After they executed the King in the English civil war, they theoretically disestablished the official church, but it was of course immediately obvious that they instituted an officially unofficial church that was vastly more intrusive and oppressive.  When, with the restoration, officially official theocracy was reintroduced, people celebrated it with pagan festivals such as Maypole dancing, recognizing the introduction of official theocracy as ending the oppressive theocracy of ostensible lack of theocracy.

And today, the successors of those that executed the king have officially unofficial theocracy.  To go to the best universities, to run for political office, to be employed in the government service, you have to submit essays and evidence of your commitment to one thousand and one points of progressive doctrine, much as in restoration England, you had to swear allegiance to the thirty nine articles and the second book of homilies.

Today’s Anglosphere Christianity has been wholly absorbed into progressivism. It supports egalitarianism, matriarchy, fatherlessness, and race replacement, so as a commenter asks:

should we try to fix Christianity or should we finish it off and move on without it?

Societies need myths, but we are not a society, we are just a bunch of social critics. It’s best for us to discard all myths and push forward with a commitment to absolute scientific truth. Perhaps a new mythology will arise once we’ve destroyed the Cathedral or accomplished something else that is worthy of being immortalized in legend.

A monogamous patriarchal society remembers its fathers, and slowly accretes tall tales and true connecting it to ancient blood and soil.  We have lost that, and I think hopes to quickly synthesize a substitute are unlikely to succeed.

So here is what I propose for a sane official belief system, one less likely to be very repressive, or to go into positive feedback loops.

• The incarnation of evil, the defining example of collective evil

  Instead of Nazism-discrimination being the incarnation of evil communism-covetousness should be the incarnation of evil.

  Communism and Nazism should get coverage in proportion to the number of people murdered, which means Nazism should get very little coverage – the average student will entirely forget that Nazism was ever mentioned at all.

  To the extent that Nazism is mentioned at all, we should emphasize their complaint that the Jews were disproportionately successful and influential, so that it fits into the pattern covetousness-murder rather than discrimination-murder

  The various communist democides should be described in the context of wanting to have what is someone else’s (envy and covetousness).

  The propensity of Marxist minions to loyally go to their own deaths should be remembered, so that every time someone sees a depiction of an evil overlord, when the evil overlord capriciously executes one of his minions for some frivolous reason, usually with horrible torture, the audience should think “based on communist minions and communist evil overlords”, for example Aristide personally gouging out the eyes of one of his minions.

  All the various envy based ideologies, such as feminism or anti racism should be tarred as neomarxist, much as today anyone who disagrees with any tenet of envy based ideologies is a fascist or a neonazi. Feminism shall be dismissed as penis envy, and illustrated by various efforts to give women equal, but unearned, honors in fields where males have a natural advantage.  The Spartans gave a woman who died in childbirth the honor of a fallen warrior, but they did not pretend to put them in the front lines.

  We cannot resume scientific progress until every child is taught to laugh at Marie Curie getting two Nobel prizes for being on a team that made a discovery that would have been unlikely to get one Nobel had the team been all male, nor can we resume the conquest of space till every child is taught to laugh cruelly at Amelia Earhart.

  Charles Lindbergh flew solo across the Atlantic and became famous for so doing, so feminists proceeded to manufacture an equivalent female poster girl. Amelia Earhart received a ticker tape parade and a presidential reception for flying across the atlantic, in pretended imitation of Charles Lindbergh but she did not fly, rather she was flown. As a passenger. By a man.

  And when she subsequently attempted to herself fly long distance, to actually do the thing she had already become a famous poster girl for supposedly doing, promptly crashed her plane and killed herself. Everyone should laugh at her death as deserving the Darwin award.

  When they gave two Noble prizes to Marie Curie for being female, that did not hurt anyone except more deserving potential Noble prize winners. But handing out phony Nobles on the basis of sex, race, and nationality necessitated handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex, and handing out phony degrees on the basis of race and sex necessarily led to a crisis where these phony degrees were being ignored by employers, so employers necessarily had to be forced to give out well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex. But being given well paid jobs on the basis of race and sex failed to result in recipients living a middle class lifestyle, so lenders had to be forced to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex. Which led to our present financial crisis.

  It all began with Marie Curie, and to undo it, we must start by laughing at Marie Curie and laughing cruelly at Amelia Earhart. Every child needs laugh cruelly, so that envy based political movements die of shame, as Amelia Earhart died of vanity.

• Latitudinarianism

  What made official religion, the unity of Church and State, compatible with freedom in Britain in the period from the restoration to the Victorian era, was latitudinarianism, that you could piously claim to believe in the official religion while believing in anything other than the major tenets of competing theocratic religions hungry for power.

  At present, to get into an elite university like Harvard, you have to plausibly claim to believe in every single one of ten thousand points of left wing doctrine,and if you deviate on a single point of a ten thousand points, you are XXXist.

  Instead, it should be sufficient to disbelieve in the key tenets of the major competing theocratic religions. Thus applicants for any establishment position, leadership qualification, or establishment accreditation should merely be required to reject the key tenets of the two major competing theocracies: Progressivism and Islam. You may not believe that Mohammed is the final prophet of God, and you may not believe in equality nor oppose profiling.

  For example, if someone reasonably believes that females are on average less honest than males, and that homosexuals are on average less honest than heterosexuals, and that it is hard to get good information on individual honesty, then you are required to believe that he has a duty to exclude all females and homosexuals from a security job where honesty is important, even though sex and perversion are not very reliable indicators of honesty

  And if he can get better individual honesty information on fellow members of his congregation than on outsiders, then he should hire from within his congregation for the job for which honesty is important.

  Anything else, you should be allowed to believe or disbelieve, except for stuff that is empirically stupid or wrong.

  Should new theocratic belief systems appear, seeking power, their tenets should be added to the forbidden list.

  We should not be too latitudinarian. Victorian England should have executed William Wilberforce, and it is probable we will need pogroms to persuade Muslims that their religion does not require forceful imposition of Shariah on the rest of us.

  Theocratic repression:

  Restoration Anglicanism avoided being stifling. But, sending its enemies off to colonize America instead of sending them off to cut sugar in the West Indies turned out to be a very bad idea.

  Trouble is, if you repress Galileo, you don’t get the scientific and industrial revolutions, but if you fail to repress William Wilberforce, you get replaced by holier than thou fanatics, by people who claim that:

  I am holier than thou, therefore I should command thee

  It was correct to honor Lyell, who noticed that the rocks of the earth were immensely ancient, even though this was, strictly speaking, heresy punishable by death. It was suicidally self destructive to honor William Wilberforce, who discovered that morality required a radical redistribution of power and prestige away from colonials towards people strikingly resembling himself. William Wilberforce should have been executed for heresy on the question of slavery. The difference was that that Lyell was not seeking political power for his belief system, therefore not a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws, while William Wilberforce was seeking political power for his belief system, therefore was a threat to the enforcers of the heresy laws.

  Lyell was correct, so the Anglican Church was right to tolerate him. William Wilberforce was a pharisee, so they should not have tolerated him. The fact that he was correct meant that they should have been twice as intolerant, and the fact that he really was holier than they were meant that they should have been four times as intolerant. They should have shipped him off to the West Indies to cut sugar cane for rum.

  By a pharisee, I mean people who claim that they know more than others, therefore should be obeyed, that they are more virtuous than others, therefore should be obeyed, are holier than thou.  William Wilberforce opposed slavery, and proposed that virtuous people like himself should suppress with fire and steel the slavery tolerated by wicked people unlike himself, thus people like himself should have charge of fire and steel, and people unlike himself, should not.

  I suggest therefore, that the official clerisy of the official truth focus on repressing competing pharisees.  If someone not officially endorsed as speaking the official truth claims authority on the basis of his superior knowledge of the truth, rather than merely publishing the evidence that inclines him to his understanding of the truth, he should be repressed. If someone not officially endorsed as officially virtuous claims authority on the basis of his superior virtue, he should be repressed.  If he really is more virtuous than those who are officially virtuous, he should be executed.  After executing him, ironically check his body in three days.  If he has not risen, was not sufficiently more virtuous than the official promoters of official virtue.

• Hygiene

  Cleanliness, they say is next to Godliness.  An official religion needs Godliness, but God is dead, so cleanliness will have to do. People need rituals.

• The Scientific Method.

  No, the scientific method is not consensus, and even less is it peer review. Rather it is skepticism about third hand facts, disbelief in the authority of experts. Trust but verify, which in the context of science means trust but replicate, which of course really means, don’t trust. Consensus is the madness of crowds. We are prone to believe stuff because everyone else believes it, which is at best a vicious cycle leading to madness, and at worst prone to being unduly influenced by the insane, and manipulated by the evil. The insane don’t shift, because insane, and the evil don’t shift, because they are lying about what they believe, so the evil and the insane tend to dominate the consensus.

• Teach economics

  Textbook: Economics in one lesson

  That property rights should, and generally do, capture all the costs and benefits of a decision, therefore, an economic decision should be left to those that own the items at issue.

  That price control and wage control will fail, and will disrupt the lives of the supposed beneficiaries.

  That true monopoly is rare, except in the common case of regulatory capture, because the mere presence of potential competition makes it no longer a monopoly. Actual competition is not required. The threat that monopolistic behavior would end or undermine market dominance is sufficient to make market dominance harmless.

  The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem: Redistribution from capitalists to workers is impossible, and trying to do so merely buggers the economy.

• Public Choice theory

  That where there are large externalities, such that a sufficiently wise and good regulator could in theory produce a better result, by intervening against property rights that are imperfectly aligned with costs and benefits, wise and good regulators are seldom to be found, that regulators tend to create externalities by protecting the regulated from the consequences of their own bad decisions.

• Darwinism

  Leads to evolutionary psychology and human biodiversity.

  Teach the kids all those horrible unspeakable unthinkable statements by Darwin as the logical and necessary implication of Darwinian evolution, while commenting that many people find this horrifying, and doubt that it is God’s plan for man and mankind, that this is reason to doubt evolution, or to emotionally reject its implications, or suspect that God allows evil, but expects mankind to do better than Darwinism might lead us to expect, Darwinism being taught as disturbing and unpleasant fact, and God’s alleged plan as what some people think about this disturbing fact.

  The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

• Human Bio Diversity.

  Tell them that both evolution and the bible implies that groups are not the same and are not equal, without, however, explaining in excessive detail in what ways particular identifiable groups are unequal.

• Sex Education:

  It is hard to get into trouble by not knowing the mechanics of sex, for nature leads us to discover them, we intuitively and instinctively know them, but not knowing the psychology of sex is apt to lead to big problems. Therefore, sex education needs to teach the different nature of men and women.

  Darwinism tells us that men are naturally inclined to polygamy, women to hypergamy, and that this leads to conflict between men and women. For example this difference and conflict is the reason why women can be sluts, and men can never be sluts, even if a married man sleeps with a woman married to someone else.

  Which does not of course mean it is OK for a married man to sleep with another man’s wife, but does mean that people are apt despise the adulterous wife as a slut, while admiring the adultering man. Double standard because it is easy for a woman hard for a man. Because of the natural and unavoidable differences between men and women. Women are expected to keep their legs closed, while men are admired for getting those legs open .

  Girls should be taught that like it or not, rightly or wrongly, they will be judged by the double standard.

  School should teach the double standard as biblical commandment and the natural result of evolutionary psychology.

  teach men and women how their fertility and sexual market value proceeds over time. Most women these days find it hard to believe men are naturally polygamous, projecting their own behavior and inclinations onto men, and are astonished to discover how soon and how rapidly their fertility and sexual attractiveness diminishes. They are apt to believe they have a relationship with a man when it is perfectly obvious she is just one more hole to relieve himself in.

  A proposed sex education video:

  Contrast preselection scene in romance movies, with man with options scene in porn movies: Title the first part of the movie Romance Story for Women, the next part of the movie Porn Story for Men. In Romance Story, one man is treated with respect by four unattractive males, five woman are after the one man, but he has eyes only for one of them, the prettiest one, and swears his undying love, totally failing to notice the other four. He bends his knee to her, begs her to be with him forever. The loving couple ride slowly off into the sunset on his white horse, together. She is looking very, very happy, he is looking kind of stern. The other four males are never seen in the story other than initially establishing that the romantic lead is respected by his fellow males.

  In Porn Story, the same five woman are after the same one man. He romances the same one woman as in the first movie, same scenes cut to be considerably swifter, but instead of riding off into the sunset on his white horse, it is implied he immediately bangs her off screen on the nearest horizontal surface. We see her glowing.

  Then he bangs the next, and we see the next one glowing and the first one glowering.

  And the next, and the next, in order of boob size, the one with the biggest boobs first, smallest boobs last, each one starts glowing after being banged, and then stops glowing and starts glowering when the next female appears, glowing. He then gallops off on his white horse into the sunset, unaccompanied and looking very happy indeed, way happier than in the first story. Last girl (one with the smallest boobs) wails and attempts to chase after him, but he is riding one hell of a lot faster than in Romance Story, and when girl number five starts chasing, he lays his spurs into his white horse. We see the four sad and bitter males (all of them furtive and guilty looking) timidly watching the five sad and bitter females from a distance. The females, however, treat them as completely invisible.

  Needless to say, a sex education video like this is never going to be shown in schools until the current theocracy is purged, and a new more realistic theocracy replaces them.

The thesis that Game works is logically equivalent to what used to be the right wing view of women, before the right became the left that is lagging four to eight years behind the mainstream left in moving rapidly ever leftwards.

Rightists used to believe that fertile age women were uncontrollably and self destructively lustful, and therefore needed male adult supervision to prevent them from self destructively howling for their demon lover like cats in heat, that given half a chance, a woman will bang a total stranger like a barn door in a high wind, should he superficially appear sufficiently high status, with utterly disastrous results for her family, her children, and herself. And, of course, game is largely about superficially appearing to be sufficiently high status.

Conversely, if you are a Christian, you accept that Paul was right.  (Note that by this standard, there are very few Christians, and the Pope is not one of them.)  And if Paul was right, most women will misbehave, unless subject to the stern controls commended by Paul.  In which case, you think that game works.

There are of course lots of charlatans and con men purporting to teach game, but equally there are lots of practitioners who have a truly astonishing notch count.

From 1820 to 1960, leftists held that women were sexless angels, reluctantly forced into having sex by evil men imposing on them, therefore it was completely unnecessary to enforce the marital contract on women, only on men. In 1960, having successfully disempowered husbands, they switched to abolishing fatherhood altogether, which allowed them to acknowledge that women have some very slight sexual character, while nonetheless remaining angels.

Which view of women, then, is correct? Angels or succubi? If you are in any doubt about the answer, see the video that I have so frequently linked in so many of my posts.

If you believe that game works then:

1. You are darkly enlightened, since you believe at least one forbidden truth about human nature.
2. You  should logically conclude that women should never have been emancipated and never given the vote, thus logically, you should be reactionary.

My own observations hint that possibly the sexless angels account might be accurate for sexually inexperienced girls for the first two weeks following menstruation. They are interested in romance at all stages of their menstrual cycle, but not interested in getting dirty except during estrus/ovulation, and to a lesser extent following estrus/ovulation.

However it seems to me that women tend to imprint on whatever sexual activities they try during estrus, and are subsequently happy to repeat them at any stage of their cycle. I hope that some of my readers may have better data on this question than I do. (I am crowd sourcing the issue of the effect of estrus on female behavior, particularly imprinting, for I have a suspicion that there is an imprinting effect, though as far as I know this has never been scientifically studied.   We largely ignore the effects of women going into heat, or at least we largely ignore the impolite consequences of women going into heat, because we are still dominated by the ideology that women are sexless angels.)

Microsoft is reading everything you write

Skype used to be the most secure instant messaging system and I have frequently recommended it on this basis. Microsoft, under Bill Gates, used to be the big company most willing to protect user’s privacy. Skype was recently purchased by Microsoft.

Heise Security then reproduced the events by sending two test HTTPS URLs, one containing login information and one pointing to a private cloud-based file-sharing service. A few hours after their Skype messages, they observed the following in the server log:

65.52.100.214 – - [30/Apr/2013:19:28:32 +0200]
“HEAD /…/login.html?user=tbtest&password=geheim HTTP/1.1″

…

… In visiting these pages, Microsoft made use of both the login information and the specially created URL for a private cloud-based file-sharing service.

By “specially created URL” they mean a secret URL that looks like random gibberish. When one accesses a web site over https, other people can see what website you are accessing, but they cannot see the url, thus secret urls are regularly used like passwords over https to access secret files.

I am putting this in the category party politics as well as politics, because these days Microsoft is, like all big software companies, Democrat aligned. Likely if a republican candidate says something interesting, or sends an interesting link to a fellow republican, his Democratic party opponent will get wind of it.

Adam Back replicated this experiment.

The delay of several hours suggests that there is a human in the loop, keeping an eye out for anything good, though Adam Back finds this hard to believe.

I recommend using OTR over pidgin.  For one’s Skype contacts, Adam Back recommends using OTR over adium4skype.

After purchasing Skype, Microsoft replaced its peer to peer architecture with a central server architecture.   There is no good reason for doing this other than to spy on everyone.   It is obviously much more efficient to send messages as directly as possible, rather than through Redmond.

The attack on the Benghazi embassy was not a terrorist attack. It was a conventional military operation by the uniformed and well equipped troops of an organization that frequently engages in terrorist attacks. They used truck mounted artillery, not box cutters, and were dressed as Al Qaeda armed forces, not civilians. If you cannot say “War with Dar al-Islam”, or even say “War with Radical Islam”, you cannot see Islamic armed forces.

No one seems able to say “uniformed”. They say that they were wearing “Afghan costumes”. But no one in Libya wears “Afghan” costumes except armed forces affiliated with Al Qaeda, thus the costumes clearly identify them as members of an organized military force, which is the Geneva Convention definition of a military uniform.

So Al Qaeda launched a conventional military attack on the US government, and the US government refused to fight back. That was scandal one. Scandal two was that the US government proceeded to lie about it, to fit it into what they wanted to believe, rather than what actually happened. Hence the cover story that the attack was a demonstration related to a video critical of Mohammed – that it was outraged civilians, or perhaps terrorists hiding amongst outraged civilians and using them as human shields.

This lie was not only intended to cover up the first scandal, but to enable them to continue to believe in a worldview that had been falsified by events. They lied to themselves, as well as to their opponents.

This is akin to the fact crimestop prevents progressives from seeing reactionary propaganda, most famously in “District 9” Reactionaries are taking advantage of progressive crimestop, and Al Qaeda is taking advantage of progressive crimestop.

Shawn Turner, spokesman for Mr Clapper’s office, said that in the immediate aftermath of the attack, US agencies came to the view that the Benghazi attack had begun spontaneously after protests at the US embassy in Cairo against a short film made in California lampooned the Prophet Mohammed.

Mr Turner said that as US intelligence learnt more about the attack, “we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organised terrorist attack carried out by extremists”.

He said it remained “unclear” if any individual or specific group commanded the attack.

The lie drifts slightly closer to the truth, without any danger of making contact.

Progressives reacted to the 9/11 attack as an opportunity to invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert them to … progressivism

As Moldbug sarcastically tells us, progressivism is a superior revelation of which Christianity and Islam, along with all other religions, is a mere anticipation, a kind of lame-ass John-the-Baptist point-the-way figure. Backward people who refuse to accept this inevitable transition are called “fundamentalists”. If they do accept it, they are “moderates” or some other term of approbation.

There is a fair bit of “moderate Islam” in the US, meaning preachers who preach progressivism to a rapidly emptying mosque while calling themselves Muslims, for in the US the full power of the state can be applied to bend preachers to the will of the state. Progressives believe that there is a fair bit of “moderate Islam” in the middle east, but they are deluded. From time to time Obama (himself a “moderate Muslim”) has embraced some Muslim preacher as prince of moderation, only to later add that preacher to the list of people that assassin drones are to kill on sight. Obama seems to be waking up the fact that “moderate Muslims” are as thin on the ground as shovel ready government projects. This, however, puts Obama well to the right of the Department of State, and indeed well to the right of most neoconservatives.

Because progressives are unaware how much coercion they apply to convert people subject to the rule of the USG to progressivism, they profoundly under estimated how much violence would be required to convert the middle east. Thus they were, and are, in denial about what happened in Benghazi. The new regime in Libya was supposedly progressive, thus unthinkable that some military units of the Libyan spring were in fact Al Qaeda, unthinkable that they were in state of conventional war, declared by both sides, with the USA. Official truth was and is that there was no significant Al Qaeda presence among the rebels against Gaddafi’s regime, hence the inability to recognize “Afghan” clothes for what they were. The failure to respond to a military attack, and the subsequent lies and cover up, are all in an effort to uphold official truth, all in an effort to believe official truth.

Richwine pointed out what everyone knows, but no one can say: That mestizos are genetically low intelligence, and that importing a low intelligence underclass will cost Americans a lot of money, and that this underclass, even if, unlike blacks, they really want to assimilate, can never assimilate, and will forever resent their failure to assimilate, forever blaming it on racism.

Richwine’s estimates were, however, very much on the low side. He only considered the costs of a genetically low IQ underclass that sucks up welfare and fails to pay taxes. He ignored Smart Fraction Theory.

Smart Fraction Theory is that nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is somewhere around 108, a bit less than the minimum that used to be required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. This gives a remarkably good fit to variations in wealth between countries. Average IQ influences average per capita wealth much more strongly than individual IQ influences individual wealth. Richwine only considered the extent to which average IQ influences individual wealth.

Smart people create the modern economy, perhaps directly by operating businesses, perhaps culturally, by creating a society of trust and cooperation, perhaps politically, by resisting self destructive economic policies. Most likely by some combination of all three. Smart people create an environment that allows less smart people to make a decent living. Thus intelligence has a large positive externality, and stupidity, similarly a large negative externality.

A person of average IQ is not the average IQ of your friends. If you are a typical reader of this blog, you would perceive him as remarkably stupid. Consider that man in a backward African economy. Likely his best option is to scratch the ground with a digging stick, grow yams, and hunt rats and small animals (the larger animals already having been killed). He produces very little, and is accordingly very poor. The same man in Singapore is highly productive because smart wealthy people provide him with highly sophisticated equipment, and tell him what to do with that equipment. Modern living standards are a gift by the rich to the poor and a gift by the smart to the stupid.

If you have ten percent more low IQ people, then the amount of modern economy you have is diluted by ten percent, for the modern economy is, to a good approximation, smart people cooperating with each other, and the rest are in large part just leeching on wealth created by others. Thus on average every average and below person that enters the United States costs the existing residents fifty thousand dollars a year, as does every child spawned by the innumerable short fat pregnant single mestizo woman that clog up every emergency ward in California, except for the Stanford emergency ward. Richwine considers only the part of this loss that comes in the form of government expenditures.

The ethno nationalists in Dark Enlightenment hope to restore geographic white nations, on new, much shrunken borders. This seems as impractical as unscrambling an omelet, and leaves the big problem of the white underclass created by welfare and the collapse of the family. My proposed solution is an end to universal suffrage – whether by literacy tests and property tests, or by abandoning democracy altogether for some other system, any other system, and the reintroduction of segregation and small apartheid. We put a sign over the black section in the school cafeteria that says “black section” so that no one gets confused. And we also need male only areas.

Of course not all stupid people are black, and not all black people are stupid, and similarly for criminals. When considering which people need to be kept away from civilized people, we should profile. Race and culture should be one factor, an important factor, but one, as in Rhodesia, capable of being outweighed by other factors. The Rhodesian slogan was “Equal rights for all civilized men” – which they carried out to very good effect, and to the benefit of everyone, including, indeed particularly, the benefit of uncivilized men, who benefited from firm supervision, who benefit from firm supervision by their superiors more than anyone. Compare Rhodesia under white rule, with Zimbabwe.

We should employ a full Bayesian approach: Fatherlessness, employment, literacy, credit rating, criminal history, and property should weigh in various profiles applied for various purposes, as well as race and culture. A major effect and intent of these profiles should be unmix the omelet on the micro scale, to keep uncivilized men of all races away from civilized men of all races. We need ghettos, not only because there are blacks and mestizos, but because there are too many stupid whites, and too many whites that have been raised feral by single mums. And if someone who belongs in the ghetto is found where he should not be, he is asked for a justification for being where he is. If no adequate justification, gets in trouble.

My personal observation is that every successful marriage is quietly and furtively eighteenth century, so thoroughly politically incorrect as to be illegal.

And a little reflection reveals that the New Testament/eighteenth century form of marriage, in which both parties give consent to sex once and forever, and the wife submits to the husband, is simply the only kind that can work.

All is fair in love and war.

Love is a battlefield

Love is war.

If the male does what is best for himself, and the female does what is best for herself, the outcome is likely to be unsatisfactory for both parties.  To solve this problem, the New Testament commands an indissoluble contractual commitment to mutual support, and sexual availability, so that, once married, you are stuck with each other, for better or worse, and required to have sex according to the other’s desire.  “Marital rape” is not only permitted, but absolutely mandatory. This contract changes the incentives, creating an incentive for good behavior, among other things giving the man the ability and incentive to invest in his children. 

Absent contract, the incentives are for bad behavior. Women always want better, and they can get it, if only briefly, and men always want more.

If two people are close, they cannot be equal,  Equality requires fences, requires some separation, requires each has his own turf, his own things.  A single household, must have a single head of household, thus the contract must designate one person as the head.  And, in practice, women will not put up with being the head of household.  They will struggle to take charge, but if they succeed in taking charge, will not have sex with their husbands.  So the contract, necessarily, commits the wife to submit to the husband.  The contract must designate the man to be in charge. The New Testament prescription – indissoluble and patriarchal marriage, is the only practical solution.  A society with some other form of marriage will have trouble reproducing biologically, culturally, and economically.

People say the rot set in with no fault divorce, but it is worse than that. The rot set in with George the Fourth’s unsuccessful attempt to divorce Queen Caroline. We then, in 1820, first see the doctrine that women are angels, with no sexual character, therefore do not need restraint, supervision, and discipline. Around 1960 or so, the left doctrine that women are angels with no sexual character was replaced by the doctrine that woman are angels even if they have sex, and history was abruptly rewritten to attribute the previous version, that women are sexless angels, to the right.

Of course the actual right wing point of view was always that given half a chance, a woman will bang a total stranger like a barn door in a high wind, should he superficially appear sufficiently high status, with utterly disastrous results for her family, her children, and herself, and that therefore women had to be restrained for their own good, and the sake of society.  As various Youtube videos show, it is women that are the uncontrollably lustful sex.

This left wing doctrine, the angelhood of women,  led the state’s destruction of the family, starting in England with the Matrimonial causes act of 1857. It set in a fair bit earlier in the US, though this is complicated to track in the US, being primarily done in state rather than federal law, with some US states obstinately holding out until the civil war, which was fought not only to free the slaves, but also, among other things, to destroy marriage.

The British Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 meant that a woman who left her husband had the legal status of an independent household, but not a man who left his wife – thus began what in due course became unilateral divorce at female whim, and the requirement for continuing moment to moment consent to sex, rather than consent to sex being formally given once and forever. A woman could wash her hands of her husband, but not a husband of his wife. Hence the 1860s begat the 1960s. Smash monogamy and all that. If a wife left her husband, perhaps in the hope (seldom realized) that her demon lover would visit her more frequently, she gained, under the 1857 Matrimonial causes act, full control of her income and finances, but did not automatically and immediately lose the husband’s obligation to support her. Every change since then as just been doubling down on that big 1857 change.

The 1857 act fatally undermined the new testament prescription for marriage, in which both parties give consent to sex once and forever, and the wife submits to the husband.

Old Testament marriage favored polygyny:  A wife could have only one husband, but a husband multiple wives.  The New Testament does not explicitly prohibit polygyny, but the requirement that the husband always be sexually and emotionally available to the wife implicitly prohibits, or at least strongly discourages, polygyny, and arguably explicitly prohibits it: “Let every woman have her own husband”.

The British 1857 change gave the woman a bomb and a detonator to blow up her family at any moment, thus increased her power, and decreased the husband’s power over her, and every subsequent change to the present day in every country increased the power of the explosive and inducements to press the button.  But this necessarily results in husbands being less inclined to marry in the first place, and reduces their investment in what could be capriciously destroyed, reduces their investment in things that reduce their power and freedom – which is to say, their sons and posterity, which change is not to the advantage of wives.  That a woman cannot irrevocably commit herself to marriage, necessarily reduces the husband’s commitment, no matter what the law may say.

Making contracts non binding on women is the same thing as forbidding women from entering into contracts. It disempowers women, not empowers them.  Taking the marriage as given, it empowers them.  But the marriage is not given.  Giving them the power to capriciously destroy the marriage that they momentarily don’t want, denies them the power to obtain the marriage that they do want.

Feminists interpret the 1857 as partriarchally favoring men, because they interpret everything as partriarchally favoring men. Supposedly, it favored men in that female adultery was grounds for divorce, but male adultery was not. Men, however, do not bring their bastards home, so that is a perfectly reasonable law. The big high explosive, society smashing bomb in the 1857 act is that a woman could walk out of marriage, get a job, or get her lover to let her stay with him, and she was just fine, it was as if the marriage had never been, none of her former obligations entangled her, other than that she needed to get a divorce before marrying again, but if a man walked out of marriage, and had a job, he was in deep $%!#.

This fundamentally and radically altered the balance of power in marriage – which of course made women less satisfied with marriage, and less inclined to get married, because it deballed their husbands.

People say that marriage was fine in 1950, if only we could go back to 1950. And marriage was fine in 1950, because church and society socially enforced the rules that the state no longer legally enforced, indeed was busily undermining: That the husband was the head of the household, and that it was utterly unthinkable for a wife to walk out on her wifely duties.

But these rules were under social and cultural attack starting with the attempted divorce of King George the Fourth, and had ceased to be legal, had come under legal attack with the Matrimonial causes act of 1857. So from 1800 to 1950, we were running on cultural capital that was under social and legal attack, and around 1960 or so, just ran out out of cultural capital.

For society to reproduce itself culturally and biologically, husband and wife have to have incentive to behave well.  To have incentive to behave well, have to be stuck with the marital roles they have agreed to, with bad legal and social consequences should they abandon them.  The rot set in when, during the the divorce proceedings of King George the Fourth, the left got away with arguing that it was so extraordinarily unlikely for a woman to behave badly, that extraordinary evidence of bad behavior was required, thus in 1820 effectively negating the existing laws against such bad behavior, which laws were finally repealed in 1857.  Social and cultural enforcement of these laws, however, continued until the 1950s, revealing that the attack on marriage was a state centered attack.

Well of course it was a state centered attack, the state attacking society.  The state is the left and the left is the state.

If it is extraordinarily unlikely for women to behave badly, then obviously the entire apparatus of coercion to make people fulfill their marital vows was completely unnecessary for women, and only needed to be applied against men.  Applying it against women was supposedly just sheer gratuitous cruelty.

And thus, the left completed their attack on marriage that they began during the reign of Cromwell, when parliament declared marriage not a sacrament.  Marriage was indeed smashed in the sixties – the eighteen sixties.

Supposing the big mac index to be true, US real GDP per capita has been falling at about 1% per year in recent years.

Motor vehicles per capita, according to world bank statistics, have been falling about 1% per year in recent years.

Electricity consumption per capita, taking indexmundi figures for US electricity consumption, and world bank figures for US population, has been falling at about 2% per year in recent years, consistent with the greeny attack on energy.

So, the evidence favors the big mac index.  Which is not showing hyperinflation, but is showing more inflation than is good for the economy.

Because the principles and social organization that we want to restore are completely dead, available only in dusty old books whose language is a little bit strange. We are not reacting to the latest outrage, but to outrages that were a fait accompli a hundred years ago. Since what was an fait accompli a hundred years ago has led to the disastrous consequences predicted, the possibility now opens of reversing what was supposedly irreversible. The Neoreaction is heavily influenced by books long, long, out of print, and previously inaccessible.

Neoreactionaries, all of them, respect the past. Traditional solutions derive from Nature, or, some would say, from Nature’s God, and embody unspoken and difficult to explain wisdom. Sweeping them aside was apt to have disastrous consequences, and, in substantial part, did have disastrous consequences.

Reactionaries, all of them, are realists, seeing the real, not the official truth.

Neoreactionaries, all of them, recognize that races are different, the sexes are different, and man is a hierarchical animal.

Neoreactionaries, all of them, regard the official truth, the Cathedral as highly unlikely to have any connection to the truth, indeed as evil and insane. If all academics and the New York Times agree on X, the neoreactionary assumption is that X is likely to be a lie. The only way one would get such agreement is if it is enforced, and, if enforced, must be untrue.

That being said, what divides neoreactionaries?

Christian Traditionalists are just not all that neoreactionary, even though they are supposed to be faithful to a very ancient book. Everything the Christian Manosphere, such as Dalrock, says about trad-cons tends to be somewhat true of Christian Traditionalists. The left would imagine the Christian Traditionalists as proposing a Christian Theocracy with fire and brimstone, and that each variant of Christian Traditionalism proposed to burn each of the others at the stake, but even those who do in fact propose a Christian theocracy, such as Bruce Charleton, want a King, not a priest, at the top. They are alarmingly willing to render unto Caesar not only what is Caesar’s, but also what is God’s. Saint Paul wanted the Church practices to symbolically and socially enforce male supremacy. Women were to be silent in Church, and in Church dress in a way symbolizing modesty and submission. Today’s Christian Traditionalists, reasonably enough, shrink from such a blatant confrontation with the Cathedral. They hope for a Caesar that will permit them to be more authentically Christian, but have no great inclination to stick their heads out when today’s Caesar prohibits key parts of the New Testament.

If Bruce Charleton had his King, and the King mandated Mormonism, Bruce would gladly be a Mormon, if Greek Orthodoxy, he would be Greek Orthodox, if Restoration Anglicanism, he would be Anglican. Any King that mandated something that was not violently unchristian would be an improvement for Bruce Charleton.

Ethno-Nationalists, like Christian Traditionalists, tend to be not all that reactionary. An ethno nationalist typically believes that if we adjusted borders to get some predominantly white nations, and if our ruling elite was ethnically homogeneous, we would be fine. A neoreactionary thinks our problems are too serious to be solved in that manner.

The Ethno Nationalist correctly observes that Jewish members of the elite tend to think of themselves as non white, and hate whites. Indeed they hate whites and Christians so much that if destroying the white race and Christendom destroyed the Jewish race and Judaism, as seems rather likely, they would be fine with that. The Ethno Nationalist however fails to observe that our ruling elite has hated whites and Christendom even back when it was ethnically homogeneous and nominally Christian. Nineteenth Century Whitehall imperialism was anti colonialist, an attack on eighteenth century British colonialism. Anti colonialism goes back to the nineteenth century British gentry sneering at those that got rich in India. Until 1950 or so, there were few or no Jews in the ruling elite, yet it still hated whites and Christendom.

Thus the Ethno-Nationalist tends to say, “Let us turn the clock back to 1950”, while I say, 1800. In the great debate about whether Nazis are left or right, the answer is that Nazis are 1950s leftists. The Zietgeist has moved leftwards since then. Although as recently as 1950, our ruling elite thought of leftism as a form of Christianity, indeed as more Christian than regular Christianity, nonetheless as early as the War Between the States, the Christian left was aware that its religious beliefs differed radically from traditional Christianity, and were correspondingly hostile to traditional Christianity.

Suppose we magically got whiteopia borders – nation states that were all white, and indeed each of a single white ethnicity. And suppose government employees in powerful positions were also all of single ethnicity. (Suppose we fired all the Jews.) Government employees would still be fireproof, thus power would still be diffused. Being diffused, we get rule by consensus. Jim’s rule of large committees applies: That consensus will always wind up dominated by the evil and the insane, which is to say the left. To maintain the appearance of democracy the government needs to manufacture or import an electorate that will vote for what it is going to do anyway, which is how we lost ethnic homogeneity in the first place.

Still, turning the clock back to 1950 is a good start, and as far as I can tell most Ethno-Nationalists want to make government employees fireable at will, so my primary disagreement with them is that they underestimate the scope of the problem. Purging the civil service and the voter rolls is easier done, and more likely to be effective, than adjusting borders.

If we adjusted the borders, which is what the Ethno-Nationalists want, and ensured that the ruling elite was ethnically homogeneous, the fundamental causes that got us into this problem would still be acting. The government would still suck in pretty much the way it sucks now. On the other hand, making public servants fireable at will would go a long way to fixing things. We would then merely be stuck with an army of fatherless children and single mothers voting for handouts.

By and large, fatherlessness is a bigger problem than race. We would get more mileage making it hard for the fatherless to vote, than hard for the black to vote.

To the Christians in the neoreaction, the Masculine Reaction seems to be in favor of social decay. Heartiste claims to be a minion of Satan. But, in fact Heartiste is not in favor social decay. Rather he is against males being required to take the traditional male obligations unreciprocated in a society that is in decay, against white males attempting to carry carry the impossible burden of a society that has already collapsed. Absent socially and legally enforceable contracts, love is war. All is fair in love and war. Heartiste and company represent sex realism, as the HBD branch of the neoreaction represents race realism.

Obviously Neoreactionaries do not favor a society in which each individual pursues his best interests without regard to the costs that he imposes on others. But in sex and reproduction, we have such a society. It is possible to establish, by force of character and reckless will to power, a family with different rules, though it is a lot easier if one’s starting material is an aristocratic girl brought up in a profoundly conservative family within a profoundly conservative society. For most young men today, that is not an option. Marriage is collapsing, even among the white elite, even among those white males whose income is high enough that marriage to them is higher status than marriage to Uncle Sam the Big Pimp.