Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Inclusivity codes of conduct

Wednesday, May 9th, 2018

When an open source software project adopts a “code of conduct” it slowly dies. Bugs don’t get fixed, new features break stuff, and it is unable to accommodate updates and changes in the environment. Over time, it gradually suffers bitrot – unchanging and unchangeable assumptions in a changing world, combined with “fixes” that introduce new bugs, and confusing new misfeatures that irritate old users, never quite work as they were supposed to, and are an obstacle to new users.

And now the eye of Soros has fallen on the Space X reusable rocket program, and “women in tech” will likely kill the re-usable earth to orbit second stage. We will still get something called the Falcon Heavy which will reach orbit, but chances are that the promised reusability is never going to arrive, that it will not be able to land back on earth, promptly refuel, and promptly go back to orbit again. And will therefore never be able to radically lower launch costs.  And in a generation or so it will suffer the fate of the space shuttle. Too many disastrous accidents, costs keep growing without limit, eventually grounded for life. Similarly, the latest fighter planes have poorer performance than earlier generations of fighter planes, and much higher cost. People tell me that advances in missile technology and stealth make high performance fighters obsolete, and maybe that is true, but if performance is obsolete, why are fighters, like bridges that fall down, getting more expensive, rather than less? Looks to me that the government is buying all the performance it can afford – and all the performance it can afford is rather less than it used to be able to afford. Reminds me of the Obamacare website: No amount of money could get it up, until they gave up on political correctness, and went with a team of white males leavened with east Asian males – with white males on top.

Why is “inclusivity” so devastatingly lethal to tech?

Observe “women in tech”. As Spandrel observes “Women in tech” are women trying to get nerds out of tech. Nerds protest. “We were here first! We built this from scratch!”. Yeah whatever. There’s money to be made, so women want in. Then they saw nerds there, and then they can’t help their instincts. Nerds must go. Women just won’t live close to them; the same way humans don’t like living close to snakes or rats. That getting rid of the nerds would destroy the whole ecosystem is secondary. When tech collapses after women chase the nerds away, women will just migrate to somewhere else built by some other males, as if nothing had happened.

Hypergamy means that all women want the top men. The top 20%, the top 5%, definitions vary. Here’s some data. But even with the most generous definition, women see 80% of men as being completely out of consideration for sex. They just won’t sleep with them. If they do (and they do every now and then for money or other motives), and other women find out, well that automatically means they’re lower status, certainly lower status than women who sleep with better men. Not even sex really, the mere company of undeserving men is like a skin disease for women. It’s like an old rag worn by a leper. The attention of mediocre men is low status itself, it defiles women in their own eyes. So it follows that if possible, mediocre men should disappear. Just die.

Incel men being the most mediocre among the mediocre, they are at the top of the list for things women want to eradicate. They just don’t want them to exist. Wherever they meet them they try to make them disappear.

Google used to be very smart, is now very stupid. Still making billions, will continue to make billions, but from my point of view, has already collapsed. Most of the good stuff being created now, is being created by ex googlers. Hollyweird is now getting what techies have been getting for some time.  The only way a good techie can avoid the purge is to actually do what he would otherwise be accused of doing. The instincts of women mean that the innocent get purged and the guilty get laid.

The lioness knows which lion to fuck, because she sees him kill her kittens. Feynman was smart and famous, but to get laid, had to use his smarts to learn to put on the same performance as I perform.  All women are like that.  If some women were not like that, we would have seen them with Feynman, Einstein, and Brad Pitt.

Who gets sex

Thursday, May 3rd, 2018

The simplistic account is that eighty percent of women are having sex, and twenty percent of men are having sex – a hell of a lot of sex.

It kind of feels as if it is true, it is emotionally true, but it is not literally true. The number of men and women getting sex is not hugely different. More woman are having sex than men, and substantially more women are having regular sex with a regular partner than men are having regular sex with a regular partner (reflecting substantial levels of polygyny), but not hugely more, the numbers are not all that different.

What, however, makes the simplistic account feel true, is that ninety percent of men never get to pop a virgin. Every man, except for a rather small handful of men, are getting sloppy seconds. There is not a huge asymmetry as to how many men are getting sex compared to how many women, not a huge asymmetry as to how many men are in a sexual relationship as compared with the number of women in a sexual relationship. Rather the problem is that we don’t see virgins entering relationships with other virgins, and then having sex with each other. This is the huge inequality between men and women, and between the vast majority of ordinary males, and the small minority of males that females notice – the problem is that almost every women gets popped by a high status alpha male, while very few men get to pop a hot virgin.

Eventually the hot chick slides down the desirability ladder, and reluctantly deigns to enter a relationship with some male who is sufficiently lowly and unattractive that he is interested in having a relationship with her. And most sex, most of the time, takes place between men and women that are not as grossly mismatched as women wish that they were, with the result that most sex, most of the time, is not all that unequally distributed. Most sex, most of the time, is between men and women not too far apart in the desirability ladder, with the result that the numbers are not all that unequal. But by that time, by the time she has reluctantly decided to settle for someone like you, her count has become considerable.

If you have ever had sex with a virgin, you will be in no doubt about it. If you think she is a virgin because she told you so, she lied.

The number of female involuntary celibates is roughly similar to the number of male involuntary celibates. But the female involuntary celibate is celibate because she is an alpha widow. She is celibate because she once got a booty call from Jeremy Meeks, and now rejects all lesser males in the hope that one day she will get a second booty call from Jeremy Meeks. The male involuntary celibate is likely a virgin, and if he ever had sex, he got the dregs, while the female involuntary celibate got the cream.

Fixing (or replacing) Christianity

Tuesday, April 24th, 2018

High IQ species with lengthy childhood find it hard to reproduce without cooperation between males and females.

Productivity is not an issue.  In a wealthy society, a man could easily buy enough food and shelter for taking care of umpteen children, but he cannot actually take care of umpteen children. Observing variations in total fertility rate over different regions and different times, we see that even in very poor societies, boom or bust, war or peace, wealth or poverty, make very little difference to the total fertility rate. The only thing that matters is female emancipation.

Support in the sense of feeding and sheltering children is not an issue in the west, indeed it is not the major issue even in very poor countries. The problem is not feeding children, but looking after children, which requires two people. A single person household can barely look after one person, except by paying for services that are not easily obtained on the market place.  A single person household tends to eat out a lot, has difficulty with house maintenance.  A single person household tends to have no garden, because unable to manage a garden.  If you rent to a single person, chances are you will see a lot of repair and maintenance costs.

If you rent to a single person, you have to be really fascist about the condition of the house, because a single person gets overwhelmed.

So, reproduction requires two, and a two person household requires one man in charge, and the wife to honor and obey.

And the connection compelling the wife to submit to the husband has to be durable – has to last long enough to raise children.

If you have moment to moment consent, you cannot have durable marriage.  Indeed, any kind of female consent makes reproduction hard, because all women would prefer to have sex with Jeremy Meeks, and are apt to hold off on marriage till their eggs start drying up in hope of getting a booty call from Jeremy Meeks. We really should have romantic consensual marriage normal and normative only for women that can reasonably be presumed chaste. The rest should be pressured or coerced into patriarchal marriage, or a similar, but lower status and less secure, arrangement.

One helpful workaround in a society hostile to fathers, husbands, and marriage is that God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.

This works well for me as an individual. It would work a whole lot better if backed by a tribe / church / religion / social support group representing the authority of God on Earth.

Unfortunately all actually existent religious groups, with the notable exception of Mormons and some weird and unpleasant Jewish sects tend to be aggressively hostile to the authority of the husband and father. Latin Mass Catholics seem to be non hostile, but are not all that supportive.

Christian theology is that the fatherhood of God makes the fellow members of your congregation adoptive kin. (This is the Christian replacement for the Jewish Abraham). Thus “Christian” hostility to God the Father kills the Christian Church dead. A religion is a tribe, and actually existent Christianity is hostile to its own tribe, much as the US government is hostile to legacy Americans.

Anti patriarchal Christianity is a self contradiction – but it is all we have got.

Poolside is defect/defect equilibrium, the battle of the sexes.  Difficult to reproduce poolside, difficult to have a family, difficult to have an old age surrounded by children and grandchildren.  The only way to end the war is male victory, followed by some alarmingly drastic coercion.  I base this on what happened on the shore of Port Jackson, when they were working with female material far more favorable than that which we have, and were initially paralyzed because reluctant to do what proved necessary, which is presumably what fathers had been doing behind the scenes.

Obviously anyone who tries what was tried on the shores of Port Jackson is not going to be left alone by progressives.

For successful reproduction and child raising, women must be compelled to obey the father of their children, compelled to submit sexually to him, and forbidden to submit sexually to anyone else. Moment to moment consent frustrates both men and women, since it makes it difficult for them to reproduce. We need outside coercion to get to cooperate cooperate equilibrium. Moment to moment consent results in defect defect equilibrium, where no one gets what they really want. To reproduce successfully, men, women, and their children need durable and patriarchal marriage, and durable and patriarchal marriage needs coercion.

When Black Mohammedans in the middle of Africa try overtly coercive methods similar to those used on the shores of Port Jackson, the Cathedral drones them.

So, since public whippings give the enemies of the family an excuse to meddle, need to synthesize a tribe, and primarily use social pressure rather than public whippings.  A tribe requires a religion.  And the participants in the religion have to socially support all well behaved women, and forcefully exclude all badly behaved women and their male bastards.

God backs the authority of the husband and the father, and the husband and the father backs the authority of God.  God’s authority on earth is manifested through the tribe.  There is something of an exemption for religions – the Cathedral will not jump you provided you stick to weaponized social pressure and observe age limits that are increasingly difficult to observe.  It is illegal or close to it to stop girls nine or older from having sex, and illegal or close to it for them to marry under eighteen, let alone be pressured into marriage, but so far one can socially enforce patriarchy.

The Benedict Option:

What I call the Benedict Option is this: a limited, strategic withdrawal of Christians from the mainstream of American popular culture, for the sake of shoring up our understanding of what the church is, and what me must do to be the church. We must do this because the strongly anti-Christian nature of contemporary popular culture occludes the meaning of the Gospel, and hides from us the kinds of habits and practices we need to engage in to be truly faithful to what we have been given. As Jonathan Wilson has pointed out about the New Monasticism movement (a form of the Benedict Option), the church must do this not to hide away as a pure remnant — the church would be unfaithful to Christ if it did so — but to strengthen itself to be the church for the world.

This assumes that actually existent Christianity is just fine.

It is not. It is cucked. Christianity has to be patriarchal, because of “God the Father”, because its replacement for biological kinship through Abraham is adoptive kinship through the fatherhood of God.

And, despite all the hand wringing by progs, actually existent Christianity is hostile to fathers and husbands. And actually existent Judaism is not a whole lot better.

Even the Mohammedans are in trouble, with Iran and Saudi Arabia gone feminazi. A big part of the appeal of Islamic State is that fighting for Islamic state was apt to get you a real wife.

The problem is not that popular culture is anti christian. It is that actually existent Christianity is anti christian.

You can have an individual relationship with God and Jesus “Jesus is my boyfriend” without patriarchy.

But you cannot have a Christian Church, except it is solidly patriarchal and goes full Pauline on marriage.  If no patriarch, then no nuclear family, if no nuclear family, then no extended family, if no extended family, then no support for actual kinship.  If no support for actual kinship, then no adoptive kinship.  If no adoptive kinship, no church.

You can have individual Christians without Pauline patriarchy, but without Pauline patriarchy, you don’t have a Christian Church.  Dalrock is not a church.  He is another guy with another blog, and taking a sane position on the problem of reproduction and a straightforward position on the interpretation of Saint Paul on marriage has alienated him from his Church, and his Church from him.

If there was a church that was willing to support me, I would support it.

Christianity without patriarchy is Pope Francis celebrating gay sex and transvestite prostitutes. Christianity without patriarchy inexorably winds up joining Heartiste poolside. Some Roman Catholics are whining about the Church supporting divorce, but if you support moment to moment consent, if you oppose “marital rape”, then you have to support divorce. I remember a time when everyone supported marital rape, when the words “marital rape” made no sense, when it was incomprehensible to most people that there might be anything wrong or unusual about a man compelling his wife to perform her marital duty. Today, I don’t think even Dalrock supports “marital rape”, but if you oppose “marital rape”, it is logically inconsistent to oppose divorce at capricious whim. If wives have a duty to honor and obey, and wives and husbands have a duty each to sexually gratify the other, then no such thing as marital rape. If they don’t have such a duty, why do you have a problem with the church service celebrating a transvestite prostitute auctioning off his body cavities?

In order to oppose both marital rape and a church service celebrating transvestism and sodomy, Christians have to be against sex generally, rather than against the war of the sexes, a position that is stupid, contrary to the bible, contrary to the survival of the species, anti Darwinian, and contrary to what the Bible tells us of God’s plan – it is the foolish and wicked heresy that Puritans were rightly accused of. Marriage in the old testament is not a magic ritual making sex magically OK. It is a man’s commitment to keep a woman and never let her go. Such a commitment is impossible and foolish today, however much a man desires it, thus no marriage any more. It is all fornication, the sacrament is in vain.

One of the major earthly jobs of religion is to promote peace and cooperation generally, particularly cooperation between members of the religion, and particularly members of the congregation, and particularly cooperation between men and women in begetting and raising children. This is intended to promote sex, not prevent it. In order to prevent the battle of the sexes, the Church needs to prohibit not sex, but adultery. And adultery is not a code word for sex. Adultery means the same thing in marriage as in beer. Improper mixing. Adultery means one man’s seed going into the same pussy as another man’s seed, because that prevents a man from raising his children.

So the Church abandons its mission of promoting cooperation within the family, and then, to demonstrate that it is nonetheless twice as holy as before, doubles down on opposing movie producers having sex with starlets, even though abandoning marriage and the family makes opposition to movie producers having sex with starlets irrelevant, absurd, and pointless.

Women gone nuts

Friday, April 20th, 2018

The Zman asks “Why Did Women Go Nuts?

Simple. When you repress bad sexual behavior by males, and do not repress bad sexual behavior by females, you get very little bad sexual behavior by males, and a whole lot of bad sexual behavior by females.

I see women behaving as if raised by apes in the jungle.

Things are going to hell because we fail to restrain bad behavior that gets right in our faces.  Male sexual behavior in the workplace is nigh nonexistent and male heterosexual rape is nigh nonexistent, but to the extent that it exists, the man is looking for a warm wet pussy.  Female sexual behavior is different.  She is trying to disqualify males, testing as many males as possible to see if they meet her exacting requirements.  This testing is necessarily stressful, for she is stress testing men to see if they break under pressure, thus necessarily more disruptive than male sexual behavior, more damaging to workplace productivity, male cohesion, and social cooperation.

In a normal and sane society, ninety percent of fertile age women would within a few minutes of behaving as they now do, be whacked hard with a stick, like a stray dog harassing a farmer’s chickens.  And then they would stop.  Their owner would be called, and they would be hauled off on a leash.

Yet everyone around be acts like zombies and fails to notice.

It is completely obvious to me that women in the workplace continually disrupt the workplace by fitness testing attractive male co-workers, and a minor and infrequent side effect of these fitness tests, when the fitness test goes explicitly and overtly sexual, is that the woman complains, and entirely believes, she was sexually harassed.  So am I insane, or is everyone else insane?  Am I hallucinating disruptive sexual behavior right in front of my face by lusty women fitness testing every attractive male they meet to see if he has the stones to beat them and rape them, or is everyone else hallucinating chaste sexless angels persecuted by lecherous men?

Slate Star Codex recently attempted to survey co-worker sexual harassment complaints by workplace type, and reviewed existing surveys.  The major result was that the more women were outnumbered by men, (engineering, mining) the less that women experienced “sexual harassment”, and the more women outnumber men (supermarket checkout chicks, actresses) the more they experience “sexual harassment”.  These results were swiftly confirmed by subsequent work by other people, who also produced similar results for rape – or at least females complaining about “rape”.

But this only makes sense if incidents of men “raping” women and men “sexually harassing” women are generally female initiated, not male initiated, which is what I see in front of my nose, and what I see everyone else failing to see.   All workplace sexual harassment cases of males supposedly sexually harassing females, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are female initiated: It is a fitness test. The chick is looking for a coworker with the stones to beat her and rape her.

If workplace sexual harassment is male initiated, we would expect females in predominantly male workplaces to report a lot of it, in particular we would expect engineerettes and female miners to report lots of it, because outnumbered approximately a hundred to one by males, while we would expect actresses and supermarket checkout girls to report very little of it, because they heavily outnumber male co-workers. Survey data is the exact opposite. The more that female workers outnumber male workers (and thus the thirstier the female workers) the more “sexual harassment” by every plausible measure, indicating that all cases of males sexually harassing female co-workers are actually cases of female co-workers fitness testing attractive males, as near to all of them as makes no difference.

In the time period of the “Rape on campus” incident, University of Virginia investigated thirty eight rape complaints. None led to disciplinary action, therefore all fake, or University of Virginia horribly biased. The fallout of the “Rape on Campus” case indicates fake. If there were any real cases, Obama’s team would have come up with better poster girls. All reports of rape by white heterosexual males are lies, as near to all of them as makes no difference.  Recollect that the University of Virginia accusation “A Rape on Campus”, was driven by female sexual lust.

And, similarly, sex between middle aged men, and girls well below puberty.  Humbert Humbert wants to creep into bed with the sleeping twelve-year-old Dolores Haze, but does not do so, in part because she is not in her own bed, she has crept into the bed of the drunk and sleeping Jeremy Meeks.  Any time you hear that an old man has raped a female child, ascertain whose bed the “rape” occurred in.

We should not “teach women not to lie about rape”. We should throw women in jail for lying about rape, or else legalize rape when done on private property that a woman voluntarily chose to enter. But, far more importantly, need to fire women who shit test co-workers in the workplace, because their disruptive behavior profoundly damages productivity and social cohesion.

To win, we are going to need a red pilled Christianity that is willing to enforce order, patriarchy, and orthodoxy.  We will need to spin the story of the fall not as a literal account of mankind’s descent from a higher plane of existence, but rather a parable or metaphor about men becoming black pilled when we realized large scale cooperation was hard, knowing good and evil, and knowing we screwed up.  Evolutionary psychology and game theory leads to conclusions that parallel the traditional Christian understanding of the fall.

Losing weight is a solved problem

Monday, April 16th, 2018

One frequently reads despairing reports that major weight loss is impossible. If you attempt it, supposedly your metabolism slows right down, making you weak, tired, lethargic, slow, and very very hungry.

I read in far right and manosphere sources anecdotes from people who claim to have lost a great deal of weight. I followed their advice and lost a great deal of weight: The short of it is weigh yourself every morning, paleo (no wheat products, manufactured foods, or sweet drinks), carnivory (adequate protein, lots of animal fat), fasting, and getting your testosterone and estradiol levels correct.

I am not going to repeat the advice on how to lose weight here. Rather, I look at the the connection between successful weight loss, and the rightosphere, and the obesity epidemic, and the endless and rapidly accelerating movement left.

Why is it that there is a connection between the rightosphere and sound advice on losing weight, and the leftosphere and bad advice on losing weight?

Anecdotally, and from my personal experience, low testosterone in men leads to weight gain, high testosterone makes it easier to lose weight. Anecdotally, high testosterone in women leads to weight gain, and makes it hard for them to lose weight. Hence the stereotype of the fat mustachioed lesbian bully from Human Resources berating males for toxic masculinity while groping schoolgirls. In other words, androgyny causes obesity. And leftism promotes androgyny.

A woman who interrupts her boss and who walks down the middle of the corridor, will be prone to getting fat because this raises her testosterone, and the man who scurries out of her way to one side of the corridor will be prone to getting fat, because scurrying out of her way lowers his testosterone, as will the boss who (because no one dares restrain uncivilized female behavior) allows himself to be interrupted in a supposedly helpful and supposedly friendly fashion.

The diet high in fat and meat is demonized because associated with masculinity. Testosterone is made difficult to obtain because masculine. Women routinely get estrogen, but mighty hard for males to get testosterone. Fasting is ignored and deemed harmful because of the connection to old type Christianity.

In this sense, everything that works to lose weight is right wing, and everything that makes us fat is left wing. The obesity epidemic is connected to leftism in much the same ways as the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic is connected to leftism. Leftists want gays to be allowed to make blood donations, fat acceptance, and don’t want us to get testosterone, for much the same reasons.

There are no utilitarians.

Thursday, March 22nd, 2018

Whosoever claims to be a utilitarian is lying. Whosoever lies, is lying because he is defecting on those he lies to, seeks to harm, or is harming, those he lies to. In the case of utilitarianism, the lie is the claim to care about far, in order to cover actions or intentions harmful to near.

By nature, we don’t care about far people. We care about ourselves, then our close kin, then our friends and allies, then members of our ingroup. Except that we prefer to avoid war with outgroups, and except that some individual members of the outgroup are friends or allies, we don’t care about outgroup members.

But the ingroup are our direct competitors for status, power, and wealth – they occupy, and threaten, our own ecological niche. Thus the evil man always seeks to ally with far in order to destroy those closest to him. Hence leftism. Thus the evil man always loudly claims to love the outgroup.  Thus the evil man is supposedly more concerned with the welfare of women and children than husbands and fathers, and proceeds to institute a cash and prizes system to incentivize women to divorce their husbands, even though these divorces invariably wind up being extremely bad for women and children.  Yet that same evil man is more concerned with Muslims than with women, and so ignores rape and violence against women by rapeugees, even though this is totally inconsistent with his position on affluent white male university students having sex with half drunk co-eds, and his position on actresses whoring themselves out to movie producers, and those actresses then getting butthurt when they hit the wall, and movie producers are no longer buying.

Samaritans were not the neighbors of the man set upon by thieves.  In the parable, the good Samaritan became a neighbor because he acted in a neighborly fashion, and the priest ceased to be a neighbor, because he did not act neighborly.  But all the other neighbors did not cease to be neighbors, and all the other Samaritans did not become neighbors.

When we recognize evil, we recognize someone as dangerous to have as a friend or ally.  And if you look at all the cases where utilitarian doctrine prescribes evil behavior, it prescribes behavior that would identify the person behaving in that fashion as dangerous to have as a friend or ally.  And conversely, utilitarian doctrine allows an evil person to be pious and holier than thou about his evil behavior.  He is being malicious because you are a Trump supporter, or a white male, or heterosexual, or some such, so being malicious to you serves the greater good.  Thus, for example, progressives will disrupt thanksgiving dinners, harming members of their family, on the basis that they suspect some family members of having voted for Trump, which is a hint of the potential for more serious malice, such as murdering members of their family in order to inherit the family home.

If someone is a progressive, chances are he will harass the family because some family members voted for Trump, and if someone harasses family members over Trump, chances are he will murder family members over inheritance. Notice that when progressives seize control of a company, they burn the shareholders.  And similarly, the current progressive policy of race replacement.  If all whites except their good selves are murdered or expelled, this benefits those whites remaining, since whites are always and everywhere the chief competitor to other whites.  Of course you lose the benefit of the high trust society characteristic of whites, but evil people benefit from a high trust society less than good people.  And in the long term it is likely to be harmful because you lose science, technology, and industry, but evil people do not care about the long term.

Evil is almost the same thing as dangerous to near, because near is the competition, and progressivism and utilitarianism are rationales for behaving badly to near.

The word “evil” is not defined by philosophers, or even by priests, but rather by mothers to their children.  The story of Snow White defines evil.  No one would genuinely think the stepmother evil for taxing the peasants, but for attempting to murder her stepdaughter, and likewise, we think Snow White is good because she does her job of housekeeping with enthusiasm, because she honors her commitments.

The ruling underclass

Friday, February 23rd, 2018

Hanson, once a neoconservative, finds himself a second class citizen in a California that is increasingly strange, alien, and dangerous.

I and one of my sons have mostly fled Silicon valley. The other lives in a shrinking island of whiteness that is ever more dangerous and ever more expensive, in San Francisco near the Embarcadero, near where Kathryn Steinle was murdered for being white, and her murderer acquitted, because high status people can get away with shooting second class people.

Hanson complains:

Throw out onto the road three sacks of garbage with your incriminating power bill in them, or dump the cooking oil of your easily identifiable mobile canteen on the side of the road, and there are no green consequences. Install a leach line that ends up one foot too close to a water well, and expect thousands of dollars of fines or compliance costs.

A cynical neighbor once summed up the counter-intuitive rules to me: if you are in a car collision, hope that you are hit by, rather than hit an illegal alien. If someone breaks into your home and you are forced to use a firearm, hope that you are wounded nonlethally in the exchange, at least more severely than is the intruder. And if you are cited by an agency, hope it is for growing an acre of marijuana rather than having a two-foot puddle on your farm classified as an inland waterway.I could add a fourth: it is always legally safer to allow your dog to be devoured by a stray pit-bull than to shoot the pit-bull to save your dog.In the former case, neither the owner nor the state ever appears; in the latter both sometimes do.

He fails to name his rulers.

He neglects to notice.:

  • Is it permissible for a member of Tribe A to criticize Tribe B?
  • Is it permissible for a member of Tribe B to criticize Tribe A?
  • In physical conflicts between As and Bs, who is more likely to be the aggressor, the A or the B?
  • Given equivalent circumstances, is the judicial system more aggressive in punishing offenses of As against Bs, or vice versa?
  • Given equivalent circumstances, in economic competition between an A and a B, which is more likely to win? If you are looking for a government contract or position, an official distinction, an educational opportunity, etc, etc, is it better to be an A or a B?
  • Is it more socially marginal for a B to be rude to an A, or an A to be rude to a B?

If the territories of two tribes overlap, one must necessarily rule, one must necessarily be ruled. It is that, or war.

He is ruled.

Humans are naturally fissiparous. During the filming of the “Planet of the Apes”, extras costumed as orangutans formed a tribe, extras costumed as chimps formed another tribe, and extras costumed as gorillas formed yet another a tribe.

But with improved communications and mobility, we don’t get physical separation between tribes. Which is a problem, because if tribal territories overlap, the natural outcome is that one tribe rules, and the other is ruled.

And because white males ruling has been deemed unacceptable, the inevitable outcome is that whites get ruled. Actually war and slow genocide, rather than rule, is the natural outcome, but if we are lucky, careful, and clever, we can avoid that and merely get one tribe ruling and one tribe ruled, though this arrangement is always fragile, unstable, and apt to tip into genocide, slow or swift, unless carefully managed from above.

Empires and their state religions want to make everyone into one big tribe, but this does not work. The great big tribe lacks cohesion and solidarity, and is first parasitised, then predated upon, by smaller tribes within the larger tribe. Too big a tribe, too hard to maintain good behavior.

The traditional solution to this problem is territorial states each with their own state church, the peace of Westphalia. But this is no longer workable. For it to work, needs smaller states and less migration.

The Turkish Caliphate prefigures a solution better adapted to our mobile era, though that solution ended in genocide when the Caliphate, which was keeping the precarious system in balance, fell. The solution to the problem successfully implemented by the Caliphate is microterritories in addition to macroterritories: for example with blacks and whites we get the spontaneous formation of the ghetto and also the spontaneous formation of the black table at the school cafeteria. Put a black in charge of the ghetto, a Jew in charge of the Jewish area. Explicitly recognize territories, acknowledge the black table and the white tables in school cafeteria, make them formal and official and put them overtly and formally under the authority of the relevant tribes.

The concept of equality under the law should be inexpressible and incomprehensible. That we can speak such nonsense means that there is something wrong with our words, which fail to cut reality at the joints. Different tribes naturally have different laws. A member of tribe A in the microterritory of tribe A will of course be subject to different rules than a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe B. Equality should only be in that if a member of tribe A is in the microterritory of tribe B, he is under disabilities that are sometimes roughly similar to the disabilities of a member of tribe B in the microterritory of tribe A, though by no means exactly the same.

Which does not mean that a black should not be allowed to sit at the white table at the school cafeteria, or vice versa, but does mean he should only be allowed to sit at the white tables only as a guest of a white person in good standing with the white tribe of cool schoolkids, and this white person shall be responsible for that black person’s good behavior, and if black person misbehaves, then the white person whose guest he was loses his good standing with the white tribe at the school.

Notice how when buses were integrated, when blacks no longer had to go to the back of the bus, whites were forced to stop riding buses in areas with significant black ridership, because of a well founded fear of being beaten up. Diversity plus proximity leads to war.

Similarly, males and females. For reproduction to be successful there needs to be peace between men and women.  For there to be peace between men and women, territories outside of the proper female sphere need to be male, and females only be present as a guest of a male, who for fertile age women should always be a father, brother, husband, or betrothed.  And if he is not, then she is slut, and sluts should get a substantially lower level or protection than decent women, should likely suffer minor physical violence.

School shot up because murdering white kids is OK

Tuesday, February 20th, 2018

The Florida school shootings did not happen for lack of gun control.  They happened because of refusal to enforce law and maintain order when blacks and hispanics attack white children.

Back in 2015 I said:

> Difficult to say what will happen to Mestizos and Indios. In Mexico, the old gods walk again, but this has not happened in the US,

Well now the Old Gods have walked from Mexico to Florida, and spoken to Nikolas Cruz.

Nicolas Cruz had a long history of violence, menace, evil, and madness. And, of course, the school’s response was:

> “We do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”

Maybe when someone hears voices commanding him to terrible things and willfully chooses to obey those voices, it is time to think about not about helping him, but helping those near him.

But, instead:

> that harsh approach fell out of favor amid concerns that it was funneling too many young people — and particularly black and Hispanic students — into the juvenile justice system.

When a fat feminist who is hitting the wall complains that group of white males have an unhealthy attitude to women, does anyone say “We should do, as teachers, everything that we possibly can to help them”. No, they say “Let us throw the book at them, and not worry whether these accusations are true, false, or even remotely believable.”

When white males are accused of misbehavior, everyone has total confidence in the effectiveness of swift and harsh penalties, which should not be slowed down by old fashioned concerns about evidence or guilt. When a bunch of white males get together for some purpose that does not involve fucking each other, they are automatically suspected of being an evil terrorist organization.

> In recent years, Broward schools became a leader in the national move toward a different kind of discipline — one that would not just punish students, but also would help them address the root causes of their misbehavior. Such policies aim to combat what is known as the “school-to-prison pipeline,” giving teenagers a chance to stick with their education rather than get derailed, often permanently, by criminal charges.

In other words, a free pass for blacks and Hispanics to attack people at random, while if a white kid nibbles a slice of bread into the shape of a gun, the social workers get called to take him from his parents.

Blacks attack kids to take lunch money and such, without much regard for race, religion, ethnicity or social class. They are dangerous to everyone near them, ingroup or outgroup. Education and culture has little effect. Harvard blacks almost as dangerous as ghetto blacks. Blacks are more responsive to effective law enforcement than whites, thus black misbehavior is always a symptom of refusal to enforce the law on blacks.

But in Mexico, killings are generally human sacrifices of outgroup members to the old gods. People say they are drug cartel related, but this is politically correct bullshit. War is good for business only if someone else is paying for it. War is bad for business if you are paying for it. If a black drug gang commits mass murder, it is because they are doing it for business reasons but are incompetent at business. If a Mexican drug cartel in Mexico commits mass murder, they are murdering members of a near outgroup because they hear the voices of the Old Gods. The black drug gang commits murders because too stupid to find a peaceful resolution of a business dispute. The Mexican drug gang commits mass murders because listening to demons.

And now the voices of old gods have been heard in Florida.

Losing weight

Thursday, February 15th, 2018

At my morning weigh in, eighty eight pounds below my maximum, despite having added a lot of muscle.

I used to assume that this was because I no longer have to cook for my sick wife and hand feed her, thus relieved of continual food temptation, and that no doubt is part of it. I still cannot outstare a pizza and a pitcher of mountain dew.

But I notice that the average weight loss among men on added testosterone is thirty six pounds, Jordan Peterson lost fifty pounds on the low carb paleo diet, and that people report similar weight loss from regular fasting, and since I am following all of those at once, I guess my weight loss is absolutely typical of these methods.

So we have medical evidence that testosterone therapy has, on average, a huge effect, and anecdotal evidence of effective diet strategies which also have huge effect.

So, Americans are fat, but weight loss looks like a solved problem.  Every male needs to eat a pound of meat a day, everyone needs to stop eating bread and such, (pizza is my Achilles heel) almost every male needs testosterone therapy, everyone needs to stop eating vegetable oils except for olive oil and coconut oil, everyone needs to eat more butter and eggs, and everyone needs to fast regularly.

Testosterone therapy needs to be accompanied by estradiol monitoring, and an appropriate dose of exemestane to keep estradiol above twenty and below thirty picograms per milliliter.  Anything higher or lower is likely to cause male sexual problems, depression, psychological problems, spiritual problems, impotence, male sexual deviance, and sudden death in males. Low estradiol in males is usually caused by low testosterone, and in males low estradiol should be treated with testosterone, not estrogen. High estrogen in males is usually caused by being too fat. American males suffer simultaneously from obesity and low testosterone, so their estradiol levels are all over the place, about as many with dangerously high levels as with dangerously low, which may explain such weird things as cuck porn.

It also needs to be accompanied by monitoring of luteinizing hormone. Added testosterone can cause your luteinizing hormone to drop resulting in your balls shriveling up, possibly permanently, and male infertility, possibly permanent male infertility. If your luteinizing hormone drops too far, you will need Human Chorionic Gonadotropin to compensate.

If you are fat, and your testosterone levels are artificially raised to healthy normal male levels (six hundred to nine hundred nanograms per deciliter) your estrogen is going to go way too high, likely causing health and sexual problems, and your luteinizing hormone may well go way too low, causing damage to your testicles, quite possibly permanent damage.

But if every male American was put on testosterone therapy, likely the average weight loss would be thirty pounds or so, since most Americans have testosterone levels far below those that used to be normal, (to which the government has responded by redefining “normal” way down to levels so low as to have major and serious health consequences) Most males have hormone levels, low testosterone and out of range estradiol, that are known to be associated with major adverse physical and mental health consequences.

This would go a good way to explaining and curing the obesity epidemic.

Well, it would explain it if we had the explanation of falling testosterone and sperm production levels. My guess is that the cause of falling testosterone levels is not estrogen in the water supply, but spiritual estrogen in the spiritual water supply – that the war on “toxic” masculinity is the equivalent of being continually defeated, degraded, and humiliated, which is well known to lower testosterone, that the war on men, maleness, and masculinity starting in school is making men into fat chicks.  Compare Musk’s rocket scientists with Wernher von Braun.  Just looking at American males and comparing them with males of earlier periods, looks like something has gone massively and horribly wrong with their hormones, that we have a massive epidemic of hormone derangement, which, combined with too much sugar and wheat flour, may well explain our male obesity epidemic.  There is also some hormone derangement going on with our females.

Bread, sugar, and snacking, especially sweet drinks is also a significant part of the problem.  People are not eating home cooked meals any more, which puts them on the opposite of the paleo diet, and since the low carb high saturated fat paleo diet causes major weight loss, likely the frequent snacking on heavily processed food diet causes major weight gain.  Likely the abandonment of the kitchen had a worse effect on women than men.  If you snack on heavily processed food you are snacking on grain derived carbs, soy oil, soy protein, and soy phytoestrogens.  Grain, soy, and low testosterone likely explains a great deal of our problems.

My experience of testosterone is that testosterone does not itself directly cause weight loss, but strengthens and frees the will, making it easier to diet, fast, and exercise, that the direct effect of testosterone is primarily spiritual, and that the physical effects are secondary upon the spiritual effects.

I also guess that the decline in testosterone is primarily caused by the spiritual, rather than physical, environment. When I fail a shit test, I can feel my testosterone fall. When I pass a shit test, I can feel it rise. Androgyny makes men and women fat and ugly. When a woman marches down the middle of a corridor, and her male co-worker scuttles to the side of the corridor, her testosterone rises, making her fat and ugly, his testosterone falls, making him fat and ugly.

For a long time the medical profession has been telling us that nothing works for obesity.  They tell is that they try everything, nothing works, and it always fails.  But everything that works has been ignored by the medical profession, because associated with maleness and masculinity.  The campaign against meat started with oppressive government regulation of meat slaughter that raised the price of meat and reduced the availability of meat, which regulatory assault on meat was motivated by a left wing campaign demonizing slaughterhouses.  The left just does not like meat, and looks for reasons to stop it, just as they just don’t like coal and coal mining and look for reasons to stop it.  Too male.  Then followed the food pyramid, based on pseudo science even more transparently and flagrantly bogus than global warming.  Everything that works tends to be associated spiritually and culturally with various maleness and masculinity movements, which is why official science does not like anything that works.

On Punching Women

Wednesday, February 14th, 2018

Many women deserve to be punched, and do not get punched, but punching a woman indicates loss of control and weakness. You should avoid getting into fights except where you can bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and you should always be able to bring overwhelming supremacy to bear on a woman. If you have overwhelming supremacy, you can pin the opponent, and either put a painful submission hold on them, or whack him part of the body where it is safe to do so without likelihood of causing injury.

I have found I can use this kind of violence on a woman in public, safe and controlled irresistible violence, and everyone just grins. Especially other women.

Part of being able to control what kind of fights you get into is to be well prepared for a terrible, destructive, and uncontrolled fight where you cannot bring overwhelming supremacy to bear, and I am always prepared for such a fight. I am trained in unarmed combat, and when going into an unpredictable situation carry the most dangerous concealed weapon legally permitted, but the reason to be prepared for such a fight is not to get into such a fight and win, but to be able to better get out of such a fight by offering your opponent a safer path, offering your opponent a dignified way out of such a fight. One prepares for such a fight in order to better obtain your opponents cooperation in staying out of such fights, not to fight and win them, for even if you win, seldom profitable. Even if you win, you lose. Having the potential to do your adversary great harm is often profitable. Actually exercising that potential is rarely profitable.

Jesus said “resist not evil”, but we cannot take this literally, because if evil smells that you are a soft target, evil will be on to you like a dingo on a baby. We have to interpret the sermon on the mount as Jesus anticipating crucifixion, and pointing at our inability to attain salvation by personal virtue in a fallen world. Literal application of the Sermon on the Mount would be suicidal in a fallen world. We apply it by always being willing to do what it takes to find the path that does not involve terrible and destructive combat. But it takes two to make peace, only one to make war, and to find the peaceful path requires the ability to dissuade your opponent from the path of combat.

White knights are evil men – a man who white knights another man’s woman is a man who will spread hateful lies about his friend behind his friend’s back to sow discord and anger between friends. A man who white knights another man’s woman also engages in every kind of depraved and cowardly evil.  When you punch a woman, no matter how much she deserves it, you show weakness and loss of frame, and weakness attracts evil. Deal with a misbehaving woman with firmness and strength, you will have no problems. Deal with her from weakness, white knights will materialize like flies on rotting meat.