Archive for May, 2015

Taleb refutes Pinker on war

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

A long time back I criticized Pinker’s “better angels of our nature”, arguing that he mistakes leftism for progress and goodness, arguing that criminal violence by citizens against each other is at extraordinarily high levels, that state violence against citizens in the form of imprisonment and policing is at levels unprecedented except when a state is crushing a hostile enemy population in a condition of war or near war, and that levels of warfare between states are pretty much what they always have been, arguably considerably worse.

For example Pinker complacently observes that the Victorians were shocked and horrified by a crime wave, but neglects to observe that this crime wave consisted of one mugging in London every few months – which crime wave never went away, but instead people got used to it, and then it got vastly worse, and people got used to it again, and then it got vastly worse still, and people attempted to abandon much of their cities to savages, and then the crime wave followed them, and there is now no safe area in London.  The idea of the inner city as some kind of jungle is new, starting in the late nineteen forties, early fifties.  Early in the twentieth century, the idea that the affluent and respectable might have to abandon vast expanses of wealth and property, of huge, beautiful and high status buildings where once the wealthy and fashionable lived, to the vandalism and depravity of savages would have been as unimaginable as wolves and bears prowling the streets of London to devour passers by.

My criticism of his argument on war is that war is a bursty phenomenon, sometimes there are a lot of mighty big wars, and sometimes, when one hegemon has the upper hand, or several hegemons  remember the last big war too well, not many wars.  This peace lasts until the dominant hegemon weakens, or people forget how bad the last big war was, forget how easy it is to start wars, and how hard it is to stop them, whereupon they go at it again.  And the generation that remembers the last big war is now mostly dead.

Taleb, arguably the worlds leading expert on the statistics of bursty phenomena, makes the same argument in a more scientific fashion backed by statistics.   War follows a power law with an exponent substantially less than one and substantially greater than zero, rather than a normal distribution, meaning that risk is dominated by large rare events – the risk of losing life and property in a big war is far greater than the risk  of  losing life and property  in a small war, even though small wars are common and big wars are rare.

Pinker tells us.

wars between great powers and developed nations have fallen to historically unprecedented levels. This empirical fact has been repeatedly noted with astonishment by many military historians and international relations scholars…

Taleb tells us that because war follows a power law rather than a normal distribution, if one analyzes the level of warfare using statistics appropriate to a normal distribution, at any given time, chances are it has either fallen to historically unprecedented levels, or a great war has broken out and one is too busy trying to stay alive to do statistics.

With a power law phenomenon, recent experience almost always massively under estimates the risk of large rare events, recent experience is almost always nicer than experience over a longer period.  Until it is not.

The moron elite

Wednesday, May 27th, 2015

Twenty two out of twenty three Harvard grads could not explain why the earth gets hotter in summer and cooler in winter.

So I asked my cleaning lady, who has received no science education whatsoever, and very little education. She replied that the days were longer in summer and shorter in winter. I then prompted her “Why are they longer in summer and shorter in winter?”, to which she correctly replied that the earth is tilted with respect to its orbit around the sun.

To be strictly correct she should have said the earth’s axis is tilted with respect to the earth’s orbit, but since she already got “days” correct, unlike the Harvard grads, axis is implied.

The author of this video suggests we need improved science education, but I think that no amount of education can turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse, that what we need is considerably less education, about as much education as my cleaning lady has.

Harvard does not, for the most part, teach anything that matters to anyone other than how to hate whitey.   Universities have been dumbing down since 1870.  They want to be more inclusive, and then adjust their course material to make those included feel more at home.  Which makes them useless.

Ferguson looks at measured elite IQs, concludes that our ruling elite is around IQ 120, and that everyone above IQ 140 is pretty much toast.  “inappropriately excluded”.  It looks to me that the situation is worsening over time, that older members of our elite are generally substantially smarter than recent members of our elite, though all my evidence on this is anecdotal, and people dispute it.

Our elite is being stupidified by avoiding disparate impact.  Anything that filters for smarts has disparate impact on women and blacks.  Also, smart people tend to mansplain – give those affirmative actioned into jobs beyond their competence instructions and advice that they are incapable of following.  Wasenlightened denies this.  I accuse him of false consciousness.   The level of fear at Google seems excessive if Wasenlightened perceptions are accurate.  In an environment where one has a large number of female affirmative action employees, filtering for political correctness is going to filter for stupidity since smart people will be perceived as discriminating against the less smart.

Our universities have been dumbed down so that they no longer teach what high school used to teach.

Academic credentials are not indicators that one has learned anything useful, or indeed learned anything at all, rather they are filters for intelligence and diligence, and, due to degree inflation and the inclusion of women and blacks, very poor filters at the upper end.

Used to be that graduating high school proved you were pretty smart. Now, graduating Harvard does not show you are smart.

I propose degree deflation:

Smart kids can learn in high school maths to calculus and trig, science to special relativity, how to calculate pi from first principles, geography, history of western civilization, and can absorb the western culture and western civilization that university no longer teaches.

I propose that the lower two thirds, pretty much everyone below IQ 106, fails to get a school leaving certificate and leaves school at the start of puberty. The somewhat smarter and more diligent people, IQ 106 to IQ 120, about a quarter of the population, also leave school at the start of puberty, but with a school leaving certificate. The smart people, 120 and up, the top ten percent, graduate high school.   Ten percent of that ten percent, the top one percent, people 135 and up, take a two year university course.

Attempting to use academic credentials to filter to smarter than the top one percent is unlikely to succeed, because of demand for lengthy recreational degrees.  If we try to get an elite smarter than 135, going to need some new filtering mechanism.  Also, using academic credentials as a filter means you are up against the bureaucratic imperative to expand.  If one is supposedly in the business of educating people, one is naturally inclined to claim that the education is beneficial, and can benefit everyone, rather than acting as a filter.  Thus academic institutions have an incentive to subvert their filter function, and thus an incentive to stupidify the elite.

We used to have a public service exam, a requirement for government employment in functions likely to exercise power, that was IQ heavy, though it also tested for diligence by requiring you to memorize a lot of useless nonsense.  Unfortunately, this, of course, had disparate impact.  Simply re-instituting the exam would dramatically improve elite function, and one could simply make it a substantially tougher exam for anyone in the system at a level likely to make policy.   On the other hand, the Chinese mandarinate tried this and it worked extremely badly.   The mandarins were not all that smart.  It is hard to make a filter that works when everyone is trying to game the system.   But it is not as hard as making a filter that works when you are trying to be inclusive.


After economic leftism

Monday, May 25th, 2015

Economic leftism, workers against capitalists, died with the Soviet Union. Now it is women and nonwhites against white heterosexual males.

American Hindus have extremely high incomes and are extremely reliable Democrat voters. Hindus are the opposite end of income and education spectrum to Mexicans, yet vote the same.

Old fashioned economic leftism doesn’t explain this.

And yet there is the sense that something is being redistributed.

The country itself is being redistributed from white heterosexual males to a coalition of almost everybody else. And it makes sense for any ambitious newcomer to try and get a piece of the action. Because they can.

Resentment isn’t required, but no one wants to consciously think he is just joining the looter coalition. So resentment is required, and is speedily manufactured.

And since each white wants to be last to be fed to the crocodiles, the whites in the ruling coalition will echo that resentment with double the enthusiasm, and will each be twice as keen on feeding other whites in the ruling coalition to the crocodiles. The situation of white heterosexual males in the ruling elite is similar to that of Jews in the Bolshevik party or intellectuals in the Khmer Rouge. The Bolshevik party was pretty much all Jewish, and the Khmer Rouge pretty much all intellectuals, but the climate of hostility and suspicion directed at Jews among the Bolsheviks, and at intellectuals amongst the Khmer Rouge, was such that they were busily purging each other, until none were left.

Parts of this post cheerfully stolen from Handle’s member’s only post. As usual, anything really horrifying is probably my revisions and not in Handle’s original.

Raping Sanza Stark

Sunday, May 24th, 2015

I have not been watching Game of Thrones since they killed off every character I cared about, but the recent fuss about rape caused me to watch the latest episode. To see the controversy, fast forward to the end. All the rest is people you don’t know or care about talking about things you do not understand, apart from a scene where the youngest Stark kid gets the beating she has long deserved.

Game of thrones piously promotes the Victorian myth that women don’t like sex.

Nah, women don’t like sex with you.

They really like sex with the manliest man around.  Fertile age women are ten times as horny as men.   Because of the immense risk and hazards of pregnancy in the ancestral environment, if women were not extremely keen on sex, human race would have become extinct shortly after women figured out the connection between penis in vagina sex and pregnancy. Trouble is that the manliest man around is usually the guy in a romance book or a romance movie, who is ten times as manly as any real life person around.   Or perhaps the man she is pining for is a real person who dropped a load into her in a five minute meeting in the executive toilet, and she has been pining for that man ever since, what Roissy calls alpha widowhood, as for example Monica Lewinsky pining for Bill Clinton.

Since the manliest man in the Game of Thrones universe, as women measure manliness, is undoubtedly her husband, realistically Sansa Stark would have started tearing his clothes off with her teeth before he got a chance to bring her to the wedding.

We need to ban romance novels where there is a ridiculous disparity between the attractiveness of the male protagonist and the female protagonist.   Such a ban would bring our fertility rate right up.  Ugly fat forty  year old women with kids divorce their husbands because they expect to marry a handsome billionaire athlete.  Happens all the time in books.

A short while ago a washed up elderly female movie star complained because she was deemed too old to play the love interest of a fifty five year old male movie star

In an environment of casual sex where family formation is generally failing, we would expect any female past fertile age to get no attention, any female approaching the reduced fertility age to get substantially reduced attention, and any physically fit man to get about the same attention regardless of age, though old physically fit men are considerably less common than young physically fit men.

And that is biology.  Old women do not score old men.  (Unless they married them when both were young, and were good wives all their years)

And in an environment of family formation, we would expect considerably greater emphasis on female youth and virginity – in such an environment, older male movie starts would be discriminated against, but older female movie stars much more discriminated against, female movie stars would be washed up and over the hill at twenty, so a common movie scenario would be an older long established male romantic lead, with a bunch of successful movies under his belt, forty years old playing a thirty five year old, romances a character played by a seventeen year old actress, whereas in our current environment of casual sex without family formation, there is no reason why Sean Connery could not romance twenty year olds till he drops, except for feminist meltdown.

Losing Ramadi

Saturday, May 23rd, 2015

Obama is of course a Muslim, progressive, and anticolonialist who hates America and wishes to see America defeated, but allowing Ramadi, and indeed Iraq, to be lost was pretty sensible.

The underlying Bush theory was that Iraq would become a well run democracy, like Switzerland, where the Shia majority elected nice moderate progressives, thereby counterbalancing the dangerous influence of the Shia religious crazies in Iran.   The middle east would become moderate progressive, rather than Muslim.

As it worked out the elected government Shia government in Iraq was oppressive and intolerant, its primary function being to distribute goodies to voting blocks.   The populace conspicuously failed to throw flowers at our troops.  The Sunni murderously hated us for removing them from power.  The Shia hated us for revealing to the world their incapacity to rule.  The influence of Iran keeps them saner – well, less insane – than they would otherwise be.

Progressives, including Obama, misremembered Bush as saying “We will go in to steal their oil”, and so believed that when they were running things, instead of Bush, then the locals would throw flowers at us and elect nice moderate progressives.   Thus, “Arab Spring”, which was Bush on steroids with double the already grating optimism. They then discovered that the Iraqi willingness to elect moderate progressives was proportional to US willingness to kick ass, and the locals figured the progressives had no will to kick ass.

Tunisia is perhaps proceeding to democratic progressivism, as originally envisaged in Arab Spring.  Morocco is undemocratically proceeding to progressivism because the King commands progressivism.   The rest of the countries of the Arab spring were disasters.

The past history of progressive kings is that usually King gets violently overthrown, is remembered as an incredibly brutal reactionary, and is replaced by a horrifying tyranny, but so far Tunisia and Morroco are working out OK – for progressives.  Rest of the progressive plan is going to hell.

Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia capitulate and allow the boats.

Friday, May 22nd, 2015

Since Tony Abbot has been elected prime minister of Australia, no one is known to have successfully illegally immigrated to Australia. Their boat goes back, or if they are unusually stubborn and persistent, they wind up in a military run prison camp in a third world hell hole. From time to time progressives complain about the conditions in these camps. As far as is known, no one has yet wound up in Davey Jones locker, though some have come close.

It looks like one hundred percent successful enforcement and if it is not, it is mighty close to one hundred percent.

Illegal immigration can be stopped. Completely. You have to break a few eggs, and maybe set a few boats on fire. There are underage orphans in those prison camps (and if there are not, the Australian government says that there are so that no one thinks that they can successfully play the pity card), but you don’t have to drown or shoot anyone.

Under international pressure, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia have agreed to accept the illegal immigrants for up to a year, in return for first world promises that the illegals will then go to some first world country – presumably Australia. The Australian government has other ideas. Presumably the pressure will escalate on Australia, while simultaneously, with a deal guaranteeing illegal migrants unspecified first world residence, we can expect a gigantic flood of illegals piling up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

The flood is going to rapidly grow to spectacular and alarming proportions, so either Thailand and Malaysia are going to get screwed (which I think is the most likely outcome), or Europe and America is going to take this lot (second most likely outcome), or Australia yields, which I think is the least likely outcome, because Tony Abbot has balls.

The plan, however, is that Australia will take them. As illegals pile up in Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, pressure will increase on Australia.

This growing pile of illegals will be the camp of the Saints. The plan was probably to rewrite history that Australia had implicitly agreed to take them, and then shame Australia for failing to live up to this implicit and unstated promise, but Tony Abbot’s swift application of a flamethrower has made that rewrite difficult. Anyone joining the camp is expecting an airlift to Europe or the United States, not Australia.

A letter to Sunnis facing Shia Democracy

Wednesday, May 20th, 2015

They are going to kill you all. So you had better sign up with the Caliphate.

It is inherent in the nature of democracy that you get rule by a religion that has open entry into the clerisy.

It is inherent in the rule of a religion that has open entry into the clerisy that it becomes ever more extreme and eventually, ever more left wing.

They have gotten rid of all the Christians and such. Every election, every year, they get more and more radical. You are next. Then everyone who is insufficiently Shia. They are now mobilizing and arming with American weapons the poorly disciplined and poorly trained Shia mobs that previously attempted genocide.

The Camp of the Saints

Monday, May 18th, 2015

The good and the great have announced there is no such thing as an illegal immigrant, in part because anyone who (however implausibly) claims to be a refugee, is legal.

Some time ago Australia adopted a policy of turning the boats around, (more…)

After white male america

Wednesday, May 13th, 2015

Law enforcement against blacks is inherently racist. Gentrification proceeded under an unprincipled exception. Eric Holder is rolling back that unprincipled exception. Not only does every good progressive know that being black is no indicator of propensity to commit crimes, he also knows that a past history of criminal conduct is no indicator of propensity to commit crimes in future – see “Les Miserables” for the correct progressive position on crime and punishment, which is, pretty much, that punishment is horribly oppressive and old fashioned.

Thus Krystalnacht in the small parts of Baltimore where whites are permitted, areas which were suddenly revealed as a precarious ghetto subject to the terrifying whims of a non white male majority.

If white nationalists were allowed to behave the way the rioters were, we would be back to overwhelming white majority lickety spit.

I suspect that most of the Cathedral is quite comfortable with gentrification, and are horrified to see it rolled back, but, because no enemies to the left, are unable to restrain the radicals among them.

After all, if the radical program succeeds, and ethnically cleansing white males becomes the next big holy cause, the way ladyboys were yesterday’s holy cause, each member of the establishment wants to be last to be fed to the crocodiles, and to this end will industriously feed his fellow establishment members to the crocodiles.

If Baltimore is being ethnically cleansed of whites because two thirds black, then this has no great implications for the rest of America. There is a lot of ruin in a nation. We let leftists destroy Detroit out of hatred for whites, we can let them destroy a hundred Detroits.

If on other hand Baltimore is being ethnically cleansed because the New York Times and Eric Holder are rolling back the unprincipled exception that white laws are enforced on black people, then every white male in America is in the same boat as white males in Baltimore.

The obscure town of Ferguson, Missouri remains in the spotlight of national concern because in Ferguson the cops tend to be white and the criminals black. Something must be done about this! Of course, this pattern is observable everywhere in the United States. Ferguson is an extremely average town.  Liberal cities like Santa Monica, CA tend to have racial disparities in arrest rates that are much worse. Indeed, the more liberal the city, the more that arrests consist of whites punishing blacks.

Because blacks are naturally and inevitably violent and subhuman, law enforcement is naturally and inevitably racist. Did I hear someone say “Not all blacks are like that”? But when you take statistics over all arrests, all unpleasant encounters between police and citizens, as Eric Holder has been doing, you get the mean, the median, and the mode, and the mean, the median, and the mode is that law enforcement consists of blacks being vicious subhuman thugs and whites stopping them, which is racist. So Eric Holder issues an injunction to stop this racism, which is to say, to stop police from protecting whites against black violence.

If all men are created equal, it is morally wrong for police to protect whites from black violence. And Eric Holder has proven this, in a court of law, over and over again.

If the Obama Administration and the press were out to do to every municipality in America what they’ve talked of doing to Ferguson, the country would soon become a lawless Mad Max post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Conservatives tend to suppose that progressives are basically sane, so will refrain from making the US into a lawless Mad Max post-apocalyptic wasteland.

I don’t think progressives actually think things through, I don’t think they ask themselves “would it be good if we progressives, acting as a whole, did X”. Rather each progressive does that which maximizes his status relative to other progressives, makes him holier than the next progressive, and if the net effect of all these holy actions by all these holy progressives is utterly disastrous, they rewrite history and reality that the net effect is just wonderful.

Eric Holder is just proving himself more holy by burning down Ferguson and Baltimore, and if that works, over time, lots of people will prove themselves more holy by burning down lots more.

Since trannie acceptance has maxed out with seven year olds being taught transexuality rather than the three Rs, each of the elements of the Cathedral is casting around for some new cause to be the next big thing.

And what they are right now trying on is getting rid of white males. It is ambitious, but with leftism moving left ever faster, with the overton window shrinking ever smaller, pays to be ambitious, to be in there first with the next big thing.

Quite likely there will be a reaction that causes them to try something less ambitious before all America is on fire. And quite likely there will not be.

Something similar to this happened in the period 1953 to 1969 leading to the 1967 race riots which ultimately resulted in the ethnic cleansing of whites out of Detroit and many other places, and it was rolled back, leading to the era of gentrification.

People take it for granted that “the inner city” is occupied by hostile subhuman savages. But in most of the world the inner city is where the civilized and elite upper crust live and play, since it is naturally desirable to be close to the center of things, and the subhuman savages are excluded to the exurbs, the favelas, where land is naturally cheap. And, until the Warren Court, that was the way it was in America. The Inner City went black due to the courts privileging black violence against whites. If do an ngrams search on inner city and you go through google books by date, you don’t see references to the inner cities being a scary dangerous place, poor and black, until you see references to civil rights and such, until the Warren Court period. The inner cities are the way they are because, during the Warren court period, whites, rendered second class citizens, denied the right of collective self defense, were ethnically cleansed out of the most desirable real estate, with the result that it became the least desirable real estate.

In the fifties and sixties, the courts systematically abused judicial discretion and due process protections to excuse criminals generally and black attacks on whites in particular. Due process protections were systematically abused to obtain the substantive result that it was difficult to punish crime, and near impossible to punish black crime against white people.

To counter this, the politicians struck back against the judges with mandatory sentencing and terrifyingly broad prosecutorial powers, prosecutorial discretion being abused to counter abusive judicial discretion, and punitive prosecutorial process being abused to counter judicial abuse of due process to obtain substantive results.

Gentrification ensued – or rather regentrification, as parts of the inner city resumed the civilized character that they had had before Civil Rights and the Warren Court.

But since then, with unlimited nonwhite underclass immigration, with huge numbers of foreigners entering the country to live on crime and welfare, which is to say, to live on white males, the white vote has become effectively irrelevant. Most white males vote outside the Overton window, in that they will reliably vote for whichever major politician is closest to the right edge of the Overton window. Single women tend to live on welfare and affirmative action jobs, so vote with non whites.

The great majority of white males already vote for the rightmost candidate permitted.  What are we going to do?  Vote twice?   Backlash is just not going to have any noticeable electoral impact.   There is no substantial electoral downside to hating white males twice as much as the other guy and thus being twice as holy.  As a tidal wave of non white underclass immigration floods the country to live on crime and welfare, the white male vote becomes increasingly irrelevant.  Everyone is asking themselves what they can do to win these new voters.   No one wonders what will influence white males.

Thus the kind of political backlash that occurred against the courts allowing criminals to go free, that led to mandatory sentencing and alarmingly broad prosecutorial powers, is now politically irrelevant. It will not change electoral outcomes.  It does not matter how white males vote, because most of them already vote their interests, and if even more of them vote their interests, that adds up to not many votes up for grabs.

These days, alarmingly broad prosecutorial powers are apt to be used against any person who attempts to defend himself against black violence.

With white males effectively already a minority, quite likely there will not be reaction that causes them to try something less ambitious – quite likely this will slowly escalate into the coming purge of whites as a market dominant minority.

It is early days yet, but that is the way the wind blows.

And it seems to be working as a political cause. Baltimore and similar riots America wide seem to be gaining the Cathedral support. Only white males care, and they already vote for the least progressive candidate. All the church ladies are having orgasms for the manly rioters, and worrying about how the rioters are oppressed victims.

Whites are well on the way to becoming a market dominant minority. Market dominant minorities tend to get ethnically cleansed or genocided, sooner or later. Further, the necessary mythos for genocide and ethnic cleansing is already in place. We whites, merely by existing, cast baleful magic spells that cause all other groups to underperform. It is like original sin. We can only atone by vanishing. Pretty much everyone believes this, including most whites. Whites possess the evil magic mind control powers previously attributed to Jews.

The nominally Christian Churches, like the mainstream media, are all preaching we deserve ethnic cleansing for our sins, for casting these evil spells. Our powerlessness in the face of ethnic cleansing makes all white males look beta, so naturally all women will vote alpha. Women always identify with the conqueror against their own people.

Progressives collect mountains of evidence that group x is doing poorly compared to white males, for numerous values of x, and there really are only two possible explanations. Evil white males are casting evil spells harming members of group x, or group x really is inferior and needs to be ruled by their betters.

And, of course, no decent person would suggest that group x really is inferior and needs to be ruled by their betters.

Libertarians and Conservative Christians attempt to mark out a position somewhere in the middle, avoiding these two extremes, but a position in the middle turns out to be mighty slippery, seems that rather than avoiding both extremes, they embrace both extremes, depending on whether they are being criticized from the left or the right. Whenever they explicitly deny one position, they implicitly affirm the other.

But I really was not expecting the market dominant minority treatment until whites really were a minority. Cleansing Baltimore the way Detroit was cleansed seems premature. Efforts to cleanse New York, Baltimore style, have been forcefully checked by good old fashioned politically incorrect policing. But if ethnic cleansing is the next big cause, the way ladyboys were the last big cause, the New York check is only temporary,

From the point of view of the Cathedral as a whole, it does not make sense to make a start on ethnic cleansing and genocide so soon, but from the point of view of any one member, any one faction, any one conspiracy within the Cathedral, if ethnic cleansing and eventually genocide is inevitable sooner or later, it is in the interest of any one element of the Cathedral to try for sooner, to gain a status advantage by jumping the gun on the next big thing.

The Cathedral is more like a cancer than a conspiracy. It is not necessarily capable of following its own best interests.

Where do whites go from here? Alaska and Australia are looking good. Settlement of the Arctic is forbidden. Settlement of Antarctica is similarly forbidden, but Australia, the last white haven, has a claim, not internationally recognized, to most of the interesting parts of Antarctica.

Or we could do what the Koreans did – repel troublemakers and cops alike.

Recall the Cronulla beach riots. Police were ordered to back the Muslim rioters and repress the white rioters, but were either unable to obey those orders, or disinclined to obey them very effectively, whereupon the whites made short work of the Muslims.

Ethnic cleansing of white males from most of America, with the probable exception of Alaska, begins. It will not happen all at once, but rather, one city after another, one excuse after another. First Ferguson, now Baltimore, Krystalnacht proceeds.

Quite possibly it will hit determined opposition, and be postponed a decade or two, or many decades, until whites truly are a minority. Early days as yet. But so far, seems to be sufficient that white males are minority, and white females are being taught to despise them.

Because effective law enforcement against blacks is racist, and since the declaration of independence has been an unprincipled exception, and unprincipled exceptions get rolled back one by one, there is no lasting solution short of moving to Alaska, or rolling the enlightenment all the way back, back to that all men were not created equal, and women do not count at all.

Any politically thinkable solution merely postpones the inevitable, temporarily keeping the unprincipled exception in place to allow gentrification, and preserve areas already gentrified. Any permanent solution is going to require the politically unthinkable

And by the unthinkable I don’t mean Nazism or white nationalism. Nazis were leftists in 1930, Roosevelt on steroids, became rightists in that the rest of the left continued to move ever leftwards. I mean the reaction of the eighteenth century.

Because the establishment is secretly not all that keen on the latest program, because the establishment rather likes gentrification, it is likely that whites could fight back, and not be crushed by the united power of the state, because the state is not really all that united. We really should try a Cronulla, we should render unsafe white areas safe by judicious lynching of particularly badly behaved blacks and/or wholesale removal of nonwhites, yet I see no one trying that.

We cannot continue the enlightenment project because the effective law enforcement that preserved parts of America for whites is an unprincipled exception to the enlightenment, and always has been

One could have predicted Baltimore from Les Miserables. For whites to live in Baltimore, we need a society in which no one could take Les Miserables seriously.

Here is the outline for such a society. See also.

Libertarians, conservative Christians, and such, don’t want to accept the position that white males cast evil spells that impair the performance of other groups, which position has the disturbing implication that white males need to be eliminated, but neither do they want to accept the positions that whites should rule over inferior races and men should rule over women, and so they attempt to take a variety of intermediate positions, but these intermediate positions consist of crimestop, doublethink, and unprincipled exceptions, and so are inherently vulnerable to the superior holiness of the position that white males cast evil spells, and since it seems that no amount of punishment or castigation can stop white males from casting these evil spells, white males have to be eliminated.

Thus, for example, a libertarian may piously say that there is no such thing as race, that that is collectivist thinking.

This pious tactic works just fine in Turkey, in most of Latin America, and in Egypt, where anyone who notices that the ruling class is white, and the underclass brown, is apt fall down several flights of stairs in a one story police station. In consequence, everyone piously agrees that all Turks are one race, all nationals of the Latin American country in question are all one race. Similarly, there are a lot of black countries where the ruling elite varies from milk chocolate to “Huh? That guy is white!” and somehow strangely no one seems to notice.

But in America, such piety does not go far, because a progressive points out that black schools are invariably very bad schools, and proposes that whites fix this problem (presupposing that whites caused this problem). Saying that there is no such thing as black school because there is no such thing as a black is unlikely to be persuasive, because it is perfectly obvious that the progressive is correct in that there are such things as black schools, and that black schools vary from bad to worse.

So the libertarian, inconsistently, temporarily dumps his position that there is no such thing as race, and snarkily asks “Why is that when blacks are bussed to good schools, those schools then immediately become bad schools”

But the libertarian dare not answer his own question, for the true answer is crimethink, whereas the progressive can easily answer the question: White males are so evil and hateful that they cast evil spells upon the school when blacks are bussed there.

So the progressive asks the libertarian what is to be done about black schools. And the libertarian cannot answer, for were he to answer, the true answer is that the black schools must be subject to white authority, black students forced by harsh discipline, including the frequent application of corporal punishment, to behave like white students, (in other words, whites must rule over blacks), and that mothers who deprive children of their biological fathers need to be shamed and punished as trash, sluts, and whores, (in other words, males must rule over females).

And so the libertarian has no answer that he dare speak, or even dare think, but the progressive does have an answer: Somehow make sure that white males are just somehow not around any more.

Any program for races and sexes living together as equals will always run into the problem that they are not in fact equal, and political activists will then always make hay out of this inequality.

And the end result of activists making hay is that one race must be eradicated, or one race must rule the other.

Any solution short of whites ruling over blacks and men ruling over women is always necessarily vulnerable to the superior holiness of those who wish to prevent evil white males from casting evil spells.

Any measure to prevent evil white males from casting evil spells will always fail, requiring ever more drastic action to deal with the evil committed by white males and the very great harm that they magically inflict.

The point of the dark enlightenment is to understand the world, not to change it.

Sunday, May 10th, 2015

Theory is understanding and understanding is theory. Seeing the world as a collection of bare unexplained facts is effectively the same as seeing the world as filled with magic. To suppose that somehow price controls on wages or medical treatment do not behave like price controls generally is in effect to believe in magic.

Without theory the world is a collection of magical events, something that defies understanding.

Experiments can be faulty. Experience can be faulty, and its interpretation can be faulty. There are experiments “showing” that Uri Geller is a spoon bender. A person who understands the world will know, despite the seeming evidence, that Uri Geller is a fraud. Reflect on Moldbugs demonstration that macro economics is a fraud.

But surely The Reaction is at least a little bit interested in changing the world?

Theory suggests two paths for changing the world.

The Moldbuggian path is to be worthy of power, wait for leftism to self destruct, as it has so many times before, and then when the military come looking for a priesthood, we are available.

The other, more activist, path is to form a thede, tribe, religion, religions being synthetic tribes, and proceed on the long march through the institutions of the red empire, the empire of the bases, and in due course subjugate the blue empire, the empire of the consulates. From time to time the Red Empire has blown up Blue Empire proxies, and vice versa. It would not take much for the fighting to get serious.

The reaction has engaged in a number of experiments in tribe formation. It is too soon to evaluate the results. We don’t yet have much empirical data on tribe synthesis.

Which brings us to the secular reaction’s view of religion. Which is that Religio matters, religion not so much. A religion’s unfalsifiable beliefs, its empirically neutral beliefs, are reverse engineered from its rituals, are rationalizations of its rituals, rather than the rituals being engineered from the beliefs. The unfalsifiable beliefs of Shinto are incoherent, since Shinto is a random grab bag of rituals, yet Shinto still worked quite well regardless, despite having very little in the way of beliefs for people to believe in.

A religion should be an effective tool for transmitting the wisdom of parents to teenagers, telling stupid people to do what smart people already know to do.