horrific stories about men’s behavior, some far too sickening to recount here) are a part of a larger erosion of trust in the West. When I was five years old, I took a short flight with my parents from Seattle, Washington to San Diego, California in order to visit my maternal grandmother and enjoy, with her and my sister and parents, the lovely beaches of Southern California. During the cruise phase of the flight, my father walked me up to the front of the plane to look at the cockpit of the Boeing 747 on which we were flying. The cockpit doors were open, and my father held me in his arms – partly to ensure that I wouldn’t touch anything (I was always mischievous and still am), but also to give me a better view as I gazed down through the cockpit windows at the beautiful vista of the Pacific coast, forests of green and cities rendered as miniature circuit boards or LEGO models, the sun reflecting in shimmering gold off the gentle waves of the Pacific Ocean. I was equally impressed by the cockpit itself – the dazzling array of buttons and switches and indicator dials and gauges and lights, the flight computer displays (a cutting-edge technology at the time), all of it – it was a wonderful moment, and one that I’ll remember to my grave. The cockpit door was open because, in 1993, Americans still trusted each other – at least, we trusted each other to not, for example, hijack a plane, slit the pilot’s throats with boxcutters, and crash the aircraft into a fucking skyscraper. That changed on Tuesday, 2001-09-11. I still remember the tears in my mother’s eyes as she woke my sister and I up for school – it was three hours later on the West Coast than in New York, so when we awoke, both Towers of the World Trade Center were burning, and it was clear that this was no accident. An event two years earlier, on 1999-04-20, also comes to mind when I reflect on the erosion of trust during my own lifetime in America. This was the Columbine High School shooting, which claimed thirteen innocent lives and also ended in the suicide of both perpetrators. Columbine had a far lower death toll than the September 11th Attacks, and also had fewer economic and geopolitical ramifications. Stock markets weren’t closed after Columbine. The travel industry didn’t suffer due to Columbine. America wasn’t inspired by Columbine to undertake a military campaign (I am referring to the disastrous and misguided Second Gulf War, started in 2003 by George W. Bush – that is, George Walker Bush – rather than to the disastrous and misguided First Gulf War, started in 1991 by that Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush – that is, George Herbert-Walker Bush). “Live and don’t learn” – that’s the motto of the American political establishment. Regardless, the Columbine Shooting was comparable to the September 11th Attacks in terms of the degree to which it eroded trust within America.
The attacks on the Twin Towers weren’t the first terrorist attack on American soil. Neither were they the first Islamic terrorist attack on American soil. They weren’t even the first Islamic terrorist attack against the World Trade Center – Muslims bombed the parking garage of the North Tower in 1993, but were largely unsuccessful, murdering only 7 people and failing to collapse the Tower. Similarly, the Columbine Shooting wasn’t the first school shooting in America. However, these events resulted in a sea change and an enormous collapse of trust in America. Before Columbine, there were no surveillance cameras at my high school. This wasn’t because surveillance cameras didn’t exist – CCTV (Closed-Circuit Television) has existed since the late 1920s, and in my childhood I did occasionally encounter surveillance cameras, generally in high-security areas such as precious metal dealerships, foreign embassies, and some banks. The idea of installing video surveillance systems in schools, however, was unthinkable – until Columbine.
What changed? Once upon a time in America, we could trust each other not to hijack airplanes and crash them into skyscrapers. Then, we started letting people who couldn’t be so trusted into our country – in the case of the September 11th Attacks, these were Muslim men from Saudi Arabia, the UAE (United Arab Emirates), Egypt, and Lebanon. Once upon a time in America, we could trust young men not to indiscriminately murder other high school students. Then, we started raising boys – in the case of Columbine, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – who couldn’t be trusted to refrain from shooting up their schools.
Now, the cockpits of aircraft are sealed behind bulletproof doors of Kevlar and titanium honeycomb. Now, the streets and schools and shopping malls and grocery stores of Seattle and New York and Moscow and Beijing and London and Mumbai bristle with security cameras. As of the date of this writing, my firstborn son is five years old, the same age that I was when my father walked me up to the cockpit, and I’ve flown with my own son, but I can’t give him the same experience my father gave me, and this breaks my heart. He is attending preschool, but he doesn’t know what it is like to interact with other children and with teachers in an environment of mutual trust, as opposed to beneath the gaze of a thousand CCTV cameras, and this breaks my heart.
I want to live in a society of trust and privacy, not a society of suspicion and surveillance. If we are to restore trust (in American, in Russia, or anywhere else), we must demand that citizens of our nations behave themselves honestly. If a citizen cannot be trusted to behave honestly, he must either change his ways, or leave the country, or be executed. This might sound harsh, and in a sense it is, but trust is existentially important to our nations, to our race, to our morals and values, to our civilization – and, indeed, this is true of all civilizations, all nations, and all peoples of all races and ethnicities.
“I’m still the optimist, though it is hard” – so spoke Maxim Adam Bemis, and I heard him. I was there, in San Francisco, all those years ago. Indeed – I’m an optimist, though it is exceedingly hard. On a fundamental level, I do believe (though I do not assert, and I certainly do not claim to know) that the West will turn things around. We’ll outlaw all forms of contraception, the total fertility rate will reach a natural level of ~12 children born per woman, we’ll expand Western and White civilization as aggressively as…
“The Great Nations of Europe in the Sixteenth Century” – Randy Newman
“Peace is something that starts with me” – so spoke Scott Ramon Seguro Mescudi, also known as “Kid Cudi”. Indeed – and, honesty is something that starts with me, and if it’s also something that starts with you – well, that’s a damn good start.
II. Meaningful And Unique Communication:
In communication related to courtship, marriage, and anything else, I value meaning and uniqueness. This means that, when I speak or write, I aim to express thoughts, ideas, plans, etc. that are concrete, comprehensible, and unique (or at least peculiar) to myself. The purpose of communication is to transfer information, and while I like several definitions of what “information” is (including mathematical ones, especially those based on entropy), I find this one apropos here: “Information is everything that increases certainty”. The opposite of information is “anti-information”, which is “everything that decreases certainty”. Dishonest statements are an example of anti-information. I value concreteness because it provides certainty to others, and I value uniqueness because repeating what someone else is saying (or what someone else has said in the past, or what someone else could say in the future) is insufferably boring. Whatever you say, whatever you write: Let it be true; let it be concrete; let it be honest; let it be respectful; let it be tender when tenderness is called for and stern when sternness is called for; let it be something that only you can say – that nobody else alive, nobody who has ever lived, and nobody who will ever live, can say – only you.
Here are some examples of anti-information in communication, all of which I have encountered in the wild (and most of which I have encountered numerous times, in some cases hundreds of times):
1. Vague & Meaningless Statements:
“My goal is self-realization”, “My goal is self-actualization”, “My goal is personal growth”, etc. – These statements could mean anything, and so in reality, they mean nothing. Virtually any activity could be considered to be “self-realization”, because “realization” refers to the actual achievement of one’s potential, but everyone has the potential to do an enormous number of different things with his life (many of which are mutually exclusive, ex., choosing one path means rejecting another), so statements like these don’t communicate anything meaningful about life plans, values, morals, goals, achievements, or anything else. To one man, “self-realization” might mean joining the military and fighting for his country. To another man, “self-realization” might mean dodging the draft and working to abolish his nation’s standing army. To one woman, “personal growth” might mean education. To another woman, “personal growth” might mean becoming a mother to 12 children. To one person, “personal growth” might mean improving one’s painting skills. To another person, “personal growth” might mean becoming the dictator of Germany and attempting to conquer the entire world.
“I am living my best life” – This phrase has some association with a generally hedonistic and irresponsible lifestyle, but is likewise meaningless. One man might try to “live his best life” by sleeping with prostitutes in Thailand, and another might think that he is “living his best life” by becoming a monk and joining a monastery and spending all day poring over the Bible.
“I am not a philosopher, I am not a model, I am just a person” – While communicating some information (namely, that the speaker doesn’t work as a philosopher or a model), the fact is that most people aren’t philosophers or models, so this is somewhat akin to answering the question “What day were you born on?” by saying “I was not born on July 16th, I was not born on December 23rd, I was not born on April 4th, I was not born on May 7th…”, etc. There are 365 days on which a person could have been born, and so it is much more helpful (and respectful of the time of others) to say which day you were born on, as opposed to listing all the days you were not born on. Similarly, there are an enormous number of possible professions and educational tracks, so if you’re looking to express what job you do have (or what field you are studying), it’s much more helpful to simply say “My profession is such-and-such”, or “I am studying for such-and-such a program”. As for the last part, “I am just a person” – that’s non-information, since, if I’m speaking to you, I presumably am aware that I’m speaking to a person, rather than a dolphin or a Яндекс delivery robot.
“I want to expand my horizons” – This is similar to claiming goals of “self-realization” and “personal growth” in that it could mean anything and hence means nothing. There is some subtext that “expanding one’s horizons” means seeking out new experiences, but again, the variety of new experiences one could have is so vast that statements like these don’t communicate much.
“Life is like coffee – at first, tasty, and then cold and biter, but you still drink it”, “80% of success is being at the right place at the right time”, “No words, only emotions”, and the “classic” to end all classics: “Eat, pray, love” – I am not opposed to quoting others in order to express an idea – if I couldn’t have said it better myself, then I won’t try to say it myself, and will instead reference someone else’s words (and attribute them appropriately). However, popular and vague quotations like these, which are in my experience almost always plagiarized and never attributed to the author, don’t communicate much. If you’re skeptical of the Industrial Revolution, then opening with Theodore Kaczynski’s “The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race” (and giving credit where credit is due) could be appropriate and communicate something useful, alongside your own words. However, very few recitations of quotations communicate anything singular or meaningful in my experience.
2. Obvious Statements:
“I want to have a good relationship with a respectful, intelligent, handsome, and supportive man” – As opposed to what? Wanting to have a terrible relationship with a disrespectful, mentally retarded, hideously ugly, and unsupportive man? If you’re on a dating website, and you’re looking for a man, then presumably you value these traits, because substantially all women (and, indeed, substantially all men) also value these traits.
“I like nice restaurants, I like good sex, I love to travel” – As opposed to what? Wanting to eat at disgusting restaurants where the food will make you sick, wanting to have a terrible (or non-existent) sex life, and wanting to spend your entire life in a dimly-lit room? Every healthy person enjoys good food and sex, and the vast majority of people enjoy traveling (at least, if they can travel to desirable locations and spend their time in luxury there). Who doesn’t want to eat delicious food without having to prepare it (and without having to clean up afterwards), especially if someone else pays for it? Who doesn’t want to have an exciting and satisfying sex life with a skilled and strong and attentive lover? Who wouldn’t like to leave the winter snow and visit a tropical paradise and stroll on a private beach in front of their five-star hotel? Virtually nobody – so, if what you’re saying doesn’t differentiate you from any of the other 8 billion people on Earth, why say it at all? With statements like these, you aren’t providing much information apart from “I am a human”, and I can already see that you’re a human, so, again, why write things like this?
“I love to laugh and smile” – As opposed to what? Wanting to spend your time crying and frowning and vomiting instead?
“I just want to be happy” – As opposed to what? Wanting to be depressed and suicidal?
“I love a man with a good sense of humor” – As opposed to what? Loving men with zero ability to make you laugh and no appreciation for comedy?
“Retards, married men, cheaters, drunkards, drug addicts, abusers, and men with HIV/AIDS, please do NOT write to me!” – It’s of course very sad that you have encountered so many men with these traits (at least, I assume you have – if this hadn’t been a problem for you, then you probably wouldn’t have written this). Warnings and prohibitions usually exist for a reason, and regulations are usually written in blood – we don’t prohibit smoking in grain elevators just because of the smell. At the same time, this is an obvious statement – virtually no woman (or man) would appreciate these traits in a partner.
“
3. Non-Unique Statements:
“I enjoy making and/or consuming art” – The art in this case could be in any form (music, painting, sculpture, etc.), and most often involves references to music (“I love going to concerts”), but unless it’s some art form unique to you, this is an extremely trite statement. Humans inherently enjoy art of all sorts – this is why we have unearthed bone flutes, cave paintings, and petroglyphs created as far back as 38,000 BC. If you’re involved in the production or consumption of particularly unusual forms of art, this could be worth mentioning (though it would be better to say something such as “I work at an auto shop, and when we pull nails out of tires, I weld them into figurines of 15th-century Hindu deities”). Similarly, if you’re a notable professional artist of worldwide renown, that could be worth mentioning, but again, it is better to give specifics. Enjoying a particular underground artist or especially esoteric style of music could also be worth mentioning, but, as always, “specific is terrific”.
“I studied at [XYZ University]” –
====> A world without contraception is a world where people will think more before acting. This doesn’t mean that everyone will make a perfect choice, of course, but examining traditional societies today (ex. Apostolic Anabaptists), and examining societies that existed before modern contraception, it’s abundantly clear that FAr more thought was put into marriage, mate selection, having sex, etc. than today. I don’t know of aonyone, of any political persuasion, who would say “You know what the problem is these days? People put FAR too much thought into their decisions. Nowadays, everyone thinks FAR too much about the long-term results and consequences of their actions becore acting. The world would be MUCH better if people put LESS thought into their actions!”.
In marriage, and in romantic relationships generally, I have conservative and traditional values. When I say “I have conservative and traditional values”, this is not a metaphor – I actually mean that I have conservative and traditional values. Despite having said this numerous times, there are certain questions I’m repeatedly asked, and so I’ve prepared a “CAQ”, or “Constantly Asked Questions”, list. You may use this for reference purposes.
-Shouldn’t people only have kids when they want to? (no – that’s like saying “only work when you want to”). Sex drive pushes us to have children, just as the hunger drive pushes us to farm, hunt, fish, etc. Stop being so fucking lazy. Stop trying to “outsmart” evolution.
-Isn’t sex better when you don’t have to worry about pregnancy/having kids? (why “worry” about such? and, no – sex to concieve the hottest ever).
-What about STDs? (they won’t flourish without promiscuity – also, drugs to prevent HIV transmission, etc.)
-But, we take medicines all the time (birth control is NOT medicine!)
-“Violence against women”
Q1: What do you mean, that you have conservative values? ‘Conservative’ means different things to different people, after all – what does it mean to you?
A1: The term “conservative” is often misused, most of all by people who incorrectly call themselves “conservative”. Being born in America, when I say that I am “conservative”, I mean that I’m seeking to conserve the foundational values, principles, morals, and norms of the United States.
Q2: What do you mean by the “foundational” values, principles, morals, and norms of the United States?
A2: I mean exactly what I said – “foundational” as in, relating to the founding of the United States, which occurred on 1776-07-04. In the American context, a “political conservative” is someone who wants to make America as similar as possible in every respect to how it was when it was originally founded, and that happened in the year 1776 for the Nation of my birth. This is parallel to how an “art conservationist” wants to make the Mona Lisa look as similar as possible to how it did when Leonardo DaVinci finished painting it in the year 1506, or how a “forest conservationist” wants to restore a forest to a state as similar as possible to how it was before humans began chopping down trees and starting forest fires with gender-reveal-party fireworks.
Q3: Are you “gatekeeping” conservatism?
A3: Yes, absolutely – that’s what conservatives do. We’re all about gatekeeping.
Q4: You want to revert/restore/alter the America of present day to how it was in the year 1776. Isn’t that not merely conservative, but reactionary?
A4: No. “Conservative” and “reactionary” are not degrees of the same political impulse; they are fundamentally different ideas. A “conservative”, as explained above, wants to restore a nation to how it existed in the moment of its founding. A “reactionary” wants to restore the status quo ante that existed prior to a nation’ founding. In the context of America, a “reactionary” is someone who wants to render America a British colony again, effectively “undoing” the American Revolution. Terms like “conservative”, “reactionary”, “right”, “left”, and “liberal” all stem from the French Revolution, and it’s virtually impossible to understand political terminology without a clear understanding of that event. A French reactionary is someone who wants to undo the French Revolution and change the French government from democracy to monarchy. An American reactionary is someone who wants to undo the American Revolution and eliminate the independent American government in favor of America returning to being ruled by an English monarch. These two concepts are distinct.
Q5: Woah, it sounds like you’re really conservative. You must be a big fan of Donald Trump, right?
A5: No. Neither Donald Trump, nor the Republican Party, are conservative in any meaningful sense. Both the man and the party are guilty of a campaign of mass deception, and any Republican who claims to be “conservative” is telling an outrageous lie. This is not a political treatise, but suffice to say, the dishonesty of Republicans generally, and Trump in particular, is not the only reason I dislike them.
Q6: Wait, the Republican Party isn’t conservative? How?
A6: There are many Republican policies which are explicitly anti-conservative. These include:
(a) Foreign intervention: America was founded to be a “city on a hill”, leading by example, not by force. However, particularly since the Cold War and now during the ongoing War on Terror, America has become instead a “sniper’s nest on a hill”, interfering violently in foreign affairs on a global scale. No other nation has shown such radical disrespect for sovereignty. American foreign interventions have ranged from North and South Africa to the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Republicans are far from the only warmongers in American politics, but have been disproportionately involved, especially after World War II, and especially when feigning an irrational fear of Communism as a cover for installing dictators friendly to American corporations. In the 18th century, nations of the world looked to America as an intriguing experiment in government and economics, much like students might listen to a professor speaking about his political views and decide which (if any) of his arguments were convincing to them. Under Republican leadership, the classroom has turned into a shooting range, and the students have turned to hostages. If international relations is a game of show-and-tell, the Founding Fathers were focused on showing other nations what democracy could achieve, while the GOP is focused on telling foreigners what will happen to them if they don’t obey American orders.
(b) The War on Drugs, and drug illegalization generally: In 1776, no drug laws existed, and indeed until 1914 there were effectively no restrictions regarding the sale, possession, or consumption of any psychoactive substance. Morphine, heroin, alcohol, and nicotine – as well as softer drugs such as marijuana and cocaine – could all be sold without licensing, monitoring, or reporting for the vast majority of America’s history.
(c) Corporate personhood: The Republican Party is responsible for the concept of corporate personhood in America, and indeed for the legal existence of corporations on American soil. This is a very complex topic, and to explore it would take me thousands of pages, but suffice to say: both the de facto enactment of the laws in question, and the interpretation of “equal protection” as meaning that corporations have the same rights as people, were driven by Republicans. Both the enactments and interpretations are of dubious legality. The Founding Fathers left a Europe dominated by large landowners and nascent corporations, a Europe in which financial power and political power were largely consolidated, leading to immense concentration of wealth and little real freedom for the vast majority, with a wealthy few controlling resources and government alike. Sound familiar? They founded America as a country based on subsistence agriculture: farmers would own the land from which they extracted the food they ate, shopkeepers would own the buildings in which they ran their stores (and the land beneath their buildings), etc. In effect, the Founding Fathers understood that political and economic equality required citizens to own the “means of production” (though this term wouldn’t be used for more than a century). In a country where most are subsistence farmers, there will be limits on inequality: perhaps you are stronger than me, and can plough twice as much land than I can, or in an exceptional case, perhaps even ten times as much land as I can. However, you’re not going to plough a million times more land. In this way, the raw physicality of subsistence agriculture prevented the extreme disparities in wealth which existed in Europe in the late 1600s to mid-late 1700s. Corporate personhood is antithetical to the founding principles of America, and as a result of Republicans enacting it, we have failed to conserve American principles and now have even worse economic inequality than existed in Europe four hundred years ago. The claim that the Pilgrims came to the New World on the Mayflower because of religious persecution in England is mostly false. Were Anglican Christians being as nice to Puritan Christians as they could have, and probably should have, been? No. Was discrimination occurring? Yes. However, in the grand scheme of religious persecution – the three centuries of war in Europe following the Protestant Reformation, the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, countless Jihads and Crusades, the religious violence accompanying the Partition of India, the destruction of religious buildings and massacre of clergy under the State Atheism of the Soviet Union, etc. – the persecution that the Anglicans enacted against the Puritans was comparatively mild. Even present-day persecutions, ex. that of the (predominantly-Atheist) Han Chinese against the (predominantly-Muslim) Uyghurs, or that of the Israelis against Palestinians, are far more severe. The European settlers who founded America were driven far more by a desire for economic and political equality than by a fear of religious persecution, and the GOP has desecrated the America that the Founding Fathers dreamed of, in this and so many other respects.
-I’ve had sex more than 100x in my life (weird brag? okay? that’s 2x/week for a year, so not really that much), how many children have I killed?
-Are you an HIV maniac?
-Do you hate women? (no – pity)
-Do you think women should be slaves? (no)
-Do you think women should be incubators? (to the natural extent – this is like asking “do you think birds should have feathers?”
-What do you have against women’s freedom? (nature is not something one can be “free” from)
-I’m going to have sex tonight and then throw one hundred children into the trash in a condom. Are you going to cry about that? (WTF?)
-Have you ever used contraception? Are you a hypocrite? (yep!) – the allegory of the recovered alcoholic. A recovered drunk knows better than anyone how harmful alcohol is.
-But what about other “medicines” – pregnancy is not a disease!
-Do you hate sex? (no – less contraception means more sex)
-Are you going to murder me? (no)
-What gives you the right to dictate the behavior of others? (analogy to military service, paying taxes, etc.).
STOP trivializing sexuality.
-“What about people who aren’t ready financially? Can you support 12 kids” – yep, thanks for asking about my finances.
-“What about people who never want kids?” – they should have a natural number if they’re ready to have sex.
-“Age? Too young to have kids?” ==> then, too young to have sex.
“Overpopulation?” ==> expansion of civilization, and entity-cramming / crowding into cities. Russia example.
-What about risks of pregnancy/birth?
-What about kids w/o homes?
-What about excuse X/Y/Z (there’s a war, famine, housing crisis, etc.).
-What about education? If there is no contraception, then how are women supposed to get a University education of they start having sex at 16? They could have five or six kids by the time they would have finished University!
-Childbirth is VIOLENCE!
-Denying women contraception is SLAVERY!
The contraceptionist’s Dilemma: “Women are inherently equal to men”, yet also “women need contraception to become equal to men”
|We should adapt society to the needs of women, yet also, adapting women’s bodies to society. Like the Jew-hater: “it never happened” yet also “they deserved it”.
-Are you anti-feminist?
-What about economic growth? Won’t fewer women in the workforce hurt the economy? (think long-term)
-What about women’s economic independence? (independence is an absurd idea, even a primitive tribe has division of labor – interdepence is good; example of why Google harms interdepencence – instead of talking with people, ex. asking a Mexican how to translate something, we just check Google – same with maps, etc.).
-Why don’t you move to Africa? / Middle Eastern country?
-Don’t you think that, without contraception, the world will turn into Africa / into a shithole? (no) ==> South Africa’s fertility rate is 2 or so; wanna live there? Nations are the way they are because of people who live there.
-Why not just adapt to the current time period? ==> I think independently.
-As a man, why do you think you have a right to say anything about this? Why do you think you have any knowledge of this?
-Can you think of any benefits at all to contraception? (yes, only and exactly one: STK, sexually transmitted knowledge – Stinson example, schlenk lines, Amgen story).
-But, if YOU were raised in a society that didn’t prohibit contraception, why should we change the rules now? Isn’t that unfair, in the sense that it will subject people to rules that you didn’t have to follow? ==> In a sense yes, but it’s doing them more good than harm, because I suffer horribly from regrets.
-Should women (and/or men) have fertility tests before marriage? ==> No – not possible to know for certain that someone is fertile. It’s possible to know with a high degree of certainty that something is broken, but it’s hard to know with a high degree of certainty that something works. The only real way to know is “empirically”.
-What about human rights agreements that require contraception? ==> Trash them
-What about masturbation? Aren’t you killing millions of (potential) lives? ==> No – not going out of one’s way to prevent someone from being alive.
-Aren’t stupid people easier to control? ==> NO – the schooling system is indoctrination. It is a MECHANISM of control in a Capitalist, wage-labor system. People who are subsistence farmers
-“The wolves are mad that the sheep aren’t breeding” ==> NO
-We are simultaneously told “the idea that men can’t control their sexual urges is a MYTH and this plays into rape culture”. Whether or not “rape culture” exists, or has ever existed (I tend to think not, as severe and typically capital punishment for rape seems to be a cultural universal), I agree with this sentiment – men, and women, can control their sexual urges. If so, then…why contraception? When it comes to preventing rape, we insist that everyone can control their sexual urges, and ought to. When it comes to preventing unintended pregnancy, we act as if sexual urges are uncontrollable. If it’s reasonable to ask people to control their sexual urges so as not to rape others (and this is certainly reasonable), then it is also reasonable to ask people to control their sexual urges so as to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
-Do you want to be polygamous? (no – and, while I don’t oppose polygamy as strongly as I oppose contraception, i.e., I don’t believe that polygamy should be a capital crime in all cases, polygamy is a SYMPTOM of excessive inequality in a society)
-Don’t you think it is too early to discuss contraception when just meeting someone? ==> NO – fail early. Contraception is an absolute contraindication for me, so it makes sense to ask about it immediately. All the wasted time…
-If you’ve use contraception in the past, and think that the Death Penalty should attach to contraception, why not kill yourself?
===> To claim that contraception “liberates” women is INHERENTLY to claim that women are “enslaved” by their own biology, which is absurd.