Teaching boys to be beta

June 29th, 2016

I was watching “Troy”. And for the first hour it was totally great. The mother of Achilles, who has the power of prophesy, and is believed to be a goddess or something similar, prophesies that if he goes to war with Troy, he will die in that war, but his name will live for a thousand years.

This is actually conservative, for Achilles was part of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, three thousand years ago, and his name still lives.

And Achilles, being warlord, a king, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, and incredibly brave and manly, naturally decides to go to Troy.

He goes to Troy, and after the first battle, orders his men to loot the temple of Apollo. So his men dump a kingly share of the temple loot in his tent, part of that loot being a dazzlingly beautiful girl, a virgin dedicated to Apollo tied up in his tent.

And then he just … he … he just totally fails to act like a man. In addition to being famous, and a hero, and the greatest warrior ever, and a living legend, he is also unbelievably handsome. But I swear, that there is no way that girl would voluntarily bed him in real life, if he acts like that.

Now I am old, and fat, and no one terribly important, and I look like Jabba the Hut, but if I had had a few hours with that girl in my tent, she and I would have been going at it like weasels in heat. (Voltaire said all he needed was ten minutes, but I think he was lying, and in any case, I am not as good as Voltaire.)

Everything Achilles does prior to going into that tent is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. Everything he does in the first hour of the movie is totally, unbelievably, impossibly manly. And then he goes into that tent and he is just …

You know why boys are no damn good with girls these days. Because they watch movies like that. They are taught to respect women. But women do not really want to be respected. And what is this girl that Achilles should respect her? We see him disrespect King Agamemnon. Until this scene we only see him respecting mighty warriors who have earned it by their courage and their prowess, or King Odysseus, whom he respects for his cunning. What has this chick done to earn respect?

After that scene, I just could not watch the film any more, because I just could not see Achilles as a man. Just some kind of cuck. Real men just don’t treat women like that. It is not just that it will not get you laid. It is unmanly. It is wrong. It is gay. It is effeminate.

OK. In the workplace I have to treat women like that or be fired, but it burns. OK, I bend to power and grit my teeth and suffer the humiliation, but the whole Achilles story is that he does not bend to power. Show him acting like a cuck, then there is no story any more.

Achilles does not respect King Agamemnon. He does not respect the King of Thessaly. He does not respect the champion of Thessaly. He does not respect the troops of Thessaly. He does not respect the ambassadors of King Odysseus. Why is he so damn respectful to some speaking temple loot?

How to give effect to Brexit

June 29th, 2016

Supposedly, if the British voted for exit, the government would immediately invoke article 50 – would give notice that Britain was resigning from the EU. That is what the prime Minister told them.

Well, the British voted for exit, and surprise, surprise, the government is not invoking article 50. The prime minister lied.

What a surprise. Are you surprised?

And every day, the most appalling scum, mostly black Muslims from darkest Africa, continue to pour through Calais to live on crime, welfare, and voting left. Theoretically England has a legal immigration policy that only lets in the better kind of migrant, but this has collapsed, as was always intended from the beginning, and now it is mostly violent black young male criminals, cannibals and terrorists. The supposed policy was collapsing from the beginning, and lately has collapsed faster and faster. If it had worked as officially intended, Britain would now be getting lots of high IQ Chinese, mostly wealthy Chinese businessmen. Instead it got a few, very few, low IQ Chinese, mostly poor Chinese waiters and welfare bums, and lately, rapidly increasing numbers of violent very low IQ black males. The supposed immigration policy was always dead in the water, and the real policy is now pouring over the border.

But look at Australia. Illegal immigration was abruptly ended totally and completely overnight with the stroke of a pen – well – with the stroke of a pen that authorized Australian Marines to shoot up boats and set them on fire anywhere on the high seas.

Legal immigration remained out of control in Australia, and has been getting steadily more out of control, but as the next Australian election comes very close, the Australian government has suddenly launched a crackdown to enforce the official policy, the official policy being “skills based”: that the rich, the pretty, and the clever are legally allowed in, and the rest not, while the actual unofficial policy was increasingly that the scum of the earth were legally allowed in to live on crime, welfare, and voting left. That unofficial policy has now, about a week before election time, been declared to be corruption, rather than high moral virtue. It is implied that the bureaucrats and judges that gave effect to the unofficial policy, gave effect to the actual policy, were, rather than acting according to the highest moral principles, bribed by migration agents. And by sheer coincidence this shocking and extremely surprising corruption was uncovered just before the election.

The official Australian story being that until a week or so before the elections, the government was too busy cracking down on illegal immigration to notice that legal immigration was a shambles. And until a week or so before the election supposedly no one had noticed. Or at least no one respectable had noticed and if anyone disrespectable noticed they probably got prosecuted for hate speech.

But now, they really are cracking down on both legal and illegal immigration. So if Australia can do it, so can Britain. The Australian government abruptly and totally stopped illegal immigration overnight, and it looks like they are now abruptly and totally stopping the scum of the earth from legally migrating. They got instant one hundred percent compliance last time, and I think they are going to get instant one hundred percent compliance this time. It is like lightning and thunder. Bam. Sudden radical change in policy immediately followed by sudden radical change in compliance. They had to shoot up a few boats, whereupon the rest fell into line, and I expect they will have to charge a few bureaucrats who thought themselves fireproof, whereupon the rest will fall into line. Sir Humphrey Appleby suddenly notices his minister talking quietly to a couple of large security guys about corruption. Swift and total implementation gives the enemy no time for counter measures. While leftist policies are introduced little bit by little bit so that the frog does not notice he is being boiled, rightist policies have to be introduced suddenly and totally, like a military offensive, like a coup.

The longer Brexit remains unimplemented, the harder it will be to implement.

In Britain, you theoretically have a sudden radical change in policy that is not being followed by compliance. Indeed, if anything, looks like they are getting in as many scum of the earth as fast as possible in fear that the compliance might be coming down the road. Slowly and eventually down the road.

So what are you going to do? As a reactionary, I say voting does not work, but voting worked in Australia. Eventually worked. Albeit after quite a while.

Vote for someone with the balls to give effect to policy decisively and suddenly. And if that does not work, because you have too many nonwhites voting against whiteness, and too many single women voting for rape by men of those races who are allowed to be alpha, well, then, there is always the reactionary solution.

The military and the spy agencies look perfectly loyal to the government, but so did the Chilean military, which had a long tradition of staying out of politics. The Chilean junior officers plotted and rehearsed the coup without anyone actually speaking the fatal words out loud until a few hours before the actual coup. The Thai coup is going smoothly, and in the Philippines, looks like a self coup is underway or has already happened. Obviously if you are in the military, you don’t go 1488 out loud, but if Brexit just does not happen, this discredits democracy.

When Napoleon entered the Council of Ancients with a squad of Grenadiers, they heckled him. One deputy called out, “And the Constitution?”

Napoleon replied “The Constitution! You yourselves have destroyed it. You violated it on 18 Fructidor; you violated it on 22 Floreal; you violated it on 30 Prairial. It no longer has the respect of anyone.”

And so it should be if Brexit has no effect. Our next Napoleon should tell parliament about Brexit.

George Soros on Brexit

June 26th, 2016

Mixed in amongst the usual lies, were some truths.

The “Leave” campaign exploited the deteriorating refugee situation – symbolized by frightening images of thousands of asylum-seekers concentrating in Calais, desperate to enter Britain by any means necessary – to stoke fear of “uncontrolled” immigration from other EU member states.

Why the quote marks around “uncontrolled” Soros? Was not that the plan all along – to bring in five hundred million males over the next few years from Africa and the middle east to permanently outvote the white population while living on crime and welfare?

… scenes of chaos like the one in Calais.

… A sudden influx of asylum-seekers disrupted people in their everyday lives across the EU.

The lack of adequate controls, moreover, created panic, affecting everyone: the local population, the authorities in charge of public safety, and the refugees themselves. It has also paved the way for the rapid rise of xenophobic anti-European parties – such as the UK Independence Party, which spearheaded the Leave campaign – as national governments and European institutions seem incapable of handling the crisis. …

Xenophobic? Is it not entirely rational to be alarmed by scenes of chaos like the one in Calais. If people found their everyday lives disrupted, maybe they have a right to act collectively and individually to protect their everyday lives against this disruption engineered by their ruling elites.

… making the disintegration of the EU practically irreversible.

If we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

Brexit will open the floodgates for other anti-European forces within the Union. Indeed, no sooner was the referendum’s outcome announced than France’s National Front issued a call for “Frexit,” while Dutch populist Geert Wilders promoted “Nexit.”

How about that.

…Tensions among member states have reached a breaking point, not only over refugees, but also as a result of exceptional strains between creditor and debtor countries within the eurozone. At the same time, weakened leaders in France and Germany are now squarely focused on domestic problems. In Italy, a 10% fall in the stock market following the Brexit vote clearly signals the country’s vulnerability to a full-blown banking crisis – which could well bring the populist Five Star Movement, which has just won the mayoralty in Rome, to power as early as next year.

🙂

The five star movement is a non cathedral leftist movement. Much like Bernie Sanders. Their economic program is, like that of Bernie Sanders, pure self destructive evil madness, akin to the flagellant movement that flogged each other to show how holy they were, but, like Bernie Sanders, they are outflanking the Cathedral on the left and, like Bernie Sanders, trying to produce a leftism that is not held together by hating white heterosexual males, the destruction of the white race, and the physical destruction of white civilization. Instead, they hate the economic system that produces stuff, and propose to replace it by a program of not producing stuff, since actually producing stuff is low status and insufficiently holy. I suppose everyone will earn their living by doing socially conscious puppetry and artisanal basket weaving.

The bottom line is that switching to fast boiling the frog, declaring that there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant, that everyone in the world had the right to live and vote in white countries, rob their citizens, rape their women, and receive welfare, gave the game away. Too many people can now see what is coming down the road.

That said, I don’t think we can stop this by democratic means. Women will vote for rape by alpha cock, and white males are beta by law. But quite substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people realize we have to put a stop to this.

All slopes are slippery

June 25th, 2016

The Guardian remarks:

The deeper fear among Tory remainers now isn’t just of a recession. It’s about the rise of something new in British politics

When Tony Abbott halted illegal immigration to Australia he took a total no exceptions policy – not one illegal would be allowed in or allowed to stay, however sad his case, not one anchor baby would be allowed to stay. A power struggle ensued over a tiny handful of cute babies with photogenic ailments requiring urgent medical attention, and it immediately became obvious that both left and right believed that if one cute baby whose parents were fleeing religious persecution was allowed in, it would swiftly become extremely difficult to say “no” to one hundred million black male African Muslims with machetes fiercely screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, that if you cannot hold the simplest possible reasonable Schelling point, you cannot hold any Schelling point anywhere, that everyone with any expertise in politics believed that all slopes are slippery.

Brexit may well lead to a cascade of independence movements, and a cascade of walls against brown skinned people and Muslims – or at least that is what our leaders fear.

Brexit does nothing in itself to prevent Britain from being overrun by Muslims who are fundamentally and intrinsically hostile to Britain and the British. But it makes possible the will and intent to prevent Britain from being overrun with Muslims.

Brexit makes it possible for Britain to make free trade agreements with those nations with which she is united by history, language, culture, and customary law – which suddenly means that history, language, culture, and customary law are likely to become salient in people’s minds. Those that seek to abolish Britain and the British can no longer claim that unelected Eurocrats make abolishing Britain and the British economically efficient.

I am not saying that we are winning (indeed as long as we have one person one vote we are inexorably doomed to lose horribly, to vanish utterly from history, and to be unremembered as those capable of remembering the past perish also) but Brexit is going to set free dangerous thoughts.

The Altright is the Dark Enlightenment manifesting as a mob, and Trump is the altright manifesting as electoral politics. Brexit is also the altright manifesting as electoral politics.

A key point of the Dark Enlightenment is that mobs are not the solution to the problem and electoral politics are not the solution to the problem – but they are a manifestation that people are thinking about the problem and thinking of solving it. Even if Trump becomes president, his greatest accomplishment will remain that Trump set free dangerous thoughts. Ideas are far more powerful than guns, for someone has to aim the guns. The mob, and the electoral politics, are not power, but are echoes of power, they are the thunder that tells us the lightning has already struck.

Nationalism rises from the dead

June 24th, 2016

White nationalities have been told, and have believed, that they don’t deserve to have nations, that they are too wicked to have nations, that their evil thoughts cause nonwhite nationalities to underperform.

And if you look at the capitals of what used to be white nations, looks like most white nationalities no longer have nations. White males are merely individuals, isolated, alienated, emasculated, and permanently outvoted. The single white women vote for minorities that are still permitted manliness and rape.

And if you look at polls, looks like most whites agree, that whites are too wicked to have nations, that whites deserve to cease to be.

And the left, confident in those polls, has opened the borders to one billion one hundred million Africans, to live on crime and welfare and voting left.

As the frog gets dumped from the hot water to the boiling oil, he twitches slightly.

The feminized police force and army

June 22nd, 2016

1. In response to the Orlando terrorist massacre there were women in uniform among those police responding. This was absurd, outrageous, despicable, shocking, and immoral. We should not expose women to danger – and because you cannot treat women differently to men, no police were exposed to danger.

2. In response to the Orlando terrorist massacre police of both sexes hid some distance away for three hours while the shooter continued shooting at leisure and victims continued to bleed out on the floor for three hours.

The problem is that if you are going to incorporate women in a workforce, you cannot tolerate masculinity. If you have women in the workplace, along comes the schoolmarmish attitude that men are brutes and this shocking brutishness cannot be tolerated. But there are some jobs, such as firefighting, policing, and war that just really need masculinity.

And even if, as in engineering, you don’t really need masculinity, it is really oppressive that men are just not allowed to be men.

A situation where unowned fertile age women are mingling with masculine men is socially intolerable. The woman have to be owned, or the men emasculated, and since keeping women under control is today deemed intolerable, the men are emasculated, and we are now seeing that it is costly to emasculate police, and the Brits have repeatedly demonstrated that it is very costly indeed to emasculate soldiers.

Fertile age women should not be allowed to mingle with men except that they are firmly controlled by some male who is present, in authority over them, and responsible for their good behavior, and the number of women he is responsible for is small enough that he actually can control them. In practice, the alternative is always emasculating the men.

It is interesting that the astonishing cowardice of the police is being covered up – shows guilty mind – that this episode of horrifying cowardice is not just some bad apples, but is recognized as a result of government policy, much as the reaction to the Fort Hood shooting showed guilty mind in that they recognized the Fort Hood shooting was the result of affirmative action promoting people who absolutely should not have been promoted.

Omar Matteen eliminated opposition, then proceeded to shoot a bunch of people. Police arrived, and were told to wait for the SWAT team. They waited, and waited, while he kept on killing people at leisure, and victims continued to bleed out on the floor. Police withdrew.

Eventually, after half an hour, he stopped shooting, maybe he was short of ammo, maybe tired. Then he called up the FBI, told them this was a terrorist attack. It is not clear whether he resumed shooting after that.

Two and half hours after the attack, police started taking out wounded people lying on the floor.

Three hours after the attack, the SWAT team finally counter attacked.

So it is not quite literally true that they waited three hours while he killed people at liesure. They waited half an hour while he killed people at liesure, then two and a half hours more while he could have killed people at leisure, and possibly did. They also waited two and a half hours while wounded people were bleeding out on the floor.

Hey, if they were arresting you for failure to show up in court, for a court hearing whose date had been changed without informing you of the change, would have shot blind through your door, then it would have taken them two seconds to shoot your dog, and three seconds to break your child’s face.

Large scale social cooperation, the larger organization of society, is something men do. It is part of masculine behavior. And if feral fertile age women are allowed to wander loose, you cannot tolerate masculine behavior, which makes large scale cooperation difficult. Either masculinity has to be deemed wicked, or fertile age women not under male supervision and authority have to be deemed wicked, or at least deemed feral. And so we have come to deem masculinity wicked.

What people really mean when they say there is a lot of rape

June 17th, 2016

Official, politically correct truth, is that there is a whole lot of rape, and very few rape convictions, and when women claim to have been raped, it is always true.

Now of course the poster girl law applies.  If there was a whole lot of unpunished rape, or if most rape accusations were true, or even if more than a tiny proportion were true, then when Rolling Stone and suchlike go looking for a poster girl, they would be able to find one that did not blow up in their faces.

On casual observation and common sense very few rape accusations are true, the overwhelming majority of rape convictions are false and unjust, and the courts exhibit guilty conscience in convicting obviously innocent men, and then frequently sentencing them to sexual assault awareness class, time served, and suchlike.  Obviously people do not really believe that many rape accusations, or even many rape convictions, are true in the ordinary sense of logic and facts.  Rather it is an emotional truth.
“Yes, Virginia, There is a Santa Claus”

People believe that many rape accusations are true, that many rape convictions are just, the way they believe in Santa Claus.

DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
Papa says, ‘If you see it in THE SUN it’s so.’
Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?


VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men’s or children’s, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus. It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Recently my wife died, after a long and terrible illness. She was always a good wife, she gave me two good sons, and we were together since we were teenagers. My sisters came to visit me for the funeral. I have not seen them for a long time.

After the funeral my oldest sister, recently widowed, and a good wife all her years to the best of my knowledge, told a story of how she and a bunch of other politically active women had investigated a girls religious school for pedophilia, and found and presented a pile of evidence that obviously no one else found the slightest bit convincing, and I am pretty sure my elder sister did not find convincing either. I was disturbed, and argued that she was overdoing it, creating a danger than innocent people would be unjustly impugned, that if they could find nothing substantial, should have let sleeping dogs lie. And in the course of this quite civilized conversation I casually said “The vast majority of rape accusations are false, the vast majority of rape convictions are false”. My tone of voice, and my honest expectation, was that we were all family, we don’t need to pretend, no one is going to overhear us, so we can get away with acknowledging the glaringly obvious. My work is not really due to the inspiration provided by Comrade Stalin, and there is not really much rape, or at least not much rape by white heterosexual males.

My sisters were outraged. They exploded. I could not get a word in edgewise. They spewed forth a torrent of condemnation and rebuttal. In particular and especially my divorced sister who was especially loud and spoke especially fast, and not very coherently.

She proceeded to passionately and very loudly describe various recent rape convictions, which were, she told me, clearly and overwhelmingly right and just.

Her evidence that these rape convictions were real strikingly resembled the SUN’s evidence that Santa Claus exists:

Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see.

I have no idea what really happened in these alleged rapes. But I know what my sister told me happened. According to her:

“They expected to be loved and cherished, they expected to be treated kindly. But instead …”

But instead really really terrible things were done to them.

According to her, it was all regret “rape”. The girls consented, then regretted consenting but the girls were not regretting trivially or foolishly. According to her the girls had really good reasons for regret, up to and including serious physical injury. Really really good reasons.

My divorced sister also has lots of good reasons for regretting some of her sexual choices. I don’t know if any of them are as good as the reasons she attributes to these girls and these convictions, but they are good reasons. Which may explain her passion on the topic and her somewhat surprising choice and depiction of what constitutes genuine rape.

Women reliably and very predictably make disastrous sexual choices that cause immense harm to themselves and to everyone around them. So when they say they believe complainant X, even when, as with Jackie Coakley and Crystal Mangum, it is glaringly obvious that the complainant is making stuff up, what they actually mean is that complainant X is suffering real and genuine pain as a result of her choices to have sex or to refuse to have sex. For example, Jackie Coakley suffered great and real pain as a result of having casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly offering to have more casual quickie no strings attached hookup sex with Ryan Duffin, and repeatedly hatching overly complicated and excessively clever plots to manipulate Ryan Duffin into giving her another quickie, and Ryan Duffin repeatedly being too busy to get around to giving her any more quickies.

The current free-for-all sexual jungle just chews women up and spits them out. It breaks them. It makes them into trash, into garbage, into filth, into scum. It makes them into women who cannot stand the thought of being touched by any man who would be likely to marry them, or even hang around with them for very long. If Jackie Coakley manages to marry someone, she will probably find it mighty hard to fuck him. This is a major factor in our population collapse. Wives just not being able to stand fucking their husbands. And since fertile age women have to have sex …

And that is what women mean when they say that most rape complaints are real, that most rape convictions are just. Like Santa Claus, it is an emotional truth, not seriously intended to be a factual truth. Virginia will not be able to see an actual Santa Claus coming down the chimney, and the SUN is not really saying that she will be able to. Men are convicted because women suffer, not because anyone really thinks that those particular men personally did anything in particular to cause the suffering of those particular women. Phi Beta Kappa and its members are still under various punishments and persecution even though the original rationale (their supposed rape of Jackie Coakley) has collapsed, new and ever more improbable rationales appear to fill the gap to justify the partial continuation of various measures originally applied to the fraternity to punish the rape of Jackie Coakley – though the original measures were mild enough as to reveal that no one had ever actually believed that the fraternity had been complicit in actual rape type rape.

Sullivan announced a new contract between the university and fraternities that includes enhanced safety measures for social activities designed to discourage binge drinking. The university said that Phi Psi was the first fraternity to sign the updated agreement, and fraternity officials said that Phi Psi members have participated in a sexual assault awareness program.

“We believe that in the midst of this ordeal, there is an opportunity for good,” Scipione said. “This has prompted us to take a closer look at ourselves and what role organizations like ours may play in ensuring student safety.”

A sexual assault awareness program, in the absence of any actual sexual assault, is just punishment, humiliation, and degradation. If you actually thought someone committed sexual assault, or was likely to, you would deploy something more forceful than a sexual assault awareness program. The purpose is brainwashing, to convince the innocent that they are guilty. to punish them for failure to comply with the narrative, for their disgraceful and shocking failure to be actually individually and personally responsible for the bad feelings and bad consequences that women suffer as a result of their bad sexual choices. The point of sexual assault awareness course is to re-arrange reality so that men are at fault for the bad decisions that women make, to punish Phi Beta Kappa and its members for Jackie Coakley’s self destructive decision to fuck Ryan Duffin.

Supposedly believing the story to be real, the actions of the authorities were not nearly drastic enough for people who supposedly believed. Knowing the story to be completely false, their actions are far too drastic for people who disbelieve. The leniency of the initial punishment revealed the authorities’ guilty knowledge that almost all rape accusations are false, the severity of the final punishment revealed the guilty intention to punish innocent men for the grave and terrible wrongs that women so frequently and predictably do to themselves.

It would greatly improve Jackie Coakley’s prospects of marrying and her ability to be a good wife if she was publicly caned for fucking Ryan Duffin, because caning and public degradation would render the man who was willing to marry her more alpha in her eyes. It would relieve the psychological problems caused by her bad sexual choices. This is what girls who cut themselves are trying, and failing, to achieve. Women who do bad sexual things want men to punish them. Jackie Coakley’s rape story was a sexual fantasy of receiving a well deserved punishment from high status males.

Consent based morality is based on the idea that we make rational choices. If two men agree to exchange iron for wheat, the exchange must be in the interests of both of them, it must make them both better off, or else they would not agree. But sexual consent in fertile age woman is based on raging hormones, on volcanically powerful and entirely irrational forces, thus women make terrible sexual choices that are very much against their interests. For this reason, sexual consent is not sufficient to make sex right, nor lack of sexual consent sufficient to make sex wrong.

We have an army of too clever by half intellectuals thinking up clever stories why the government and society should intervene in people’s economic choices, even though even the stupidist man will generally be careful with his own money, yet everyone thinks that female consent is necessary and sufficient to make sex right, even though everyone sees women making terrible choices, and regretting those choices.

Emancipating women, allowing them to choose who to sleep with and who not to sleep with, is like setting ten year old children loose in the jungle to live by hunting bears. When menarche hits, women become less capable of consenting competently, not more capable. The age of consent should be menopause. Women should not be allowed to consent to sex except under male supervision.

Women despise men who treat them well, hence the effectiveness of negs and preselection. I should know. I am an asshole. Ask my sisters.

All woman respond to PUA tactics. Look around you. A woman will only be happy if she is virtuous, and will only be virtuous if she is bagged by a good man who keeps her and restrains her inherently wicked impulses. Women reward playful cruelty and cheerful selfishness.

Women do not reward kindness. If they choose to submit to a kind man, that is their good luck, not their good judgement.

Consider how much better off Kate Gosselin would be had she not been allowed to speak back to her husband, nor refuse to sleep with him, nor to sleep with anyone else.

Church Authority versus Sovereign authority

June 13th, 2016

The natural tendency is for Church and Sovereign to become one (interpreting Religion and Church broadly to include progressivism as a religion and Harvard as its Church)  If one, the question goes away.

But sometimes church and sovereign are geographically different, as when the Holy Roman Empire lost power, resulting in one Roman Catholic Church and many Roman Catholic Kings. Whereupon trouble ensues, and the question becomes urgent. What tends to happen is that the Pope proclaims himself superior to Kings, but is under the thumb of one particular King, so that the supremacy of the Pope started to look suspiciously similar to the supremacy of the Habsburgs. Today we see that Harvard has alarmingly great power in Iran, and Obama alarmingly little, and we see state department functionaries taking power in supposedly independent states, which state department functionaries were usually educated within a very short distance of Harvard.

The solution to this problem is given by the Chrismation of Solomon: Zadok the Priest & Nathan the Prophet Formally Chrismated Solomon King

Formally, Solomon became King because the priest and prophet anointed him so, making church authority supreme over sovereign authority. (Chrismation is Eastern Orthodox Christian language for anointing with oil. Supposedly the oil goes back to biblical times, having been continually diluted with fresh oil.)

In actual substance, Solomon became King by murdering his brother Adonijah, arguably the legitimate heir, in a fight over Abishag, the most beautiful woman in Israel, even though it was illegal and immoral for either of them to possess her, and even though there is no mention in the bible that she intentionally did anything to tempt either of them, and by shedding the innocent blood of Joab in the tabernacle, thereby desecrating the tabernacle.

However by formally submitting to the Church, the sovereign pointed away from the unpleasantness of a messy succession, and to God. In substance, Solomon was in charge, largely due to craftiness and ruthlessness. In form, the church was superior to the state. In substance, Solomon dismissed one priest and appointed another, violating the principle of hereditary priestly succession. 1 Kings 1 and 1 Kings 2 lists numerous morally dubious or openly wicked killings and purges by Solomon over the succession question, and 1 Kings 2 concludes:

So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died. And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon.

So was it blood or oil that made Solomon King?

Thus the bible points to the formal authority of Church over Sovereign, in order to give the sovereign authority, in order to make Kingship inspiring rather than demoralizing, but the substance of authority belongs to the sovereign, not the the Church. Napoleon was wrong to crown himself, not wrong to have himself crowned.

If there is a distinction between Church and State, and there usually is not, nor should there be, we should take the Chrismation of Solomon to demonstrate the proper relationship of Church and State. The Church should be formally superior, to make Kingship holy, to give dignity and virtue to the state. But actual superiority leads to the problems encountered with the sons of Samuel, and with Papal indulgences, and with Habsburg empire, and with Harvard.

If you are a conservative

June 11th, 2016

You believe that a wall for the US is immoral and racist, but a wall for Israel is not.

You believe deporting anchor babies is unconstitutional.

You believe that free trade consists of other nations accepting US copyrights, patents, and US investment, but not US goods.

You believe that the US should be the world’s policeman.

You believe in gay marriage.

You oppose abortion but support state funding for an abortion business that sells baby meat.

You propose that a tax payer funded organization should fund and guarantee mortgages where Hispanics put three percent down on mortgages whose mortgage payments substantially exceed their annual income. (This is your plan to make Hispanics into conservative voters – fund them getting houses in leafy green suburbs)

You believe that America is a propositional nation, defined by allegiance to a proposition, not a land or a people. But you are not terribly clear on what the proposition is. Maybe it is that all Gods chillun are entitled to Obamaphones?

For many decades, Conservatism incorporated has been purging those to its right. Anyone too right wing was deemed to not be a true conservative. And the purge went ever leftwards ever faster.

The alt right is those that have enemies to the left, and no enemies to the right. As conservatism purged ever more people, ever faster, it would inevitably happen that conservatism would become a minority in the Republican party, and the alt right, the faction that fails to purge rightists, the majority.

And so it has come to pass. The alt right outvotes conservatives.

This may well result in the Republican party becoming a genuine political party, rather than the outer party to the Democrats inner party, which is what it was under Bush.

But it will not result in democracy working, since the inner party is permanently in power regardless of election results, and can only be removed by measures resembling a military coup followed by gleichschaltung. Making democracy actually effect policy is likely to require measures strikingly similar to abolishing democracy.

Trump for King

May 31st, 2016

This image, and this entire blog is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.

The recent election of Duterte, on a platform of his praetorians simply killing the bad guys out of hand without charges or trials, is an example of this hunger.

Now I hear some of you saying (and the progressives thinking but not saying out loud) that apart from being tough on crime, corruption, and governmental indiscipline, Duterte is a leftist and that is just a bunch of rice niggers, low IQ south Asians. White people are more civilized than that – perhaps a little too civilized for our own good.

In Australia, one of the whitest countries remaining, a few elections back, the election was on the issue of illegal immigration. Tony Abbott said he would stop illegal immigration.

The judges, of course, ruled stopping illegal immigration illegal. Tony Abbott ignored the judges. The net effect is that today, if you violate immigration law they send you to jail in Villawood detention center without bothering with charges or trials. From time to time the left whines about due process, and gets absolutely zero traction. Suddenly it was revealed that there is zero support for due process, that there are almost no voters who care about due process any more. And in particular and especially very few white voters who care about due process.

The purpose of due process was supposedly to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail, and the guilty do go to jail. But anarcho tyranny means that with so many laws, the innocent are bound to be guilty of something or other, while actual criminals are deemed the oppressed, and are coddled and protected by the state. Due process lets real criminals loose, mostly dark skinned real criminals who prey on white people, while imposing enormous and impossible legal costs on innocent middle class honest respectable people. For middle class people, due process is just the government’s way of punishing you when it cannot be bothered finding a crime to convict you of, even though with so many laws you have undoubtedly committed more crimes than you can shake a stick at.

White people just don’t like due process any more, for much the same reasons as Filipinos rejected it.

So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support. In Tony Abbot’s Australia as much as in Duterte’s Philippines, it was suddenly and startlingly revealed that judges are simply all out of moral authority. No one cares about due process, because, under anarcho tyranny, there is no reason why they should care. It is not just a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals thinking like this. It is pretty much everyone.

The point of due process was to prevent the King from treating repectable decent people like criminals. But now that we are all treated like criminals, people just don’t care.

Power divided can be power reduced. If the benevolent party controls all the food, or ninety nine percent of the food, as in communist China, today’s Venezuela, or Allende’s Chile, then you are toast. The result is at best severe oppression as in Venezuela, at worst mass murder on an enormous scale, as in China.

If however ninety nine percent of the food is controlled by ninety nine members of the one percent each of whom controls one percent of the food, then no problem. In this case, power divided is power reduced.

But if you need ninety nine approvals by ninety nine bureaucrats to build a house, you are more than ninety nine times as oppressed than if you need the approval of one bureaucrat, because you face a coordination problem between bureaucrats.

With one bureaucrat, you could hope to pay him off, formally or informally, by giving his bagman/consultant, say, a third of the surplus value you create by building the house. With ninety nine bureaucrats, they each want ten percent, so you just cannot build the house.

In this case, power divided is power increased, enormously increased. This enormous multiplication of oppressive power is another aspect of anarcho tyranny that leads people to hunger for the power of kings, they hunger for one man who could say “give me half the surplus value and build it” and who would tell the other ninety eight bureaucrats to take a long walk off a short pier. They hunger for a Duterte who would shoot the other ninety eight bureacrats behind a shed.

America’s smartest member of the ruling progressive elite tells us:

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors — the historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

Larry the prog worries that regulation, a multiplicity of veto players, makes government inefficient, and therefore unpopular, worries that he cannot get the bridge he needs to go to and from Harvard, and fails to see the glaringly obvious, that regulation makes the private sector inefficient.

I, too, have had to deal with a multiplicity of veto players, each with his bagman collecting his bribe.

And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.

Larry is pissed because his commute to Harvard is obstructed, blissfully unaware that Americans further from the seat of power suffer from the anarchy of government far more severely than he does.

In America, the presidency has gathered to itself enormous power, intervening in every small business, every household.

Husbands are thrown out of their houses, fathers torn from their children, thanks to the Department of Justice, which is theoretically answerable to the president. Women with husbands tend to vote Republican. Children with fathers tend to vote Republican. If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman will have a husband, nor any child a father.

Similarly the department of Justice arranged for white people to be burned out of Ferguson, forbidding the Ferguson police from protecting people and property, and forbidding collective self defense against collective aggression.

But the presidency is not the president. It is an enormous horde of bureaucrats that are theoretically supposed to obey the president, but which the president cannot fire, which results in anarcho tyranny. If the president could fire them, this would enormously increase the power of the president, but enormously decrease the power of the presidency, because one would be merely subject to one tyrant, instead of ninety nine tyrants.

In practice, the bureaucrats tend to treat the president as their public relations boy, rather than their boss. And if he fails to run good PR for what they have already decided to do they will smack him around the ears in the pages of the New York Times.

The bureaucrats are answerable to the consensus of their fellow bureaucrats, they have to be a square peg in a square hole, but the consensus is controlled by the consensus of the Ivies, and the consensus of the Ivies is controlled by the consensus of Harvard.

And as we have seen Harvard does not much like Trump, and to judge from his list of Supreme Court judicial candidates, Trump does not much like Harvard.

For Trump to rule, for Trump to accomplish any of his goals, the president has to subjugate the presidency, a process that will inevitably require massive firings, and some actual violence against those who decline to be fired. Quite possibly some Duterte style sudden violent deaths that no one is inclined to investigate because everyone knows what an honest investigation would reveal.

Trump will need to get rid of some turbulent priests.

The president’s power is so very great as to diminish the power and effectiveness of democracy thus we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty.

An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.

So we would have a system that was nominally democratic, but actually hereditary and monarchic. Such a difference between actual and formal power is necessarily corrupting and destructive, because such government operates by lies. To remedy this corruption, one of Trump’s sons would have to declare himself King Trump the third, and his predecessors King Trump the first and King Trump the second.

So for Trump to become King in substance, and eventually King in name, he has to seize the power to fire the fireproof.

Which, given that he has support from the military, the praetorians, the cops, the rentacops, and the mercenaries, and that judges do not have much support from anyone, is quite doable.

If Trump says “You are fired”, and security frog marches the offending presidency bureaucrat out of the building and does not let him back in, has that bureaucrat not been fired?

If HR attempts to keep paying the bureaucrat, apply the same measure to HR. If judges rule the firing illegal, do like Abbot and Duterte, and tell the judges to take a long walk off a short pier.

Thus could Trump exercise the power of Kings.

And if he wants to build a wall and deport anchor babies, that is what he needs to do, he needs to exercise the power of a King, for otherwise the presidency will not permit the president to act.

And if Trump exercises the power of Kings and does so competently and bravely, if he is worthy to exercise such power, Kings shall in due course ensue. I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.