Equal opportunity

Whenever someone announces that they are in favor of equal opportunity, in favor of equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome, they have usually a few paragraphs, or a few comments away, defended some outrageously unjust inequality of opportunity implemented and enforced by state power to destroy group X, as punishment for group X privilege.

Everyone is in favor of equality of opportunity.  I am in favor of equality of opportunity.  But, realistically, you are not going to get it, and attempting to get it is apt to result in genocide, as in the Congo, or terror, as in Sri Lanka.

Solving the problem of Tutsi privilege in the Congo means leftists protected by UN troops get to rape and sexually mutilate Tutsi women.

Everyone is in favor of equal opportunity. But how many cities are you planning to burn, how many women are you planning to have raped with large objects, in order to achieve equality of opportunity?

If group X is generally more honest, peaceful, intelligent, cooperative, and hard working than group Y, then associating with members of group X rather than members of group Y is going to give you a lot of benefits regardless of your own personal merits, thus, X privilege. For example, the public bathroom is less likely to be smashed up if you are in group X, and group X can exclude group Y.

To end group X privilege, you are going to have to impale women of group X with large objects. Is the fan of equal opportunity willing to do so? If not willing to do so, why is this fan of equal opportunity not complaining about the end of apartheid and UN intervention in the Congo?

When the state intervenes to create equality of opportunity, this is indistinguishable from creating inequality of opportunity in order to compensate for imaginary inequality of opportunity.  Further, some forms of entirely real inequality of opportunity can never be remedied even by the most dreadful violence.  We know that because, with great regularity, the most dreadful violence winds up being employed.

140 Responses to “Equal opportunity”

  1. Hidden Author says:

    You employ a double standard: to prove that my advocacy of equality of opportunity does not extend to using implements to rape better-off women, I must denounce post-apartheid South Africa. Yet you can denounce all or most homosexuals as secret pederasts without publically naming and shaming those homosexuals whom (allegedly) YOU KNOW to be pederasts.

    • Hidden Author says:

      Also, if one digs deeper, one wonders what your main point is.

      That I’m a rapist? But who advocated enslaving malcontents and allowing men to sire more children for their households from such captives?

      That I’m a pervert? But who advocated castrating Palestinian boys?

      It seems that your accusations accord with the Freudian phenomenon of projection.

      • Red says:

        There’s been more than a few historical serveries showing that keeping less people’s among you drags down the quality of life for everyone. Mexico’s and California are 2 excellent examples. Mexico quality of life, wealth, and life expectancy has all been increasing since they shipped off the bottom 20% of their population to America. The middle class is growing like gang busters. This is in despite of having a break down of law order and a low level civil war. California on the other hand has seen the quality of life decrease massively. To have a good life in California requires so much money that most of the middle class has fled and it’s quickly shaping up to being an ultra rich/ultra poor state.

        When a lesser people moves into an area they automatically receive a leg up by living around better people. You see this all the time with blacks. Most blacks actually prefer black areas. They enjoy the violence, the freedom, and the not having to act white. The reason they move into white areas is due to the benefits they receive by simply being around better people. Safe schools, better jobs, almost no theft or violence. But too many lesser folks and all the gains are quickly lost and such people just drag down the larger community.

        Progressive witch doctors observe these facts and decide the only solution is to torture the better off until they stop using their bad magic(racism) on the lesser people’s. Their solution often involves a lot of rape, assault, and murder.

        People arguing for the mythical equality of opportunity end the same way Marxists do: Murder, Mayhem, and Destruction. Utopian ideas simply don’t work in the real world.

        • jim says:

          There’s been more than a few historical serveries showing that keeping less people’s among you drags down the quality of life for everyone. Mexico’s and California are 2 excellent examples. Mexico quality of life, wealth, and life expectancy has all been increasing since they shipped off the bottom 20% of their population to America. The middle class is growing like gang busters. This is in despite of having a break down of law order and a low level civil war. California on the other hand has seen the quality of life decrease massively. To have a good life in California requires so much money that most of the middle class has fled and it’s quickly shaping up to being an ultra rich/ultra poor state.

          That, of course, is inequality of opportunity. If you are a member of the superior group, you have more contact with people who improve your life, and less contact with people that wreck the toilets. Oh, you wicked person, what did you do to earn those unsmashed toilets?

      • jim says:

        A state that is unwilling to do bad things to outsiders that are behaving badly, will do bad things to insiders that are behaving well.

        As Sunshine Mary correctly observes:

        A modern woman not firmly under the control of a responsible adult man will tend to devolve into a bonobo-like state.

        The problem of badly behaved women would best be solved by coercively subjecting them to the authority of well behaved men. Some women would be mistreated as a result, but fewer would be badly behaved.

        • Hidden Author says:

          So you agree with the Talmud (“Those who are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind.”) instead of Jesus (“If an enemy strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other.”). How odd for a fan of medieval theocracy.

          • jim says:

            Jesus’ views on pacifism were furtively discarded when Charles the Hammer instituted feudalism, and were not resumed until progressives took over.

            From Charles the Hammer to around 1300 or so, the typical Bishop resembled the priest archetype in the MMORPG Everquest, which is set in a mythic version of that era: The Bishop wore armor and carried a great big hammer for smashing bad guy’s brains out.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But you like to use Jesus as a tool to control the masses; why can’t one from among the masses use Jesus as a tool to control you!

          • peppermint says:

            > Those who are kind to the cruel, will be cruel to the kind.

            See also the second chapter of Carlyle’s Latter-Day Pamphlets.

            Of course, in early Soviet Russia, criminals who attacked kulaks were seen as heroes of the working class struggle (“socially friendly”); sort of like how Black criminals attacking Whites are today.

            Coddling criminals in Carlyle’s day didn’t really produce more crime; it just used resources that could have been used elsewhere. Today, coddling criminals does lead to more crime. People who piously avoid mentioning the knockout game or sanctimoniously rally for leniency are objectively pro-crime.

            Policies are to be judged by their results.

            It’s odd for you to mention theocracy. A theocrat would instead judge policies by how compatible they are with religious symbols and formulas; which Carlyle denounces in the tenth chapter of The Latter-day Pamphlets.

            You are the theocrat here. Your religion is progressivism. Your argument is that the results of the policies you champion do not affect the purity of your mental state when championing those policies.

          • peppermint says:

            here, read this. It will probably be the oldest non-fiction you have ever read. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1140/1140-h/1140-h.htm

          • peppermint says:

            oops, project gutenberg doesn’t have chapter 8: Jesuitism (not chapter 10 as I had previously indicated).

            Find it at Google Books http://books.google.com/books?id=sZMQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA371#v=onepage&q&f=false

        • Hidden Author says:

          So you do think that a rape can be good for a woman! And you accuse or at least imply that *I* am a perverted man in favor of rape!

          • jim says:

            Female psychology and sexuality is such as to make the concept of marital rape meaningless. Females are never happy putting out sexually in the context of equality even if they volunteer to do so. Sex outside a relationship is bad for a woman whether it is called rape or not, and conversely, not only is sex inside a relationship good for a woman, it is better if the relationship is one in which she lacks power.

            The relevant difference, the important difference, is not female empowerment versus female disempowerment, but permanent relationship versus random sex. If coercion is applied to cause random sex, it is rape, harms women, harms society, and harms good men. If coercion is applied to prevent random sex and ensure sex inside a permanent relationship, it is not rape, it benefits women, benefits good men, and benefits society.

    • jim says:

      I don’t see your logic there. I know that male homosexuals are generally pederasts, and say so. I don’t rat out friends and relatives.

      You know that sexual mutilation in the Congo is done to those of a particular black race, by those of other black races, and if you don’t, it is because you don’t want to know. But if it was the other way around, you would be shouting it from the rooftops, the in the same way that in the US imaginary white rapes of blacks get shouted from the rooftops, while real rapes of whites by blacks, usually committed during home invasions, get piously ignored.

      You have a double standard here in the US, and a double standard for UN intervention in the Congo, where the UN is intervening in favor of the rape of women with objects larger than those women.

      • Hidden Author says:

        OK, I condemn raping white and “superior” black women. Just as I condemn abusing people in general. But this attitude that I should be a crusading knight on this matter, from an accuser who will not fix a matter closer to home is, to say the least, peculiar.

        • jim says:

          You are still refusing to acknowledge the link between ending apartheid in South Africa, and the massive increase in rape and sexual mutilation in South Africa, and the very similar effect of UN intervention in the Congo, refusing to acknowledge that your noble ideals have manifested in inserting large objects in the vaginas of large numbers of women, often objects larger than those women.

          If you will not acknowledge it, you will do again.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Apartheiders insisted that blacks be in Bantustans.

            ANCers insisted that whites be disarmed.

            Freedom would be no Bantustans and no disarmament.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Oh and if you insiist that I have to pick one of two choices, let me prove you wrong by opposing both with equal passion!

            • jim says:

              But you are not opposing progressive murder and rape at all, let alone with equal passion.

              To oppose the vaginal impalement of women in the Congo with very large objects would require you to mention who is being impaled, and who is doing the impaling, which you are completely forbidden to do.

          • Red says:

            >Oh and if you insiist that I have to pick one of two choices, let me prove you wrong by opposing both with equal passion!

            Disarming, raping, and murdering the whites of south Africa is the inevitable conclusion of supporting integration and full democratic rights for the peoples of the Bantustans. That fact you your libertarian ideas don’t work with reality and your inability to deal with that reminds me a lot of your average Marxist. No mater how many times the your ideas are tried they will not work and worse they will cause a disaster to the people you try them on.

            • jim says:

              Libertarianism would work fine in a high trust society composed of honest, highly intelligent, logical people – which is not the society you are likely to get if you open the borders.

          • Hidden Author says:

            But reality can actually elaborate on libertarian practice.

            If pressure could dismantle apartheid, it could also protect minority rights. As it is, multinational corporations are still making billions of dollars from assets in South Africa. This pressure is NOT deployed by my kind of people–my kind of people would protect minority rights just as much as corporate assets.

            Indeed pressure would not be deployed to impose majoritarian democracy (the arbitrary, unlimited mob-rule of the majority and its representative demagogues); if at all deployed (being mindful of the importance of national sovereignty and all that, pressure would be used sparingly if at all), it would be for classically liberal democracy (democratically-elected leaders restricted by institutional safeguards for the rights of minorities).

            • jim says:

              As it is, multinational corporations are still making billions of dollars from assets in South Africa.

              Making considerably fewer dollars. They are making no money at all from Zimbabwe, which has largely reverted to jungle occupied by half starved cannibals. In South Africa, they are part way to Zimbabwe. The upper stories of tall buildings, and the lower depths of mines, are no longer inhabitable. Both of these retreats have had pretty severe effect on corporate profits.

              Minority rights protect corporate profits, but would result in you lot screaming about racism and capitalism.

          • Red says:

            >If pressure could dismantle apartheid, it could also protect minority rights. As it is, multinational corporations are still making billions of dollars from assets in South Africa. This pressure is NOT deployed by my kind of people–my kind of people would protect minority rights just as much as corporate assets.

            Yes and if Communism actually worked the USSR wouldn’t have murdered all kulaks. Well it doesn’t work and neither does your idea of putting lesser people in charge. You have zero evidence to support your idea that ingratiation/full rights for lesser people works for any population of people and I have hundreds of cases of it not working and people often being slaughtered in the process.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Certainly one can see the technological simplicity and dysfunctional states of the Third World as evidence of colored folly. Certainly the cry that observing this is racist is an obnoxious expression of PC. But if we must rank people into greater or lesser races, then what weight do European genocide, slavery and world wars have?

            • jim says:

              But if we must rank people into greater or lesser races, then what weight do European genocide, slavery and world wars have?

              European slavery?

              European slavery was, and is, insignificant compared to the slavery conducted by non european peoples. European conquest, even conquest by European slaver raiders, had the effect of greatly reducing slavery.

              As for war and genocide, read Munshi Abdullah. Rule by Europeans came as a huge relief.

              Of course, I don’t accept your view that certain kinds of slavery are the absolutely worst thing in the world, and other kinds of slavery, for example pre reform China, are just lovely, no matter how enormous the number of resulting deaths, they all died in the terribly worthy cause of creating a society of wonderful niceness. On the contrary the lower on the evolutionary scale someone is, the more you have motivate him to work by coercion, and the less you can motivate him to work by the prospect of future advancement and the accumulation of assets. Thus it is natural and right that lower races should tend to have higher levels of slavery and enslavement, and higher races lower levels of slavery and enslavement.

              So the lower someone is on the evolutionary scale, the more he belongs on a leash, hence the routine use of slavery in Africa by Africans, and the higher someone is on the evolutionary scale, for example the Chinese, the less they belong on a leash.

              Hence the low levels of slavery by European peoples.

              Observe that there was never a cross word from western progressives about the mass use of slavery of in China, but when the terror and slavery eased up, then and only then did you guys start denouncing it as one vast prison, reacting to the diminution of terror like a student who has been jilted at the prom.

              When the terror eased in China, the US left reacted like a jilted teenager that had been stood up for the prom. When Stalin’s terror was going full swing in the Soviet Union, the US left depicted Stalin in language that sounded like a schoolgirl swooning over some unattainable man.

          • Red says:

            Rank people by functionality according to their civilized attributes. Whites in south Africa produced civilization. The blacks in South Africa did not. Thus putting blacks in charge destroys civilization.

          • Hidden Author says:

            When you refer to me as one of “you guys” or “you progressives,” did you get a deep understanding of my views? Or did you like some Marxist count me and count other people as avatars of some ruling-class Hive Mind, with the only exception being people who stand with you on the same fringe of a fringe on one side of the Left-Right political spectrum (you should know of course that not all politics can even be reduced to Left or Right)?

            • jim says:

              You speak in formulaic Stalinist boilerplate, duckspeak. You won’t acknowledge the crimes of the anti apartheid movement, nor any of the crimes of progressivism. You are a cog in the machine, a machine that does not allow people of your level to use human level judgment, does not allow people at your level to speak thoughts indicative of human level consciousness, which only permits you to talk like a robot.

              This is why we can usually get away with speaking forbidden thoughts provided we refrain from using forbidden words. Because people like you are not permitted the discretion to decide what is a forbidden thought, but are required to react mechanically like a word processor macro, wherein the world n****r produces automatic hysteria, but “evolutionary rates varying between populations” does not. People who are permitted to make such calls, to detect forbidden thoughts, not merely forbidden words, are far too important to pay attention to us as yet.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Yes, Jim, the majority is brainwashed so if anyone expresses a mainstream opinion using common terminology instead of your more thoughtful niche jargon, then dismiss them as the voice of Big Brother or the Matrix! Or wait: That’s pop culture and we all know who’s behind that…

            • jim says:

              You invoked slavery etc as an automatic debate winner, that no one is allowed to answer. As I said, mindless Stalinist boilerplate, duckquack. Similarly, stealing land from the Indians. That rhetoric is the rhetoric of a robot, not a human, the noises emitted by a small cog in a big machine.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So anyone in favor of the Biblical principle of treating others as one wishes to be treated is a Stalinist. I didn’t know Stalin acted in such a manner.

            And Stalinism is about guaranteeing outcomes and fomenting violent revolutions. My more right-wing outlook is: I am not a campaigner–I condemn abuses that others bring up. Bring up segregation? I condemn it. Bring up rape? I condemn that, regardless of who does it, unlike you. I could engage a Marxist on the folly of his ideology but here you are using belligerent rhetoric to focus on the crimes of progressives and ignore/justify the crimes you favor. We’ll, I’m not a robot so I won’t let my debating opponent, reactionary or progressive, get away with that.

            • jim says:

              The problem is that you are using formulaic progressive rhetoric, duckquack. We have all heard this so many times before that our minds just automatically shut down and filter it out as progressive spam.

              Duckquack gives the impression one is talking to a machine, a chatbot rather than a human being, that you are reading from a script like a telemarketer, or one of those extremely unhelpful help lines.

            • jim says:

              And Stalinism is about guaranteeing outcomes and fomenting violent revolutions.

              “Stalinist boilerplate” is a reference to a style of rhetoric, which tedious style happened as people were required to mechanically and robotically adhere to a line in which they no longer really believed, so increasing tended to mechanically issue trite repetitious phrases with little relevance to the actual issue, like a spambot.

          • Hidden Author says:

            What freedom of association? The rules of association were set by the state, not individuals, not even property-owning individuals.

            • jim says:

              The effect and intent of apartheidt was to create a few small densely populated urban areas that were safe for whites. Thus it was not blacks being imprisoned by white violence, but whites being imprisoned by black violence.

              A truly reactionary regime would have created a safe environment for everyone everywhere in South Africa using the methods employed by the Ashantee. Similarly, the West Indies 1890 did not have apartheid, because they did what was necessary to make the entire west indies safe for white people.

  2. dnf says:

    One thing i observe from the equalist crownd, even along “reasonable progressives” is how they act cheerful of equalist abuse: If a police officer brutalizes a woman the same way he would do to a criminal, people will nod and cheer equality, like this is a good thing. Barring wishful thinking, Seldom we see the term equality being used in a good way.

    Consider black people complaining about police harassment: The solution for this would be:
    1- Police will treat everyone as innocents, increasing crime.
    2- Police will treat everyone as thugs, keeping the same level of crime, only being unfair to more innocent people.

    Equalism is all about bringing the standards of living down.

    • Red says:

      Even worse “equality” in enforcement effectively makes the cops above the law. Whenever someone tries to make things more equal you just make them more unequal in much less natural and more destructive ways.

  3. Hidden Author says:

    Either my laptop connection failed me or you’ve decided to ban me for challenging your idiocy. Long story short: just because one opposes slavery and bounties on Indian heads, it does not follow that one supports coddling welfare recipients or any other progressive policy.

    • jim says:

      I have not banned you. Something must have gone wrong. I checked my spam filters to see if you were incorrectly spam filtered. You were not.

      One can oppose slavery and bounties on Indian heads without mechanically using progressive white guilt rhetoric regardless of relevance or sanity.

      What actually happened in most of the Indian wars was

      Whites would buy land from the Indians.

      Indians would get drunk, stay drunk.

      After a while, they would wake up with a blinding hangover, no money, no food, and no hunting grounds.

      They would then abduct some white women and children and torture them to death.

      In response to these events, putting a bounty on Indian heads was completely reasonable and appropriate.

      • M says:

        This kind of common sense explanation of things like why there were bounties on Indians is so refreshing to read, and makes sense. When you think about it, the implicit assumption behind all the leftish attention to white ‘atrocities’ is that they happened because white people are bad people, and that they did bad things to other races because they’re greedy, low people. When the truth is that there were usually perfectly reasonable explanations for those things.

        It puts me in mind of David Yeagley’s statement in one of his articles that his Comanche ancestors would have gladly taken the whites’ land if they could have, and they wouldn’t have felt bad about it, either.

        I don’t think we have to go all the way back to a mindset of conquering everyone we can for the sheer pleasure of conquest, but it would be nice if we could get to a place where we say “this is our land, for our people, and the rest of you stay the hell out of it and we’ll stay the hell out of yours.”

  4. M says:

    I think it can all be simplified to a few truths:

    * life is Darwinian, and there is an unavoidable competition for scarce resources.

    * human beings innately identify with their families and with their extended families (ethnicity and race), and instinctively pull together with them in competition with those outside those groups.

    * any actions taken by members of one’s groups – family, ethnicity, race, etc – that undermines the competitiveness of the group will tend to destroy the group.

    * progressive policies more or less explicitly undermine white and Western identity groups, and often are designed purposely to do that.

    * it doesn’t matter whether one’s identity group committed “atrocities” in the past in the unavoidable, eternal Darwinian competition between ethnicities, nationalities, races, etc. They’re still your group, and the only one you’re going to have. Progressivism will never change that.

    Progressives think they can eliminate these unavoidable Darwinian pressures through miscegenation and socialism, but all they might be able to do is to weaken white civilization to the point it is conquered by another civilization (probably Asian) that is more realistic about the Darwinian truths of life.

  5. M says:

    Just to make my convoluted point (hopefully) more clearly: when progressives bring up slavery, taking Indians’ land, etc, the proper response is: “yes, whites competed hard and sometimes ruthlessly for land and resources (including slave labor) like most every other people on earth throughout history. So what? Whether you want to retroactively (and selectively) judge the white race as ‘bad’ for that, if you’re white, it’s the only race you’re ever going to have, and the only race that will ever look out for your ass in the Darwinian competition that is unavoidable on a globe with a fixed amount of natural resources.”

    I don’t care if whites committed atrocities. For one thing, they did nothing other races didn’t also do, and if they did more of it, it was because they were stronger and could do so. But I don’t care if they committed atrocities because it doesn’t change anything about the fact that there will continue to be competition that sometimes becomes brutal and that whites are “my side” in the fight. No Asian, no black, and no mestizo group is going to take me in and fight my battles for me in the competition. When push comes to shove, they will look out for their own before they look out for me.

  6. Hidden Author says:

    A Dialogue with James Donald
    (Tell me, if I missed anything, folks!)

    Jim: things were better when wives submitted to their husbands and whites ruled the world

    Hidden Author: (points out atrocities to make it so)

    Jim: why don’t you push white guilt rather than oppose atrocities by people of color?

    Hidden Author: I oppose atrocities by anyone

    Jim: You don’t go into detail about atrocities by people of color

    Hidden Author: I’m not a campaigner

    Jim: no really, you don’t

    Hidden Author: say Jim, you’re not much of a campaigner yourself–you condemn tolerance of homosexuality but do not report homosexual sex crimes

    Jim: you progressives are sanctimonious

    Hidden Authority: isn’t your sanctimonious glorification of white male superiority the flip side of progressive sanctimonious glorification of female & colored superiority

    Jim: (zones out)

    Hidden Author: You seem troubled, son. Do you need therapy?

    • dnf says:

      Neutrality can only go so far. In the end, it’s all about choosing the lesser evil, wish i think it’s his point in the debate.

    • jim says:

      Jim: You don’t go into detail about atrocities by people of color

      No, that is not my argument:

      My argument is that you ignore atrocities committed by people of color under the sponsorship of white progressives, with guns and money supplied by white progressives, for example the terror campaign that imposed Mugabe on what used to be Rhodesia, and the considerably more brutal terror campaign under way in the Congo right now.

      You are piously indignant about things that whites allegedly did a long time ago, while ignoring terrible things that progressives are doing right now today.

      That progressives are doing terrible things in far away places today foreshadows that they may well do terrible things in the US tomorrow.

      • Hidden Author says:

        When you bring them up, I condemn them, not endorse them like these (all?) progressives you lambast. So to say that your argument is that I ignore them altogether, is to say that your argument is even worse than I thought it was.

        • jim says:

          But you don’t condemn the crimes committed by progressivism today. In order to condemn them you would have to name them which you are entirely unable to do.

          You issue passionate spews of hate about stuff allegedly done by whites long ago in the formulaic language of indignant passion, although all passion has long since drained because of endless tedious repetition, you make colorful and dramatic specific concrete accusations, while any accounting of the crimes of progressivism is indirectly buried under a gentle snowfall of abstract nouns, so that no one can tell whether you are apologizing for smoking or sexual mutilation.

          Perhaps because these wild and savage condemnations of whites and whiteness have becomes so tediously formulaic you don’t realize that, if they had any meaning at all, rather than being mere repetitious incantations, they would sound like passionate angry ravings of a homicidal maniac planning genocide.

          You say “I am not a campaigner”, while raving ferocious spittle flecked justifications that every day are used to beat the hell out of white people who were walking along minding their own business.

          If so extravagantly angry, so homicidally enraged, by sins allegedly committed by whites a hundred years ago, why so blissfully untroubled by sins that progressives are committing right now today? I think your savage incantations of the sins of whites and whiteness have become so habitual, so ingrained, so boringly repetitive, that you are incapable of hearing that these are words of passionate ferocity, that they are words apt to lead to murder, words that are leading to murder.

          • Hidden Author says:

            OK if I was on a Hutu forum praising the hacking of Tutsi families with machetes, I’d argue with them too. But I don’t know their language–I don’t even know French. But I did find this English-language American blog.

            And I’m not homicidally enraged; I’m just listening to you citing past brutality as the way to be and am responding with a simple “No.” But like a cult, you guys lump the diversity of other views as a boogeyman out to get you (“the progressives”). Well, I can’t be held accountable for some other people with different tactics and different goals.

            • jim says:

              if I was on a Hutu forum praising the hacking of Tutsi families with machetes,

              Wikipedia presents the official truth, and the official truth is that not only is there no such race as Tutsi, but the Tutsi race has it coming to them.

          • Hidden Author says:

            P.S. You lump all “progressives” (people not like you) as supporting Hutus machete-slaughtering and implement-raping Tutsis. Can you find a “progressive” website with open comments that offers such support. PC can be mind-numbingly idiotic but machete-slaughtering and implement-raping people seems as politically incorrect as you can get. S*it, the PCtards can’t even stomach Gitmo!

            • jim says:

              Progressives support what is happening in the Congo in the same way that they support what is happening in the streets of America. They have a handy pile of extravagantly indignant condemnations of the Tutsi, just as they have a handy pile of extravagantly indignant condemnations of whites, but when reporting hate crimes against the Tutsi, they report them in the same way that they report hate crimes against whites in the USA, refraining from mentioning the race or motivation of the attackers, or the race of the victim.

              The left also support these crimes in the organizational sense, in the sense that the state is the left and the left is the state, the American state is funding and arming the FARDC, and the FARDC is organizing and committing these atrocities.

              Which foreshadows that in due course, the American state will be supporting crimes against whites in America in the organizational sense, just as it supported crimes against whites in Rhodesia in the organizational sense.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So you say but can you link to a website celebrating rapes and hackings as promoting civil rights?

          • Hidden Author says:

            PS I think you’re simplifying things a bit. The PC crowd use the failure to save Tutsis from the Rwandan Genocide as proof that white America needs to abandon selfish isolationism in favor of humanitarian military intervention. Samantha Powers used that and similar cases to “prove” that America had R2P (responsibility to protect). It was this doctrine that Obama used to justify support of black-lynching Arabs (lynching blacks is obviously a civil rights no-no).

            • jim says:

              The PC crowd use the failure to save Tutsis from the Rwandan Genocide as proof that white America needs to abandon selfish isolationism in favor of humanitarian military intervention

              The US is sponsoring military intervention in the Congo. Had the US militarily intervened in Rwanda, it would have worked out the same way it is working out in the Congo. To resolve the conflict we would have proceeded to cure the Tutsi of their terrible sin of being superior to their neighbors. And that is the intervention the PC have in mind, which in the Congo is looking a lot more like sponsoring genocide, than preventing it. Observe how US intervention in Iraq led to the ethnic cleansing of the Christian minority.

              You can read the official truth on the Tutsi in Wikipedia, which is that all the troubles result from their curious delusion that they are superior people, which foolish delusion the PC intend, in their great benevolence, to gently remedy, thereby providing a final solution to the Tutsi problem.

              US intervention in Rwanda would have resulted in a Hutu run democratic government seeking to quietly and furtively genocide the Tutsis, a Hutu rebel movement impatient with the speed of genocide, seeking to slaughter Americans and Tutsis equally, and a Tutsi rebel movement seeking to overthrow the democratic regime that intended to slaughter them all, and also seeking to kill the Americans supporting the power of that regime. The elected Hutu government would frequently collaborate with the Hutu rebels seeking to overthrow them, to arrange the deaths of their supposed American allies seeking to support them in power.

              After several years of this, Americans would get sick of being shot at by all sides, and also sick of the horrifying behavior of the democratic government they installed in power, and go home, to let the slow genocide they had been supervising accelerate.

          • peppermint says:

            a website? how about a book?

            Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women – and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge.
            I started out practicing on black girls in the ghetto where dark and vicious deeds appear not as aberrations or deviations from the norm, but as part of the sufficiency of the Evil of a day. When I considered myself smooth enough, I crossed the tracks and sought out white prey. I did this consciously, deliberately, willfully, methodically.

            “Brilliant and revealing” — New York Times Review of Books

    • peppermint says:

      See, the problem is, you, like everyone else in the entire world except for maybe a few kids who went to madrassas in the stans, have been raised with progressive values. You then suppose that your edgy, libertarian heresy makes you no longer a progressive.

      You then defend your heresy from progressivism by claiming that you support equal opportunity more than mainstream progressives do. And while you claim progressive values and mention progressive saints and martyrs, you wonder why we call you a progressive.

      That’s why you should read Carlyle, who was probably the smartest man, closest to our time, who could see progressivism but not belong to it. He says stuff that will shock you, not because you can’t say it out loud, but because it’s so heretical you’ve never even thought it.

    • Socks says:

      You could’t compete with Jim in areal dialogue so you’ve now created an entirely fictional one. Am I supposed to be impressed?

  7. jim says:

    I don’t care if whites committed atrocities. For one thing, they did nothing other races didn’t also do, and if they did more of it, it was because they were stronger and could do so.

    Whites eradicated entire peoples that they could not coexist with. But the reason that they could not coexist with them is not that they disliked people with different skin color, but that they disliked people who torture children to death.

    Now a progressive might say “Well, the Indians treacherously tortured Daniel Boone’s son to death after eating at his table, but that was just one son, and now those Indians are no more, so Daniel Boone’s crime was, in the end, much bigger.

    I wish Daniel Boone was around so that they could tell that to him.

    Daniel Boone was trying to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal with the Indians, in which they got paid for land, becoming indeed landlords. In the end, that turned out to be impractical, and it was not Daniel Boone’s fault that it was impractical.

  8. amir says:

    “A truly reactionary regime would have created a safe environment for everyone everywhere in South Africa using the methods employed by the Ashantee.”

    Jim,

    Can you elaborate on these methods?

    • jim says:

      That was hyperbole. Even I think the methods of the Ashantee empire were excessive.

      However, the examples of Singapore and Saudi Arabia demonstrate that crime can be reduced to levels indistinguishable from zero by vigorous enforcement and harsh penalties. The level of enforcement obviously has to be higher for blacks than whites, but it does not have to be enormously higher. Saudi Arabia has a significant black minority, and still has near zero crime for those crimes that they really do not tolerate.

      So rather than seriously saying “Ashantee”, I would say that Saudi Arabia has it about right.

      • Hidden Author says:

        Like when a rape victim needs four witnesses or else is charged with adultery subject to draconian punishment. PS men can be raped too!

        • jim says:

          I did qualify it by saying “near zero crime for those crimes that they really do not tolerate.” They are rather tolerant of some rapes. But you won’t get burgled or mugged in Saudi Arabia.

        • Red says:

          The majority of rapes in the US are men being raped in prison. Which of course are almost never prosecuted and are treated as a joke by our society. Guess the progressives are fine with some types of rape.

    • Red says:

      From what I’ve gathered: The Ashantee were rapidly creating a civilized population through the unusual method of killing everyone who acted in a uncivilized manner. Most civilizations are born mostly of selective breeding/encouraging better people to have most of the kids with limited killing. A good chunk of civilized behavior is genetic.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        I don’t know if that’s true (the limited killing part).

        During the reign of Henry VIII, as many as 72,000 people are estimated to have been executed. (wiki)

        In 1603 the population of England was about 3.7 million (according to some thesis linked from Stanford’s website).

        That’s not an insignificant chunk of the gene pool.

        • Red says:

          I’m having a really hard time buying that number. Executing 2-3% of the population would be a pretty well documented event. I’m talking about civilized selection not dominance wars between religious groups.

          • Red says:

            Admittedly the Protestants had much better propagandists than the Catholics so a cover up is possible.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            I buy the number as a crime control measure – not even related to the Protestant / Catholic conflicts.

            The death penalty applied to a very wide range of crimes.

            • jim says:

              Yes, the death penalty applied to just about everything, but normally they gave you a second chance, or a third chance, and then they killed you.

              Even if you execute people for spitting on the path, the effect will be very little spitting on the bath, rather than lots of executions.

          • Red says:

            There wasn’t enough capital level crime in medieval England for that level of executions. Though that was around the time the monetarists were disbanded dumping all societies rejects back into the general population. I guess it could all be vagrancy executions or something of that sort, but you don’t really hear a lot about people being executed for not having a job until Elizabeth’s reign.

            American has a much bigger crime problem than medieval England did and only about 3% of the population are criminals in America. I find it very hard to believe that anything on that level existed during Henry the VIII’s reign. I think your source is wrong.

          • Dan says:

            English history is well written about since long before Henry’s time, and the horrors of Henry VIII are well documented. The whole country was Catholic at a time when religion was at the very center of peoples’ rough lives. And then suddenly Catholicism was punishable by death.

            At the same time he was killing Catholics, he was also killing people deemed too Protestant, sometimes executing Protestants and Catholics on the same day. Basically you were supposed to believe exactly what Henry VIII believed on penalty of death. And what Henry VIII believed varied day by day, because he was crazy.

            If Communism can kill 100 million, is it that hard to imagine that a tyrant-king could kill 70,000?

            Historically speaking, it seems like a very high percentage of the people Henry VIII had close personal dealings with, from wives to advisors, ended up being executed. (Many of the survivors were later executed by Henry’s daughter Bloody Mary for not beig thoroughly Catholic.)

            The suppression of the monasteries was probably where the bulk of Henry VIII’s common killing took place. Armed representatives of the king attacked and conquered the church lands from end to end in England.

            • jim says:

              Your account of the dissolution of the monasteries is wildly, outrageously, false, which causes me to doubt the rest of your story.

              The dissolution of the monasteries was a gradual process in which monks were encouraged to find other callings, and jobs were created to absorb them. The opportunity and encouragement to marry was one of the many incentives applied.

              Kingly bureaucrats applied the carrot and the stick in a variety of ways, which incentives caused the monasteries to gradually and slowly close down over many years. Your accounts has mobs and or secret police charging up and sacking and burning them overnight.

              If a monk tried to stick it out at his monastery, he did not find the secret police cutting off his head, but rather an infestation of the king’s bureaucrats gradually making monastic life harder and harder, while at the same time helpfully facilitating alternatives.

              This is not the behavior of a king who murders a large proportion of the population for religious reasons.

  9. Hidden Author says:

    I walk by Jimville one day and see him beat a prostrate, non-resisting man with an iron rod. I demand that he stop, no more. But because he knows he’s in the wrong, he reads this as a threat to kick his @$$ or even kill him.

    But you say: the analogy does not hurt because the abuses were historical. Suppose I run into Jim at a bar a year later. He brags about how big his cock is due to the severity of the beating he delivered and so I denounce him as a coward. But since he has a bad conscience, again he reads my objection as a threat to kick his @$$ or even kill him.

    Isn’t this defensiveness leading to paranoia?

    • Hidden Author says:

      I mean “does not work” not “does not hurt”.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Clearly you do much better in arguments when you can make up what the other side says.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Ah, dimestore psychology and the medicalization of dissent – the Progressive is never slow to reach for them. Clearly Jim is deranged to disagree with you: paranoid, defensive, harboring a guilty conscience, and projecting his perverted sexual desires onto you. Why you continue this argument instead of contacting the appropriate authorities to have him committed for his own and others’ safety is beyond me.

      • Hidden Author says:

        He’s the one saying I support rape and slaughter. If he can’t handle the heat, he should leave the kitchen!

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          Leave the kitchen? Why would you allow such a disturbed mind to walk around free and unsupervised? Who knows what harm he could do. Better by far if he were locked in some institute where trained medical professionals could care for him and perhaps help him to overcome his many mental illnesses.

          Seriously though, I see where you’re coming from. Jim isn’t playing fairly with you at all. He’s ignoring your points and putting words in your mouth. I get the point he’s making, but it’s not exactly sportsmanlike. You respond by pathologizing him. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, I suppose. It’s a shame you chose to go for such a stereotypically Progressive move, though. That particular dirty trick isn’t likely to work with anyone reading this blog.

          • jim says:

            Seriously though, I see where you’re coming from. Jim isn’t playing fairly with you at all. He’s ignoring your points and putting words in your mouth. I

            Not aware of that. I ask how many women he is willing to impale to attain equal opportunity. He does not answer.

            If the number is reasonably small, he has to say that UN intervention in the Congo is a bad thing, democracy in Rwanda would be a very bad thing, democracy in Rhodesia was a very bad thing, has to concede a rather large pile of reactionary talking points.. He is not willing to say such reactionary things, therefore, the number of women he is willing to impale for equal opportunity is quite large.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Let me question you with an implicit assumption like you have me, Jim:

            Jim, when will you stop beating your wife?

            • jim says:

              But you are beating your wife. Efforts to remedy inequality are becoming more and more extreme, because inequality is ineradicable, and you are determined to eradicate it.

              So, what is the maximum price that you are prepared to make other people pay, after which you will stop trying?

          • Hidden Author says:

            Your attempt to hold me responsible for what other people whom I am not affiliated with did because I join most of humanity in disagreeing with you is of a piece to hold people responsible for what other people whom they are not affiliated with do because of a common racial or gender background.

            • jim says:

              I keep asking you. How many women are you prepared to have impaled with large objects in order to attain equality?

              You keep not answering. Instead, you tell me you are in favor of attaining equality by less drastic means. But everyone is in favor of attaining equality by less drastic means.

              Trouble is that less drastic means have not worked anywhere, and everywhere less drastic means, having been tried and failed, have been replaced by more drastic means, and then these fail also, so even more drastic means.

              Presumably, at some point in this slippery slope to ever more drastic means, one should concede the neoreactionary proposition that society should accept inequality between individuals, between groups of individuals, and categories of individuals, and just give up on the entire equal rights project.

              Where in this slippery slope to ever more drastic means would you concede the neoreactionary position on inequality?

          • Hidden Author says:

            I’m not answering your questions because they are loaded starting with your assumption that anyone who believes in civil rights is affiliated with the Loony Left and is therefore responsible for the Loony Left’s crimes.

            • jim says:

              When a beating takes place in the street, motivated by racial hatred, motivated by official racial hatred which you yourself preach, everyone who is unable to mention the race of the attackers, and the race of the person attacked, is affiliated with those who preach the hatred that we saw manifested in blood.

          • Hidden Author says:

            If people do something, appropriate or not, because of a fact, it is the truth of the fact not the mentioning of the fact that is the cause of the action. It is repression that creates hate not pointing out repression. But it can appear that way because repression can also make people keep their hate to themselves…for awhile.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              “It is repression that creates hate not pointing out repression.”

              Well congratulations for appearing sane (but badly mistaken) until right there.

              Racial violence is caused by “repression”? The only race based repression in the United States is of superior groups. The only race based violence in the United States is by inferior races.

              This, of course, is impossible to miss so to make a statement like the one above shows that you’re completely deluded.

          • Hidden Author says:

            Actually, I see your point, Steve & Jim, that mentioning the KKK to justify harassing George Zimmerman does promote hate but that is because the agitator is trying to pick a fight. But when someone criticizes an old bigot for lauding Jim Crow, he is not picking a fight but is responding to someone picking a fight. The one stirring hate is the one referring to irrelevant or erroneous info not the one who demands an end to a legitimate grievance or who opposes reviving the causes of grievances.

            • jim says:

              Someone points out that Jim Crow benefited and protected blacks, protecting them from white competition and black criminality, and you respond by listing a bunch of formulaic rationalizations for murdering white people.

          • Hidden Author says:

            What about the hate you promote towards blacks, Hispanics and Indians? Should we kill them all?

          • Hidden Author says:

            You know what? I don’t see the point in debating if you deliberately misunderstand my position. I don’t know how many times I have to say the Loony Left does not represent me and that therefore I cannot be held responsible for what it does. Just because I explain how you’re wrong, it does not mean I’m vouching for the Loony Left. Since there is no point in continuing this debate, I’ll come back afterwards, if ever. Goodbye!

            • jim says:

              We are not talking about the Loony left, but the New York Times. We are talking about those views that everyone must pretend to espouse, or quite likely lose their jobs.

          • Hidden Author says:

            So everyone must agree that a rape memoir is “brilliant and revealing” or lose their jobs? So it’s when you read everything everybody says in light of such a mistaken assumption, that you no longer are worth debating.

            • jim says:

              Observe the worship of the notorious mass murderer, terrorist, and Marxist, Nelson Mandela. I suppose if your job is unimportant you can say unkind things about him, but if your job is important obviously you cannot. And, therefore, if your job is important, cannot say unkind things about Eldridge Cleaver engaging in race hate motivated rapes of white women.

              Obviously Mandela worship is mandatory, at least at a certain level. Therefore Eldridge Cleaver worship is mandatory.

        • jim says:

          It is not so much that you support rape and slaughter, but when efforts to enforce utopia at gunpoint somehow mysteriously lead to rape and slaughter, you prefer not to notice and continue right ahead supporting efforts to enforce utopia at gunpoint. You support utopia. In fact you support it so much that if it leads to rape and slaughter, does not disturb you unduly.

          • Hidden Author says:

            And monarchy, white supremacy, slavery, etc. do NOT involve rape and slaughter? Your far-right utopia involves rape and slaughter as does the far-left version; better to abide by (relative) centrism and pragmatism.

            • jim says:

              Let us compare Rhodesia with Zimbabwe.

              Realistically, to enforce good behavior requires coercion. But bad behavior is itself coercive.

              Before whites ruled Rhodesia, it was jungle infested with cannibals. When whites ceased to rule Rhodesia, it once again became jungle infested with cannibals.

              South Africa has not gone all the way to jungle infested with cannibals, though there is a bit of cannibalism, but the upper stories of buildings and the lower stories of of mines have been abandoned, prefiguring a Detroit style return to the jungle.

  10. […] How many people are you willing to impale for equal opportunity? […]

  11. Hidden Author says:

    You guys seem to think politics is bipolar and one-dimensional instead of having many poles and dimensions. You’re like Randroids saying that any deviation from their ideology brings you closer to Communism. But many pundits in the mainstream have denounced the Loony Left so I don’t feel defined by a Loony Leftist working for the NY Times praising a rapist.

    • jim says:

      Game adepts like Minion of Satan Heartiste are founding fathers of the Dark Enlightenment. So are conservative Christians like Sunshine Mary. We have Religious Jews and anti Semites.

      I am trying to persuade B. that the Talmud is excessively oriented towards a powerless people in exile, but he, unsurprisingly, is not convinced.

      Meanwhile another of my commenters seems to believe that the progressives were not too bad until an evil conspiracy of Jews took over.

      So the proposition that the Dark Enlightenment is intolerant of the slightest deviation is projection.

      Rather, progressivism requires agreement on every single one ten thousand points of doctrine. A typical right winger disagrees on one point of these ten thousand points. A typical member of the Dark Enlightenment disagrees on pretty much all of them. The dark enlightenment is united by what they reject, not by what they accept.

      So, B. accepts the Talmud, I do not. I consider that restoration Anglicanism was a useful fiction to encourage and support civilization. B. Thinks that the talmud will encourage and support civilization. I argue it will need an editor that applies some drastic cuts, a government commission that decides to apply state support to some parts of the Talmud and not others, and, after fairly drastic editing, it will then be a useful fiction.

      The official left and right are single point, and the reaction a vast cloud surrounding that single point in all directions.

      • Hidden Author says:

        It’s not a projection–you’re arguing that one either supports white supremacy in Africa or one supports rape and murder to demolish it. That’s two poles on one continuum.

        But policy could be done differently. White supremacy can be abhorred without sanctions. After all, the Left says that in spite of tyranny, sanctions against Cuba and Iraq were/are bad because of the poor and because of national sovereignty. Alternately, sanctions could be imposed but then individual civil rights rather than majority rule could then have been the criterium for ending sanctions.

        But since you prefer loaded questions: Can you tell me when you will stop beating your wife?

        • jim says:

          you’re arguing that one either supports white supremacy in Africa or one supports rape and murder to demolish it.

          But you did use rape and murder to destroy white supremacy in Rhodesia, and you are using rape and murder to destroy Tutsi supremacy in the Congo.

          And your justification was, and is, that no lesser means would suffice because whites are so incorrigibly wicked, though a neoreactionary would explain that nothing, not even rape and murder, suffices because whites (and Tutsis) actually are superior.

          Thus, rape and murder necessarily slides into ethnic cleansing and genocide.

          But policy could be done differently.

          But, done differently, does not in fact work.

          So, when you find your policy does not work, do you accept white supremacy, or do you do what in fact was done?

          • Hidden Author says:

            If there isn’t a Hive Mind among the tiny neo-reactionary movement, then how can the rest of society possess a Hive Mind? (Just because your Trotskyist party had ten thousand leftist dogmas that had to be accepted, it does not reflect mainstream society.) I stand on my own political positions, not the positions of the Left or the State. Now when will you stop beating your wife?

            • jim says:

              Because the official line gets decided in Harvard, transmitted to the federal judiciary and the federal bureaucracy, and the judiciary and bureaucracy lets it be known that any business that employs someone who disagrees on any point, however minute, will be destroyed. So employers refuse to hire anyone who disagrees on any point of the ten thousand point official line, however small.

              A ten thousand point doctrine is a bit much for the ordinary working stiff, so in practice some leniency is applied to the ordinary burger flipper, who is only required to agree in the major broad generalities, but the more a job is the kind of job that requires smart people, the more absolute, detailed, and minute agreement has to be with the official line.

          • Hidden Author says:

            I think I’ve figured out your position: No one actually believes the mainstream positions on almost any subject; therefore anyone who argues in their favor is an agent of the elite rather than someone who can independently pick which positions he agrees with based on what makes sense. No, only you reactionary cultists are capable of that!

          • B says:

            No, the point is that you guys do fervently believe in the Party Line, because it is the Party Line, and fervently believing it is much more adaptive than just mouthing the slogans. For instance, if you fervently believe the Party Line, you can destroy people who make you uncomfortable by denouncing them, and not feel a twinge of guilt. Of course, the most adaptive position is that of the complete amoral sociopath who is a cheerful cynic and consciously embraces the hypocrisy to his advantage, but very few people are cut out for this (Jim, perhaps you have some ideas as to why this is.) I digress-this fervent belief is why you have no trouble following the fluctuations of the Party Line, indeed, see each fluctuation as a blessed revelation. Homosexuality, for instance, was a valid lifestyle choice and is now a predetermined genetic destiny. The world was about to end due to global winter, then was about to end from a hole in the ozone, then was about to end from global warming, now is about to end from climate change. None of these revelations were preceded by any acknowledgement that the previous one had even been made, let alone had been false. How else can you accept such a thing other than through fervent religious belief? And it goes without saying that once you are a fervent believer in any point of doctrine, there are no limits to your faith until you lose it. Purged Communists in the Soviet death camps in the 30s would hold in sanctioned party meetings to discuss the latest geopolitical developments and the latest party line. Though the party had made a mistake with them personally, this did not invalidate its overall position at the helm of the dictatorship of the proletariat and so on.

            A Soviet joke: “Citizen Rabinovich, have you waivered from the party line?” “No, I only waivered with the party line.”

            • jim says:

              When Aristide personally gouged out the eyes of one of his minions, his non political minions, for the most part, joined the revolution to overthrow Aristide, which altered the balance and was a major cause of him losing the civil war. His political minions remained solid, and the entire western left depict the desertion of his non political minions, when they acknowledge it at all, with extraordinary contempt. They would never do anything like that!

          • B says:

            “unsanctioned party meetings,” I meant. Meaning, after a long day of being worked to death, the survivors would clandestinely meet to affirm to each other that the Party was still right, Communism was still right on and so forth.

            • jim says:

              I am familiar with the psychology, and in some sense understand it. I have not, however, published an explanation.

              It is quite astonishingly difficult to deviate from the line, but having done so once, becomes easier.

          • B says:

            What is your explanation?

            Using game theory, it seems that the optimum path in an environment with leftist dogma is to be that cheerful sociopath. So why aren’t we all there? I mean, we’ve had cities and official systems of philosophy/dogma for about 500 generations, time enough for a genetic sweep, and yet the highest rates of cheerful sociopathy seem to be in those people with a shorter history of civilization.The natural objection, that it is to the interest of everyone else to identify these sociopaths and kill them, or that once you get past a certain amount of sociopaths, your society collapses, aren’t really compelling. I don’t see a lot of cheerful sociopath-killing activity in history, and don’t see a lot of collapse based on sociopathic behavior (although there is certainly some, but it seems to be a question of collapsed mores more than inherent preference for sociopathy.) On the other hand, game theory is completely built on what Carlyle referred to as “pig-philosophy,” modeling men as a sort of talking pig with completely piggish preferences, which seems not to fit very well, because people routinely do all kinds of things in complete contradiction to this model, like build cathedrals and cut their own nuts off so they don’t get in the way of focusing on Jesus.

            • jim says:

              There are several related similarly pathological phenomena

              Stockholm syndrome: We tend to love those that wrong us. This tactic obviously enhances survival, especially for females, even though it regularly leads to crazy self destructive behavior. Most of the time it improves the chances that the bad guy will not kill you, even though some of the time it prevents you from getting away or killing the bad guy

              Evil overlord syndrome. The evil overlord capriciously murders his loyal servants, and the remaining servants are twice as loyal. A variant of stockholm syndrome, except that the evil overlord has carefully selected those most likely to behave self destructively in the circumstances created by the evil overlord.

              Phariseeism: We tend to accept authority’s account of reality, including authority’s account of right and wrong, but authority’s account of right and wrong is apt to be self serving, making authority right and you wrong. We should therefore by cynical about authority’s account of right and wrong, but being credulous about it facilitates ganging up, facilitates the formation of synthetic tribes.

              Which form of morality tends to degenerate into that being right is affiliating with tribe X, and being wrong is affiliating with any other tribe, which in turn leads to hostility to all other forms of tribe other than the morality of authority.

              Which leads to no enemies to the left, no friends to the right, wherein all your enemies are your friends, and all your friends are your enemies.

              By and large, in the past five hundred generations, people with the pathologies characteristic of leftism did get ahead, because their synthetic gang generally won.

          • B says:

            But the trait that became most widespread was not the one I would guess to be most advantageous, i.e., the ability to cheerfully parrot the dominant religion’s precepts while avoiding actually letting them influence your personal decision-making. What I mean is, there is somehow no shortage of aid workers and Peace Corps volunteers lining up to go get raped by AIDS-ridden third worlders: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?15360-White-aid-worker-raped-in-Haiti-says-she-is-grateful-for-the-experience

            Notable quote: “I begged him to stop. Afraid he would kill me, I pleaded with him to honor my commitment to Haiti, to him as a brother in the mutual struggle for an end to our common oppression, but to no avail. He didn’t care that I was a Malcolm X scholar. He told me to shut up, and then slapped me in the face.”

            Rachel Corrie is another example.

            And these people are from groups that have been living with Leftism for a long time; you’d think they would have been selected to mouth the party line while seeking their own self-interest. “Sure, gays are great! I have ten kids, but you know, I totally support marriage equality!” But instead you see things like the Vanderbilt family resolving into…Anderson Cooper. What is going on here?

          • B says:

            More hilarity: http://witnesshr.blogspot.co.il/2012/03/raping-and-sexual-abuse-of-female.html

            “I came to the USSR to help the revolution, but instead they threw me in a cell and had a pig-faced interrogator kick me in the balls until I confessed to being an agent for the Luandan intelligence bureau! How could this have happened to me?!”

            OK, but how could people who have been living with this kind of thing for so long be this dumb? Stockholm syndrome doesn’t explain it-they went to their own rapists willingly, paid their own tickets and everything. If you say that their rapists are desirable alpha males, I will say that they could have found psychotic chimps in their own neighborhoods without springing for the airfare, and that in any case they should have been washed out of the gene pool a long time ago. No?

            • jim says:

              Morality is joining the morally right alliance, the alliance of people who are unlikely to harm morally right people, and are likely to harm bad people, which is to say, likely to harm those who harm morally right people. Do you identify with Neighborhood Watch George Zimmerman, or identify with thuglet Martin Trayvon? If you identify with Martin Trayvon, you are a leftist. See also my post “Monsters among us

              Leftism is joining the winning alliance. But in engages the same psychological modules as morality. This explains how leftists simultaneously view themselves as holier than thou, and use extraordinarily moralistic language, and also despise morality.

              See also my discussion of Phoebe Connolly in Black Privilege

              It also explains how they remain loyal to a group that frequently behaves like the classic evil overlord, the revolution that devours its children. They really are loyal to the winning alliance.

          • B says:

            That seems sort of maladaptive. Why would a maladaptive trait be so widespread?

          • B says:

            Aside from the sociopathic response, another one, which would be more adaptive, would be sullen cooperation. You can see blacks using this one in most dealings with authority, as well as non-leftist lower class whites. This generally makes you more or less invisible, and certainly at lower risk than the enthusiastic volunteers.

  12. Red says:

    Hidden, do everyone a favor and present a single position about equality that you believe is true and neo-reactionies are wrong on. That is if you are actually here to inform rather than troll.

    • Zach says:

      Hidden isn’t trolling brah.

      Perhaps ignorantly curious?

      • Red says:

        Generally if you’re curious you’ll ask people for evidence or try to convince them of your position via your own arguments and evidence. Hidden appears to be having a good time feeling holier than thou and making caricatures of others arguments.

        Hidden reminds me of a progressive I debated over abortion when I was 16. After I got done explaining my argument and providing some evidence for it the proggy proceeded to redefine my argument as a deep hatred of women and a supporter of rape. His complete religious fervor and disinterest in learning from others was much worse than anything I’d run into with apple cultists and java fetishists at that point.

        • Zach says:

          Point taken.

          But I know trolls. No entity in any dimension can troll like me brah. I can sniff ’em out like a blood hound. He ain’t one – ahem, I mean “isn’t”. I kid.

          When a brah starts talking, that’s the first step towards “voluntary examination”. The world is then apt to do anatomy. Whatever happens happens, but hopefully, reason wins, then economically, in theory, everyone wins, because reason, or mayhap reason-to-nature is put to the knife.

          I applaud your explanation in the 2nd paragraph. I have no words to describe how true that is. Happened to me many times. Perhaps hundreds. Maybe thousands.

      • Thales says:

        [[[Trolls as “critics from nowhere”. A real troll will never give you their top 10 favorite death metal albums, because that opens him up to criticism — he’s not in it for that. Instead you have to tolerate this fucker telling you how Opeth isn’t “real” death metal without providing alternatives.]]]

        http://www.xenosystems.net/trolls/#comment

        • Zach says:

          Think of the movie The Exorcist. The devil mixes lies with the truth.

          These days, a good horror flick is a monumental task. Point being, I can say with confidence, but not certainty, that I probably have trolled while listing my top ten death metal albums, and at the same time, saying something sincere while not agonizing over it. For now, I’ll call this loose trolling.

          I usually pick a phrase or sentence that makes me look dumb (curiously ignorant? what? see above), but in truth, has possibly 8 (or so) logical interpretations.

          For example: I’m talking about me. I’ve already said I dislike Taleb for doing so. An accident? I think not.

          Just sayin’

          😉

          Thales, you’re a good brah! Always appreciated your comments.

  13. Zach says:

    Jim – da baller of blogs lacking citations!

    ALWAYS a good read. Especially the comments. Props.

  14. lainaaheti101.wordpress

    lan trots betalningsanmärkningar

Leave a Reply