News of the Week for January 26th, 2025
News of the Week for January 26th, 2025
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
With President Trump declassifying the files on the assassinations of Martin Luther King, Jr., John F. Kennedy, and Robert F. Kennedy (or so the Stonecutters would have us believe), let us look back half-a-century ago when William F. Buckley, Jr. and Allard K. Lowenstein discusses the question of who killed Bobby Kennedy?
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: When all ya got is an anti-racist hammer, everything is a racist nail.
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…

Treating people equally is discrimination at Columbia University.
“Columbia University in New York City recently updated its anti-discrimination policy in which the school now says that race-neutral policies that have a ‘disproportionate impact’ constitute discrimination.
“The policy, which was updated on Sept. 23, states that ‘having a neutral policy or practice that has a disproportionate and unjustified adverse impact on actual and/or perceived members or associates of one Protected Class more than others, constitutes Discrimination.’”
![]()
Anti-natalism is ultimately anti-human. One shouldn’t belittle or deman women form whom having children wasn’t in the cards, those who outright declare that pregnancy is a disease are indeed obsessively nuts. Such is the case of the authors of this little scholastic journal article declaring that pregnancy should be seen as a disease, normatively speaking.
“In this paper, we identify some key features of what makes something a disease, and consider whether these apply to pregnancy. We argue that there are some compelling grounds for regarding pregnancy as a disease. Like a disease, pregnancy affects the health of the pregnant person, causing a range of symptoms from discomfort to death. Like a disease, pregnancy can be treated medically. Like a disease, pregnancy is caused by a pathogen, an external organism invading the host’s body. Like a disease, the risk of getting pregnant can be reduced by using prophylactic measures. We address the question of whether the ‘normality’ of pregnancy, its current necessity for human survival, or the value often attached to it are reasons to reject the view that pregnancy is a disease. We point out that applying theories of disease to the case of pregnancy, can in many cases illuminate inconsistencies and problems within these theories. Finally, we show that it is difficult to find one theory of disease that captures all paradigm cases of diseases, while convincingly excluding pregnancy. We conclude that there are both normative and pragmatic reasons to consider pregnancy a disease.”
Right off the bat, the justification for this “normative” idea that pregnancy is a disease is to treat the perpetuation of the species as something abnormal…

“Imagine a patient who visits the doctor having an abdominal mass that is increasing in size, causing pain, vomiting and displacement of other internal organs. Tests are booked, and investigations are planned. But when the patient mentions that she has missed her period, these alarming symptoms suddenly become trivial. She is pregnant! No disease, nothing to worry about. But is this the right way to think about things?”
Yet even while calling pregnancy a “disease”, they note it has “subjective benefits”, such as reduction in lifetime risk of breast cancer, but that won’t let anyone get in their way to declare that pregnancy can be much worse and thus ought to be considered a disease on par with the measles. What’s worse, pregnancy is a sexist disease!
“However, unlike measles, pregnancy is a condition that affects only a certain group of people: those with female reproductive organs. Perhaps this partly explains why the risks involved in pregnancy are higher in places where women’s rights and independence receive less social and legal protection.”
They then go on to claim that disease itself is subjective and it’s only a disease if you don’t like it?
“A person who is happy to be pregnant may welcome even unpleasant symptoms such as stretch marks and nausea. The pain of childbirth may be treated as a badge of honour. Perhaps then, the ‘badness’ component of pregnancy can simply be disregarded in such cases. If so, a wanted pregnancy is not a disease, whatever its impact on a person’s health. However, for consistency, this might imply that in other cases where a person finds value in their experience, they can no longer claim to have a disease.”
If you want these horrible outcomes, then it’s not a disease to you! This is the logic of “bug chasers” and “gift givers” intentionally transmitting AIDS. Pregnancy, in this paper, has become nothing more than a masochistic fetish.

That a person born in the United States and not excepted from its jurisdiction, which is otherwise absolute, is a citizen at birth has been well established not only by the 14th Amendment (which simply reaffirmed the color-blind nature of this precept) and explicit statutory declaration, but by the very Common Law which predated the independence of the United States of America or even the foundation of the colonies which became the Untied States of America.
This has been made clear, not only by United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), but by a clear review of the actual historical evidence.
But President Donald Trump has declared that he can simply wish differently in order to effect a “quick fix” for some contemporary political problem by publishing by executive order an update to the Newspeak dictionary. And yet again, it becomes necissary to debunk that.
Folks, birthright citizenship isn't just some interpretation of a few weirdly phrased passages in the 14th Amendment. We had birthright citizenship BEFORE the 14th Amendment. It's actually one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of American law. 1/
— Dilan Esper (@dilanesper) December 9, 2024
We inherited our citizenship system from the British common law. Like most British colonies, we got our legal system from them. Our Constitution, with references to "common law" (7th Amendment) and "law and equity" (Article III) confirms the British basis of our legal system. 2/
— Dilan Esper (@dilanesper) December 9, 2024
There are two basic notions of citizenship. Some countries, most notably British common law systems, have "jus soli" citizenship, where being born somewhere confers citizenship. Other countries (notably civil law countries) have "jus sanguinis", i.e., bloodline citizenship. 3/
— Dilan Esper (@dilanesper) December 9, 2024
From the founding of this country, you were considered a citizen if you were born here. Indeed, during the colonial period there were various migrations of people from Britain into what became the United States. These people and their descendants became citizens. 4/
— Dilan Esper (@dilanesper) December 9, 2024
News of the Week for January 19th, 2025
In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.
Just some sharp wit and sharper remarks between and with William F. Buckley, Jr., Malcom Muggeridge, Peter Ridell, James Galbraith, and Patricia Hewitt discussing the world.
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Just a little killing here and a little killing there…
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…

Much like how “Medical Marijuana” was used to normalize non-medial weed legalization, euthanasia was used to normalize killing people.
“The idea of a nonmedical model for assisted suicide was just pushed again by bioethics professor Eric Mathison. From the assisted-suicide-boosting Thaddeus Mason Pope’s Medical Futility blog (an excellent resource on these issues, reported by Pope objectively):
“‘Eric Mathison proposes a non-medical model of assisted dying.
“‘The current, dominant model of MAID requires patients to get approval from healthcare providers before getting access to assisted suicide and euthanasia. This is problematic for a couple of reasons.
“‘First, there’s a theoretical problem — namely, it’s paternalistic because it requires a healthcare professional to be convinced that the patient is suffering intolerably. And second, there’s a practical problem because there aren’t enough healthcare professionals who provide the service.
“‘In response to these problems, Mathison believes that (1) the only requirement that a patient needs to meet is that they are making an autonomous choice, and (2) that non-medical personnel should be able to assist in their deaths.’
“That’s only logical. Killing/suicide isn’t a medical act. So why should it be restricted to doctors and nurse practitioners?”
![]()
Science has advanced to the point where interspecies organ transplants are being used to save human lives via genetically engineered organs:
“Towana Looney donated a kidney to her mother in 1999 only for the remaining one to fail several years later as a result of pregnancy complications.
“The 53-year-old from Alabama has now become the latest recipient of a gene-edited pig kidney — and is currently the only living person with an animal organ transplant — a New York hospital announced on Tuesday.
“‘It’s a blessing,’ she said in a press statement, published three weeks after the procedure at NYU Langone.”
The narrowing of the gap between human and genetically engineered non-human can but inevitably lead to one thing: Genetically engineered kemonomimi girls!


One of the hallmarks of Cultural Marxism and wokeness is the belief that justice can not be attained by treating people equally or even by treating them as individuals. Instead, a “System of Oppression” that is proclaimed to be at the very core essence of society is to blame. The “proof” of this is racial disparity of the “oppressed” group being statistically worse off vis-à-vis the dominant “oppressor” group. This is what has become known as “disparate impact” where “any variance in […] statistics involving race vis-à-vis racial demographic statistics is presumed to be caused by racism.”
But where did this concept come from? Legally, it was invented by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971).
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) is one of the most influential U.S. Supreme Court decisions in employment law. It introduced the concept of "disparate impact," and its implications reach far beyond the workplace. Here's why it was a mistake. 🧵 pic.twitter.com/EvSZJgtjcA
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) January 4, 2025
In Griggs, Duke Power required employees to pass IQ tests or have a high school diploma to qualify for certain jobs. The Court ruled these requirements were discriminatory because they disproportionately excluded black workers, even without discriminatory intent.
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) January 4, 2025
The Court held that practices neutral on their face could still violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they resulted in disparate outcomes for protected groups, unless the employer could show the practice was "job-related and consistent with business necessity."
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) January 4, 2025
This decision shifted focus from intentional discrimination to statistical disparities. The burden of proof fell on employers to justify neutral practices, even when no intent to discriminate existed.
— Logan Lancing (@LoganLancing) January 4, 2025