Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

Muslim predation in Rotheram

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

In the not very large Yorkshire town of Rotheram, population two hundred fifty thousand, about fourteen hundred girls, almost all of them non Muslims, were subjected to “appalling sexual exploitation” by Muslims.  It seems likely this problem exists at similar levels throughout much of England.

Reading the report, it seems that slutty children, and the slutty families of slutty children (typically single and divorced women) were subject to extreme coercion and frequent deadly threats by Islam and individual Muslims to force them to sexually service Muslims.  The authorities were unwilling to protect them.

Chaste girls belonging to intact Christian families were not.

Again and again in the report, we read that abduction notices were issued, but no one was convicted, implying that a very large number of girls were abducted, and these abductions went unpunished and generally uninvestigated, presumably because the authorities were scared of Muslims.

In two cases of the sixty six cases that were sampled of fourteen hundred cases:

fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene.

Assuming the sample of sixty six is representative, that means that in about forty cases in Rotheram fathers attempted to protect their daughters, and were arrested.

We are not told whether these fathers had already been removed from their families, but given the highly selective nature of Muslim predation depicted in the report, seems likely.

It looks that Muslims in Rotheram are, like Boko Haram, upholding the social order that progressives are destroying, but upholding it in a way that advantages Muslims and disadvantages non Muslims by predating on Christians.

Supposedly black Egypt

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

Lately a lot of progressive blacks have complained that Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus” is racist for depicting Egyptians as Egyptian and Hebrews as white.  They want them all to be depicted black.

Ancient Egyptians in their art depict themselves as yellowish brown, somewhat arab looking, pretty similar to the way pharaoh is depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie.  They depict blacks as black, with exaggerated negro features, and show them in demeaning roles as criminals, slaves, and servants, pretty much as they are depicted in Ridley Scotts movie, and they depict whites as white, and as wearing costumes somewhat similar to those worn by the Hebrews in Ridley Scott’s movie.

Egyptian art depicts Egyptians on the one hand and Nubians and other blacks on the other hand with distinctly different ethnic characteristics and depicted this abundantly and often aggressively. The Egyptians accurately, arrogantly and aggressively made national and ethnic distinctions from a very early date in their art and literature

In Egyptian art and writing from around the time that the Hebrews are said to have left Egypt, blacks are slaves, servants, and criminals, whites are invaders and colonialists.

They viewed people who originate from the middle east, from west asia as the Hebrews did, as white and aryan, like the Hyksos, which fits with various records that back in those days, towards the end of the bronze age, west asia was full of aryan whites.  The Iranians and the Kurds were originally Aryan, are today browner than the Jews.  The Kurds recall their ancestors as fair skinned and fair haired, so likely the Hebrews were fair skinned and red headed.

Ridley Scott’s casting and costumes are largely lifted from ancient Egyptian art depicting themselves – a yellowish brown people very different from negroes, but nonetheless not exactly white either.

It is a historical fact that Egypt at the time that Moses is believed to have lived was racially much as it is now – a generally upper class white minority, a poor and frequently criminal black minority underclass, and a brownish majority that have and had  approximately modern Egyptian skin color, despise blacks, and were suspicious of whites.

From time to time Egypt gets conquered by whites. From time to time those whites import black slaves. And so, most of the time, Egypt is brownish with a white minority and a black minority, as it is today.

For example we see in an ancient Egyptian painting three black criminals or runaway slaves who have just been arrested and subdued by three white, or possibly light brown, cops.

And that is the way Ridley Scott depicts Egypt.

At the time of Joseph, Egypt had been conquered by the Hyksos, who were fair skinned, red headed, very possibly Aryans, and possibly Hebrews, and most likely a people closely related to Hebrews, which suggests that the Hebrews of that time were fair skinned, frequently red headed, and very possibly Aryans.

So, assuming Joseph was a real person, or based on a real person, the pharaoh that favored Joseph was white, quite likely Aryan, and so, quite likely, similarly Joseph.

So, entirely reasonable, on the basis of history and historical descriptions of the Hyksos, and on the basis of Egyptian art, to depict the Hebrews as whites.

The Egyptians perceived people who came from the east (west Asia, the middle east) and lived in tents as the same race as the Hyksos, so presumably perceived Joseph and Moses as white and Aryan, as Moses is depicted in the movie.

At the time of Moses, Hyksos rule had collapsed, bronze age civilization was in severe decline, and Egypt was ruled, as depicted in Ridley Scott’s movie “Exodus”, by brownish people with approximately modern Egyptian skin color – the pharaoh that “Knew not Joseph”.

Egypt was, if we believe the “Admonitions of Ipuwer”, at the time suffering from leftism, high levels of violence, lack of secure property rights, severe social decline, rioting, arson, severe family breakdown, female emancipation, and disastrous levels of political correctness. If we believe the Pentateuch it was also suffering from socialism. In short, not so different from Egypt today and the Arab world today, though with considerably worse family values, the then fall of the Hyksos paralleling today’s recent retreat of colonialism.

We have archaeological evidence of the collapse of Bronze age civilization not long after Ipuwer’s time, so I am inclined to interpret Ipuwer as describing real and contemporary events, as he claims to be doing, though some people argue he is just telling a morally improving story about long long ago and far far far away.

Ipuwer reports that foreign trade had collapsed.  We have archaeological evidence that foreign trade did indeed collapse at about that time, so Ipuwer is probably reporting real events.

Due to infanticide and “barrenness” (which I conjecture was the result of contraception, abortion, and non reproductive sex) Egyptians were, according to Ipuwer, failing to reproduce. If we believe the Pentateuch, the Hebrews on the other hand had strong family values, with women and children being property, hence infanticide was for them unimaginable, unintelligible, and absurd. Thus their population would have been growing as the Egyptian population was, according to Ipuwer, collapsing.

Human nature being what it is, the Hebrews would probably be blamed for the social decay that they were not suffering.

There are several parallels between the Pentateuch and the Admonitions of Ipuwer. Assuming Ipuwer’s Admonitions to be true, then the Pentateuch is myth based on real people and real events.

For example the Admonitions and the Pentateuch both say that the river turned to blood.

The Pentateuch says:

17 Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.

18 And the fish that is in the river shall die, and the river shall stink; and the Egyptians shall lothe to drink of the water of the river.

Ipuwer also tells us that the river turned to blood and Egyptians were unwilling to drink the water. But in Ipuwer’s telling the Nile only turned metaphorically and spiritually into blood, because of the vast numbers of wrongfully slain Egyptians dumped in the river, and the many Egyptians who committed suicide in the river, not literally into blood.

According to Ipuwer, the Nile was physically and spiritually polluted by the vast numbers of unburied dead in the river, and was thus unclean in the sense that wrongfully spilt blood is spiritually unclean. The Nile was spiritually turned to blood by natural causes, not literally turned to blood by supernatural causes.  The Pentateuch depicts a miracle, Ipuwer reports social breakdown and civil disorder.

Assuming that the Hebrews had the strong family values depicted in the Pentateuch, the angel of death would have passed over the Hebrews and failed to take their children, not because of any miracle, but because Hebrews, unlike Egyptians, were disinclined to murder their own children.

Similarly, Ipuwer and the Pentateuch both depict a storm of fire over Egypt, but in the context of Ipuwer’s Admonitions, the fire presumably comes from the rioting mob of lower class looters and revolting slaves, not from heaven.

If you really want to, you could read Ipuwer as reporting the Nile literally and miraculously turned to blood, and fire literally and miraculously from heaven, but there is no way to read his report on the death of the children as anything other than entirely unmiraculous social decay and female emancipation. If the death of the children was leftism rather than wrath of God, then the river of blood and the fire was leftism rather than wrath of God.

Or if you really want to you could argue it was all wrath of God punishing the Egyptians for oppressing the Hebrews and for social decay, and Ipuwer is giving a naturalistic non miraculous rationalization of miraculous events, but I find Ipuwer’s account of these events more believable than the Pentateuch version.

And, according to Ipuwer’s Admonitions, people from West Asia who lived in tents were a big problem, undermining social cohesion. Sounds familiar.

So, I conjecture that they would have been blamed for all these happenings. The brownish rulers would have attempted to appease the brownish mob by punishing the white outsiders who lived in tents.  The white outsiders would have made endless concessions, but no concession would suffice, for no concessions would have any effect on the social decay suffered by the brown Egyptians, now incompetently ruling themselves when formerly they had been competently ruled by the white Hyksos, who had now become unwilling and unable to rule. (Bronze age civilization, which is to say white civilization, was suffering general decay.  The Egyptians survived it better than the purer whites.)

Ipuwer calls on Pharoah to expel the foreigners.

And the white outsiders would flee. A familiar story, much repeated since then.

Finding themselves pursued by an Egyptian army the white outsiders would need an leader with complete authority. Likely they would choose a white member of the Egyptian ruling class to lead them, and invent for him the correct ancestry. All that is conjecture of course, but it fits the known facts quite well.  The Pharaoh of the Pentateuch did what Ipuwer in his “Admonitions”called on the Pharaoh to do.  Those whitish outsiders were subverting brownish Egyptian society with the result that Egyptians were doing bad things to each other.

We know that Ridley Scott is correct to depict the pharaoh as brownish Egyptian upper class, and what little we know about the times is consistent with Moses being white Egyptian upper class, as depicted by Ridley Scott in the movie Exodus.

The Spandrellian trichotomy

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014


Technology capitalism: libertarianism

As the left gets ever lefter, it gets every crazier.  Since the libertarian tries to make a separate peace with the left on behalf of capitalism, its craziness necessarily flows into libertarianism.

Libertarians notice that capitalism, in particular the joint stock corporation based on double entry accounting, provides a great, humane, and highly productive system for creating wealth, advancing technological progress, and maximizing liberty. They therefore propose to accept the entire left wing program, only without its anti capitalist elements.  Supposedly the non aggression principle supports all left wing conclusions, except anti capitalism.

Thus a libertarian believes that people should be able to make binding contracts. So a young and naive woman can bind herself to an enormous debt for a PhD in hating dead white males and capitalism, a debt which cannot be expunged by bankruptcy

However, because leftists believe that female sexual autonomy is sacred, therefore has infinite utilitarian weight, absolutely trumping all other human, moral, and utilitarian considerations, a libertarian also believes that that same woman cannot bind herself to always be sexually available to one man, and never to any other, to submit to him, and to bear his children, in return for him protecting her, loving her, looking after her, supervising her, and fathering his children by her.

But it turns out that without the capacity to make a binding contract, it is mighty difficult to reproduce.  It also turns out that the reproductive contract has to be unequal.  A ship cannot have two captains, and neither can a household. (more…)

Arab Spring

Wednesday, August 13th, 2014

The Cathedral, believing itself to be the holiest of them all, unleashed a power struggle in the middle east to be the holiest of them all.

arab spring

At present, their religion is worse than ours, but the appointment of a Caliph, elected for life, may stabilize them, while we continue to drift to ever greater heights of holiness.

Another test of the power of the purse

Saturday, June 21st, 2014

During reign of Obama, attempts by the house of reps to exercise the power of the purse have been universally condemned as ultra extreme far right wing rightingery, and these attempts have invariably failed, rendering the house of reps similar in legal status to the Oklahoma University Student Debating society.

The NSA has been spying on Americans in massive and flagrant violation of the spirit of the fourth amendment, the letter of the fourth amendment, and recent legal interpretation of the fourth amendment by the Supremes. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this, so the house of reps has attempted to use the power of the purse to reign in the NSA in various ways, among them

barred the N.S.A. and the Central Intelligence Agency from using funds in the bill to “request or mandate” that an American corporation alter a product to permit surveillance of it.

Often the NSA has perfectly reasonable and compelling grounds to spy on a particular individual who is using a service of American corporation. The NSA then demands all information about everyone who has ever used this service, but, hey, promises that after all the information has been handed over, will only look at that particular individual for whom they have legitimate grounds and will piously close their eyes to all the other information that they have demanded. Scout’s Honor!

What makes this legislation less impressive is that this is the second time the reps have passed it. Perhaps they going to pass it a third time and add “But this time we really mean it!”

Bitcoin failure

Sunday, June 15th, 2014

For bitcoin to work politically, authority over the currency needs to be distributed over a large group of peers. If power is concentrated at a single point, the state can dominate that point, whoever controls that point can steal other people’s currency and do a variety of bad things.

Bitcoin was designed so that “voting” depended on computing power and network connection. Initially, almost everyone who had a client was a miner, there were a huge number of miners, everyone who used bitcoin had roughly equal influence because they contributed roughly equal computing power to the block chain.

Today, bitcoin is controlled by by a single miner., which was a predictable consequence of bitcoin’s scaling problems.

What we need is a crypto currency which is controlled by the top one hundred or so owners of the currency that are well connected to the net and have adequate computing power, with influence over the currency proportional to the amount of currency that they own, rather than the number of cycles that they burn.

In principle it should be possible to do this using bilinear maps, but the details are a bit tricky, because we have to make sure that manageable number of votes reflects an infinitely divisible currency whose ownership changes continually. So the shares (private and public keys in groups with a bilinear map) have to be reissued frequently, while ownership of the infinitely divisible currency is given value by the fact that if you own a lot of it, you get shares proportional to the amount you own. Since shareholders are people who own a lot of currency, they have an incentive to not misbehave, to continue to reissue shares according to currency ownership and validate transactions according to the rules, since to do otherwise would destroy the value of the currency that they own.

The number of shares remains manageably small, however many people use the currency and however many transactions take place. The shares underlie the value of the currency – and absolutely nothing underlies the value of the shares. Of course we still have other scaling problems, to which I have not figured out a solution except in alarmingly vague outline.

The best of slavery, and the worst of abolitionism

Sunday, June 8th, 2014

Let us compare the best of slavery with the worst of abolitionism.

In the West Indies, free blacks were apt to be re-enslaved: If found with no visible means of support, would be sent to the workhouse, on the assumption that otherwise they would be stealing or starving or very likely both.

The workhouse would then attempt to find owners for them, but often these were blacks with problems. The workhouse would find if they had a former owner, and twist his arm to take them back. If no one suitable wanted them, the workhouse would support them indefinitely on public and private charity.

So the workhouses in the West Indies, or at least some of them, were operating like a no kill pet shelter. Obviously the people operating these believed they were doing good, and had plausible reason to believe they were doing good. The benefactors could see their beneficiaries and look them in the eye. They might well wind up owning a couple of their beneficiaries, as someone operating a no kill pet shelter often winds up with more than his fair share of problem pets.

Let us compare with the holier than thou abolitionists who caused a civil war that killed a large part of the white male population, burned cities to the ground, and created artificial famine.

After the slaves were freed, a significant proportion died, being generally incompetent to look after themselves. The abolitionists, having denied that blacks needed a paternalistic welfare state, were disinclined to provide one, even as the death rate among their supposed beneficiaries rose to quite alarming levels.

After the civil war and abolition, black productivity as freemen was markedly lower than black productivity as slaves, leading to markedly lower material living standards. In part this must have been because of “slave driving” – that slaves were forced to work considerably harder than they would have otherwise been inclined to work, but in part it was because the employer could not trust a black employee to behave well, whereas he could make sure a slave behaved well.

The Christian right – is left.

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

There are few good Christians, darkly enlightened, neoreactionary: Among them are Dalrock and Sunshine Mary. I really am not aware of many others that blog, or used to blog.

If a Christian is to the left of Saint Paul on female subordination or slavery, he is holier than Saint Paul. If holier than Saint Paul, no friends to the right, no enemies to the left.

An atheist reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.

A orthodox Jewish reactionary could have a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves and still be an OK person.

But if a Christian right winger has a position to the left of Saint Paul on women and slaves, then chances are he has no friends to the right and no enemies to the left, which means all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends.

And if no friends to the right, no enemies to the left, can be relied upon to throw his friends to the crocodile in the hope of being last to be eaten.

It is not so much entryism, as that if he disowns Saint Paul, he will disown you also. (more…)

Official Reactionary Position

Sunday, June 1st, 2014

If I meet a tranny in person or on video disguised as a woman, I am apt to vomit. This does not mean that I refrain from text or audio conversation with a tranny. I do, however, refer to trannys as “he” or “him”, and when I hear someone using the other term, it puts me off my food.

A someone who has frequently been nominated for the as yet nonexistent post of Grand Inquisitor of the Neoreaction, I, naturally, endorse the Official Neoreactionary Position.

  1. Talking to, being friends with, showing normal human kindness to a disordered person is not tantamount to:

    a) approving all the free choices that person has made; or
    b) favoring social and/or legal norms that support the person’s disorder; or
    c) joining them in their organization (should it exist); or
    d) inviting them into your organization (should it exist)

  2. If someone wants to purge someone else then show up with an Institution and your name at the top of it, and then there’ll be something to talk about. Until then, all future such attempts to purge are moot, null, damaging, extremely embarrassing, and in very poor taste. This shall be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position.
  3. I shall be the judge of who I can have a drink with. This should henceforth be construed as the Official Neoreactionary Position on this matter.
  4. Men shit-test men all the time. It may or may not be a good and proper thing to do. But who is the worse: the one who constructs the shit-test, or the one who fails it?
  5. It is the Official Neoreactionary Position that falling prey to hysterical over-reaction to a perceived personal attack is a disqualifying defect in a man who would lead other men.

Words that are lies

Saturday, May 31st, 2014

A word should refer to an essence, a natural kind, and normal words do.

Suppose we had a word that referred to roast pork and fried chicken, but not to other foods. This would imply that roast pork and chicken were the same essence, the same natural kind, which of course they are not. So when you have a word that does not refer to a natural kind, that word is a lie – and the lie is usually a lot more hurtful than claiming that pigs are chickens.

For example, a “sweatshop” is entrepreneurship, capital, and low paid labor. Which is no more an essence than entrepreneurship, capital, and tuesdays.

If communists work people to death in the hot sun in twenty hour shifts, seven days a week, and no food, not a sweatshop by definition. If a capitalist builds an air conditioned factory in the third world, and has eight hour shifts, five days a week, but inadequate bathroom breaks, is a sweatshop. This is used to imply that capital, investment, and entrepreneurship makes people worse off, even though it is glaringly obvious that it makes people better off.

This is the lie that kept much of the third world poor for a long time. By definition, capital, investment, and entrepreneurship supposedly makes people poor.

Similarly, with “racism”. Supposedly this means injustice motivated by race, which not a natural kind, nor is it a definition, but rather a hateful smear against white people, accusing white people of being responsible for the underperformance of black people.

Unjust acts motivated by X are not a natural kind, any more than unjust acts on tuesdays are a natural kind. We don’t have a word for unjust acts motivated by sexual jealousy. When someone murders another person to steal his shoes, we do not call the killer “greedy”. An unjust act committed for reasons of race is not a natural kind any more than unjust act committed on a tuesday is a natural kind. We did not have a word that supposedly stands for unjust acts committed for reasons of race until the twentieth century, and we still do not have words for unjust acts committed for reasons of covetousness, or unjust acts committed on a tuesday.

So in practice, no one is ever going to use the words “racism” and “racist” in accordance with the supposed definition, at least not if he hopes to be understood. Rather, it is a hateful word for members of high functioning groups. The supposed definition is merely a hateful smear against members of those groups, in particular and especially against white people, and against certain political beliefs.

The supposed definition is not a definition, but rather a claim that Donald Sterling, by thinking bad thoughts about blacks, caused the bad behavior of which he was thinking, that his thoughts were hurtful and unjust acts. Similarly, the genocide of the Tutsi was supposedly caused by Tutsi racism, not Hutu racism.