Archive for August, 2018

The optics of noticing

Sunday, 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 ae resolve 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 her 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 an 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

Thursday, 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

Monday, 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.


Saturday, August 4th, 2018

Evolution is on topic for reaction, for the nature of women makes sense and is explicable in terms of Darwinian evolution, in terms of evolutionary psychology. You can also explain it as the curse of Eve, but if you explain it as the curse of Eve, it is rather arbitrary. Why did God curse women that way, and not some other way? (Answer, because we are risen killer apes, not fallen angels.) And because women are cursed in this fashion we cannot trust them to make sexual and reproductive choices. Nor can we trust them to vote, for they are going to vote for invasion, conquest, and the extermination of their menfolk.

Reed criticizes evolution on the basis of irreducible complexity – that living creatures could not have evolved in small steps because its functionality is inherently complex.

This criticism is bunkum. No one has produced a single example of irreducible complexity in living creatures. Complex systems in living creatures are excessively and unnecessarily complicated, not irreducibly complicated. The reason for the unnecessary complexity is that they are adapted from a system that did something else. For example, inside the the dolphin’s flipper is a hand for climbing trees. Hence considerably more complicated than the fish’s fin.

The dolphin’s fin is not the simplest possible fin. It is the simplest possible fin that you can derive in small steps from a hand for climbing trees.

This all too reducible complexity is compelling evidence for evolution, not an argument against it. That the dolphin’s fin is overly complicated is proof that the ancestors of dolphins climbed trees, and that the hands of the tree climbers were themselves adapted from the bottom gripping hands of first tetrapods.

However, while we have compelling evidence that existing living creatures evolved from simpler creatures of lower evolutionary grade, that all the animals you can recognize as animals evolved from the urbilatarian, a creature with jelly like flesh, a quite complicated brain, a heart, a liver, two very simple eyes that could barely see anything, a quite good sense of smell, and a single orifice used for sex, birth, eating, excreting, breathing, and smelling, Reed nonetheless has a compelling argument in that we don’t have a plausible example of life that could have evolved from non life. Current earthlike conditions could not support forms of nonlife capable of evolving into life. While the complexity of existing life forms is quite certainly reducible, no one has produced something simple enough to appear spontaneously from nonlife. In this sense, yes, irreducible complexity.

Maybe during the Hadean era of the earth high energy life forms appeared that could not exist in current earthlike conditions, and as the earth calmed down, evolved into forms capable of existing in current Earthlike conditions. Maybe on the comets low energy life forms appeared that could not exist in current earthlike conditions, and evolved into creatures capable of existing in current Earthlike conditions – I tend to the latter theory, and think that the first forms of life were low energy, lived in conditions very far from earthlike, in places very far from earth, and existed long before the sun was formed.

Or maybe God created the first urbilatarian. Reed’s argument is an argument in support of that position But if God did create the first urbilatarian, evolution has been running since then, as is proven by the Dolphin’s fin and the Panda’s thumb. So, even if God created the first urbilatarian, Darwinian evolution still explains the otherwise mysterious nature of women.

Vox Day asks, as if it was a killer argument, what is the mutation rate?

Roughly ten per generation. However most of these are either neutral or harmful, which means that evolution has to run mighty fast to stay in the same place.

If he is asking how many mutations favored by evolution occur, how many mutations go to fixation, the answer is something in the ballpark of one every thousand years or so. However, we get lots of evolution by changing the ratios of large numbers of alleles of small effect, and describing this kind of evolution in terms of mutation rate is not very meaningful, since it is not accurately described in terms of mutations, and since the ratios rarely go all the way to fixation.

Vox Day’s advice on handling women is not very good. It may well have been adversely affected by his reluctance to believe in evolution. Similarly, his faith in the sexless character of females under eighteen.

While I am delighted that #metoo is devouring those who funded it and sponsored it I know perfectly well that every notable #metoo allegation is a malicious lie, for the targets are always the men whom women very much want, wealthy and powerful men, and the accusers are mostly washed up narcissistic whores that men no longer want – the accusations are directed against those men who are most likely to be sexually contacted by women in a sexually aggressive manner, and the accusations come from those women who are most apt to sexually contact men in a sexually aggressive manner.

While we should never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake, and should enthusiastically cheer our enemies as they devour each other, Vox Day is a blue pilled sucker for failing to identify vicious lying whores as vicious lying whores. Weinstein and company deserve what they are going to get – but they deserve it for sponsoring the movement that is now devouring them. Similarly, when Stalin sent those who set up death camps to their own death camps for “objective fascism”, it was a good thing that they were sent to their own death camps, but one should not be persuaded that they were actually were objectively fascists. And it will be a good thing if Weinstein and company are convicted of rape, but they are no more rapists than Trots were fascists, and if Vox Day thinks they are guilty, he is ignorant of the nature of women, to which ignorance his rejection of evolution has likely contributed.

Defining Restoration and Reaction

Thursday, August 2nd, 2018

Social Matter, without changing its claim to be the blog of the restoration, has gone commie. Having been linking to centrist cuckservatives and pozzed libertarians for some time, is now linking to out and out communists pushing race revolution to implement Maduro style socialism in a brown and universalist world ruled by the international community.

The literal meaning of poz is a reference to the practice of political gays of deliberately infecting themselves with HIV in order to be holier than the next homosexual. Means intentionally becoming HIV positive to get intersectionality points. The metaphorical meaning of poz is the adoption of policies and programs likely to destroy one’s ethnic group, one’s friends, one’s own career, and oneself, as for example a project code of conduct for one’s own project.

So it is time to define the reaction and the restoration. Who is in, who is out:

The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by Kings.

The central insight of Moldbug was to look at anglosphere movement left starting the clock with the overthrow of Charles the First, rather than starting with the Nazis.

Nazis were and are leftists, just leftists who have been left behind by ninety years of movement further left, so if you start the clock at Nazism, the trend is less obvious, and less obviously headed towards catastrophe, mass murder, and social collapse. Hitler was weak on the women question, turning the clock back to early Weimar or moderate Weimar, rather than pre Weimar, while America and Hollywood from 1939 to 1963, after first wave anglosphere feminism and before second wave anglosphere feminism, was far to the right of Hitler, and far more red pilled that Hitler, whose beta orbiter propensities were notorious. Thus, for example, in the immensely popular show “I love Lucy”, it is frequently implied that Lucy is going to be spanked for her many amusing misdeeds, that domestic discipline is a normal part of a normal and healthy marriage. The plotline of an “I Love Lucy” episode is that Lucy is a naughty girl, who does something naughty, which always turns out badly, implying that women need rule by husbands to keep them from getting into trouble.

If, however, you start the clock at Charles the First, the trend line is clear. Puritans are holier than thou, and Social Justice Warriors are holier than thou. Puritans make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas, and Social Justice Warriors make war on marriage, the family, and Christmas.

The restoration of Charles the Second in 1660 rolls them back and keeps them back for one hundred and sixty years in England. Hence our program of the Restoration.

The left has continuity of organization, personnel, and institutions all the way from the Puritans. Harvard was their theological headquarters, their Rome, once exiled from England by Charles the second. The American Revolution was a bad thing, and the founders were bad people, because it gave the Puritans control of a large part of America, and the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard.

Progressivism is not Judaism, but is Christianity, a Christianity that first became holier than thou, then holier than Jesus, and is now holier than God. The founding fathers were Deists because they were holier than Jesus, and the progressives are holier than God. If you endorse the founding fathers, you endorse leftism. If all men are created equal then our civilization is going to be erased from history, and white people are going to be ethnically cleansed. If all men are created equal, it is totally unfair that not everyone in the world is free to move to America, vote in American elections, and get their share of my stuff. The failure of the founding fathers to torture each other to death for insufficient leftism was an unprincipled exception, and every unprincipled exception gets rolled back by those even more holy.

People adopt evil and insane principles to make themselves each more holy than each other, because proclaiming extravagant principles is easier and more visible than actually conducting oneself well to family, friends, and allies. The principles swiftly become so noble that they have horrifying implications. Those espousing those noble principles refuse to notice or carry out the horrifying and insane implications of those principles. And having successfully grabbed power on the basis of the extreme holiness of those principles, find themselves outflanked on the left by those even holier, who do notice and do carry out, and this holiness spiral has been driving our history since Charles the First. The extermination of white people, the destruction of Western Civilization, and the castration of males are logically implied by the remarkable purity of the Christianity of those seeking jobs in the state religion under Charles the First, which logic they failed to notice at the time, but are now starting to notice.

If you blame men for the misconduct of women, you endorse leftism. Women need to be under male authority in order to flourish and form families, and males need authority over their families to flourish and form families. Women should remain under the authority of their fathers till transferred to the authority of their husbands. If state and society fails to back legitimate male authority over females, you get defect/defect equilibrium, and everyone, male and female, finds it difficult to form families and have children. Cooperate cooperate equilibrium is inconsistent with moment to moment consent to sex. In order to reproduce, men and women have to agree to stick it out for richer for poorer, for better or worse, in sickness and in health, which means that people should be incapable of making sense of the self contradictory thought and phrase “marital rape” – it should be inexpressible and unthinkable.

Progressivism and the enlightenment is a religion, an evil, crazy, ugly, ignorant and stupid religion, worse by far than snake handling, speaking in tongues, young earth creationist Christianity, for that Jesus rose from the dead is unfalsifiable, and it takes a fair bit of thought and work with a crowbar and a sledge hammer to falsify young earth creationism, while anyone can and routinely does falsify that men are created equal. Similarly, speaking in tongues is not nearly as ugly and stupid as modern art, or modern architecture.

The timetable of movement left is as follows:

Holiness struggle for jobs in the state Church under Charles the First. Charles’ bishops come under attack for insufficient holiness. Alliance with with far against near ensues as English holier than thou heretics forget about religious, cultural, ethnic differences to ally with Scots, who dislike Charles the First and his Bishops for completely different reasons. Charles the first fails to crack down on treason, so treason flourishes until it is too late to crack down on it. Loses his head.

Puritans rapidly get ever lefter, with war on Christmas and desecration of marriage. Cromwell takes fright when he sees the levellers, who resemble modern Republican cuckservatives, and the diggers, who resemble modern communist hippies, and cracks down, halting the holiness spiral at levels that are not all that crazy.

Restoration: Charles the Second regains power, institutes a sane Church of England under himself and his Bishops. Exiles the Puritans to America. If you check the genealogies of Puritans, they are all descended from those who fled Charles the Second, not the Mayflower crowd. When someone claims descent from those who came across on the Mayflower, he is actually descended from a relative of those who came across on the Mayflower, which relative stayed in England or returned to England to rule with his fellow Puritans, till he got kicked out by Charles the Second.

Charles the Second does a Deng, instituting the corporate capitalism of the joint stock corporation. We see Ayn Rand’s hero engineer CEO mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor to advance technology and make it widely available appear, which in time gives us the industrial and technological revolution. We also see the East India company formed to begin the conquest of the world. Charles the Second raises the furtive Invisible College to become the Royal Society, making the scientific method high status. With the Royal Society it becomes high status to win arguments by finding evidence and presenting evidence. The scientific, industrial, and technological revolutions get rolling, along with the British empire.

This is the restoration that we talk about. We want Trump or some general to do a Deng, to do a Charles the Second. We need democracy to end so that the mess can be put right. George the Third was on the right side, continuing the sane, sensible, and successful program of Charles the Second. The founding fathers were on the wrong side. Charles the second was Deng Xiaoping. Locke and Jefferson were Trotsky and Lenin, knocking over the apple cart to grab some of the apples.

Things go wrong in England with increasing unwillingness to discipline upper class wives. George the fourth screws the wives of aristocrats, while his wife cuckolds him. In 1820 he attempts to divorce his wife, in the process revealing that he is massively cuckolded, and becomes a figure of ridicule. His divorce is denied, because women are supposedly naturally so pure and virtuous that they can only do bad things because bad men make them do those bad things. The power of Kings ends when George the fourth goes massively public with how badly he has been cuckolded, instead of locking his wife in the tower. When George the Third told Pitt to take a long walk off a short pier, that showed Kings in charge. When the adulterous George the fourth could not divorce his flagrantly adulterous wife, that showed kings absurd.

Immediately British fertility starts falling, and has continue to fall to the present day, because if women are saints, they should rule men. Hence the current condition of marriage.

In 1840, the status of warriors comes under attack, and the British empire starts to be transformed into the anti British empire, as the American empire is the anti American empire, with hostile elites using the empire against their own people.

In 1854 Lord Cardigan, upon receiving suicidally stupid orders, personally led the charge, getting far in front of his men. Ordered to make an attack that was certain to fail with horrifying casualties, he carried out the attack by personally whacking the leading enemy officer, then immediately retreating, before all of his men had arrived, thus complying with orders to the letter, while ensuring that as few of his men as possible got killed by those stupid orders, in the process by exposing himself to more danger than any of his men. For this, he has been ridiculed and condemned ever since. Lord Cardigan, who in obedience to stupid and suicidal orders, led the charge of the light brigade was demonized. The whore Florence nightingale was made into a hero. Camp followers were deemed to be actual soldiers and put in uniform, with the inevitable consequence that proportion of actual soldiers in the military has been falling ever since. The British army, which has about two hundred generals, can now today field only about two hundred actual fighting men.

We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and giving camp followers the uniforms of warriors is a priestly blow at the status of warriors. Harvard is priests, being a theological college founded by Puritans for the purpose of religious rule by the extremely holy. Putting camp followers in uniform is a blow to the status of uniforms, to prevent rule by warriors, as is denigrating men like Lord Cardigan because he demonstrated both his loyalty to both his men and his superior officers when those loyalties came in conflict.

If you learned about men like Lord Cardigan, you would start to think that being ruled by such men, rather than ruled by those that hate us, sounds like a pretty good deal. For this, he has been condemned and ridiculed ever since. If to wear an officer’s uniform, a man had to show loyalty to those above him, display loyalty to those below, and to show courage in battle, you would be inclined to obey the man in an officer’s uniform. And so, the supply of uniforms to camp followers, and officer uniforms to camp follower bureaucrats. But if you can get the same uniforms, same pay, same status, and same honors, without battle or loyalty, who wants to get involved in battle? Hence the current ridiculous condition of the British army. There is no danger of British military takeover, because their officers are as absurd and contemptible as Lord Cardigan is depicted as being.

After World War II the American Empire got the upper hand over the British Empire, with the disastrous result that Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, replacing the scientific method by peer review, by the the theological method of consensus building. It ceases to be high status to win arguments by finding evidence and presenting evidence, and instead becomes high status to win arguments by having one’s argument incorporated into the state religion. Science died then, hence Global Warming and all the rest, and by 1972, the death of science began to afflict one technological field after another. Hence the reproducibility crisis.

The reactionary position is that leftism was evil, absurd, and mad in 1820, has been getting more evil, more absurd, and more mad, ever since, and the Restorationist program is that we need to be ruled by someone like Lord Cardigan.

Poz, capitalism, and free markets.

Wednesday, August 1st, 2018

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.