Archive for December, 2019

Creeping coup

Tuesday, December 31st, 2019

Doing illegal acts and getting away with it due to state power is a creeping coup. If one side in a struggle for state power can do illegal things, and the other side cannot, the illegal things eventually escalate till the political leadership of side that cannot commit crimes flees the country or goes into hiding. We are in hiding, and people in the military with dangerous ideas get prosecuted for war crimes. People associated with the Trump campaign get charged with obscure and incomprehensible crimes that everyone unknowingly commits, while Democrats stuff ballot boxes and collect bribes with complete immunity. Jon Corzine (Democratic party privilege, not Jewish privilege) got off for robbing investors, and the banks were forced to make the people he robbed whole.

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Thus, for example, the normalization of homosexuality. The gays were allowed to commit violence against those that disagreed with the normalization of homosexuality, the courts and police winked at the violence, and suddenly everyone agreed that homosexuality was just the cats whiskers. And now, antifa and illegal immigrant violence against white people, as for example the Kate Steinle case.

The only real crime that anyone connected to the Trump campaign has been convicted of is stretching the truth on a mortgage application. But during the great minority mortgage meltdown, every white speculator, starting in 2005 November when every white speculator realized that the bubble was going to burst, unloaded overpriced housing onto blacks and Hispanics, usually Hispanics with no income, no job, and no assets, often a drunk cat eating wetback pulled out of the gutter from outside Home Depot with a bottle of whiskey, and the loan officer, usually a loan officer working directly or indirectly for Countrywide Bank, created a pile of lies that the drunk could not read and signed with his mark. None of the people who created these highly creative loan applications were prosecuted, because the banks, and especially Countrywide Bank, were doing the very holy work of moving minorities into green leafy overwhelmingly white suburbs.

The speculators unloaded overpriced houses onto people who could not pay, because people who could not pay were unworried about the price, even if they were sufficiently sober to know what the price was and what they were signing, but were nonetheless able to borrow, because if they were not able to borrow, it would constitute redlining. Beverly Hills Bank was destroyed by the regulators for its racist reluctance to make such loans, for its insistence that borrowers should be able to pay mortgages (redlining) but when the bad loans blew up, no one was punished, everyone was bailed out. Angelo Mozillo, the biggest villain in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown got a slap on the wrist for billions of dollars in losses on completely fraudulent mortgages and general failure to keep legally required records of who owned what, and who owed what, while Trump adviser Paul Manafort gets severely punished for a bit of creativity on one small mortgage application, which mortgage did not go bad.

Normally if a borrower is able and willing to pay on time, no one cares exactly what was written on the mortgage application, which tends to be filled out by the loan officer with whatever it is supposed to say pro forma, without too much consideration for the underlying reality for those details that are not all that relevant to the borrowers ability and willingness to pay. There are too many boxes, and they just routinely tick them all without examining them too carefully. But the details that are relevant to ability and willingness to pay, those they are supposed to be take seriously, and for white people, they do take them seriously.

Conveniently, the white speculators unloading overpriced houses had no written connection or direct financial relationship to the borrower or the loan officer, and no part in preparing the loan application, though the (usually white) speculator usually gave the (always black or Hispanic) borrower something under the table, and the (usually Hispanic) real estate agent usually gave the (frequently Hispanic) loan officer something under the table.

By 2006, every speculator with skin in the game, every speculator willing and able to pay a mortgage, which speculators were almost always white, had unloaded onto people who were borrowing against their race, not their assets. Then in 2007, the whole house of cards came tumbling down, because the white people had stopped playing the game and left the table, and everyone who had fraudulently set pen to paper was very holy, or of a protected race, and usually both, and so none of them were punished, except for Angelo Mozillo, who got a slap on the wrist for all the innumerable wrongdoings of innumerable loan officers directly or indirectly in his employ.

When the bubble burst there was frantic search for scapegoats who were not race hustlers. They eventually decided to blame the derivatives market, even though everyone knew the problem was dodgy loans. That precisely no one was prosecuted for signing a dodgy mortgage application, even though all mortgage applications are so tediously lengthy that you could probably find something dodgy on most of them, suggests that every single white speculator who was underwater unloaded before the bubble burst. In 2006 January it appeared to me that every white speculator was unloading and most of them had unloaded by the end of 2005 November. That the derivatives market was, in significant and substantial part, managed by Jews suggests that Jewish privilege is dropping to the bottom of the list of privileged people, with dot Indians way ahead of them.

If there had been any white speculators with under water mortgages still around when the bubble burst, they would today be remembered great outrage. Whites skedaddled when it became obvious how it was going to end. Only those protected by racial privilege kept on partying to the end. White speculators got out in 2005 November. Everyone who was still partying the bubble in 2007 as if it was still 2005 was protected by racial privilege or Democratic party membership from adverse consequences.

The bank did not lose any money, or even suffer any late payments, on Paul Manafort’s loan, nor was it ever likely that they would. Every loan officer everywhere is apt to routinely tick all those boring overly numerous boxes. During the great minority mortgage meltdown, they massively falsified the ability and willingness to pay of borrowers who were usually obviously unable and unwilling to pay, and sometimes had no idea what they were signing, pissing away unimaginably huge amounts of money, yet no borrowers and no loan officers were ever prosecuted, while Paul Manafort gets the book thrown at him for one trivial detail on a loan application – which implies that Mueller’s lawyers went over every document of everyone connected to the Trump campaign with a fine tooth comb. If someone went over every document that you signed, often documents with far too many pages detailing lots of boring complicated routine requirements that no one actually cares about or pays much attention to, how would you fare? The stack of documents you signed in a mortgage application is several inches thick. Did you carefully read all of them? What did your loan officer write on those documents that you signed and never read?

The loan officer wrote on your stack of documents the same thing he wrote on a thousand similar six inch deep stacks of documents. Was everything he wrote applicable to your loan? You did not read them, but it looks like Mueller’s lawyers read everything signed at any time by anyone involved in the Trump campaign.

After FDR the merely elected government lost power to the permanent government, the president lost power to the presidency and, starting around 2008, the permanent government lost power to the deep state. And the deep state is apt to send cops to the doors of its enemies, while the Democrats merely sends a mob of blacks, who are less dangerous.

The legislature has long ceded the boring tasks of legislating to the permanent government, the judiciary and the lobbyists, the latter faction reaching its ill fated and ludicrous extreme in the Transpacific Partnership, where skyscrapers full of high paid lawyers in New York wrote pallet loads of planned legislation and regulation to be applied world wide to govern the minutiae of daily life and economic activity in far off places of which they knew nothing and cared less, whose pallet loads of dense obscure legalese and bureaucratese could all be summarized in five words: “everything now belongs to us”, the ultimate absurdist end point of lobbyist written legislation. Mostly they wanted to confiscate value created in flyover country, which is what got Trump’s goat, but disrupting the value creation being done on the other side of the planet in the Australian outback would have been collateral damage, since this colossal pile of freshly minted onerous regulation would have been trans pacific.

Meanwhile the presidency auctioned of America’s foreign policy to the highest bidder, cheerfully ignoring the president. Obama was content if the foreign policy establishment gave him some photo ops. Too corrupt to stay bought, they implemented both Israel’s foreign policy, and the “International Community” anti Israeli policy. While their holy belief system was Harvard’s foreign policy, their actual foreign policy was even more erratic and less intelligible, and terrifyingly and bloodily unpredictable. They armed and funded Islamic State, and they bombed Islamic state. They destroyed Libya, and were surprised and confused when they were unable to rule the ruins. Having destroyed Libya’s military, they were unable to believe it when Al Quaeda used conventional war and a conventional military to pursue power and remove American power.

In order to govern, it is necessary for the governing elite to act as one, which requires social cohesion and rules of good conduct, which come from ethnic and religious cohesion. Puritanism arose in a holiness spiral, which rapidly spiraled to post Christianity. A holiness spiral undermines cohesion, and post Christianity drops the the beliefs that made Christendom cohesive and effective. Thus the Puritans lost power in England in 1660, and England became sane, and remained sane for a century and a half. The holiness spiral of the Church of New England escalated more slowly, but is now reaching heights of madness comparable to those of the post Christian Puritans that Cromwell had to crush. The state religion of progressivism is succumbing to madness, rendering it incapable of functioning as the faith of an elite capable of ruling.

This manifests in the increasing use of violence and coercion, police power, and the criminalization of political differences in struggles within the elite. Convicting Sheriff Joe in 2017 crossed the Rubicon, and there are no more sharp lines between “ordinary” political conflict and civil war. If you arrest one political opponent over political differences, why not all of them?

If you arrest one political opponent who is a fellow member of the elite for his political position, eventually it will be all of them.

The design of the founders was that the elite would act as one through the person of the president, and this worked. But the rise of the power of the presidency, and the decline of the power of the president, meant it stopped working, and Harvard’s holy synods of bishops are a poor substitute, as illustrated by the chaos of American foreign policy and the absurdity of the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Clinton was famously crooked as a dogs hind leg, but he imposed some order among the Democrats. When Obama became president, their legal immunity resulted in all manner of crimes. Hunter Biden’s legal troubles go all the way back to 2008. The democrats and the deep state have endless crimes that Trump could legally jail them for, but he does not. We all know what the Durham report will show, if it does not continue the pretense. We have known what it could and likely will reveal since 2012, long before Trump got caught up in this. The Horowitz report was a limited hangout, which points towards a full hangout. Chances are that the Durham report will make what everyone has known since 2012 official administration knowledge, that the deep state has been illegally wiretapping the political elite since 2008 and likely earlier.

In 2012 Edward Snowden and Julian Assange revealed that the NSA was illegally spying on Americans. And everyone shrugged their shoulders and said to themselves “Hey, they are not going to care about me, they are going to looking at important people.” And, of course, we now know that they were looking at important people, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and everyone connected to them.

The 9/11 presidential order in 2001 gave them alarmingly broad powers to tap people – which would be not too bad if the president could control that information, but inevitably it slipped from the president’s hands. In 2007 Bush rescinded that order. I conjecture that he realized it was being used against Republicans, and perhaps himself, and expected that when he left office, would be used in that manner a whole lot more, but the rescission was ignored. The actual practice has been illegally escalating ever since, and under Obama, no end of petty partisans in the elite gained the ability to spy on other members of the elite and use that knowledge for nefarious petty partisan purposes. And with the election of Trump, that presidential power inevitably came to be used by the presidency against the president. The trouble with allowing spying on Americans is that it is such a powerful tool that the elite is bound to turn it on each other, with the result that power falls into the hands of the security agencies.

Sooner or later as the elite increasingly relies on coercive means and secret police to resolve policy conflicts, they are bound to start arresting, and shortly thereafter, killing, each other. Either Trump will jail them, or they will jail Trump, and shortly thereafter start jailing each other, then kill Trump and his family, and shortly thereafter, kill each other.

If, in the Durham report, the Trump administration comes to officially know what everyone has known since 2012, that the deep state has been acting illegally, then it is war between the deep state and the Trump administration.

What is holding up the Durham report? Everyone knows what will be in it if it is not yet another cover up. I hope that what is holding it up is the same thing as is holding up Pelosi sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Trump is likely sounding out the praetorians and getting them in place. Everyone is getting ready for what happens when arresting members of the elite over political differences escalates a lot further than it has already escalated.

If Trump imprisons them, the pretense that we are still a Republic will continue to have some plausibility, but Trump will be Caesar, for the arrest of the deep state for illegal acts that everyone knows about but no one admits will give him the power to arrest democrats for everything from notorious ballot box stuffing to equally notorious graft and corruption. If they arrest Trump, the pretense will get a bit thinner, though no doubt everyone will continue to piously believe.

A merry Christmas and a blessed New Year to all men of goodwill

Tuesday, December 24th, 2019

Impeachment

Monday, December 23rd, 2019

Trump:

This Witch Hunt must end NOW with a trial in the Senate, or let her default & lose.

Trump wants a trial in the Senate at which Democrats get to call witnesses, Trump gets to cross examine their witnesses and Trump gets to call witnesses, and they get to cross examine his witnesses.

During which he gets to put on the greatest show on earth, unlike the ratings killing impeachment investigation.

The Democrats want a trial in the Senate during which they continue their aimless, endless, boring, and fruitless fishing expedition for something, anything, everything, to pin on Trump, but Trump does not get to call witnesses or cross examine their witnesses.

The cucked Republicans want it all to end now, before Trump gets to hang out all the Uniparty and Deep State dirty linen in the Senate.

I have been expecting and predicting a color revolution attempt, but that Nancy is sitting on the articles of impeachment indicates that this is off the table, at least for now. Maybe not until 2026, when revolution will be riper. But if it is off the table, the tiger she is riding is going to get even more difficult and fractious.

Nancy Pelosi is using the Republican desire to avoid letting it all hang out as leverage to continue the forever investigation of Trump, which has been running since he nominated in 2016, but agreement is unlikely. She cannot even find agreement within the Democrats. Making deals is hard, and it is now becoming impossible, since there is no one to make a deal with. The only possible resolution of the impasse is to drop the whole hot potato into Judge Robert’s lap, and if neither side is offering that, neither side wants the impasse to end.

But both Trump and the tiger Nancy is riding do want the impasse to end. So, expect the unexpected. But probably not the most dramatic outcome of them all, color revolution.

Libertarianism

Sunday, December 22nd, 2019

Libertarianism is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism is, or was, the Puritan sect known as the Levelers, who opposed aristocracy, Kings, and Bishops, but supported private property in the means of production, supported natural inequality, opposed socialism and communism, opposed them for a mixture of religious reasons(God ordained private property and capitalism in the fall) and quite modern reasons (price control and debasing the currency has the consequences that it does, therefore wrecking the market does not work)

Trouble with the Leveller-ClassicLiberal-Libertarian theory is that if everyone is equal before the law you have to give everyone the vote, and then someone comes along and says “Vote for me and I will kill all the classic liberals and you can take their stuff”.

The libertarians, the levelers, were of course correct on capitalism. We intend to revert to the most recent known working social order, the one that gave us science, technology, industry, industrialization, and empire, the social order of Restoration England.

Puritan England was capitalist, had been capitalist since a brief interruption to capitalism which ended in the twelfth century, and remained capitalist because Cromwell crushed the Puritan extremists, who wanted communism.  But the restoration introduced corporate capitalism and the joint stock for profit publicly traded corporation, which made possible Rand’s heroic entrepreneur, who uses other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available and widely used.

Without rich people, no mills, no abundant cheap good quality steel, no transistor, no integrated circuits, no computers. Without billionaires, no access to space. You cannot make a pencil unless the boss provides you with custom made tools and tells you how to use them.

Way back in the beginning, the people who were to become what we would later call Classic Liberals believed that blacks were equal to whites, and not only before the law, but in the sense that they were as capable of adhering to contracts and working for a living as free laborers as whites are.

It seemed absolutely obvious to the abolitionists that if you abolished slavery, the former slaves would contract with the former masters to the same work as before, at a fairer reward, and without the very considerable overhead of whips and chains.

This did not in fact happen, because the slaves were an inherently low trust, less trustworthy, group.

The libertarians/classic liberals were unable to realize the problem of keeping low trust peoples away or under control, because of Christian universalism. They were the levelers, and in substantial part, they still are.

Obviously, if you believe in freedom of contract, private property, and all that stuff, then affirmative action and all that is the grossest possible violation. Affirmative action and all that is also wildly unpopular, yet where do you hear libertarians campaigning on that?

Libertarians are not people who believe in private property and Ayn Rand’s account of economic growth and technological advance. They are Puritans.

“I, Pencil” is a libertarian tale about how no one knows how to make a pencil but through the magic of markets lots of people cooperate and pencils get made.

Ayn Rand disagrees.  In Ayn Rand’s version the pencil factory owner understands how to manufacture pencils better than the workers, the lumber company owner understands how to get men to produce lumber in exchange for money, the shipping company owner understands logistics and ships things on schedule even though the parts of his operation don’t have to understand the whole.

On this, Reactionaries are on board with Ayn Rand.  But where Ayn Rand is very wrong is that good governance does not fall from the sky.  Leftists think that goods fall from the sky.  Libertarians think that knowledge and ability to make goods fall from the sky.  And Ayn Rand thought that good governance falls from the sky.

Ayn Rand thought that warriors “mystics of muscle” were dangerous and useless, and priests “mystics of spirit” were merely peddling foolishness, much as commies think that capitalists do not do anything useful, and progressives think that factories and capitalists do not do anything useful.  Supposedly stuff just magically appears on the supermarket shelves, and the evil capitalists cruelly charge people money for stuff that they had nothing to do with.

The entrepreneur has to outsource stuff outside his core competence to the market, which the libertarian version gets right, but he is in the business of insourcing his core competence, which the libertarian version ignores.

Rand, unlike the libertarians, got both the outsourcing and the insourcing correct, but neglected the problem of defending property rights. You need warriors to actually defend property rights, and priests to give the warriors cohesion and to get everyone on the same page about what rights are rightly defended by what means.

If libertarians are people who believe that the economy should run on freedom of contract, they would be in favor of feeding low trust people into the wood chipper, feet first, slowly, but observed libertarians are in favor of open borders and less incarceration. Puritanism strikes again.

Today’s leftism is organizationally descended from Puritanism (when the former headquarters of the former state Church of Massachusetts declares that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia, every academic everywhere outside of China and Russia instantly and completely agrees, and not only agrees, but is entirely certain without a shadow of doubt that he always has agreed) but while leftism has rejected every tenet of puritanism except war on Christmas and war on marriage, through one heresy after another, Libertarians are descended memetically from the leveler sect of puritanism, pretty much unchanged, their error and their failure being the original error of the levelers, still doing wrong what the original levelers did wrong.

If you are a libertarian, you don’t believe in welfare. So what do you do if someone finds it difficult to get a job because of a past history of misbehavior, and is unmotivated to get a job because he cannot think ahead all the way to payday, and is likely to be fired before payday anyway.

Well if you are a libertarian, you say that there are no such people, abolish welfare for the undeserving poor and everyone will behave well when they get sufficiently hungry. That is the leveler speaking. “No Bishop, No King!”

If you are a reactionary however, you suspect that such people are more likely to try to eat you when they get hungry, and therefore such people need to be enslaved, exiled, or otherwise taken permanently out of circulation.

Don’t use enemy words, you will not be understood.

Monday, December 16th, 2019

Enemy words are always understood as enemy meanings. And they will always be understood in this sense even if we hold the megaphone, because their official definition always conflates two very different and incompatible natural kinds.

Don’t use the words “racist”, “psychopath”, “sweatshop”, “sociopath”, and “pedophile”, among many others equally evil.

When someone says “Democrats are the real racists”, he is using the word “racist” correctly and in accord with its official definition (“racist” means badwhite), and he thinks he is being understood, and it superficially looks as if he is being understood, but instead of being understood as saying that we need to shutdown affirmative action and stop blacks from shooting cops and burning down the shops in their neighborhood, is instead understood as saying that the Democratic Party needs to purge its remaining whites and go brown.

Using the word “racist” in accord with its official definition (badwhite) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anti correlates with the natural kind of white. Whites are the most good race, the least evil race.

If you say Arkan is a psychopath, you are using the word correctly and in accord with its official meaning (evil warrior), and people will seemingly understand you, but you will be understood as saying that Army First Lt. Clint Lorance was also a war criminal, and that the prosecution was right to cook up whatever crimes and whatever evidence for those crimes were necessary to convict him, and that Trump was very wicked to pardon him.

If you say Trotsky was a psychopath, you are using the word incorrectly, since psychopaths are supposed to be calm in the face of danger and resistant to coercion. Trotsky was not resistant to coercion, and it is hard to tell if he was calm in the face of danger, because he always ran away from danger. You will be understood as giving credit to his story that he was a successful and effective military officer in the civil war, which in a sense he was, but Trotsky administered the military from an embarassingly safe distance, while Stalin headed off to where the action was.

Using the word psychopath in accord with its official definition (evil warrior) fails to communicate, because the natural kind of evil anticorrelates with the natural kind of warrior. The virtues of calm in the face of immediate danger, and determination in the face of immediate harm anticorrelate with the vices of short term manipulative lying, short termism in interpersonal skills, and the pursuit of short term goals. cluster B is toxic masculinity, psychopath hardcore toxic masculinity, and sociopath is a toxic husband who loves his wife, his children, his kin, and his friends.

You need a word for courage and manliness, and you need a separate word for evil. When you have a word for something that is not a natural kind, but a combination of the characteristics of two natural kinds that are by nature contrary to each other, its sole function is to create confusion between natural kinds. Actual usage necessarily collapses to referring to one kind or the other.

If you are white, you are a racist, if you are brave, you are a psychopath, and if you love your family, you are a sociopath. And when people attempt to use these words in other meanings, as with “Democrats are the real racists”, they just fall flat on their faces.

Just flat out does not work. It is laughable to even attempt to say it. When a black gang roams the streets looking for white kids to beat up no one calls them racists, because they are not racists, and if you call them racists you sound crazy. No one understands what you are talking about.

The official definition of “racist” is not “white”. It is “badwhite”. But simply having such a definition necessarily collapses in practice to “it is not alright to be white”. And the official definition of psychopath is not warrior but evil warrior, which is in one sense plausible, since warriors regularly do terrible things. On the other hand, because the warrior virtues are in fact virtues, does not make sense, so in actual usage necessarily collapses to “it is not alright to be brave or manly”

Because the characteristics used in the official definition of a psychopath, a sociopath, a pedophile, or a racist anticorrelate, actual usage necessarily to collapses to one cluster or the other cluster

If you have one word for both, then priestly types can never be evil, and warrior types can never be good. So the actual usage in practice necessarily collapses to a hateful word for warrior.

Official definition of racist: “Badwhite”; Actual usage and what happens if you attempt to use it in the official sense: “Whites are evil”.

Every attempt to use enemy words in accordance with their official enemy definition simply fails every time. “Democrats are the real racists”

Communication just does not ensue.

The intent of words that do not correspond to natural kinds is to lie and confuse, and trying to use them to tell the truth just fails. They are words with a lie at their core built into them.

“Sociopath” is a hate word for love and loyalty. If you care about your wife and kids, you are a sociopath, and again, no one is going to understand you if you attempt to give it a non standard and unusual meaning. Trying to use these words is like calling blacks and democrats “racist”. Just does not compute. No one is going to understand you.

If capitalism and poor work conditions were a natural kind, if the word “sweatshop” referred to a natural kind, that would imply that capitalism is poor work conditions, or causes poor work conditions. If injustice motivated by racial difference was a natural kind, that would imply that noticing racial difference is injustice.

The namefag problem

Friday, December 13th, 2019

In today’s environment, it is impossible to speak the truth under one’s official name, and dangerous to speak the truth even under any durable and widely used identity. Therefore, people who post under names tend to be unreliable. Hence the term “namefag”. If someone posts under his true name, he is a “namefag” – probably unreliable and lying. Even someone who posts under a durable pseudonym is apt show excessive restraint on many topics. Moldbug has not written anything of much value since he was doxed.

The aids virus does not itself kill you. The aids virus “wants” to stick around to give itself lots of opportunities to infect other people, so wants to disable the immune system for obvious reasons. Then, without a immune system, something else is likely to kill you.

When I say “wants”, of course the aids virus is not conscious, does not literally want anything at all. Rather, natural selection means that a virus that disables the immune system will have opportunities to spread, while a virus that fails to disable the immune system only has a short window of opportunity to spread before the immune system kills it, unless it is so virulent that it likely kills its host before it has the opportunity to spread.

A successful memetic disease, a demon, that spreads through state power, through the state system for propagation of official truth wants to disable truth speaking and truth telling – hence the replication crisis, peer review, and the death of science. We are now in the peculiar situation that truth is best obtained from anonymous sources, which is seriously suboptimal. Namefags always lie. The drug companies are abandoning drug development, because science just does not work any more. No one believes their research, and they do not believe anyone else’s research.

It used to be that there were a small number of sensitive topics, and if you stayed away from those, you could speak the truth on everything else, but now it is near enough to all of them that it might as well be all of them, hence the replication crisis. Similarly, the aids virus tends to wind up totally suppressing the immune system, even though more selective shutdown would serve its interests more effectively, and indeed the aids virus starts by shutting down the immune system in a more selective fashion, as progressivism started by only shutting down a narrow range of thought crimes, but in the end cannot help itself from shutting down the immune system totally.

To exorcise the demon, we need a prophet, and since the demon occupies the role of the official state church, we need a true king. Unfortunately there is a persistent shortage of true Kings.

Good and Evil

Monday, December 9th, 2019

Good people cooperate to suppress evil deeds and exclude evil men, drive out evil men, kill evil men. If no words for good and evil, no extended large scale cooperation. If no extended large scale cooperation, we are not truly human, and we perish.

Unless we can speak of good and evil, unless we can speak of good people and evil people, we will perish.

The words “Good” and “Evil” are both socially defined, and also defined by Gnon. When the people of your social group define good and evil, they instructing you on their social technology and social capital for achieving cooperate/cooperate equilibrium within their group, and this social technology, the copybook headings and tribal taboos, necessarily varies a little from one group to another.

When Gnon defines good and evil, he is telling you that some people and some behaviors make it very hard to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Those people are evil people, and those behaviors are evil behaviors.

The Old Testament told us to pay attention to tribal taboos and copybook headings. The book of Proverbs is copybook headings, and the book of Deuteronomy is tribal taboos. But in Old Testament times, they had good and working social technology. The New Testament told us to judge a tree by its fruits. In the cold and cynical language of the Dark Enlightenment, the New Testament tells us that when the tribal taboos get holiness spiraled, they are likely to be really bad social technology, and we should check that the social technology is still actually working.

In the first century of our Lord, Jewish holiness spiraled defective social technology eventually resulted in the most severe defect/defect equilibrium of them all: War. War with Rome. The worst possible of wars. The Jews thought it was more important to observe the pharisaic law on attending synagogue and the pharisaic law on avoiding blood contamination by walking on ground on which chicken blood had been spilled, than to observe the commandments of Gnon on coveting, on theft, and on murder.

Commies kill their friends.

The holy continually invent new ways to be ever more holy. Which, because universalism and utilitarianism, requires the continual invention of new and ever more terrible harms caused by inadequate holiness. White privilege. Male privilege. Therefore, being white and male, you are committing all manner of terrible harms, and should rightly be hated and punished. So the sincere leftist will hate you and punish you.

It is defect/defect equilibrium, because the leftist perceives all near as defectors. You cannot establish cooperate/cooperation equilibrium with a leftist, because his perception of cooperation is defective, just as his perception of female sexual desire is defective.

Near is supposedly oppressing far. So the more he hates near the holier he is. The more he harms near, the holier he is. Hence Trayvon-Zimmerman debate. “10-10 No Pressure” was a wish fulfillment fantasy. They want to kill your children.

Leftist males frequently want to cut their own balls off, because they are ashamed and horrified by how much they are oppressing women. But even more, they want to cut your balls off. Especially if you are scoring more pussy than they are, which you probably are.

A leftist just hates you, he hates his fellow leftists, and he hates himself. He will try to harm you and frequently does. Sometimes he will harm himself in the course of harming you.

In the recent prosecutions of warriors, the priestly prosecution suppressed evidence that would indicate innocence (for example the fact that the dead “civilians” shot by Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance were in fact Taliban who had their DNA on IED devices) and went looking far too hard for evidence of guilt, went looking so hard that they were likely to find it regardless of whether it existed or not.

They just hated warriors, because our priesthood has just hated warriors since 1860, wanted to maliciously harm them, and were trying to do so. The prosecution did not give a tinker’s dam whether those guys were innocent or guilty.

Leftists are nicer and politer than rightists, in part because they are always worried about microaggressions, in part because all bad language oppresses some official victim group, in part because they tend to have no real friends, thus feel weak individually, and unable to openly confront people individually.

Kathy Forth was industriously destroying the lives of people in Scott Alexander’s social circle, and everyone was far too nice and far to polite to call her out for it or speak up in the defense of those she damaged.

Scott Alexander on his social circle’s response to an evil and insane woman causing immense damage: “I do think that the people who work on making sure harassment allegations get heard and dealt with have done a really great job, and often while Kathy was stalking them and their friends, and I commend that”

That politeness and niceness is truly astonishing. Approaching Pol Pot levels of politeness and niceness. It is absolutely obvious that Scott’s social circle is outstandingly nice and polite. But really lousy friends. They were throwing each other to crocodile in the hope of being last to devoured.

Pol Pot, who murdered everyone with any connection to himself, was a famously nice man. Everyone who met him and survived (which is not very many of those who met him) reported on how remarkably nice he was. None of his family, none of the classmates he went to school with as a child, survived. The amazingly nice Pol Pot was so nice as to eradicate anyone who obstructed immanentizing the eschaton. And since eschaton failed to immanentize, it was obvious that no end of people were obstructing it.

The collapse of faith in government and social institutions (which we and Trump are riding) is happening because leftists not only behave badly collectively, they behave badly individually. A leftist government is apt to murder millions, and a leftist sister is apt to murder her brother for the inheritance. (The left has no legitimate grounds to arrest Trump, and thus it is difficult to arrest Trump or the people around him without openinly abandoning the Republic, but he has ample supply of legitimate grounds to arrest the top leadership of the Democratic party for individual non political crimes. Biden was open about what he was doing, because everyone in his social circle was doing it, so Trump could arrest his opposition while everyone still politely pretends to believe the Republic still lives.) The average leftist would like to kill you, and will steal anything not nailed down. The holiness spiral heads to war, because it destroys cooperation, because it destroys the words “Good” and “Evil”, destroys the meaning of those words.

The end state of this collapse of cooperation is war, frequently the state making one sided war upon its disarmed subjects.

To detect this sort of weaponized niceness, watch for incongruity between inner frame and outer frame. The apparent niceness of progressives usually has incongruous inner frame, as in the debate over Martin and Zimmerman. Outwardly they cared deeply that blacks were victimized by white authority figures. Inwardly they believed that blacks were entitled to rob houses and attack white people without white people defending themselves, which incongruity manifested in supposedly supporting the proposition that Zimmerman attacked Martin with arguments that Martin had motive for attacking Zimmerman.

The outer frame was that they cared deeply about other people, the inner frame was that they hate me and mine and intend harm to me and mine. Niceness is a weapon. If someone is nice, watch out that niceness is not a knife in his hand.

When I hear leftists talking in moralistic language, they use that language in the same way they use the symbols and language of Christianity, to desecrate and denigrate. They hate goodness and decency and want to destroy it, they shrink from it as a vampire shrinks from sunlight, or Merkel famously shrank from the German flag. They use the language of virtue and goodness like satanists inverting the symbols of Christianity in sacrilegious rituals. “Piss Christ” fails to impress me as an indication of heartfelt Christianity, and leftist claims to be in favor of fairness are as convincing as communist claims to be in favor of the peasants. “Land to the tiller”.

Did the tiller get land?

The communists stole his land, and mortgages in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown were distributed in a way that was a savagely and destructively unfair as it was possible to be. The people who say “Think of our Children” also issued “10 10 No Pressure”. They don’t want to save the earth for our children, any more than the communists intended to give land to the tiller. They want to murder our children in order to save the earth, and are not shy about saying so.

The warmists want to murder our children, the communists are so vitally concerned about fairness that they want to take the tiller’s land and the worker’s house and force them all to live in giant Le Corbusier Housing projects. Is it fair to take the tiller’s land?

Complex societies are the result of males cooperating – and the male capacity to cooperate is the result of selection for collective action to hog the most women.

Failure of the elite to reproduce reflects breakdown of cooperation within the elite. The state religion contains the social technology for cooperation within the elite, thus failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.