Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Why women are sleeping with chads

Sunday, August 14th, 2016

The problem is that dads are being emasculated and chads are not being emasculated

Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons. If we preferentially give children to the husband in the event of divorce, women will not wish to divorce – not because they don’t want to lose their children, but because husbands will not behave in ways that make their wives wish to leave them.

If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away, we severely weaken every man that loves his children. If we weaken him, his wife will despise him, and will take his children away, and his daughters will be raped and his sons beaten by some black rapper

It is not that women like being beaten, though some do.  What they like is that they could be beaten. To successfully raise children, needs to be a man and a woman forming one household. One household, one captain.  If cannot be beaten, not really one household.  So women feel insecure.

They want to be held by strong hands.  If not held by strong hands, will fuck black rappers.

They want a husband who is an oak, against whom their wild storms beat in vain. Women want men who actually have power in the relationship, despite the intemperate female urge to get their way in arguments.

Emancipation was a shit test that we failed. Women demand stuff, but when they get what they demand, are more unhappy

What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship.  But men want a secure relationship, and a mistress, or two mistresses, or two secure relationships plus some fly girls.  And women want a secure relationship with a male that is way more alpha than they are, the billionaire vampire of romance novels.  So they shit test their husbands by making demands, which demands are tests for weakness.  They want a secure relationship with a strong man, and current rules make all men weak.  

Prisoner’s dilemma ensues:  Nobody gets what they want.

The deal that everyone would choose if they could is illegal and unenforceable, except by personal charisma and the potential of personal violence.

Women truthfully complained that the traditional deal meant that some women were apt to be severely oppressed and ill treated.  But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted.  The result is that everyone gets ill treated.  If a woman gets her way, she will feel insecure, and go looking for a man who denies her her way. Because if a woman gets her way, it is not really one household, one flesh, and if not really one household, difficult and dangerous to raise children in it.

The telos of sex is children.   But because humans take a long time to raise children, must form a unitary bond.  And so the Roman Catholic position on the natural law of sex is wrong, for the telos of sex is not children directly, but the unitary bond, the formation of one flesh, sex as an expression, the primary expression, of erotic love.  Hence wife goggles.   And because a ship must have one captain, because raising children requires a single household, sex is also an expression of female submission and male domination.  More so for women than for men.  Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination.   Hence men look at women’s boobs while women shit test men.  Women want to be taken, want to be commanded to submit to sex.  They really hate this affirmative consent stuff.

If one household, then husband has sex whenever he feels like.  If husband begs wife for permission every night, not one flesh, hence not a safe environment to raise children, hence women do not really like it. Moment to moment consent is a shit test.  Women demand it, but if they get it, they really hate it.

If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex.  Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond.   A safe place to raise children in.  They both want it and neither can get it.

The type of relationship women need is illegal, not because women didn’t like it, but because they think they don’t like it. They struggle against it, but that is to test the strength of the husband, not because they actually don’t like it.  They think they don’t like it so that they will only submit to a worthy man, but under current rules, no man is worthy.

Women were not fooled on manipulated into asking for this.  It is what they really asked for, and what they think they really want. It is in the nature of a woman to rebel against a man.  But if she successfully rebels, she loses interest in that man.  He completely ceases to exist for her.  She forgets that he ever existed.

So women only see men that dominate them and push them around, they are completely blind to the current American reality where women walk over men all the time as if they were carpets. Hence the common complaint that men continually interrupt, talk over, and ignore women, when in fact it is the other way around.

If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.

If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.

If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.

If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.

On stopping power

Sunday, August 14th, 2016

Ellifritz studied 1800 actual gunfights.

His study produced the seemingly absurd conclusion that the handgun most effective in stopping people, in resolving a gunfight to the shooters satisfaction, was by many reasonable measures the .22, a conclusion he was profoundly reluctant to accept.

Now obviously if you do a Mythbuster type experiment, put the gun in a vice, aim it at a block of gelatine, any other handgun will do a whole lot more damage to the gelatine than a .22, and by some reasonable measures the heavier bullets were more effective – but if you want a one shot stop, .22 is head and shoulders above the rest.

So what might be different when it is man on man?

Well consider the most studied combat of recent times. Zimmerman shooting Martin. Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head onto the concrete, Zimmerman killed Martin with one shot directly through the heart. Obviously what mattered was not the gun but the man. What mattered was that Zimmerman was so well practiced he could put his bullet on target while blind and severely distracted.

Now, what is the cartridge that people practice with the most?

It is the .22 LR.

Thus the most likely explanation for Ellifritz’s seemingly absurd results is that stopping power depends on practice a whole lot more than it depends on the gun or the cartridge. So you should buy the gun you are most comfortable practicing with and have the most fun practicing with.

I would interpret his results as indicating that there were a higher proportion of expert shooters wielding a .22, hence the large number of one shot stops and deadly shootings, but that .22 was significantly less effective in the hands of a inexpert shooter who relies on spray and pray.

Common Core Explained

Friday, August 12th, 2016


Problem: If you try to teach children reading, writing, and arithmetic, People of Color will underperform. Thus teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic has disparate impact.

Solution: Yo Stop teaching dem dat racist whitey sheeit what ‘chew thinkin’ man?

A child who has been educated with common core is a child who cannot do maths, cannot spell correctly, nor write grammatically. He is cut off from the past two thousand years of civilization.

Mean, median, and chastity enforcement.

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016

Men are polygynous. Women are serially monogamous. Women are hypergamous.

It follows that the mean number of sexual partners a man has will always be enormously larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

The mean number of sexual partners a woman has is necessarily equal to the mean number of sexual partners a man has.

It follows that the median number of sexual partners a woman has will always be larger than the median number of sexual partners a man has.

Hence the necessity in patriarchal societies of using extraordinary and disturbingly drastic means to enforce female chastity, aka double standard. Or, equivalently, eggs are precious, sperm is cheap.

Fertility and corporal punishment

Sunday, July 31st, 2016

To 1933, wives in movies are never spanked by their husbands.

From 1933 to 1945, wives in movies are sometimes spanked, but it is shocking, unexpected and unusual.

From 1945 to 1963, wives in movies and on television are sometimes spanked and it is routine, respectable, and usual. For example in “I love Lucy” we are never shown a spanking on screen, but Lucy is regularly very afraid of receiving a well deserved spanking for her many amusing misdeeds.

In the Western “McLintock” the authority figure, representing virtue, middle class respectability, and normality, unambiguously endorses the husband beating the wife severely for gross misbehavior, with a small coal shovel.

From 1945 to 1963, appropriate and proportionate corporal punishment of wives is depicted as normal, proper, appropriate, expected, and respectable. As in McLintock, it is what respectable middle class husbands do ensure that their wives and families behave in a respectably middle class manner – since women, unless restrained, have a not at all middle class preference for drama.

This had a dramatic effect on marriage and fertility in the US, almost as spectacular as the disastrous fall in fertility that ensued when McArthur emancipated Japanese women. Marriage went up, fertility went up.

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

USA fertility and corporal punishment of wives

We see a significant rise in fertility when spanking starts being depicted, and massive rise in fertility when it starts being depicted as normal. When spanking stops being depicted as normal, stops being depicted at all, soon followed by a massive demonization of men who rule their families and a hate fest against them, which is to say, against marriage and husbands, as marriage was traditionally understood, fertility drops like a stone, as spectacularly as when women were emancipated in Japan.

The high high fertility period was the gap between first wave feminism (Amelia Earhart getting a ticker tape parade for being transported across the Atlantic by a man like a sack of potatoes) and second wave feminism.

During that period it once again became socially acceptable to refuse to hire women for jobs for which they are inherently unfit, and once again became socially acceptable to spank one’s wife (McLintock). During that period women were once again expected to aspire to becoming wives and mothers, rather than despise that role.

Before 1933, no corporal punishment of wives depicted in Hollywood. 1933 to 1945 portrayed as shocking and unexpected, though not necessarily wrong. It is often justified in the context of the movie, but it is also depicted as the act of an outlaw – illegal but romantic.

We first see corporal discipline of one’s wife (spanking) portrayed in the media as normal, legal, proper, and socially acceptable in 1945, and fertility abruptly rises, and this depiction continues to 1963. whereupon it abruptly, suddenly, and totally stops – and fertility starts falling.

As the MRAs argue, feminism has artificially raised female status above male status. When a man and a woman walk in opposite directions down the corridor, the man gives way and the woman walks right down the middle of the corridor. Women continually interrupt men with impunity. (Perhaps the reason I am not totally unsuccessful with women despite being old, fat, and bald is that I am competing with the likes of Scott Alexander.)

But the MRA demand, actual equality, feminism done right, is obviously absurd and unworkable, because of the obvious inferiority of women in the male sphere. (Obviously women are superior in the female sphere, such as babies, home, housework, and finding my car keys.)

Thus, for example, no one really expects women to bear the costs of their own decisions, because women really should not be making those kind of decisions unsupervised. Thus “equality” in practice means women make decisions and men pay the costs of those decisions.

So what we have to sell is the principle of patriarchy – that women should be ruled by fathers or husbands, that men really are superior, that women should give way and should not interrupt. All women should be deferential to all men, but should obey those men and only those men who are committed to care for them.

And we have to reject and dismiss consent culture. Consent does not make sex right, nor lack of consent make sex wrong. Moment to moment consent is bad for everyone, and particularly bad for women. Women lack agency in sexual matters, making “rape” ill defined. The concept maps poorly to real life situations. “Rape” used to mean dating a woman without the consent of parent or guardian, irrespective of how she felt about it, or whether you physically had sex with her. We did not really have a word or concept for what we are now calling rape until the late eighteenth century or so.

The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible, because the word is difficult to fit to real life events.

I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

Thus, for example, Scott Alexander’s girlfriend consented to sex with lots of people, not including Scott Alexander, felt bad about it, felt that a gay man could do what she did without feeling bad about it or making Scott feel bad about it, so proceeded to surgically disfigure herself and declare herself to be a gay man. Clearly she would be much better off had she received a few severe spankings followed by some nonconsensual sex from Scott Alexander.

The population collapse is nothing to do with automation etc, since emancipated women in poverty stricken third world countries reproduce even less.

It simply a matter of whether or not men and women can enforceably contract with each other to durably form patriarchal families. If they can, total fertility per woman is around six or seven. If they cannot, total fertility per woman substantially less than replacement. If something in between (as for example the fifties when marriage as traditionally understood was illegal, but was nonetheless depicted on television as normal, normative, and respectable) then the fertility rate is something in between. The economy makes scarcely any difference, short of outright famine and hard Malthusian limits.

Timor Leste proves that if men have the opportunity to be patriarchs, they will not let poverty stop them. They will do whatever it takes.

Back in the fifties, when spanking was respectable, employers tended to advertise for married men, because they expected married men to be more highly motivated.

So we set up society so that prosocial behavior, reasonable competence, upholding order, and a bit of hard work pretty much guarantees a man will become a patriarch, and lo and behold, we will get prosocial behavior, order, hard work, and lots of well brought up children.

If, however you deny men the opportunity to become patriarchs, they hang out in their mother’s basements and watch cartoon porn, regardless of whether their society is rich or poor.

If patriarchy is the law of the land and I have a legal path to be a patriarch but no job, I can find a job, or create one, or scrape up a living somehow. If patriarchy is outlawed and I am legally prohibited from being a patriarch, I will be receptive to the life of the outlaw, the life of the bum, the vagrant, or hanging out in my mother’s basement. Jobs are not the problem. The lack of a reason to get a job is the problem.

If you look at high fertility and low fertility times and places, the factor that massively outweighs absolutely everything else by far, is whether or not a man and a woman can make a deal to form one household and have babies and expect their partner to be forced to stick to it. Patriarchy is necessary for this, since one household must have one captain, but patriarchy is in itself insufficient – the woman also needs protection that her children will neither be torn away from her, nor will she and they be abandoned by their father. The deal has to guarantee both the authority of the husband over his wife and children and the economic and emotional security of the wife and children, has to guarantee the father and husband obedience and respect, and the wife and children that they will be protected and looked after.

Reality is that wherever and whenever men have the option to be a patriarch, the overwhelming majority of men gladly make whatever sacrifice necessary to attain that role, even if extremely poor.

Hookers are only a marginal improvement over masturbation. What progressives offer men is just not what most men want, as revealed by men’s actions.

Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized and damaged.

It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

The criminalization of patriarchy was the criminalization of the deepest and most powerful need of white men.

The next big thing in progressivism

Saturday, July 30th, 2016

Recently there was ass bandits. Then there was transgender.

For a while it looked liked the next big thing would be pedophobia – the “anti bullying” campaign sought to protect pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who had physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males from being “bullied” and sought to normalize pre pubescent children of ambiguous sex who have physically affectionate relationships with obviously homosexual middle aged males.

But no, it is clear that the next big thing is not pedophobia but killing white heterosexual males.

Ann Coulter reminds us:

as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.

In this regard, I notice that six of the nine “Mothers of the Movement” have different last names from their snowflakes. The children with the same names as their mothers were the two who were gunned down by black gangs, as well as one schizophrenic, who, unfortunately, had grabbed an officer’s baton and was hitting him with it when he got himself shot.

Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are false

Thursday, July 28th, 2016

Follows from the poster girl principle. If poster girls suck then every other girl sucks as badly or worse. For example for example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists. Emmett Till was not lynched, nor killed for whistling at a white woman, therefore there are no examples of blacks being lynched in an obviously unjust fashion, or with reckless disregard for justice.

Earlier I posted this argument, but the early version neglects to mention the internal evidence from the Rolling Stone editors that they knew their rape story was unlikely to be true, went looking for something better, could not find it.

In 2015 Rolling Stone issued an apology for their “Rape on Campus” story. Their investigating reporter saw lots of red flags, that would have convinced any reasonable person that the rape accusation was false, and that going ahead with the story was likely to blow up in their faces, but they decided to go ahead with the story anyway. Deep within the apology there is a guilty line that I missed the first time around, and everyone seemingly missed. After encountering lots of horrid red flags that made it glaringly obvious that it was a really bad idea to pursue this story, that the complainant was lying through her teeth

That summer, Erdely began interviewing multiple UVA assault survivors.

In other words, there was a whole big pile of University of Virginia “Assault Survivors”, but all their stories sucked even worse than Jackie Coakley’s story, so they wound up going with Jackie Coakley’s story for lack of anything better. They were determined to do a rape on campus story about evil white males. They knew, consciously or subconsciously, that the story they had was false, but despite looking around, despite having lots of other “Assault Survivors”, could not find anything better.

In the “Rape on Campus” story Jackie Coakley, the supposed rape victim, lied to the reporter Erdeley, and it rapidly became obvious that she was lying. Erdeley lied to her editors, and her editors lied to the readers. The editors falsely led the reader to believe that Ryan Duffin, the love interest that Jackie Coakley was catfishing with her rape story, had been interviewed, thereby making the story seem as if it had not come from a single source, that Jackie Coakley’s story had supposedly been checked with the other people supposedly involved in that story. That the editors lied indicates mens rea, that they knew this was a mighty weak story and needed some creativity to make it seemingly credible.

In the original story Rolling Stone tells us:

a “shitshow” predicted by her now-former friend Randall, who, citing his loyalty to his own frat, declined to be interviewed.

Implying that they sought out witnesses and encountered the male wall of solidarity protecting rapists and penalizing rape victims. In actual fact, the editors knew full well that “Randal” (real name Ryan Duffin, the man that Jackie Coakley was catfishing in an unsuccessful campaign to get him to sleep with her) had not declined to be interviewed, because they had not attempted to interview him. Had they attempted to interview him, would have learned much that was inconsistent with Jackie Coakley’s story.

The magazine knew from the beginning that Jackie Coakley’s story was not credible, went looking for someone with a more credible story, decided to stick with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, rape complainants with a more credible story than Jackie Coakley are rare or nonexistent.

This is the same argument I made previously, but this time with internal evidence from the magazine that they knew their story was weak and went looking for something better.

At the time of the article, the University of Virginia had not expelled a single student for sexual assault, therefore if any of these “Assault Survivors” were credible, they would be telling pretty much the same story as Jackie Coakley. Therefore, every single one of them was even less credible than Jackie Coakley, and we can see the mens rea that the editors knew that Jackie Coakley was not credible.

Scott Alexander argues against the poster girl principle that maybe there are lots of real rapes, and the person gets convicted, so, no big deal, that the reason that fictitious campus rapes gets reported is because some people doubt their reality, therefore no prosecution, therefore controversy. So, because of controversy, we hear false rape allegations widely reported and fail to hear real rape allegations, because they get dealt with efficiently. But, until the story, no expulsions for sexual assault from the University of Virginia, and yet lots of “Sexual Assault survivors”. So either the university was letting people get away with rape, or else all the “sexual assault survivors” are lying. And, since Jackie Coakley was what the Rolling Stone ultimately ran with despite knowing their story was weak and looking for something better, all the “sexual assault survivors” at Virginia were lying even more blatantly than Jackie Coakley. Rolling Stone was looking for a more credible story, looked at all the other “sexual assault survivors”, did not find what it was looking for.

Rolling Stone tells us that in the previous year at Virginia University, their had been 38 complaints of sexual assault.

of those 38, only nine resulted in “complaints”; the other 29 students evaporated. Of those nine complaints, four resulted in Sexual Misconduct Board hearings.

None of these four resulted in anyone being expelled for assault.

So, either the University is blowing off real sexual assaults, or thirty eight of thirty eight complaints of sexual assault were flagrantly bogus.

And if any of those thirty eight complaints were not flagrantly bogus, Rolling stone would surely have gone with that one instead of, or as well as, the one they did go with.

Patriarchy and fertility

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

We observe high fertility in those nations and cultures where patriarchy is legally and socially enforced, in particular Muslim Afghanistan and Christian Timor Leste. Affordability of family formation has little effect. Clearly males in patriarchal societies are highly motivated to have children. They will do whatever it takes so that they can afford a family.

Thus, if pro social behavior in a patriarchal society is rewarded by a wife and the ability to support a family, you get highly motivated workers and soldiers.

Some people have argued that this observation is psychologically unreasonable “The guys I know don’t want children”

Henry Dampier explains why males in our society don’t want children in his 2015 article “Why no one wants to be a patriarch”

If you want men to join the legions, you make it so that the clearest path to power for a typical man will be to join up with the legions, serve his time, and then marry and be fruitful on his plot of land. If you want men to form households, you given them rights over those households and the families that issue from them. …

… Men lost the right to use legal force against their wives and children in stages. …

… the disciplining doesn’t really go away from society. The switch is just passed on from the father to the policeman and the schoolmaster. The state’s hirelings retain the right to discipline children, although wives tend to be permitted to run wild, especially nowadays, restrained only by their desires and sense of self-interest.

The disciplining also changes from spanking to drugging, often heavy drugging of untested chemicals onto children. …

The reason why no one wants to be a patriarch today is that patriarchs have no more legal authority. They have no formal power over their wives or children. They only have influence. Influence is both fickle and distinct from power. When a child misbehaves in the modern world, there are only a few paths that a parent can take. They can verbally discipline the child (more likely to work in a higher-class household than a lower-class one), they can illegally or semi-legally beat them, they can take them to a psychiatric professional of some kind, or they can feed the kid to the justice system. Schools have their own corrections systems of varying levels of effectiveness.

Further, paternal heads of household can be deprived of their assets and children at any time at the arbitrary whim of their wives. The wife can commit adultery, and the man can still lose his property in the ensuing divorce. The children and the wife alike can be wildly disrespectful to the head of household, and the man has no recourse other than whining.

I was the boss of my family and I found being a patriarch and having children hugely rewarding. But then I am a grade A asshole, and I am not afraid to commit illegal acts, though I tend to consult lawyers on ways to weasel out or buy my way out if caught, before I commit them. It is hard to be a patriarch if you are a nice guy, or if you have respect for law and social pressure, because marriages on the Pauline model are illegal, being marital rape and psychological abuse. Marriage as it has been understood for thousands of years is illegal and criminal, so of course the population is collapsing. Workable families are similarly illegal. Indeed, these days any sexual interaction with women is illegal with the notable exception of hiring whores and escorts – whores, escorts, and porn stars being the only women who are likely to give you explicit verbal consent moment to moment.

Extrapolating my subjective experience, and the subjective experience depicted by Henry Dampier, fully explains observed fertility patterns, for example the very spectacular collapse of Japanese fertility.

People don’t want children as assets. Never have, never will. If you think we can modify fertility with the tax system read Luke 15:11-32 and 2 Samuel 15:2 – 19:6 to gain an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

The problem is that children can be taken away from a man and used as hostages against him. That is why men do not want children.

Marriage and family is outlawed, thus only outlaws have wives and families.

Western Civilization

Thursday, July 21st, 2016

Western civilization is a bunch of things that tend to come together.

Christianity (forget that “Judeo Christian” crap, Judaism still has the problems Jesus complained about)

Classic Greek art, culture and philosophy (hey, compare our comic books with Greek statues, then compare with Indian statues or Japanese comic books, and no one except us and the Greeks does philosophy)

Western music descended from seventeenth and early eighteenth century composers, in particular and especially Bach. If you are fan of country and western, or Elvis, or whatever, it still a lot more like Bach than it is like anyone else’s music, except, like the Japanese, they have adopted western music. Indeed pretty much everyone has adopted western music, but they are all imitators and continue to be imitators. Note how much Engrish there is in East Asian pop music. Any music you hear is derived from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from someone, who derived it from Bach, and classic western music, such as the concert the Russians put on in Palmyra to remind us that the west was victorious, is that western music that is most directly derived from Bach. I think Handel is better than Bach, but everyone in the west winds up copying Bach even if they are punk rockers who do not know they are copying Bach, and pretty much everyone in the world winds up copying the west.

Science: The first statement of the scientific method comes from Roger Bacon, who proceeded to do a great deal of scientific research starting in 1247. Science really got going with the Royal Society in 1660. The King made science high status, so wealthy gentlemen proceeded to engage in or sponsor science, and the pirates who were conquering what became the British empire, who aspired to become wealthy respectable gentlemen, would sometimes take a break from shaking down Sultans for bloodstained gold to do scientific research. The best thing the Royal Society did was define the scientific method, give status to anyone who applied it successfully, and, more importantly deny status to those who falsely claimed to be applying it. When the Royal Society was subordinated to Harvard after World War II. no one with authority defined or enforced the scientific method, and these days the name of science is generally invoked by those who seek to restore the demon haunted dark, global warmerers and the like
Worshipper of the demon haunted dark:

Every year 47 million species go extinct

Fan of what used to be the scientific method

Name one that went extinct in the last few years

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives seventeen impeccably authoritative citations.
Fan of what used to be the scientific method

None of these name or describe a species that went extinct in the last few years.

Worshipper of the demon haunted dark gives twenty three more impeccably authoritative citations.

Enlightenment “Rationalism”. Enlightenment rationalism transliterates Christian beliefs about the next world, where they can never be disproven, into this world, where they are demonstrably false, which is the opposite of rationalism. For example “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The Enlightenment was western civilization taking a very bad turn, which may well be the end of us all. The scientific revolution gets identified as part of the enlightenment, but this is like Marxists telling us that Marxism is scientific socialism. Science predates the enlightenment in that science got started around 1247, and the enlightenment around 1750. The high period of science, 1660 to 1945, occurred during the enlightenment, but was caused by the reaction, not the enlightenment, in that King Charles gave the Royal Society status, and the Royal Society gave science and the scientific method status. If Western civilization is to survive, the Enlightenment must be thoroughly purged and erased. Eradicating the enlightenment make make restoring Christianity necessary and possible, but the urgent necessity is the thorough and complete erasure of the enlightenment. Western civilization cannot survive the enlightenment.

Adam Smith and capitalism. Adam Smith showed that capitalism, done right, channels impulses that can be immoral and destructive, into ends that are moral and constructive. Thus, Western Civilization is inherently capitalist, and National Socialism is stupid, not because racist, but because socialist. The ten commandments consist of four that deal with God, thereby defining the adherents as a different and separate people, and six that prescribe how to deal with one’s fellow man, and in those six the rule against covetousness is the rule that is particularly and specially emphasized. Covetousness is wanting that which is someone else’s. If you see someone’s pretty wife, and think, I should have her, he treats her badly, he does not appreciate her as I appreciate her, he is too old and ugly for her, if I were to sneakily kill him and take her, she would be happier with me”, that is covetousness. If you think “Perhaps she has a younger sister who is still single”, that is not covetousness. And similarly, if you look at a rich man and think “He got his wealth by doing bad things, so he deserves to be punished by me taking away his wealth and having it myself”, that is covetousness. If, instead, you inquire how he got rich, and think about what you could do similarly, that is not covetousness. Adam Smith explained why the latter approach is usually more appropriate to wealth. Whenever you think of excessively clever rationales why the excessively fortunate do not deserve what they have, and should be deprived of it, that is covetousness, and civilizations end when the mob is empowered to give effect to covetousness.

It is plausible to argue that the key element of Western Civilization, the killer app, was the rule of law, laws that Kings had to obey, and yet, there is something wrong with this story, in that the law in England began as common law, which was not law centric, but judge centric, and the judges were, pretty much, local aristocrats, and local aristocrats pretty much did what they wanted, so the common law was not literal law written down as laws, but generalizations made by lawyers about the common moral culture of the aristocrats. So distributed power, limits on the power of kings, gave rise to laws that kings had to obey, not the other way around. A key feature of Western civilization is that it has always had a lot of nation states, and these nation states tended to have within them subsidiarity, many dispersed powerful people, rather than one king, or one all powerful bureaucracy. This gave rise to competition that mostly peaceful, though far from entirely peaceful, and the from this competition, the best tended to win, and be imitated, and worst tended to lose, and be ignored or replaced It was not the rule of law, but rather the rule of law was one of the consequences of subsidiarity, of mostly peaceful competition between powerful people and groups. The overwhelming dominance of the Cathedral over a multitude of nominally independent nation states, and the centralization of each of these nation states means that madness goes unchallenged. Doctrine goes out from Harvard, and goes unchallenged by reality. Competition made the west great, and real competition has been silenced. The megacities grow because winners and losers are not made by the market, but by government. Housing is expensive because everyone needs to be close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is close to the man who is in the revolving door between regulators and regulated. Decentralization of nation states is difficult and hard to define. Independence of nation states is easier to define and easier to attain, hence the neoreactionary position that there need to be more nation states, and those nation states independent. When we have more nation states, and more independence for them, then perhaps will be able to look at them and say what constitutes decentralization.

Separation of Church and State has failed catastrophically.

Sunday, July 10th, 2016

Same problem as anarcho capitalism. The vacuum is apt to be filled. And today it is filled with an official government belief system that daily becomes more extreme, and is enforced more coercively.

In retrospect it is clear that in England the demand to disestablish the Anglican Church came from a competing religion, then called Evangelism, descended from Puritanism, which was already most of the way to becoming the state religion of England though it continually changed its name in the process.

The history of official religion in the US is more complex. When the United States was many separate states with a common defense and a common foreign policy, back when people said “The United States are” rather than “The United States is” there was absolutely no separation of Church and State, for each state had its own state religion, and the seminary of the state religion of Massachusetts, charged with promoting and enforcing the state religion, was Harvard.

After the English restoration the religion of New England became aggressive, political, this worldly, and bent on conquest and domination. They forever resented the English restoration which had disempowered them and purged them from lucrative positions in the Church of England and in the English government. Whig history began as their plan for reconquering England and the world.

The state Church of Massachusetts was state church of New England, and New England set up its Rome, its Papacy, in Massachussetts. The civil war and the Mormon war was New England conquering America – and then, following the civil war, denied it was a religious institution and proceeded to apply the doctrine of “separation of Church and state” as a very thin coat of white wash over the state religion of Massachusetts being enforced on everyone in America. And after World War II, everyone in the world, except those protected by nuclear weapons, Russia and China. There is a direct correlation between one’s alma mater’s proximity to the Boston-NYC-DC corridor and the height of one’s position in the government and ruling class of one’s country. Outside of Russia and China the only substantial resistance comes from Muslims. If you are Muslim a tranny nonetheless wins your song contest, your universities are run from Harvard, two thirds of the youngsters attending university are women due to affirmative action for women, and shortly after they attend university they find themselves covered in semen from head to foot and are told that they are liberated. Approximately half of all Muslims are moderate Muslims, and if you are a moderate Muslim you support the gay parades, you have only one wife in the event you have a wife, and if you do get married you will probably marry a women nearing the end of her fertile years, and are failing to reproduce. Immoderate Muslims, most of whom support Islamic state or some faction equally violent, are getting laid, marrying young women in their most fertile years, and having numerous children.

Ann Coulter famously said “Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”. Predictably, the US government adopted a policy of killing their leaders and converting them to progressivism, which policy is not entirely failing, but is having considerably less success and more serious problems than admitted. Conversion to progressivism is not keeping up with rate at which real Muslims, the ones that make women submit to their husbands, breed.

By and large, I tend to focus on power at the bottom – that women interrupt their boss tells me that they are hired for reasons other than their contribution to profit, that businesses are forced or morally pressured to hire women, and then stuff them into parts of the business where they cannot do too much immediate damage. Blacks walk down the street like aristocrats, taking up lots of space, while white males walk like serfs.

I also write a lot about female sexual preferences. Sexual selection, female choice, results in a positive feedback cycle, hence the peacock’s tail. I expect my readers, unlike Harvard alumni and Word Bank economists, to know the difference between positive feedback and negative feedback, to, unlike the typical Harvard alumunus, understand why the peacock’s tail is a really bad thing for peacocks, and to know that positive feedback is apt to have extremely bad consequences, and almost always needs to be broken and disconnected in the most direct way possible.

But this post is about power at the top. It is, however, also about my favorite topic: Positive feedback loops. And if you did not get that the peacocks tail is a manifestation of a positive feedback loop and that the peacock’s tail shows that women should never have been emancipated, do some homework before commenting. Seems that these days all they teach in university is how to hate white males, even if your degree is nominally in computer science. If your degree is in computer science, you damn well should know what a positive feedback loop is and why it is a bad thing.

During the reign of Charles the First of England, there was a remarkable outbreak of holiness. By and large, the holiest people tended to get the preaching jobs in the Church of England, and, since there was not a whole lot of entertainment and social events other than going to church, they persuaded other people to be holy.

To some extent this holiness was genuine and sincere. On the other hand, since Church of England jobs had good pay and status, it was to some extent pharisaical, and became increasingly pharisaical. And this pharisaical holiness started to increasingly resemble nineteenth century leftism, alarming the King, so Charles the First set to appointing Bishops that opposed and suppressed left wing pharisaism – or perhaps Bishops that, like Charles himself, enjoyed a good time and were not particularly holy. And this led to civil war, which the exceedingly holy won.

And pretty soon each candidate for office was even holier than each of the other candidates.

And pretty soon pharisaical holiness developed a striking resemblance to twentieth century leftism, the twentieth century labor movement and the hippies, Which alarmed Oliver Cromwell, who, like Stalin, found himself outflanked on his left, so he cracked down on it, a good deal more vigorously and more successfully than Charles the first did. Cromwell is both a villain to reactionaries, for executing a great King, and a hero to reactionaries, for putting a stop to leftism, and for equipping General Monck with a praetorian guard, the Coldstream guards.

Cromwell’s leftism did not go all the way to twenty first century leftism and celebrate sodomy, but the wind was blowing that way, as men ever more holy had to denounce yesterday’s holiness. The war on Christmas and the war on Marriage began under Cromwell, foreshadowing the twenty first century celebration of sodomy.

After Cromwell died, General Monck staged a coup, and to this day the Coldstream Guards, who were originally his praetorians, guard parliament. General Monck restored the monarchy, and the monarchy, Charles the Second, purged puritans from state institutions, including the Church of England.

This pissed off the puritans no end. Charles attempted to purge New England’s ruling institutions, but whereas puritans were unpopular in England, pretty much everyone in New England was a puritan, and the puritans eventually regained power in New England by a revolt that England let slide, and eventually legalized.

And having regained power, they proceeded to get holier and holier, until they were holier than Jesus (abolitionism and prohibition). And here we are.