Collapse of Building Seven

September 22nd, 2018

Since World Trade Tower Building seven is the most decisive evidence that the collapse of the towers was, as it seemed, the work of terrorists equipped with boxcutters, the troofers manipulatively announce it to be their strongest evidence to the contrary.

Building Seven begins its fall like a tree, falling sideways towards the holes blasted by the plane on the south Side, and the fires started by the plane on the south side.

In this video, shot from the north side it falls away from the viewer.  The structure on top disappears not because it falls into the building, for at this stage of the collapse the outer shell of the building is tilting like a tree, falling like a rigid object, but because the tilt of the building takes it out of view:

If the above image fails to animate for you, reload it in a new tab.

After about two or three seconds into the collapse it starts to fall downwards, as if in a demolition, but the start of the collapse is that the shell of Building Seven tilts and rotates southwards away from the camera like a tree falling towards the notch cut by the axeman. The change in the angle of the dark line shows that in the first few seconds of the fall, the movement is primarily rotation sideways, rather than droop downwards. The further end of the dark line drops by more than the north face of the building drops, indicating considerably more rotation southwards than droop downwards. In these images of the very first part of the collapse of the outer shell, the top of the building is moving away from the viewer a lot faster than it is moving downwards.

The image below, shot from the east side, shows it half way through its fall, transitioning from falling sideways like a tree, to collapsing downwards like a building.

Building seven was rated to survive three hours of uncontrolled fire, before the heat penetrated the insulation on the steel beams, softening them and causing them to collapse.

It instead survived seven hours of uncontrolled fire, roughly the amount of time predicted when it was built, when the builders considered the possibility of a fire raging for a long time without being brought under control.

They expected that any fire would be brought under control in three hours or less, and therefore the building could not be brought down by fire, but unfortunately the damage caused by terrorists crashing planes knocked out the water supply.

Building seven fell partly from damage, partly because the steel beams softened in the heat of the fire. When the building was designed the insulation on the steel beams was rated to withstand three hours fire:

The instructions to the bidders for the WTC 7 job were to bid on a 3 h rating for the columns and a 2 h rating for the metal deck and floor support steel, which corresponded to the more stringent fire resistance requirements for Type 1B (unsprinklered) construction. These ratings were to be achieved by application of Monokote MK-5, a gypsum-based SFRM that contained a vermiculite aggregate. According to the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Fire Resistance Directory (1983), these ratings required a thickness of 22 mm (7/8 in.) of Monokote MK-5 to be applied to the heavy columns, 48 mm (1 7/8 in.) to be applied to the lighter columns, 13 mm (1/2 in.) to be applied to the beams, and 10 mm (3/8 in.) to be applied to the bottom of the metal deck. Private inspectors found that the applied SFRM thicknesses were consistent with these values

which is a longer fire than would ever be allowed under normal circumstances. The reason for having insulation on the steel beams is that the builders expected that without insulation, fire would cause the building to fall – as it did. It fell because it reached and exceeded its design limits for not falling, and it fell as we would expect a building to fall from such a cause, in that it started its fall like a tree, sideways towards the notch.

The NPC plague

September 18th, 2018

For a long time I have been urging the left to engage in dialogue with us. I complain that they will neither listen to us nor speak to us, and that this will end in war, and mass murder.

Well, suddenly they have started to talk at us, with leftist NPCs showing up on reactionary blogs and lecturing right wingers on twitter and facebook. Listening, not so much. Their stuff tends to be robotic and spammy. Attempting to interact with them is like talking to an NPC (Non Player Character) in a video game. To some extent they actually are NPCs – we are seeing stuff that looks as if generated by Google’s AI, and that AI programmed by someone who has no understanding of, nor interest in, the ideas of the people he is supposedly addressing. Looks very like a hasty makeover of a similar operation and similar software directed against Muslims, with the major change in the software being a global search for Mohammed, and a global replace with Moldbug or Heartiste.

To some extent it seems to be actual humans who are mechanically following a script written for them by someone else, and who are not allowed to deviate from the script, which sooner or later results in them being endlessly repetitious, somewhat resembling a non player character in a video game, but more resembling one of those highly unhelpful telephone help systems, where one is talking to an actual human, but if your problem is not one of the very limited set of problems covered by the script that that human is required to follow, you are sol, and find yourself trapped in the same script over and over.

It is an improvement, a genuine attempt to get off the path leading to civil war. Not really an adequate attempt, since to the extent that it is actual humans, those humans are not permitted to show comprehension of the ideas that they are attempting to rebut, and crimestop genuinely prevents them from comprehending the ideas that they are attempting to rebut. In place of dialog being totally forbidden, we are getting the superficial appearance of dialog, but so severely supervised and tightly controlled that it is not genuine dialog.

They make their preprogrammed argument, you make the obvious and well known counterargument, which is not covered by the script, even though it was first made one hundred and seventy years ago, and they repeat their original preprogrammed argument, claiming to observe and to have experienced the reality that progressives are trying to wish into existence.

Open letter to Linus

September 17th, 2018

When an open source project goes social justice it dies.

It suffers the same transformation we see in entertainment intellectual properties like Star Wars.

  1. Identify a respected institution.
  2. kill it.
  3. gut it.
  4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect

When a stem activity, such as open source, goes social justice, then its job gets redefined as showing that women, blacks, and Muslims are capable of stem by giving them stem social roles – which is how NASA lost the capability to go into space.

If you, Linus, are replaced by social justice warriors, which always happens when you get a code of conduct, Linux slowly dies – bugs will not get fixed, misfeatures will get added, and it will suffer from bitrot as the world changes around it.

It will go the same path as Soviet and Rhodesian agriculture. Soviet agriculture never recovered from the liquidation of the kulaks, Rhodesian agriculture never recovered from the genocide of white farmers.

This code of conduct is the work of people who think that all the stuff descended from the sky, and white males, being the evil sexist racist homophobic mysogynist islamophobes that we are, snatched all the good stuff up, thereby preventing anyone else from having it.

They think that if it was not for the horrid oppression committed by white males, they could just help themselves to the stuff in Walmart, and Walmart shelves would magically refill, the way the shelves in Venezuela were supposed to magically refill.

This code of conduct was brought to you by the same thinking on display in Venezuela and in South Africa, where without white farmers the South African crops mysteriously don’t grow and without bakeries run by lighter skinned Venezuelans, darker skinned Venezuelans find themselves mysterious short of bread.

A code of conduct results in social justice warriors being helicoptered into the social role and social status of people who create value, but strangely and mysteriously, value ceases to be created.

We are all comicsgate

September 4th, 2018

Ethan Van Sciver sues Vox Day for personal ownership of the comicsgate brand.

This is pissing inside the tent, and is likely to result in social justice warriors taking over comicsgate, since judges will rule in favor of social justice without regard for merit.

Whosoever pisses inside the tent is my enemy, for if he sues Vox Day, likely will sue me.

As the Comicsgate Wiki rightly tell us:

ComicsGate (or #ComicsGate) is an online movement that believes the comic book industry (especially publishers Marvel and DC) is oversaturated by political messaging that appeals explicitly to only one demographic that is not interested in the medium, to the detriment of the existing consumer base and the industry as a whole. It also addresses a lack of professionalism, inclusivity, objectivity and accountability of the publishers and their employees (i.e. management, editors, writers, artists, etc.) when dealing directly with the customers.

Ethan Van Sciver is attempting to appropriate value that a multitude of other people have created, Vox Day among them, which attempt, if successful, will inevitably wind up with the brand being used to educate us in the horrors of white supremacism, male supremacism, cishet normatism (or whatever they are calling it now), islamophobia, and so on and so forth.

Ethan Van Sciver is not comicsgate.  He is pissing inside the comicsgate tent.

Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.

The net effect of such a lawsuit is not just spending money on lawyers rather than artists.  The net effect is that money raised to produce content of interest to people who don’t want to be preached at and told that they are sinners will be used to hire people, to pay people, to preach at them and tell them that they are sinners.

The winner of this lawsuit will be the man most willing to use your money to tell you that you are a horrible person who should never get laid and deserves to die in a fire.

No perceptible global warming.

August 31st, 2018

It is plausible that the world has warmed very slightly – but in any one location, if we count the number of unusually cold events, anomalous snowfalls, and the like, and compare with the number of unusually warm events, we are just as likely to get more cold events and less warm events in recent times than the converse.

To detect global warming, you have to average over the entire world, and it is unclear and debateable how to make an apples to apples average over the entire world.

It is plausible that there has been a bit of warming over the past few decades for reasonable ways of doing the averaging. But polar bears are not only unlikely to go extinct, they are unlikely to notice.  Regions where sea levels have been falling are approximately equal to regions where sea levels have been rising.  To measure sea level rise, you run into the same problems as detecting global warming.  You have to average over the whole world, because the signal in any one area is swamped by various random things, and it is unclear how to do a valid average over the entire world.

And similarly, coral bleaching events. There have always been coral bleaching events. Coral grows till it gets too close to the surface, there is an unusually low tide, and the coral dies back, bleaching. I have seen a few coral bleaching events, and it always shallow water coral hit by an abnormally low tide. Similarly, glaciers are always calving, have always been calving, even though each time a big iceberg breaks off a glacier, it is announced as proof of global warming.

You may have heard that the North Pole is melting – though no one told you that the South Pole has grown, and is now vastly larger than it was a hundred years ago.

This arctic summer, the Northwest passage failed to open. A few days ago, at the time of year when arctic ice is least, an icebreaker cruise ship attempted to force passage, repeatedly ramming very thick ice. The ship broke, the ice did not break.

Well, Warmists will say, that is weather, not climate, and they are of course, correct. But the bottom line is that a hundred years ago, the Northwest Passage through the arctic sometimes opened in high summer and sometimes did not, and today the Northwest Passage sometimes opens in high summer, and sometimes does not.

Changes in the weather remain enormously larger than changes in the climate, making it very difficult to detect any change in the climate.

The climate is always changing. Climate Change is always true. But over the last hundred year or so, it has not changed enough for unaided human senses, or even human senses aided by ordinary and reasonably affordable instruments, to detect. Sometimes the climate does change dramatically, sometimes catastrophically, in a hundred years or so. But not this last hundred years or so.

So, why the high drama about global warming? Why the catastrophism? Why the demand for dramatic changes that somehow always result in our power system being looted and damaged?

The reason for the high drama is that science, technology, and industrialization was created by white male capitalists, an enormous achievement for which mankind should be eternally grateful. And people who hate whites, hate males, and hate capitalism want to destroy science, technology, and industrialization. Anyone who talks about Global Warming or Climate Change in ways that imply it is an important crusade hates you and intends you harm. Maybe he wants to lower your status. Maybe he wants to exterminate your race. But either way, he is your enemy. Whosoever talks catastrophic global warming hates you and is motivated by desire to harm you.

Whites, males, capitalists, and white male capitalists created all the good stuff, so they tend to have most of the good stuff, so people who want to take our stuff hate us. Hate whites, hate males, hate capitalists, and particularly hate white male capitalists.

And another one bites the dust

August 25th, 2018

The American empire, aka anti American Empire, aka The international community, aka rule by rootless childless cosmopolitans with no future and no past, is in retreat.

Having lost Russia, Poland, Hungary, and Philippines, it just took another body blow in Australia.

A shark has to keep swimming, or it will drown, and the ever increasing holiness of the left has to keep knocking over new applecarts, or else there will be no apples rolling around for ambitious leftist to pick up.

They never stop; they only pause to re-group and change strategy. They can’t stop.

The Trump like Australian Prime minister Tony Abbot decisively stopped illegal immigration, (Zero illegal arrivals since 2014, yes, zero. You read that correctly. Zero.) and busted near every illegal visa overstay and violation of visa conditions, as near to all of them as makes no difference

Leftism had to start advancing in Australia on another front, on something other than white genocide. They dithered between expanding legal immigration as a slower route to white genocide, and smashing western civilization by rolling back the industrial revolution. And eventually coalesced on smashing western civilization, rolling back the industrial revolution.

Western civilization depends on concentrated and reliable energy sources, power on tap. Which means carbon or nuclear.

Nuclear was stopped primarily the way NASA was stopped, by putting stupid people in charge. It is not apparent that fusion power would be workable even with smart people in charge, but to be on the safe side, they put stupid people in charge of developing thermonuclear as well. The big vulnerability of nuclear power is not the imaginary evils of nuclear power (The long term effect of Chernobyl was the deaths of at most nine people outside the power plant outer fence) it is that you need smart people in charge of nuclear power. It is easy to disrupt cooperation between smart people by inserting stupid people.

The objective of the global warming scam is to stop carbon power, coal and oil.

And the left decided that was the front it would advance on in Australia was, instead of eradicating the white race. Expanding legal immigration had some success, but legal means that the numbers are known, and political pushback likely to be effective.

South Australia, and to a lesser extent Queensland, proceeded to smash their energy industries at the state level, but for any one Australian state to destroy its energy industry has limited effect if energy using businesses can flee to other states, and if energy can be imported through the grid from one state to another. For the policy to be effective, has to be federally implemented.

The Australian federal Prime minister bowed to pressure and introduced an “energy security” plan, which would have provided energy security the way that Lucy was going to hold the football for Charlie Brown. The real intent of the Global Warming scam was revealed in South Australia, where the South Australian state government did to South Australia what Obama did to flyover country.

With the “energy security plan” it became obvious that greenies would absolutely never accept any compromise that left Western high tech civilization viable, that any attempt compromise with greenies would end with a result that would do to the Australian economy what it damn near did to the South Australian economy.

Turnbull, the Australian Prime Minister, proceeded to “compromise” with those who will never compromise, with the result that he failed to compromise with the substantial sane and decent faction of his own party.  No carbon program that does not radically disrupt our comfortable modern lifestyles and throw large numbers of people out of work is going to be acceptable to the left.

And so, he got thrown out and Scott Morrison became Australian Prime minister on a program of not destroying the energy industry, and still not allowing illegal immigration. No word yet on what he is going to do about alarming levels of legal immigration, but did I mention that they are alarming, and voters are becoming alarmed.

The shark is not drowning yet, still has white replacement going through legal immigration, but this latest is causing it major trouble breathing, and we are seeing calls for a color revolution against Australia.  Australia has not decisively left the empire yet, the way Poland and the Philippines have, but this has become a very real possibility:

Scott Morrison may well cuck on Green (unreliable) energy, and may well cuck on legal immigration.  Maybe he will get subverted the way Abbot was, but that his predecessor got thrown out for cucking on unreliable energy on top of cucking on legal immigration is a very good sign.

Current strategy is to overthrow Scott Morrison by fully legitimate and constitutional means, should he fail to cuck out, but that will likely prove difficult, whereupon constitutionality will likely get seriously stretched, the way that efforts to impeach Trump have seriously stretched constitutionality in the US.

The South Australian energy industry was looted in the course of being destroyed, and I expect that the federal destruction of the Australian energy industry would have provided a whole lot of loot for leftists. That they are not going to get this loot, at least not by peaceful, constitutional, and democratic means, is a major body blow. They were expecting another apple cart, and that cart is not falling – this is has had an immediate and obvious effect on their motivation and capability to generate political pressure.

The more stuff leftists knock over, the more loot for leftists, the more leftist activism you get. Conversely, when the expected gold rush fails to eventuate, you get loss of left wing morale and energy.

As leftism goes ever lefter, you have more people seeking holiness jobs, which means that ever larger apple carts have to be knocked over at ever shorter intervals. The shark cannot stop swimming, and will do whatever it takes to keep on swimming. And it is going to take measures that increasing collapse constitutional legitimacy and peaceful relations between nations, leading to internal war, external war, or both. Notice that when the color revolution in Libya failed, the state department turned spectacularly murderous and destructive, and that when the color revolution in Syria failed, it turned genocidal.

Expect, therefore, the unexpected.  As the arc of history bends ever more to indiscriminate, destructive, and malicious evil, it encounters more resistance.  One might expect that this will result in stability at some tolerable level of evil.  This stabilization has never happened in the past and is unlikely to happen in the future.  What happens instead is what we see happening in the US.  The left escalates, drifting closer to war internal and external.

Manafort trial

August 20th, 2018

Manafort’s alleged crimes are boring.  The permanent government’s openly criminal reaction to the possibility of an acquittal is entertaining.

It is looking increasingly possible that Manafort will be acquitted, largely because his alleged crimes are obscure violations of complicated laws that are as difficult to understand as they are to comply with, so not everyone in the jury is likely to be able to keep straight what he is supposed to be guilty of, resulting in a hung jury or an acquittal.  Putting him in solitary and starving him may well misfire by making the jury cynical about legalistic stuff that no one understands, and cynical about the unsupported testimony of witnesses subjected to extreme and grossly improper pressure, similar that applied to Manafort himself.

The mass media and permanent government are starting to melt down in fear of this possibility, and are attempting to intimidate the judge, dox the jury, and intimidate the jury.

So, why is it so important to permanent government that this unimportant man be convicted of a pile of minor and incomprehensible legalistic technicalities?  And why was he starved and kept in solitary confinement pending trial?

Mueller’s approach to convicting Trump of high crimes was to put the heat on everyone connected to Trump to come up with stuff Trump was guilty of.  Anything at all.  And, in order to put the heat on them, he put the heat on everyone connected to everyone connected to Trump to come up with stuff people connected to Trump were guilty of.  And one of Manafort’s associates was guilty of stuff, and was induced to testify that Manafort was guilty of stuff.

Despite that, and despite solitary confinement, Manafort was disinclined to testify that the President of the United States was guilty of being guilty.  So he was prosecuted, imprisoned, and badly mistreated in prison by the permanent government.  Still did not crack.

Suppose Manafort gets acquitted.  Then it becomes obvious that the Mueller investigation is an abuse of prosecutorial power.  Hence the melt down.

If the permanent government can mistreat Trump’s allies and supporters, Trump is powerless.  If the permanent government is exposed as abusing the coercive powers of the state to intimidate Trump’s people, maybe he can stop them.  Stopping them is going to feel mighty like a coup.  Stopping a coup always feels like a counter coup, always is a counter coup.  And using the coercive powers of the state against a sitting president is suspiciously close to a coup, so stopping that, if Trump succeeds in stopping that, is going to be a counter coup, or close to it.

Which brings me to QAnon.  QAnon is full of crap.  How do I know he is full of crap?

Coups come in two major forms:  Creeping coups, typically color revolutions, and sudden coups.  Mueller, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the State Department, are attempting a creeping coup or color revolution.  In a creeping coup, the coupists get away with one illegal act of intimidation, and this then makes it easier get away with another, bigger, illegal act of intimidation, and then another, even bigger act of intimidation.  If Trump pulls a counter coup, it will be a sudden coup.  And the players in a sudden coup keep their cards very close to their chest.  In the Chilean coup, no one spoke the fatal words out loud until a few hours before the coup.  According to QAnon, Trump’s people are speaking the fatal words ad nauseam, which is unlikely.

I hope, and it becomes increasingly possible, that Mueller’s investigation gets wrapped up with the bang QAnon is predicting.  But until that happens, if it happens, QAnon knows no more about what Trump is up to than anyone who holds a finger to the wind.  But against this possibility, Trump’s government has been acting rather intimidated lately, and the permanent government has been getting away with ever more lawless and criminal acts, attempting to intimidate the judge and jury being the biggest so far.  If they get away with this, then the next act of intimidation will be correspondingly bigger.

A creeping coup is by definition slow, so if they get away with nailing Manafort tomorrow, Trump will not be impeached the day after.  It is going to creep, eventually resulting in Trump being impeached or indicted, which would set us on the path to ever more openly criminal, and ever less legitimate, governments, as in 1917 Russia, and 1789 France.

From 1917 to the Holodomor was fifteen years.  From 1789 to the red terror was  four years.

From 1917 to civil war was few months.  From 1789 to civil war was four years.

Or maybe Mueller and most of the Department of Justice will get nailed, will reveal all the blackmail material that they are holding on each other, and will all go to jail for a really long time.

The big delusion of the left is that they can overthrow Trump and it will result in the restoration of normality – failing to notice that every year for as long as I can remember has been more strikingly abnormal than the previous year.  They think Trump is a right wing swing, failing to notice he is a slight slow down of the left wing swing.  Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall over.

The optics of noticing

August 12th, 2018

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.

Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.

The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.

This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him.

Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don’t like having betas around, just as they don’t like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.

Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts are resolved by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all his days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power and status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles.  So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.

The reactionary program for the coming civil war

August 9th, 2018

The reactionary program is fallen governance for a fallen world: Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. Whosoever claims that the truest and most pure reaction will Immanentize the Eschaton is a progressive entryist, like those telling Muslims that Islam is the religion of peace, therefore the truest Islam is something that is suspiciously progressive sounding, like those telling Christians that single mothers are heroes, and that they should adopt blacks from Saharan Africa.

“hello fellow white male hetero sexual reactionaries. My reaction is purer than your reaction. And yet at the same time we need to be acceptable to moderates in order to obtain the broadest possible outreach.”

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. We are worried about the evil overlord’s incentives, and not much worried about whether he represents the people, and not much worried whether he is nice and virtuous. We want a good man for Archbishop, but someone mighty like Trump for President, President for Life, King, God King, and Holy American Emperor.

If Trump successfully does a Stalin or a Cromwell, freezes leftism at the current year, that will be great, for the full implementation of the reactionary program is likely to be through all out war, where cities get burned, likely by nuclear fire, women and children get massacred, and the winning side is the side most willing to do the most terrible things.

If he does a Sulla, and rolls leftism back to 1933 that will be even better.

If he rolls leftism back to the leftism of the founders, better still. Best of all if he gets crowned God Emperor of the New Holy American empire, does a Charles the Hammer and a Charles the Second and rolls things back to 1660, in which case we are likely to get one hundred and sixty years of reaction.

The worst case outcome however, and a very likely outcome, is long, bloody, and terrible civil war with our enemies masters of the state. Trump gets impeached, not long after that imprisoned, and not long after that he and his entire family is murdered like the Romanovs as civil war and white genocide begins. In which case we will have to whip up our own state in one hell of a hurry.

  • Everyone who practices with a gun on the gun range is on our side.
  • Most men who lift iron are on our side.
  • Most men who practice the seriously dangerous martial arts on our side.
  • The great majority of young white males are our side.
  • Deus Vult. God is on our side.

But as well as that, if our enemies have a state, we will need a state.

Whites are in line for hot genocide. Whites also have more capability for war than any other race. No other race, no other people, have ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence. Which means that to re-awaken our capability, we need organization and mass.

To re-awaken the sleeping warrior, reward him for victory personally and individually with land, women and power, as well as with land and power for his platoon, his company, and his regiment. He will be back.

Set the status of women back to what it was in eighteenth century England, or better, back to what it was in the Carolingian empire. He will be back.

If the state remains in the hands of people who wish to destroy us, we will have to build our own state, and the quickest way to whip up a state from nothing much is feudalism and freehold – the full reactionary program. Every company and every regiment needs to be largely responsible for its own logistics, and will need its own pool of camp followers, thus will need its own domain of state power.

It would be better if part of the existing state comes over to us, with its existing institutions, in which case we will get something considerably less than the full reactionary program, very likely will get a Cromwellian program. We are not in this to build utopia. Reaction is impure in its essence, being committed to doing the best we can in a regrettably fallen world. The Cromwellian program would be great. Whosoever signals reactionary purity, signals leftism. We are, however, in this to win. If we cannot win with the existing state, or a breakaway part of it, will have to win without, and the full reactionary program is fully optimized for power, war, and the regrettable necessity of dreadful deeds.

The wonderful clarity of white genocide

August 6th, 2018

Sarah Jeong issued, over many years, an enormous pile of tweets expressing hatred of white people, and among those tweets a few expressing intent to murder all white people.

Naturally she was appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times.

Needless to say this appointment has been stoutly defended by every goodthinking leftist, though I see some white male leftists showing symptoms of mental breakdown, their mask of sanity slipping.

Interestingly, some conservative commentators have also rushed to the defense of Sarah Jeong, their arguments inevitably sliding into implicit advocacy of white genocide. What characteristic do all these conservatives have in common?

‘Tis a mystery. </sarcasm>

“The Cathedral” accurately depicts our enemies as the centralized and authoritarian movement that they in fact are.

The puritan hypothesis depicts them as the pharisaical holier than thou religious fanatics that they are in fact are, which account is more concisely expressed as “Social Justice Warrior”.

All men are supposedly created equal. Observed inequality must, therefore, be the result of “hate”. Evil noticers are supposedly causing the underperformance that they notice. Thus, war on noticing. Since underperformance continues, the punishment of whites and males must be endlessly escalated. Endless escalation of punishment must eventually manifest as ethnic cleansing and genocide.

I see white non Jewish social justice warriors getting crazier, as trapped in their own logic, they are reasoning their way to their own destruction. Jewish social justice warriors tend more to evil and less to madness, though, like Scott, male Jews are apt reason their way to self destruction to punish themselves for their maleness, while enthusiastically supporting the destruction of non Jewish whites without ensuing mental disorder. So male Jews tend to be driven to madness by their maleness, while non Jewish social justice warriors are driven to madness both by their maleness and by their whiteness.

Since the focus is now on the extermination of whites, rather than the emasculation of males, the Jewish Question is becoming more true, and the Puritan hypothesis less relevant. But we still have plenty of action on the emasculation of males, for which thinking too much about the Jewish question is apt to mislead and confuse.

When World War T was winding down, we wondered what the next big cause for leftism would be. I was thinking that maybe they would come out with some brilliantly clever reasons why castrating nine year old boys and turning them into sex toys for gays was liberating, but men having sex with seventeen year old girls was worse than the holocaust, and we have been seeing some of that. Very young boys are being liberated from being oppressed by their horrid their toxic male identity. But it has not really received power support.

With the Francisco Sanchez acquitted because he shot Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero for being white, and Sarah Jeong being appointed to the editorial board of the New York Times, it is clear what the next big left wing cause will be.

The next big leftwing cause is killing all white people.

It is not like they appointed some fifty year old fat gay who recently emancipated his recently adopted nine year old boy child from toxic masculinity, which is what I was half expecting.

I am seeing a whole lot of schizophrenia among white progressives. They know this, and they do not know it. They support it, and they do not support it. Massive doublethink and split personality.

It is interesting how completely normal and mainstream the advocacy of white genocide feels. They are telling us that we must be hateful, evil, and crazy to disagree.

In the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case, it was obvious that those who supported Trayvon were advocating genocide, but they could plausibly deny it, deny it to themselves, because, after all, Zimmerman deliberately shot Trayvon through the heart when Trayvon attacked him, while Trayvon was merely indifferent as to whether he was endangering Zimmerman’s life by his attack on Zimmerman. Zimmerman aimed for the heart, and knew his shot was true.

But with everyone who defends and supports Sarah Jeong, there is no real ambiguity. They want to kill us all. If they are going to come up with some motte and bailey argument “we are not actually advocating white genocide, we are actually advocating …”, what is the motte? If they are not advocating white genocide, what are they advocating?

During the Trayvon case, I would point out to a Trayvon supporter that she (and it was usually a white woman) was advocating white genocide, in that though she was supposedly arguing that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, she was actually presenting arguments that Trayvon was right to attack Zimmerman. And often she would realize that she was arguing that, and respond “Well, yes, but Zimmerman could have solved the problem without lethal force” (The implicit assumption not being that white people need killing, but rather being that white people are not only expected to behave well, but use their super magic powers to prevent other races from behaving badly, and if other races behave badly, it is the fault of white males.)

OK, so what is the motte in the Sarah Jeong case? When you advocate the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining. When you support someone who advocates the eradication of white people, not a lot of ambiguity remaining.

Heartiste accurately analyzes those that hate us, and intend to exterminate us

Anti-White hatred is channeled through Trump, which explains why the rage against Trump is so unhinged.

Democracy is going to kill us all. People inevitably vote their tribe and their religion, which inevitably tends towards tribal warfare and holy war. The Democrats brought in hostile tribes for a vote bank, as the Populares allied with the Samnites against the Optimates. Of course the Samnites did not care about the differences between Populares and Optimates. They intended to level Rome and kill all Romans, Populares and Optimates both. And now the Democrats have a brown problem, as the Populares had a Samnite problem.

For us to survive, Democracy and the Constitution has got to go, and the Declaration of Independence needs to be taught in schools as treason against the King motivated by religious fanaticism. There is no middle course that ends with us alive. While the Jewish role in the promotion of genocide is obvious, they are simultaneously becoming irrelevant as their pets push them aside. Just as the Jewish question becomes more relevant, it renders itself irrelevant as the processes they set in motion escalate beyond their control. To focus unduly on the Jewish Question is to suppose that we can solve this problem while retaining Democracy, the Constitution, and the Declaration of independence. The Jewish role in advocacy of white genocide is obvious, but if you focus unduly on Jews, you think you can set things back to yesterday’s leftism, back to 1933 leftism. The course we are on was not set by Jews, but by the founders. If all men are created equal, then it follows that I must be causing the problems encountered by black military age Muslims in Subsaharan Africa, in which case they all are entitled to claim asylum and come here to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat, a conclusion that, however congenial to Jews and Democrats, logically follows from the Declaration of Independence. And even if we gassed every Jew, still a conclusion highly congenial to the representatives of fifty percent of the voters. We cannot afford the Declaration, and we cannot afford one man one vote, Jews or no Jews.