Archive for the ‘war’ Category

Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum

Thursday, February 4th, 2016

In war, the stronger party prevails.

Asymmetric warfare only works when the weaker party has political protection.  Perhaps like the Taliban, the weaker party is fighting soldiers required to operate as heavily armed nursemaids.  Perhaps like Mao after the long march or the communists in Greece, the weaker party is launching raids from across a border that the stronger party is reluctant to cross.

The usual scenario where asymmetric warfare works is that the State Department fears the Pentagon more than it fears America’s enemies, and requires US troops to operate by police rules, while those the Pentagon is fighting operate by the laws of war.

When Russia intervened in Syria to rescue their ally and preserve their Mediterranean base, the usual suspects, in particular President Obama announced Russia was getting into a quagmire.  Instead Russia has, as I predicted, been decisively and thoroughly winning, largely through shelling, bombing, blockade, and siege – slow but thorough tactics that deny the weaker party any opportunity to do even a small amount of damage to the stronger.  Less sweat that way than taking strong places by storm.

The Turkish controlled parts of Aleppo and west of Aleppo have now been cut off from Turkey, and are now already conserving food and ammunition.  Short of an open land and air intervention by Turkey, short of open non proxy war between Russia and Turkey, will wither on the vine and fall in a few months.

Russia is also bombing the hell out of Islamic State’s Turkish supply lines, but has as yet made no attempt to cut them off on the ground.  Once Aleppo falls to siege, will probably turn its attention to laying siege to Islamic State.

The current peace talks illustrates asymmetric warfare in a nutshell:  The weaker losing side rather than the stronger winning side is laying down preconditions and making demands, the primary demand being that Russia stop advancing.   In other words, they are asking the State Department to stop the Russians from winning in the same way the State Department has so regularly stopped the Pentagon from winning. The State Department indignantly blames Russia for the failure of the peace talks, which supposedly failed because the weaker side is getting hammered so hard and is suffering so badly.

Women like rapists

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

In the current Muslim invasion of Europe, the invaders continually commit acts that would get a white male a long time in jail and permanent registration as a sex offender, but for the invaders, minor consequences or no consequences.   And you are seeing few if any complaints from women,unlike the extreme hypervigilance against imperceptibly slight micro aggressions by nerds.

A bunch of Swedish males protest about sexual assaults by the invaders against their women.  And Swedish feminists counter protest “We are not your women”

Decoding:  “You are insufficiently manly to grope us, unlike the invaders, we don’t want to be owned by men like you.”

In the manosphere, I see a whole lot of posts hopefully and optimistically proclaiming that all these assaults will show women that they need manly white men to protect them.

we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents.

But women are not reacting that way.  Their reactions shows that to them, all these assaults reveal white men as insufficiently manly, not invaders as dangerously aggressive.  They rather like the invasion, and don’t really want anything effective done to stop the assaults.

Efforts to protect women from sexual assault by the invaders are unappreciated and unwanted.   Such efforts would only be appreciated and wanted if white men claimed and successfully enforced ownership over women, if individual white men claimed and enforced such ownership, with their individual enforcement backed by collective enforcement.

Women love it when a firm and confident claim of ownership leads to successful defense – and rather too much love testing claims of ownership by creating situations where the claim needs defending.  Absent confident and firm ownership claims, do not really like defense very much.

Recall that in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda, after Perseus rescues Andromeda from the dragon, he kills her fiancee, abducts her from her family and marries her.   He rescues her and firmly takes possession.

The Road of our people’s democracy

Monday, February 1st, 2016

In Hungary, and various other soon to be iron curtain countries, free and fair elections were held, which elections the communists completely and totally lost.

Untroubled, they applied pressure to purge the very rightmost people from government. And the very rightmost were purged. And they continued to apply pressure, and the very rightmost remaining were purged. And pretty soon there was no one left except communists. They called this “The Salami Slicer“. The process did not go all the way to infinite leftism and the execution of absolutely everyone, because Stalin had it under top down control, and turned it off once total communist domination had been achieved.

Which is OK, provided that Stalin has sufficient control to prevent those under him from using it against him.

Now lately, social justice warriors have been pushing open source software projects to adopt the following set of rules:

… People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people.…

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Our Responsibilities

Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. …

tl;dr The project agrees to purge the politically incorrect.

Doubting that the politically incorrect need to be purged is, of course compelling evidence that your views are so shockingly right wing that you need to be purged.  Indeed, debates on this issue tend to reveal that practically all of the key contributors are so ultra extreme far right wing that they need to be purged.

Further, although supposedly it is everyone’s responsibility to purge the politically incorrect, obviously ordinary contributors, being mere coders and guilty of white privilege lack the required exquisite sensitivity to subtle slights, so people with the right race, sex, and sexual preferences need to be added to the project to take charge of purging people.

Note that the people pushing this proposal are so excruciatingly sensitive that they consider that the use of terms such as “forking” constitute sexualized imagery.  They find misogyny and racism absolutely everywhere.  Everyone (except themselves) is guilty, and must be punished.

The goal is soft genocide. Unless stopped, the outcome will be hard genocide.

Thursday, January 21st, 2016

You saw that look of absolutely visceral disgust on Angela Merkel’s face when someone handed her the German flag.

I am pretty sure that if an AIDS infested tranny projectile vomited all over her, she would lick it up and think it was chocolate.

That look of visceral disgust tells me that she wants everything that flag stands for destroyed – the German people, the German race, classical music. In her gut she absolutely wants to see German cities destroyed like Detroit was. She wants every German and everything German to die with her when she dies, to be physically erased and absolutely forgotten. She wants the death of every German and the utter destruction of anything memorable that any German ever made.

Why so?

Well, one way of answering this is that a long time back, students campaigning for the supposed achievements of NAMs to be given more attention in universities, sung “Western Civ has got to go” – meaning, or thinking they meant, the course “Western Civilization”

And similarly those calling for “the liquidation of the kulaks as a class” did not at first think they were calling for the liquidation of kulaks as individual human beings.

But in holiness competition, we get the phenomenon that neoreactionaries call “not getting the joke”. If you are going to be selected for loyalty to progressive memes, best take those memes absolutely literally and seriously, since only the truest believers get into the best universities and get the plum jobs. So the next generation of progressives takes the most ridiculous things as holy writ, the more ridiculous the better, since precisely the most stupid, ridiculous and outrageous things will differentiate you from the other applicant to Harvard.

Thus students sing “western civ has got to go” (meaning the course) and not long thereafter, you are not going to make it into the elite unless you believe in your very heart and soul, believe absolutely and utterly, that “western civ has got to go”, meaning the buildings, the books, the art, the science, the technology, and the people.

Another more or less equivalent explanation of this odd henomenon is the laws of majority minority relations

The logical extrapolation of these laws is that if equality, all whites must somehow be made to not be around any more, by some means that no one wants to think too much about, since their continued existence produces inequality. White males keep emitting these evil thoughts that somehow cause dindus and vibrants to underperform.

The methods for making whites somehow not be around any more will inexorably become more vigorous with the passage of time as the white male and married white female voting block gets smaller. (Single white females vote for rape, of course. What did you think they would vote for?)

The trouble with fashism and 1488

Tuesday, January 12th, 2016

It is really great that so many young people are turning fashi, just as it is really great that so many people are turning to Donald Trump.

But Trump and fashism are just yesterdays’s leftism – a leftism that supports the white working class, while progressives piss on the working class.

Long ago, commies and fashi competed for the working class, and it became obvious that the white working class preferred the fashi. And ever since then progressives have hated the working man with the rage of a jilted lover, and suppressed fashism using methods that cast doubt on their claim of democratic legitimacy. If Trump becomes president, it will be delightful to see the fourth estate explode in apoplectic rage.

But sorry. Lower class people are not the solution. They are the problem. Fashism is just another near far alliance, intellectuals with proles, very similar to Trump with proles. It is a white with white alliance, but near far alliance is inherently suicide and treason. It will go wrong in a way that does not involve race replacement, but still involves the destruction of white civilization. If you are fashi, you are still on the slippery slope heading ever leftwards. Recall the last days of the Roman Populares. In their last days, they allied with the Samnites. The Populares, I suppose, probably wanted a Roman Republic in which the subject states, such as the Samnites, were treated fairly. The Samnites wanted to level the walls of Rome and kill all Romans. Kind of like the alliance of progressives with Islamic State.

The trouble with “gas the kikes” is that it presupposes the expropriation of the Jews. And when you expropriate people, you are going to screw up corporate capitalism, which is the foundation of western civilization, the foundation of the scientific and industrial revolutions. People thinking out of covetousness and envy think that if they take that rich guy’s stuff and make him poor, they will be rich, but instead, their neighborhood mysteriously winds up looking as if bombed.

Similarly “Day of the Rope”. You are proposing to hang Havel’s Greengrocer, though all you have to do, rather than hang him, is announce new and different posters for his window. He will put up the new posters, and barely notice that they say the opposite of the old.

“Gas the kikes” and “Day of the rope” are proposals for redistribution and disorder, when what we need is order in place of anarcho tyranny, and an end to redistribution.

Fashism is in large part just 1930s leftism, leftism as it was before the Jews came to dominate leftism. But leftism went to hell not when the Jews got in on it, but when they emancipated women, freed the slaves, raised the age of consent, and banned liquor, all of which they did well before major Jewish involvement. Genealogically, nazism is lutheran descended, progressivism is puritan descended, and communism is judaism descended, but in the 1930s, not so very different. National Socialism was just the New Deal on steroids. Jews that become progressives are conversos, Jews that become communists are heretical Jews.

It is really great that so many young people are turning fashi, and it is really great that so many people are turning to Trump. But the problem is that fashism is insufficiently radical, is just 1930s leftism, when what we need is 1660s restoration. Fashism is a step in the right direction, but far too small a step. Fashi support the white working class, and talk in dumbed down language to them. Western civilization was founded on feudalism and then corporate capitalism, systems that distributed power organically, valorizing and justifying severe inequality, decentralized but hierarchical, orderly but unplanned, systems that glorified and valorized the superiority of the few over the mediocrity of the many.

If you really want to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, “gasing the kikes” is neither necessary nor sufficient. We need higher fertility, and we need eugenic fertility. We need smart women to get husbands and babies instead of PhDs and cats. Lots of babies, instead of lots of cats.

Hence my program “What to do in a restoration“.

What is stopping fertility is that:

* Marriage is not only an unenforceable contract, but the state applies enormous energy and effort to encourage and incentivise women to break the contract.

* That women are indoctrinated with the false life plan, where they pursue their careers while fucking Jeremy Meeks, and marriage and children just somehow spontaneously happens without them actually needing to do anything, while they really have to work hard on their careers, and hard on pleasing Jeremy Meeks.

* Coeducation means that fertile age women spend lots of unsupervised time in the company of men who have no ability to have a family, and no inclination or economic ability to settle down, and do not ordinarily get to meet men who might be able to marry them. By the time they get to work, they have already ridden far too much cock and have become jaded, their bosses are married, and their male co-workers are lower in status than they are.  And the smarter the woman, the more years she spends riding cock in higher education, so the less likely it is she will be able have a family.

* Degree inflation means that young people spend their most fertile years listening to boring propaganda, when they could be working and breeding. Used to be that a school leaving certificate signaled that you were substantially smarter and more industrious than than the average Joe. Then every good-for-nothing moron was awarded a school leaving certificate, and you needed to graduate high school to signal that you were substantially smarter and more industrious than than the average Joe. Then every good-for-nothing moron was graduated from high school, and we have now passed the point where, as the Challenger inquiry revealed, plenty of good-for-nothing morons receive postgraduate degrees from good colleges.  When I was doing job interviews I found plenty of people with degrees in computer science from good colleges, who should never have been allowed to show up for computer science 101, and had been completely wasting their time by attending the computer science course, that with their computer science degree and substantial debt they were no closer to grasping the basics than they had been on the first day.

* Degree inflation makes children impractically expensive, since you have to support them in a good school for twenty three years or so, which often enough somehow turns into thirty years or so. If most kids failed their school leaving certificate when they began puberty and promptly got kicked out of schooling (thus making the school leaving certificate an actually useful qualification and allowing teachers to require children to learn actually useful stuff for the school leaving certificate) then kids would be a profitable investment once again – particularly if the law backed the authority of the father over his male children till 21, and his female children until married or infertile.

* Anarcho tyranny makes housing impractially expensive, since you if you plan to have children you have to buy land somewhere free from dindus and vibrants – and the only allowed way to keep out dindus and vibrants is to for housing to be impractically expensive.

* The anarchy part of anarcho tyranny means you need land in a dindu free area. The tyranny part of anarcho tyranny means the business at which you work needs to be close to the regulatory revolving door, meaning you face a long commute from your expensive suburb into a big city, a far too big city.

Rotherham Syndrome

Sunday, January 10th, 2016

Approximately one thousand vibrants sexually assault two or three hundred white females. Zero arrests.

Thus though white males are legally second class before white females, all whites, including females, are legally second class before vibrants. Two arrests took place a week after the events, but this was a feeble gesture to appease the rioters. Nothing will happen to the two men arrested.

The interesting thing is not that this behavior happened, but that it received, and continues to receive, impunity.

And, similarly, when woman make false rape allegations – against whites, they also get impunity.

Government policy is that white males shall not get their wicks dipped, and vibrants shall get their wicks dipped. The government, and feminists, are super duper sensitive about female consent in some cases, but not others.

Hundreds of women were robbed of identifiable items, such as cards, jewelry, and cell phones. That very few arrests have been made indicates that not only did they not want to arrest anyone then, they still do not want to arrest anyone now.

The Anti American empire

Friday, January 8th, 2016

In foreign countries, we regularly see protest banners in English, written by Americans and intended for American audiences, whereby if the American writing the protest banner influences the American seeing the protest banner on television, this will redistribute power in the foreign protest country – and, more importantly advance the power of some Americans over others. This is a symptom of the American Empire – which I suggest is better called the Anti American empire.

Moldbug observed that anti Americanism is more accurately described at ultra Americanism. Subjects of the American empire proudly announce that they implement American ideals better than those dreadful Americans in flyover country, and hope for a pat on the head from the New York Times.

Some time ago, the New York Times has published a list of its most upvoted reader comments of all time — and the winner was a Canadian commenter who set out to explain how much more progressive, and consequently wonderful, Canada is relative to the U.S.

That this was noticed by their masters, this slight pat on the head from the emperor, resulted in a huge outburst of patriotic Canadian pride.

And similarly, the American empire is better called the Anti American empire, in that it produces costs, but no benefits, for Americans. For example American tax law claims universal reach, which disadvantages any American citizen attempting to operate a business overseas, making him legally second class to a European. And similarly American corporations are disadvantaged, resulting in all sorts of overly clever scams whereby American corporations form overseas corporations. If America is going to claim universal reach for its laws, those laws should advantage Americans by protecting their freedom to do business, giving them more freedom to do business than natives of foreign countries, rather than less. In practice, American universal jurisdiction is based on the principle that Americans are evil capitalist exploiters who need to be prevented from oppressing the foreign masses.

And of course, Americans spend blood and treasure meddling in foreign regions.

By and large, the objective of these shenanigans is to install in power in foreign places regimes that hate and despise Americans in flyover country, and eagerly hope for a pat on the head from the New York Times. Hence, better called the Anti American Empire.

Reflect, for example, on the installation of Aristide. Aristide “won” the Haitian election, which was called at American insistence. When it became obvious he was going to lose the Haitian election that the American government had called, the American government demanded that the rules were changed, and changed again, until Aristide could win because no one else important was allowed to run. Then, after Aristide “won”, and the permanent Haitian government ignored the election outcome, the US government invaded Haiti, and installed Aristide.

There scarcely was and is anyone in the world more loudly, vociferously, and obnoxiously anti American than Aristide, who spent much of his career in Washington seeking American support for him to rule Haiti, rather than in Haiti seeking Haitian support for him to rule Haiti.

During decolonization, there were a pile of Marxist national independence movements, with names in English, composed of rubber stamp Harvard jargon, rather than referencing the names, history and culture of the countries whose independence they were supposedly seeking.

And similarly, when Cuba ridicules US presidents, it ridicules the evil stupid Bushitler and Ronald Raygun, while groveling for a pat on the head from Obama the Lightbringer.

I have often written favorably of the red empire of the bases, and contrasted it with the evil blue empire of the consulates. But they are both the American empire, and without the hard power provided by the empire of the bases, the empire of the consulates would find that their soft power was parasitic on the hard power of the bases, and their NGOs would be exiled or banned. Shut down the empire of the bases, as Trump proposes, and the Anti American empire withers on the vine.

If we really must intervene in the Middle East let us steal their oil and ravish their women. Three hundred thousand vets have suffered brain damage from explosions. It is not worth it unless they get their wicks dipped.

Trump proposes to cut loose all those countries that hate us, despise us, and cost us blood and money. Should he actually carry out this policy, which is completely within presidential power and requires no consent from judiciary or legislature, only the obedience of the military, the horror and outrage will be beyond belief, making the former Bush derangement syndrome, and the current Trump derangement syndrome seem like courteous and rational discussion. The only reason the media’s heads are not already exploding on television is that they really cannot believe the proposal.

While I don’t think the merely temporary government can achieve real and lasting change, it will be good to hear those blood vessels popping like firecrackers on New Years Eve.

Just as the Turkish empire really sucked for Turks, the American Empire really sucks for Americans, hence, the Anti American Empire. Not to mention that Aristide, the loudest Anti American on the block, was our proconsul in Haiti.

Saudi Monarch executes US agent who tried to overthrow him.

Tuesday, January 5th, 2016

Note the sudden explosion of friendliness between Iran and the US State Department.

They were both trying to overthrow King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, King of Saudi Arabia and Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr was the face of Arab Spring in Saudi Arabia. Pretty obvious he was a tool of Iran, but the interesting question is: was he a tool of the US State Department?

“NGO” stands for “non government organization”, but if an organization is actually non governmental, for example McDonalds, no one calls it an NGO. In practice, “NGO” means “US State Department Front Organization”. This is an open secret, as for example when they advertise for employees, they are apt to describe the openings as government employment.

The reason that they call themselves non governmental is that they actively campaign in US politics and foreign politics, which is illegal or embarrassing for the US government to openly do.

When the Saudi princes arrested Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr for trying to overthrown them, the NGOs – pretty much all of them – went bananas, revealing Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr to be an NGO tool, and thus a US State Department Tool.

Note the great success of Arab Spring in Syria, Libya, and Egypt.

How to genocide inferior kinds in a properly Christian manner.

Monday, November 30th, 2015

Christianity, or perhaps Churchianity, tends to endorse suicidal collective behaviors. Progressives and Christians eagerly strive to outdo each other in how thoroughly they get cuckolded. Note how Christians and progressives both demonstrate superior holiness by adopting subsaharan blacks – who tend to grow into adult subsaharan blacks, with consequences as disturbing as adopting a baby chimpanzee.

I have not yet noticed Christians imitating the progressives by adopting male children and then sexually mutilating them to save them from toxic masculinity, but it is early days yet in the war on toxic masculinity.

The Dark Enlightenment emphasizes survival as a virtue, as indeed the root of all virtues. For example homosexuality is bad because homosexuals spread disease and don’t care about the future or the long term. We should enforce the marital contract so that we can have grandchildren, and so that the race and the culture survives. And so on and so forth. The old testament morality is arguably survival morality.

If survival is the root of all virtues, then we should conquer other nations to survive, colonize space to survive. At which conclusion the Dark Enlightenment parts company with with most people’s understanding of traditional Christianity.

The Old Testament was pretty cool with genocide. God would just say “genocide those pagans, I don’t love them even if I created them”. Most think that Jesus had a different opinion. I would say his opinion was more subtle and sophisticated, rather than directly contradictory.

CS Lewis gives us the standard modern progressive bleeding heart christian position on eradicating inferior races and cultures:

‘Speak to Ransom and he shall turn it into our speech,’ said Oyarsa.

Weston accepted the arrangement at once. He believed that the hour of his death was come and he was determined to utter the thing — almost the only thing outside his own science — which he had to say. He cleared his throat, almost he struck a gesture, and began:

‘To you I may seem a vulgar robber, but I bear on my shoulders the destiny of the human race. Your tribal life with its stone-age weapons and beehive huts, its primitive coracles and elementary social structure, has nothing to compare with our civilization — with our science, medicine and law, our armies, our architecture, our commerce, and our transport system which is rapidly annihilating space and time. Our right to supersede you is the right of the higher over the lower. Life—’

‘Half a moment,’ said Ransom in English. ‘That’s about as much as I can manage at one go.’ Then, turning to Oyarsa, he began translating as well as he could. The process was difficult and the result — which he felt to be rather unsatisfactory — was something like this:

‘Among us, Oyarsa, there is a kind of hnau who will take other hnaus’ food and — and things, when they are not looking. He says he is not an ordinary one of that kind. He says what he does now will make very different things happen to those of our people who are not yet born. He says that, among you, hnau of one kindred live all together and the hrossa have spears like those we used a very long time ago and your huts are small and round and your boats small and light like our old ones, and you have one ruler. He says it is different with us. He says we know much. There is a thing happens in our world when the body of a living creature feels pains and becomes weak, and he says we sometimes know how to stop it. He says we have many bent people and we kill them or shut them in huts and that we have people for settling quarrels between the bent hnau about their huts and mates and things. He says we have many ways for the hnau of one land to kill those of another and some are trained to do it. He says we build very big and strong huts of stones and other things — like the pfifltriggi. And he says we exchange many things among ourselves and can carry heavy weights very quickly a long way. Because of all this, he says it would not be the act of a bent hnau if our people killed all your people.’

As soon as Ransom had finished, Weston continued.

‘Life is greater than any system of morality; her claims are absolute. It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization.’

‘He says,’ began Ransom, ‘that living creatures are stronger than the question whether an act is bent or good – no, that cannot be right – he says it is better to be alive and bent than to be dead – no – he says, he says – I cannot say what he says, Oyarsa, in your language.

CS Lewis goes on to lecture us, or rather have an angel lecture us, that all thinking beings are fundamentally the same, that we should not value some of them, such as neighbors and kin, over others of them. But that is not Christianity. That is progressivism – “all men are created equal”. If on the other hand, we should care about kin and neighbors more than we should care about far away strangers, and both Old and New Testaments make it pretty clear that we should, then there is some important truth in Weston’s position, and a dangerous and deadly lie in the position of Ransom and the angel.

Christians tend to attribute Weston’s program to progressives, but as Sweden and Paris demonstrate, the progressive program is pretty much the opposite, being so opposed to genocide that they wind up with autogenocide.

Clearly Weston’s program is wrong. And clearly the progressive / modern Christian / CS Lewis / Weston program is also wrong. The God of the old Testament was not cool with Ransom’s program, being pretty big on tribal taboos and all that, but he was, nonetheless, pretty cool with genocide.

Humans are human because of a thousand genocides.

What was Jesus’ program?

I will answer that question in a little while.

All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.

Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain. Underestimating both the value and difficulty involved in creating high trust equilibria is the major failing of progressivism and modern Christianity. A few centuries ago, we were a lot better at it. Old type Christianity was a lot better at it.

The natural equilibrium is defect defect, and the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Following a high trust strategy in a low trust environment is a failure mode. However, part of switching from a low trust to a high trust environment involves someone deciding to follow a high trust strategy despite the risk of being in a low trust environment.

Evil exists, so either God does not will the good, or he is not able, or he is messing with us on purpose. (Testing our resolve, making us suffer so we grow more resilient.) Human Biodiversity would imply that innately evil or useless people are not part of God’s plan, only means of his to mess with you. Are we allowed to remove those tests of God?

Given that there is an Old Testament and a New Testament, it follows that there is a time to turn the other cheek, and a time to slay the women and children. And if one takes the New Testament seriously, the New Testament should give us a hint as to when it is OK to go Old Testament on problem people.

Jesus did not tell us to love starving African children. Jesus said “love thy neighbor”, not love the whole world. The human heart is not large enough to love the whole world. A man can only love his own small part of the world.

Which then led to discussion on who is thy neighbor, and his clarification still did not include the whole world. Seems to me his story of the Good Samaritan implies that standard behavior to all those other Samaritans (rape and kill, loot and burn) was OK, or if not really OK, nonetheless a regrettable necessity in this fallen world.

Which in our game theoretic terminology, the terminology of the Dark Enlightenment, means you should attempt to break out of defect/defect equilibrium when you have a chance of doing so, not regardless of whether you have a chance of doing so.

In a more obviously threatening world, Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan is unlikely to suffer radical scope inflation, but safe and coddled as the cuckservative is, he doesn’t translate the parable into “I’ll get a mexican I find lying near-dead by the road to a hospital,” but rather, “I’ll save the WHOLE WIDE WORLD one adoption at a time.” So in the more materially trying times that are historically typical, 3) sets a standard the average congregant only hopes to approximate. But in these unusually prosperous times, the cuckservative instead sees a bar to be cleared by as wide a margin as he can muster. He wants to outdo Jesus, and he’s under the delusion that he can.

The Starving Children of Africa are not good Samaritans. Given half a chance they will cut your throat for a nickel. And if you think that they are good Samaritans, you are holier than Jesus. Recollect my recommended procedure for those that claim authority on the basis that they are holier than Jesus. A large part of the reason that so many black African children are starving is that black Africa is stuck in a severe defect/defect equilibrium, and cannot get out of it except that white men with whips take charge of them.

So: To return to the title of this post: How does the good Christian genocide inferior races and take their stuff? Clearly Weston’s approach is unchristian. But Ransom is not Christian either.  He thinks he is Christian, but he and his angel are progressives. There has to be right way to do it. The New Testament does not dump the old.

A common Dark Enlightenment theme is that while our physical technology has been improving, our social technology has been collapsing, has been being systematically destroyed. Chesterton’s fence keeps being demolished by status signaling do-gooders.

So how did our good Christian predecessors manage a good Christian genocide? Naturally they did so in a way that built a high trust society, whereas Weston’s approach to genocide “It is not by tribal taboos and copy-book maxims that she has pursued her relentless march from the amoeba to man and from man to civilization” is apt to undermine a high trust society.

We shall visit past good Christian genocides, but, before visiting past good Christian genocides, let us revisit the parable of the Good Samaritan:

Luke Chapter 10:

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

So the good Samaritan is the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves.

Which implies that the Levite and the priest were not the neighbor of the man who fell among thieves, let alone all the other Samaritans.

Since the protagonist of the story was from Jerusalem, the levite and the priest were geographically his neighbors, but, being no good, did not deserve to be treated as neighbors. The Samaritan was not geographically his neighbor, but did deserve to be treated as a neighbor. The word “Neighbor” implies that geography and ethnicity matters, but not to the extent of overriding human decency.

Notice that wine is mildly antiseptic, and prevents wounds from becoming infected, while oil protects the exposed living flesh that is trying to form scar tissue to cover the wound. Jesus is not only commending good behavior, but also reminding his audience to follow the best medical practice of the day.

So you are not required to love the Levite, the priest, and all the other Samaritans. Just that good Samaritan. And, given the conspicuous propensity of the Staving Children of Africa to behave badly towards white people, and indeed badly to any African who is not close kin, you can refrain from loving them also. You are required to show generosity and forgiveness that moves us from defect/defect equilibrium to cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, but not actually required to be a doormat to be walked on. You are not required, or even permitted, to be a cuckold. If you love the priest after he passed by on the other side, you are undermining, rather than supporting, a high trust equilibrium. Further, if someone claims to love the priest after he crossed to the other side, and the social justice warrior who threw him to the wolves without worrying about his innocence or guilt, he is claiming to be holier than Jesus, and if I had my way, we would crucify him and see if he rises again. Holiness spirals are dangerous, and need to be forcefully discouraged.

And now, the much promised, much foreshadowed, account of how to genocide inferior races and take their stuff in a good Christian fashion, as our ancestors did; Past best practice for acquiring land and resources currently occupied by no-good people who prevent it from being put to its highest and best use while supporting, rather than undermining, your society’s high trust equilibrium:

A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land.  Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land.  You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater.  Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.

After a while, the whiskey runs out.  The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds.  “We have been cheated”, they wail.

They demand their land back.  The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.

Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children.  They catch a woman, and two small children.  Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive.  Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war.  So which side are you on.  The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”

The tribe declares for the warpath.

And then you kill them all and take their stuff.

Weston’s error was that he proposed to kill them and take their stuff without first legitimately purchasing the land and tempting them into committing unspeakable crimes.  Had he done so, and obtained the land in that fashion, then this would have created the dangerous precedent that some stronger party could take the land from him, undermining the high trust equilibrium that made the great achievements of his society, of which he was so proud, possible, for that high trust equilibrium and the ensuing high achievements rested on tribal taboos and copy-book maxims.

Yes, the US did treacherously stab Russia in the back over Syria.

Saturday, November 28th, 2015

Russia informed the US approximately when and where Russia would be bombing terrorists, as part of their agreement to avoid incidents over Syria that might lead to World War III.

According to Russia’s account, shortly before the pre-announced Russian bombing near the border, Turkey put up two F16s which loitered near the border, awaiting the bombing run near the border. When the bombing began, one of the Turkish F16s crossed into Syrian territory and ambushed a Russian bomber – direct conflict between Russian armed forces and Turkish armed forces without the fig leaf of a proxy, an attack conducted outside Turkish territory.

How do we know the Russian account is true and the Turkish account is false?

We know it is true because the Turkish media got a professionally edited video of the jet coming down faster than the Russians got their rescue mission – which means the Turkish media and Turkish forces on the ground inside Syria knew what was coming, while the Russians did not know what was coming. Therefore this attack was undertaken in response to notification that the Russians would be bombing Turks inside Syria near the border, therefore not undertaken in response to a bomber straying over the border. Note also that Obama’s speech was all about Russia bombing the good terrorists instead of the bad terrorists, not about the supposed border crossing.

Therefore official NATO forces have already attacked official Russian forces in Syria without the fig leaf of proxies. Therefore B already owes me a bottle of Ardbeg.