Rape accusation for grades

February 4th, 2015

Emma Sulkowicz gets an advanced degree in false rape accusations. I hope it comes with a mountain of student debt.

Emma Sulkowicz decided that her last booty call with Paul Nungesser was rape, after several months went by with no further booty calls from him, despite her prompting on instant messaging. Or perhaps she decided when her academic advisor went fishing for rape cases.

Society is a racial construct

February 1st, 2015

No amount of social change is going to change the nature of races. Egypt has had racial mixing for several thousand years and blacks have always been criminals, servants, and slaves.

But change the race, as is the policy of the permanent and unelected government in every formerly white country except Iceland, and you will change the society.

In a few white countries the merely elected government is resisting the policy of the permanent and unelected government. In Australia, the merely elected government has the support, loyalty, and obedience of the military, and is prepared to use it, so, despite a continual storm of attacks by the permanent government, it gets its way on this issue against the will of the permanent government – until the next election. The elected government is only temporary after all, and so, from time to time, will yield to pressure.

What has happened in every white country is that the merely elected government has laws limiting illegal immigration, and limiting benefits received by illegals. And in every white country, those laws are not enforced.

Asylum laws are knowingly and intentionally abused to bring in people persecuted for ordinary non political crimes, and for such political crimes as terrorism. Many recent terrorist incidents in white countries have been committed by terrorists who gained asylum on the basis of persecution resulting from crimes of terror or from ordinary non political crimes. The permanent government wants an underclass, and it wants the worst possible underclass, the worse the underclass, the better it can be used as a weapon against the former majority. Hence the active recruitment of terrorists and criminals, and the use of the school system to indoctrinate the new majority with hatred against the former majority.

Yes, Roissy is correct

February 1st, 2015

A lot of people who claim to teach how to pick up girls are just scammers.  For example, “Neuro Linguistic Programming” is just a variation on the old “Get Girls by Hypnosis” scam. But Roissy is the real deal. I know well his stuff works.

Most beautiful high IQ high socioeconomic status women are blowing their youth, their beauty, and their most fertile years on low income semi employed assholes with room temperature IQs, the kind of guy who sometimes gets a job folding sweaters, sometimes deals a little dope, sometimes a bit of burglary, but mostly sponges off his exceedingly numerous girlfriends, particularly the flock of them that are high socioeconomic status.

And here is a post from a young lady who is industriously blowing her youth, beauty, and most fertile years confirming many of Roissy’s maxims.

Which raises the interesting question.  Why are most naturals kind of stupid?  If female hypergamy works, should not naturals be above average intelligence?

I conjecture that much of the problem is that stupid people act brave, not because they are brave, but because they don’t think about the consequences of their actions.  The man who is a part time sweater folder, part time burglar, and full time sponger off girlfriends is unlikely to be intimidated by political correctness.

A smart nerd and a dumb asshole are forced to attend a lecture on rape and respecting women and consent and all that boring stuff.  The smart nerd is terrified and believes everything he hears, and thinks that if he says “hi” to a pretty girl he will arrested.  The dumb asshole does not understand a word.  All he sees is a fat diesel dyke making menacing gestures like an overweight angry gorilla and braying “waah waah waah”

So the dumb asshole goes forth and grabs some girl’s ass, while the smart nerd cowers in the corner trembling in fear.

A long time ago I was walking along, and ran into a girl I knew vaguely.  She was a friend of a friend of friend or something like that.  So I grabbed her and kissed on the lips.  After several seconds she pulled away and protested vehemently:

What the hell do you think you are doing

She said with much indignation.

To which I impudently replied with a big grin:

Kissing you on the lips.

After a couple of seconds she grinned also, and we kissed a little more.

Then she gave me the “I have boyfriend” shit test, which shit test, being ignorant and innocent back in those days, I failed.

I was never a pick up artist, but however embarrassingly incompetent my efforts to meet girls were, I did better than anyone too frightened to try.

Before 1972, there was no stereotype of the sexually unsuccessful awkward high IQ nerd. I don’t believe the awkward high IQ nerd existed until recent times.  Something has changed.  The stereotypical smart person used to resemble Feynman and Wernher von Braun, who were notorious hits with chicks.

What has changed that leads to stupid people cleaning up?

1.  Elite culture has become more hostile to intelligence.  Catcher in the Rye replaces Anabasis.  Smart people tend to exclude women and blacks.   Shirtgate guy.

2.  Smart people have a tendency to deal with girls on the basis of what they are taught, rather than instinct, hence, the blue pill generates men who are very bad at women.  The smarter you are, the better you are at absorbing and accepting misinformation.

When I was kid, quite a long time ago, a lot of what is now PUA lore, that nice guys finish last, that a man should take rejection imperturbably, that faint heart never won fair lady, was common knowledge, stuff that everyone knew.  This widespread knowledge of women was suppressed, and replaced by misinformation, and the intellectuals were the primary targets of that misinformation.  The smarter you are, the more exposed to the blue pill.

Hard left wins in Greece

January 25th, 2015

The interesting question is not whether Greece leaves the Euro, or the Euro leaves Greece, but how many of the opposition will be arrested before the next election.

The victory of the hard left was made possible by arresting the hard right and forbidding them from campaigning.

Which had the effect of discouraging anyone from disagreeing with the hard left

Greek politics is already dominated by police intimidation and the direct use of state power to punish dissent.  Election of a hard left party is likely to increase the use of police intimidation and the direct use of state power to punish dissent.

The left, which is to say the state, talks about the side of history.  History tells us that if you use state power to suppress your opponents on the right, by and by your opponents on the left will use state power to suppress you.

Eight commandments for the neoreaction

January 24th, 2015

Nyan draws a line in the sand

*Patriarchy and families are the foundation of society.
*The natural and unmolested course of selection and elimination must be allowed to occur in economics and society.
*Hierarchy is the natural and right way for people to cooperate.
*Different people are different. Equality is a lie.
*Progressivism is an insane religion advanced by a hostile media/academic machine.
*It’s not just “The Jews”.
*Democracy isn’t going to fix these problems.
*Merely denouncing those to the right creates a deadly signalling spiral, so no enemies to the right.

I would expand the last point slightly. Those who notice that females have characteristics that make it difficult to organize large scale cooperation in their presence, but think the leftist program is otherwise OK, are not enemies, but people who have taken one step on the path to dark enlightenment.

Those that think the Jews have mystic superpowers are not enemies, but people who are focusing far too hard on one rather small step to dark enlightenment.

The bubble in government paper

January 23rd, 2015

Using money as a store of value is inherently problematic. One can store value as canned beans, as rice, but as money?

The usual trick to this is to lend money to young people to build homes and start families. The value is stored in their home, the bank holds a lot of mortgages to these homes, and these back a lot of on demand deposits.

This creates the notorious problem of term transformation, which can be ameliorated by flexible interest rate mortgages – or by an alarming willingness of the government to print money for cronies, but I am here addressing a different problem.

Suppose there are not enough young people building homes and starting families.

We then face the problem of money with nowhere to be stored. So the natural rate of interest falls to zero and tries to go negative So instead of storing it in young people’s promises to work hard and build a life for their families, we store it in taxpayer futures. Governments borrow to buy votes, and to “stimulate the economy” So money is backed by a liability on taxpayers.

An ever larger liability on ever fewer taxpayers.

But, surely money can store value even if backed by absolutely nothing. Money is always a bubble. So why worry. How can the capacity of government to borrow enormous amounts of money at negative real interest rates be a bad thing. Surely the interest rates that governments are paying show that our governments are more solvent than ever. The decline of the high IQ working taxpaying population and its replacement by people on welfare and single women in makework jobs has been a huge bonanza for governments, that has deluged them with free money. Indeed, the more single women in makework jobs, the less they will reproduce, and the more money the government can borrow.

Assuming a virtuous and competent government, a deluge of free money is not going to cause that government any harm. If, on the other hand, we assume government thinks no further ahead than the next election …

Forget about cultural marxism

January 21st, 2015

Today’s left is, in substantial part Cultural Marxism from the Frankfurt School.  Should you conclude that the Frankfurt School is really really important?

If you conclude that Cultural Marxism is really really important and rules the world, it follows that Jews rule the world.  Hard to prove they don’t.  It also follows that leftism was just fine and democracy was just fine all the way up to and including the New Deal, and if we could revive the New Deal coalition and get rid of the Jews everything would be lovely.

If you believe that the Cultural Marxism is the problem rather than a problem, it follows that getting rid of Jews would solve the problem.  Hard to prove that getting rid of Jews would not solve the problem.  In the course of my many arguments with my Jewish commenter B, I have endorsed pretty much everything that /pol/ and Steve Sailer says about Jews, other than that they rule the world and are responsible for every bad thing everywhere that ever happened anywhere.  And B has mostly agreed, because we both agree that reform Jews are a problem, though not the problem, and Orthodox Jews have resisted the rot better than most.  We just disagree as to what extent Orthodox Jews have resisted the rot, and to what extent they will continue to resist the rot.

But it is pretty easy to prove that democracy was not just fine and the New Deal was not just fine.

From the day that Cromwell cracked down on those to his left in 1653, the predecessors of today’s regnant left were fleeing, or being expelled, to America, and, in America, were plotting to conquer America, reconquer England, and conquer the world.  To this end, they founded Harvard, which was from the beginning the center of their conspiracy.  And none of them were Jews.

As they became increasingly successful, obtained worldly power, they increasingly came to compete with each other for superior holiness, each holier than each of the others.  And pretty soon became holier than Jesus.  Being holier than Jesus, swiftly became unitarians, then atheists, then extremely militant atheists hostile to the parent religion from which their heresy sprung.

It was not the Jews that gave us prohibition, female emancipation, and the war between the states, though they eagerly attached themselves to those movements once those movements had already succeeded.

British Imperialism was an anti colonialist movement, the disastrous predecessor of today’s even more disastrous anti colonialism, and as one can trace modern leftism back through super protestantism to the prohibitionists and the emancipators, one can trace modern anti colonialism through the London School of Economics to British imperialism.  In the 1830s or thereabouts, the British government gradually came to notice that the colonialists had conquered an empire.  The colonialists were initially merchant adventurers, meaning they engaged in a bit of trade and a bit of piracy, were initially mobile bandits.  Being successful mobile bandits, they had, without anyone quite noticing, transitioned to being successful stationary bandits.  They had come to rule, and rule well.  The British government decided to shoulder the white man’s burden, to rule for the greater good of the poor victimized natives who were being oppressed by these evil piratical colonialist bandits.  The result was, unsurprisingly, extremely bad, and every failure convinced them to double down, which doubling down continued almost to the present day, until finally the Chinese started to step into the vacuum the anti colonialists had created.  The Chinese have fixed Nigeria, and throughout Africa are remedying the destruction and horror that the anti colonialists created when they drove the colonialists out.

You are not going to be able to make any sense of Africa if you fixate on Cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School.

The sexual revolution did not begin in the sixties.  Rather, that was recovery after a retreat during the war and postwar period, during which the left had focused on the proletariat rather than female emancipation, an unsuccessful attempt to move towards socialism, an attempt that was largely the result of Jewish influence.  This failed effort to move left towards command socialism gave breathing room for marriage to make a partial and temporary recovery.  It gave the left something to do other than double down on destroying marriage.  The sexual revolution began in Victorian times.  And you cannot blame the Jews for either Victorian original, or its sixties rebirth.

If you want to blame Jews for the sixties sexual revolution, you are going to focus on Margaret Meade’s mentor.  But Margaret Meade herself was the protestant descended left, and we can tell who had the power by whom Margaret Meade fucked.  She was the protestant descended left, by blood, by culture and by upbringing descended from the prohibitionists and the emancipationists, and was fucking the protestant descended left.

The eighteenth century view of women was that they were the uncontrollably lustful sex, that given half a chance they would crawl nine miles over broken glass to have sex with their demon lover. In the Victorian era, this was replaced by the doctrine that women were naturally pure and chaste, except that evil lecherous men forced their vile lusts upon them.   This resulted in the abrupt removal of eighteenth century controls on female misbehavior.  Women, such as the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice” were allowed to be “out” while fertile age and single, giving them every opportunity for twentieth century style misbehavior.  The evidence produced in the case of the divorce of Queen Caroline suggests that they did in fact misbehave, but, lacking cameras everywhere, it was possible to get away with denying this fact.   Queen Caroline attended a ball naked from the waist up, and returned to her hotel with someone she met at the ball, but the official truth remained that she was a chaste woman cruelly mistreated by her lecherous and philandering husband.   In view of what Queen Caroline got up to and got away with, and in view of the lack of controls on the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice”, who at one point was in a cottage by herself visited by male love interests, we may suppose a covert sexual revolution in Victorian times, going public in 1910, in part because cameras were getting usable.

Queen Caroline getting sainted despite fucking around indiscriminately predates the Frankfurt School by quite a bit.

Forget about Cultural Marxism. Remember the divorce of Queen Caroline.

The problem with getting rid of Jews is not that it is rough on Jews. The solutions I propose are likely to be rough on lots of people. The problem with getting rid of Jews is that you wind up with socialism. If the Frankfurt School is the root of all evil, then the New Deal is just peachy.

The problem is not that “Frankfurt School” is the way that smart people say “Get rid of the Jews”. The problem is that “Frankfurt School” is the way smart people say “Let us have socialism”.

The elephant in the living room

January 16th, 2015

The Chinese look at America and see the glaringly obvious that Americans cannot see

Chinese advice to Chinese visitors to America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3136003/posts

“11. Show Humility to Ladies—They’re In Charge

“In public, the Americans show particular respect for women. Everywhere is “Ladies First.” In social situations, men must show humility to ladies. Men must walk on the outside of the sidewalk, let the woman sit first, open the door for a woman, move out of the way on the stairs or in the elevator to let the woman advance, let women order first at a meal, and let the woman get up to leave first. And when you greet a woman, you must stand up.”

Despite the strident propaganda about white privilege and male privilege, the reality is perfectly obvious to outsiders:

In the streets, blacks and women act like aristocrats, white males act servile, like peasants. Blacks take up a lot more space than they did twenty five years ago, and are louder. Women casually interrupt anyone, including their boss, and talk right over him.

When I say that fertile age women are sex obsessed, I don’t mean that they think about the sexual act itself as much as men do.  If you skim through a romance novel, there are nine hundred pages where the male love interest demonstrates how aloof and alpha he is, a hundred pages where he breaks down, gets weepy, and shows his soft inner core of twu luving betaness, and one page where he tears the lady’s clothes off with his teeth and the couple finally at long last get some action.  As men understand sex obsession, women are not sex obsessed.

The female equivalent of the male executive groping his secretary’s ass is the female executive shit testing the CEO.  And observe.  Female executives shit test their superiors all the time, paying very little attention to the menial drudgery of merely running the business.  In this sense, women at work are seriously sex obsessed.

In this sense, it is sex all the time, work very little of the time.  The company is boyfriend and family.

For girls, shit testing men is like men looking at girls boobs. Women want to go into engineering to shit test men. Men want to go into engineering because as little boys they loved toy trucks and video games. Girls go sex crazy at ten and stay sex crazy till menopause.

When the boss talks to a male executive, it is about how to get production up and costs down. When the boss talks to a female executive, she demands that he inflate her self esteem, or else she is going to charge rape, sexual harassment, and discrimination. If the boss passes the shit test, puncturing her self esteem, he will get laid like a rug, but the company may be put out of business. If he fails the shit test by inflating her self esteem, gets no sex, but the company survives. Men want to become executives so that they can tell other men what to do. Women want to become executives so that they can shit test the hell out of the CEO.  If your boss is a woman, she is much more comfortable if you don’t really give her decisions.

Just listen to the conversation between a youngish female executive and her male superior. It is all shit test, all the time.  She demands he inflate her self esteem.  Work concerns cannot get in sideways. It is a romance novel with the company as boyfriend. In place of the normal transition, puberty swiftly followed by romance and marriage, puberty is instead followed by the job, but they act like the job is romance and marriage, rather than production of value. Used to be that women did not directly enter the male economy except as a producer within a family unit. They still don’t really enter the male economy, just go through the motions, but with the company playing the role of the family unit.

When the boss talks to a male executive, he tells him what he wants to tell him, and asks him what he wants to know. When he talks to a female executive, acts terrified. His words to his supposed subordinate are flattery, appeasement, and endless peace offerings, for which he receives no peace, like a courtier speaking to an oriental despot who might remove his head at any moment for any reason or no reason at all.   Which is why, despite hypergamy, you are apt to get more action than your boss does.

Feminizing the workplace usually does not result in turning it into a sultan’s harem, alas, turns it into a soap opera and a romance novel, one thousand pages of drama for one page of ripping her clothes off with your teeth.  More work would get done if it did turn into a sultan’s harem.

Feminism is driven by sex. They are always talking about rape and sexual harassment because they are always thinking about sex. They are not thinking about careers in engineering because they like the C language, but because the boys in engineering have a status hierarchy in which girls are at the bottom, so they want to shit test those boys by demanding equal, indeed superior, status.

Sex and natural law

January 12th, 2015

When it comes to ordinary crime, for example mugging and burglary, natural law is obvious:

What is crime?

Crime is bad actions that are apt to be met by physical violence, socially approved physical violence.

What is law?

Law is social approval for violence against certain kinds of bad actions.

If you see a conflict between someone who is mugged, and someone who is mugging, you will naturally support the victim and oppose the aggressor, because the aggressor might aggress against you, so, natural law.  It is natural for everyone to support violence against certain kinds of acts, so those acts are naturally crimes, and violence against those acts is naturally law.

If the state goes with the grain, making illegal those things that are naturally crimes, and not making illegal those things that are not naturally crimes, order is easy.  If it runs against the grain, the state creates disorder.

However, when Catholics talk about natural law, they are generally not talking about this obvious, uncontroversial, and straightforward natural law, natural law relating to uncomplicated crime, but about sex. Read the rest of this entry »

The solution to Jihad

January 12th, 2015

Progressivism is universalist.  Islam is universalist.  Holy war necessarily ensues. To call on Muslims to abandon Jihad is to call upon them to unilaterally surrender to progressivism.

We faced this problem once before, and solved it once before by means short of genocide.  The solution is to impose the Peace of Westphalia, first on ourselves, then on Muslims.

Peace of Westphalia implies that Muslims resident in our lands are forcibly converted to our official belief system, or else are forced to get the hell out.  Our official belief system, to prevent entryism backed by violence aiming at state domination, must necessarily absolutely exclude the proposition that Mohammed is God’s prophet, let alone his final prophet,