What to do in a restoration

September 17th, 2015

That which cannot continue must end. Thus one way or another, the movement ever leftwards, ever faster, is going to stop, going to be stopped, probably after the fashion of Stalin, if we are lucky after the fashion of conspiracy of 9 Thermidor, if really lucky after the fashion of Cromwell.

That does not necessarily mean things will get better, merely that, as in Stalin’s Soviet Union, they will stop getting even worse. But when China recovered from Maoism, it not only had a pretty good restoration, but came out of a dark age. And today’s Russia is not doing too badly.

So here is what is going to take to clean up the Augean stables:

Cannot stop a left singularity. unless you get real serious about stopping it. Hence the end of a left singularity is apt to lead to a restoration – though it may instead merely lead to the execution of a remarkably large number of leftists, suspected leftists, potential leftists, and suspected potential leftists. (Yey Stalin! Go Stalin Go!)

The inability of King George the Fourth to divorce of Queen Caroline was lunatic barking mad leftism in charge, frothing at the mouth, and biting crazy, and it has been going downhill ever since, getting crazier and more extreme every day, faster and faster. This is damaging technology through rule by consensus. Peer Review means that instead of experimentalists telling the scientific community what they see, the scientific community tells experimentalists what they would see. Science died when peer review was introduced in the nineteen forties, and in the seventies, technology began to follow.

To fix the left singularity needs military force and martial law. Warriors on top, so warrior status has to be raised, priest status lowered. Confiscate the Ivy endowments, and completely destroy Harvard, totally bulldozing every trace. Symbolically pour salt upon the earth, then redevelop the Ivy campuses for housing, shopping malls, and offices.

Deflate academic credentials, with the school leaving exam, taken at the age puberty begins, discriminating between those above and below IQ 105, and the school matriculation exam (high school, taken at completion of puberty) discriminating between those above and below IQ 115. University entrance begins at IQ 125. Some people fail university, quite a lot fail university, about half of them, so that pretty much everyone with a two year or more degree is IQ 130 or above. Four year degrees, however, should not be significantly smarter, just more academic. Above common IQ levels, above IQ 130, we don’t use academic credentials, but rather deal with individuals case by case. So if you are really smart and leave school at school leaving age, then self educate, you will still do fine. We cease to force people to waste their fertile years in zero sum competition for credentials of little value. Post deflation academic degrees are given new names to differentiate them from inflated academic degrees. The net effect is that far fewer people go to university, and those that do go to university for a far shorter time.

To lower priestly status, we make sure that there is a non academic path into every career, often built around apprenticeship – that there are no careers where academics have a legal monopoly of licensing people to perform certain tasks. Well established and successful practitioners can also license people to perform those tasks.

School years should be tied to puberty, so that people with the same physical development are taking the same exam, so as not to discriminate in favor of blacks and against whites, and so as not to discriminate in favor of females and against males, and to create an expectation that completion of puberty means getting a job, a wife, and having children.

Issue a clear definition of orthodoxy and heresy and systematically purge government, academia, and quasi government institutions such as banks of heretics..

The Mad Max scenario – trade and specialization of labor collapses as at the end of the Bronze age – is unlikely. That social technology is too widely known and too well understood. However, we are losing, have lost, the scientific revolution and the scientific method. In place of Nullius in Verba, we are now required to believe in the scientific consensus established behind closed doors on the basis of secret evidence. Reflect for example on the endless and generally unsuccessful lawsuits attempting to get the Universities to reveal the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming, even though all the older journals have rules theoretically in place requiring full data and evidence for any published article to made available. Double entry accounting is under attack, with Sarbannes Oxley replacing accounts that reflect reality, with accounts that reflect official reality.

We have also lost the important reproductive technology of marriage -that a man and a woman could make a contract to stick together and raise their children, and be socially and legally forced to stick to it. The concept of marital rape – that the thought seems meaningful, that the concept exists, is incompatible with the existence of marriage as marriage has been understood for the past few thousand years. If either party may withhold sex or reproductive sex at any time for any reason or no reason, then either party may cancel the marriage at any time for any reason or no reason, which is a profound deterrent to having children.

Patriarchy is also necessary for marriage. If one person does not have final authority over the household, you don’t have one household.

Without marriage, marriage as it was understood up to 1950 or so, whites are not going to successfully reproduce.

Before 1972, not only was “marital rape” legal, but people had difficulty understanding what feminists were talking about – the combination of words made no sense to most people. Feminists had to talk around the topic in long winded ways. Legally the right of a man to compel his wife to perform her marital duty had been quietly abolished early in the nineteenth century, but socially, people continued to pretty much take it for granted until the nineteen seventies.

Review of Left Singularities.

September 14th, 2015

The Left Singularity is  increasing leftism causing ever faster increases in leftism until something breaks short of achieving infinite leftism in finite time.

Dark ages are slow, more or less continuous, economic and political decline, imperceptibly slow, typically about one percent a year on average, hard to notice against the background of random economic and political fluctuations.

Left Singularities, on the other hand, unlike dark ages, end with a decisive boom, a close approach to infinite leftism in finite time.  Sometimes a left singularity is followed by reforms or a restoration.  Sometimes, as when Stalin purged the left, things just stop getting worse, but do not get a whole lot better.

The basic mechanism of a left wing singularity is political correctness.  The elite competes to be holier than each other.  Everyone is compelled to be ever holier, and the holier they get, the more everyone is compelled to be even holier.

if we believe the “Admonitions of Ipuwer”, Bronze age civilization ended in a left singularity.  Archeaology shows that bronze age civilization ended with a bang, that led directly and immediately to a dark age.  Presumably the social technology of trade and commerce was lost in the left singularity, and not immediately recovered.

Recent events in China happened the other way around, a long slow decline into darkness, with intermittent left singularities along the way, and then the restoration following the Maoist left singularity cured the dark age.

China was in continuous slow economic decline from the Southern Song Dynasty until Socialism with Chinese characteristics.  Thus a dark age, terminating in a left singularity followed by a restoration, rather than starting in a left singularity.

Which gives me hope that our left singularity will be followed by a similar restoration.

The bronze age left singularity resulted in the total destruction of most existing states, with new states growing up from large extended families.  Assyria survived, and Egypt did not altogether cease to be a state, but the rest of them mostly vanished.  Egypt survived in bad (highly leftist) condition – liberated women and all that.

Rome suffered its bout of leftism before its greatest days, and then suffered a long slow decline that terminated in anarchic and disorderly feudalism, not leftism.  The dark age did not set in until long after Rome’s bout of leftism, and we recovered from the dark age without any left singularities.

The decline of China started with a burst of leftism, but not a full blown left singularity. During its decline there were at least two left singularities – Maoism and Chang Hsien-chong – arguably more.  The final left singularity was followed by a cure, which is not a very common outcome of left singularities, though I have hopes for Russia  That cure was the communist party converting to a hereditary aristocracy with an electoral monarchy, which elected competent monarchs, the first such monarch importing an economic system from Hong Kong, which had absorbed eighteenth century Manchesterism from nineteenth century colonialists and preserved it, more or less, though the twentieth century.

For feudalism with electoral monarchy to work, the election should be for life or good conduct, the removal of a monarch being an extraordinary, and usually quite violent, event.

Russia, on the other hand, after recovering from its left singularity, attempted to import the modern western economic system, which turned out that they imported the parasite but not the host.

The bronze age transition from large scale civilizations to disorderly familism happened abruptly and was mediated by a left singularity.  The transition to disorderly feudalism following the decline of Rome just gradually happened without any connection to radical leftism.

The French left singularity ended in the Red Terror. The French left was fairly thoroughly squashed by Napoleon, much as the Russian left was very thoroughly squashed by Stalin. It utterly and permanently disappeared following its attempted recovery of power in the Paris Commune. Britain imposed its institutions on France, so today’s French left is a colonial outpost of the anglophone left.

The initial stages of a dark age are over taxation and over regulation, where the government attempts to persistently tax and regulate beyond the Laffer limit. However in the final stages of a dark age, the government is apt to be nonexistent, lawless tax collectors gradually becoming indistinguishable from bandits, which does not in it itself necessarily cure the dark age.

Leftism tends to involve:

Breakdown of traditional gender roles, emancipation of women.

Breakdown of traditional hierarchies, progressing towards more democratic and bureaucratic forms from authoritarian and legal forms. Dissolution of responsibility and answerability for decisions.

Anarcho-Tyranny, where protection of the law from criminals is removed from decent citizens, but self-organized self defence is still illegal.

Millenarianism, the belief in an ongoing or near-at-hand massive transformation of society. Accelerating this is considered a moral imperative. This belief also justifies the above breakdowns as disposing of “outdated” things

What Happens in a Left Singularity

In the realm of discourse, non-leftist ideas become increasingly unacceptable, with their proponents facing social, professional, and legal consequences. The negative consequences for speaking against leftism quiet down the resistance and thus increase the boldness of the left, which accelerates the process.

The French left singularity began with false popes of Avignon. Its initial growth was relatively slow, becoming rapid, pathological, and alarming under the highly progressive radical left regime of King Louis XVI.

The anglophone left singularity began with the Puritans, ended in Cromwell doing a Stalin and crushing everyone to the left of him. After Cromwell died, Monck made a military coup. His praetorians proceeded to “guard” parliament and restore the monarchy. Leftism continued to fester, but did not really go malignant in Britain until perhaps 1770 (American Revolution) or 1820 (failure of King George to divorce Queen Caroline despite conspicuous infidelity, disobedience, and gross sexual immorality).

It manifested with alarming moonbat crazy biting mad leftism in 1820, and has continued to get worse faster and faster ever since.

The Russian left singularity began not with a religious heresy, but rather with Alexander the Liberator being fashionable and influenced by British leftism.

The British nineteenth century enclosures were a land reform that redistributed land from the aristocracy to the individual peasants. The left wanted the land redistributed collectively rather than individually, so that the left would have to administer land and peasants (administering the peasants on behalf of the peasants, because they love the peasants so very much). What you think you know about the enclosures is the left demonizing them. The enclosures were in practice a quite reasonable moderate left wing land reform – but the left wanted a moonbat crazy frothing at the mouth biting mad left wing land reform, and did not get it, and so have stridently demonized the enclosures to this day.

In Russia, Alexander the liberator, influenced by fashionable British leftists, introduced the moonbat crazy frothing at the mouth biting mad left wing land reform that they had been seeking, and to this day argue should have happened. He distributed the land to the serfs collectively, rather than to the individual serfs. But of course, the serfs were, for the most part, incapable of administering the land, so there followed endless further reforms to administer land and serfs, which moved Russia ever lefter, creating an ever larger class of government and government privileged leftists, eventually culminating in the artificial famines of the 1930s, leading to Stalin’s great purge, during which he purged both the largely imaginary right, the wreckers, and the terrifyingly real left, the trots, thereby ending the left singularity started by Alexander the Liberator.

A lost military technology

September 13th, 2015

In the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, wealthy private individuals substantially supported the military, with a particular wealthy men buying stuff for a particular regiment or particular fort.

Noblemen paid high prices for military commands, and these posts were no sinecure.  You got the obligation to substantially supply the logistics for your men, the duty to obey stupid orders that would very likely lead to your death, the duty to lead your men from in front while wearing a costume designed to make you particularly conspicuous, and the duty to engage in honorable personal combat, man to man, with your opposite number who was also leading his troops from in front.

A vestige of this tradition remains in that every English prince has been sent to war and has placed himself very much in harms

It seems obvious to me that a soldier being led by a member of the ruling class who is soaking up the bullets from in front is a lot more likely to be loyal and brave than a soldier sent into battle by distant rulers safely in Washington who despise him as a sexist homophobic racist murderer, that a soldier who sees his commander, a member of the ruling classes, fighting right in front of him, is reflexively likely to fight.

So what made very large numbers of rich and powerful people personally sacrifice for the military?  They must have gotten something out of it, and at what they were paying, it was not the salary.

Presumably they got social status, which could be cashed in for wealth and power.  This however requires that we award social status for activities that are actually constructive and support society and order, and that we then allow social status to be cashed in.    Which means we have to make sure that social status is not awarded for superior holiness – we have to hang Greenpeace from the yardarm when they engage in piracy on the high seas, and send William Wilberforce to west indies as a slave to cut sugarcane in punishment for apostasy.

I understand how eighteenth century patriarchy worked, how good behavior was socially and coercively enforced on women.

But I don’t understand how private and individual support of the military by wealthy and or aristocratic males was motivated.  This is a lost social technology.

To make it work, have to bestow status on those worthy, and reward earned status with money and power.

The system eventually failed because the holy claimed higher status than that horribly brutal racist sexist homophobic baby eating military.  The attacks on the military began with synthetic moral outrage at the British army’s successful and heroic measures to cut Russian logistics in the Crimean war, in which the courage and victory of officers and men should have covered them with glory, and have escalated ever since, with ever more  severe efforts to denigrate and disadvantage soldiers.  What was heroism before the Crimean war has become baby eating ever since.

In place of crediting heroes with heroism, they credited whores like Florence Nightingale with heroism.  (I assume she was a whore because most of the female camp followers, and most of the camp followers were female, worked vertically by day and horizontally by night.  Also, when she was hot, she had many connections with many wealthy men, but never married.  When a young cute girl spends a lot of time hanging out with a succession of old rich guys ….)

The great cuckolding

September 13th, 2015

Stolen from the heartiste comments:

It is frequently reported that white women in Sweden have reasonable total fertility rate. What is not reported is that this largely consists of fatherless brown babies supported by white male taxpayers.

At an instinctive gut level, women recognize this for what it is:  Invasion!

And respond sexually to invasion as women always have and always will unless kept under tight control.   Yet another reason why we should never have emancipated women (to prevent them from fucking outsiders) and never given the vote to women (to prevent them from voting for outside conquest).

Yet another great Heartiste post

September 12th, 2015

The Muslims invading Europe are, surprise surprise, acting like Muslim invaders.

Fearing to commit thought crime, Europeans respond with unconditional surrender, for to resist what is happening would require them to acknowledge what is happening.

Hillary and the decline of the elite.

September 11th, 2015

Bill Clinton was a truly great politician. He could embrace you and steal your wallet, embrace your wife and fuck your wife, and you would still somehow like him.

Hillary Clinton is the drunken dumb heiress bitch Bill Clinton married to fund his initial entry into politics. She is now big fat drunken carpet munching dumb bitch. Bill Clinton is a very good liar, an extraordinarily good liar. Hillary Clinton is a terrible liar. Whenever something bad happens in her vicinity, she goes into damage control mode which immediately leads everyone to assume that she deliberately caused that bad thing. Nothing stuck to Bill. Everything sticks to Hillary.

Bill Clinton was a very good politician. Hillary Clinton is hopelessly incompetent, and particularly bad at politics.

So why is the Cathedral preparing to enthrone Clinton the Second?

Answer: The Cathedral is stupid and getting stupider, in part because everyone is required to believe ever sillier things with ever greater sincerity.

Diversity means defection

September 11th, 2015

Yet another great Steve Sailer post. Diversity, even with groups of comparable ability, leads to loss of trust and bad conduct.

This is revealed by the FBIs ten most wanted white collar criminals. White collar crime requires intelligence, but the only American born white on the top ten, the only one you could not tell was a diversity by looking at him, is named Hamed Ahmed Elbarki. Every single one on the top ten is a diversity, and most of them belong to groups with a known tendency to ordinary lower class dumb vicious thug type criminality. The Russian Jew looks not at all Russian, and very, very Jewish. Most Jews are white, though they don’t identify as white. The Russian Jew is not white.

This reminds me of the last days of Informix. They hired very large numbers of Indians (dot, not feather). Because of corruption in the Informix hiring process, the Indians were not all of the best quality, but that was not the big problem. The big problem was that each caste or clan formed a conspiracy which proceeded to plot against the company, against whites, and against each of the other castes or clans. Though this was more a case of diversity leads to war, than diversity leads to defection. Towards the end, Informix was showing signs of becoming Beirut on the Bay. My boss sent me to a meeting, pretty much to spy on them. I go into the meeting and they are all Indians, all Indians of a particular Indian race. And they all look at me as one and viscerally react “Enemy spy”. All business halted while I was present.

Trump and democracy

September 11th, 2015

The Trump candidacy is great because:

The voices of the Cathedral from time to time say he will not be allowed to win, revealing the managed nature of democracy.

All the other candidates are ladyboys, revealing both the managed nature of democracy and the emasculating nature of progressivism. Also revealing that the Republican party is the outer party, a fake managed opposition. It makes “cuckservative” a devastatingly effective insult, linking their race traitor politics to their conspicuous lack of masculinity.

The voices of the Cathedral from time to time say that if he wins, will not be allowed to govern, revealing that they regard legislature and executive as mere theater, a meaningless show performed while the important people take care of the important stuff.

And best of all: Every time Trump opens his mouth, he widens the Overton Window.

The Trumpening

September 7th, 2015

Polls indicate that Trump is going to the Republican candidate, and going to win, going to be the next president.

In substantial part because he gets a lot more black and hispanic votes than Republicans usually do, which is to say, a lot of votes from those who are most directly hurt by illegal immigration.

The Cathedral attitude is that the voters are throwing a silly temper tantrum, which will be ignored. It is possible that they will declare his election unconstitutional, because racism, but more likely that they will just carry on as if he is not president, because racism.

This is pretty much what happened when Kevin Rudd attempted to stop illegal immigration to Australia and deport illegal immigrants. Totally failed. This is what Jorge means when he correctly tells Trump that Trump’s plan is unworkable. The country is ruled by priests, not politicians, and Jorge is a priest and Trump is not. Therefore Trump’s plan is unworkable. However, Kevin Rudd’s efforts eventually made possible Tony Abbots efforts. Tony Abbot just ignored the judges and used the military directly.

At one point the judges ruled that a bunch of Tamil illegal immigrants from India could not be expelled, unless their asylum status was checked with the Indian government. Tony Abbot readily agreed, since it is ridiculous for anyone to claim asylum from the Indian government these days. Then the judges pulled a switcheroo – their asylum status could not be checked unless they consented to it be being checked. Within minutes, airforce commandos were stuffing the Tamils onto airforce planes, which proceeded to fly the Tamils to some place far from Australia, with total disregard for Australian court rulings, supposed international law, and such. The judges hair caught fire, (only metaphorically, unfortunately) but since then they have been mighty quiet, and have stopped trying to meddle. Warriors 1, priests 0.

You can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. At some point we will find out whether soldiers obey priests or presidents.

The medium is the message, and the message is progressivism

September 5th, 2015

New wine in old bottles.

A couple of weeks ago, I attended the Roman Catholic church of one of my sons. He seemed quite satisfied that it was preaching Roman Catholicism, rather than progressivism.

The service was presided over by three people: A white male, a black male, with blackness much emphasized, and a woman. Which is to say, presided over by diversity and consensus.

I suppose that to the eye of faith, and to one sufficiently expert in Roman Catholicism, there were various indications that they were not presiding equally, that one was a priest, and the other two were not, or maybe the two males were priests, and the female was not. But such indicators were subtle.

Theoretically they were talking about the Eucharist, though the black man made a big deal out of the fact that his name was unpronounceable by white people. He seemed mighty proud of the fact.

But words don’t matter much unless congruent with deeds, and symbols. And the deeds and symbols were not the Eucharist, were diversity and consensus, rather than hierarchy and ancient ritual connecting the congregation to the apostles and to all co-religionists, living, dead, and not yet born.

I suppose that it was preaching Roman Catholicism – in words – but the words were incongruent.