What we know about the Reichstag fire.

February 6th, 2018

This is unofficial knowledge, which I expect to become official in due course, in subsequent official events resembling #releasethememo. This post is copied wholesale from a certain neoreactionary of influence, except that I have spun it slightly towards my interpretation of events, rather than his.

The Democrats applied the full suite of extremely powerful intelligence capabilities of USG to spy on Trump and everyone remotely connected to his campaign, in order to help Hillary and hurt or intimidate Trump’s people and deter potential people from joining up with him, and they wanted as much of that information to be as widely shared as possible so that the dirt they were certain would be there (which, to everyone’s surprise, wasn’t) would be leakable to the propaganda machine press and public in a way that would be impossible to attribute to any particular individual.

Using the fig leaf of an illegal fisa warrant on one member of the Trump campaign, they illegally spied on Trump and the entire Trump campaign, (“unmasking”, June 27, 2016 “Tarmac Meeting”, Samantha Power) expecting something to turn up that would retroactively make the spying arguably legal, legal in the progressive sense of “what does it matter now”.

Except that it did not.

The ultra-expensive, national security-level tools of the permanent government were pointed towards these improper targets, in the ultimate form of “opposition research”, but for free, paid for by taxpayers. They figured that what was true for practically anyone would be true for Trump, that all one needs is a pretext to start surveillance, and one would inevitably turn up evidence of some activity which could fit within the broad interpretation of the modern state’s endless list of offenses, at least enough to support an indictment, or at the very least, legal but scandalous, which is effective when used against Republican candidates when spun by the propaganda machine, or at the very, very least, not against Trump the man himself, but against one of his team or even several degrees of separation removed from them (given chain-investigating, the investigatory equivalent of chain-migration) for anything they may have done over the course of their entire lives that might end up “inadvertently” being hoovered up in the course of an infinitely-expanding network and scope of investigation. And in the last resort, use one of those cases to “flip” that individual into an informant to tell them something dirty about Trump that the surveillance couldn’t pick up.

They believed all they would have to do is just get the surveillance started. They knew the (foreign and domestic) surveillance needed a FISA warrant, which needed a foreign power hook, which had to be Russia. Which didn’t exist, so someone would have to make it up out of whole cloth. Which obviously couldn’t be corroborated, because false and totally made up, and so if supported by oath, somebody could be liable for perjury. Fusion GPS seems to exist in large part for this purpose: to produce opposition material, some of which is from normal “research and investigation”, though spun to the very limits of truthiness, some of which is a conveniently “leak” drop point for insiders, and some of which is fabricated out of whole cloth and laundered through the operator game of repetition through intermediaries, and also as a “jobs for the friends and family of valuable people” shop (cf. “Friends of Angelo VIP program”), and as a conduit to move side-payments / mole bounties / kickbacks / “household loyalty” money around, when necessary.

And so it became indispensable to find a basis for credibility and probable cause not based in actual corroboration or investigation, the only one available being “previously credible, reliable, and valuable informant.” And once the spying started, they expected that something would turn up to make the initial illegality of the spying irrelevant.

Meanwhile the DoJ and FBI were all on board, using the dossier as cover for everything they were doing, and expecting a sure and easy Hillary victory which would prevent any of this from coming to light and blowing up in their faces, and confident that Trump would never learn about it.

Except that he did learn all about it at soon as it started, probably from Admiral Rodgers and the surveillance couldn’t come up with any dirt, despite it being on and greatly expanded for months, and being a sure-fire way to produce lots of dirt nearly 100% of the time on usual targets.

This was what the whole “Mike Rogers did what?!” administration flip-out and threat of disciplinary action (recommended by Clapper and Aston Carter) was all about (as Sailer says, nobody remembers nothing.) This was also the basis of Trump asking Comey “three times” whether he was under investigation, knowing Comey would lie about it.

The disastrous effects of females in power

February 5th, 2018

Women cannot do men’s jobs, and the pretense that they can and are is doing immense damage to men’s work and the creation of value by men.

Women in men’s positions subtract value. Women in powerful male positions subtract enormous amounts of value. Men at work get paid for creating value, and are forced to pay women for destroying the value that men create.

The reason for female under representation among top engineers, scientists, etc, is that women are slightly less competent on average and have a narrower distribution.

The reason for female under representation among CEOs is moral and emotional, unrelated to competence. Women are very competent managers. A woman has always managed my affairs, and generally done so very well, but women are uncomfortable running things without a strong alpha male supervising them and approving their work from time to time. If they don’t get the supervision that they emotionally need from someone masculine, patriarchal, and sexy, they start acting maliciously, and self destructively, running the operation off the road and into the ground in a subconscious effort to force an alpha male to appear and give them a well deserved beating. The problem is that if she does not get the supervision that she emotionally needs, she will maliciously run the operation into the ground, like a wife married to a beta male husband whom she despises, destroying the family assets and the lives of their children.

Happens every single time, as near to every single time as makes no difference, no matter how smart and competent and hard working they are. Exceptions are so rare as to be nonexistent for all practical purposes.
I would explain the fact that a company with a female founder was one eighth as likely to get follow on funding by the fact that absolutely none of them should have received funding, and the only reason that any of them got any follow on funding was that the venture capitalists wanted to deny that anything was wrong. The official and enforced explanation is that it is proof of irrational hatred and misogyny by venture capitalists. And if you doubt this, you obviously must hate women.

So, to decide between these two explanations, let us look at company acquisitions. When venture capitalists fund a company, they intend it that if it succeeds it will be acquired by a big company. If a company is not acquired, the venture capitalists have pissed away their money. Most times they lose, sometimes they win big.

So, that eleven percent of companies with all male founders were acquired represents the venture capitalists winning one time in nine.

With all female founders, they won one time in two hundred and seventy. With all female founders they had only one thirtieth the chance as with all male founders.

One might suppose that this indicates that women are one thirtieth as likely to be able to operate a company as a man, but obviously this conclusion is absurd. The companies must have been acquired for political brownie points, not because they were being operated successfully. It is as plain as the nose on your face that women are absolutely disastrous when given this kind of authority, but official sources will deny what is spitting in their faces and kicking them in the balls, so how do we check this? Are they insane, or am I insane?

Answer: Look at companies with both male and female founders. If the reason is misogyny, then the female founder will have no effect, because the purchasers will assume she is only there for decoration and to warm the bed of the real founders.

So, if misogyny, companies with mixed founders should be purchased at roughly the same rate as companies with all male founders.

If the problem is that women are just naturally incompetent as CEOs, then companies with mixed founders should be purchased at a somewhat lower rate, as the male founders carry the female founders on their backs while the purported female founders paint their nails, powder their faces, and discuss their most recent booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

If, however, the problem is that women in power just invariably and uniformly act like feral animals, as if they had been raised by apes in the jungle, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that the female founders need to be placed in cages and put on leashes, but the male founders are not allowed to do so, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased. If the problem is that these days women are no longer subject to the restraints of civilization, then zero companies with mixed founders will be purchased.

Well, guess what.

If a woman has a strong husband who is himself wealthy and powerful, and she washes his dishes and sorts his socks, then she can be a good CEO. Today, however, husbands are generally weak, and therefore competent female CEOs correspondingly rare.

Females can no more do large group socialization than they can chop wood with an axe, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete. Females in or near positions of power have a disastrous effect on the social cohesion of the group to which they belong, on the propensity of group members to cooperate with each other, on the asabiyyah of the group, on the group’s capability to pursue goals in common.

It is a standard psychiatric finding that women are supposedly more agreeable than men, and in very important ways they are.

If tell a woman I have mislaid my keys, she will find them. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I tell a woman to get me coffee, she will get me coffee. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

If I slap a woman on the backside, she will yelp and jump, but then smile and laugh. In this sense women really are more agreeable than men.

But who is it that interrupts the boss?

It is always a woman. Yes, she interrupts in a supposedly friendly, supportive, and agreeable manner, but interrupting is in reality unfriendly, undermines him, and is in fact disagreeable.

Women are catty. Two women are friends, three women are a contest to see which two will become friends. Women are disruptive. They never stop shit testing their bosses. If a woman interrupts her boss, talks over her boss, even though her interruption is supposedly friendly, supportive, and all that, as it always supposedly is, she is disrupting and damaging the organization.

Women take advantage of and abuse restrictions on physical violence, and other rules commanding prosocial behavior, which abuse undermines prosocial behavior and impairs large group cooperation between males. Women are bad for and disruptive of any large group that attempts to cooperate to get something done. They undermine asabiyya, throwing sand in the wheels just for the hell of it. They are always throwing down shit tests to find which male is alpha enough to subdue their bad behavior, always disrupting, always looking for a well deserved spanking.

The psychiatric category of “agreeableness” is cooked to support the doctrine that women are wonderful. It conflates going along with bad behavior, with going along with good behavior. It declares resisting bad behavior to be disagreeable, while ruthlessly and cynically imposing on good behavior is supposedly not disagreeable.

Yes, women really are wonderful in their proper sphere. In power, they are only tolerable to the extent that strong males keep them in line.

A more accurate analysis of female behavior is that females are bad at, and bad for, large group social dynamics. Female or substantially female businesses fail, often fail very badly. Women are better at one on one dynamics than men – all women, all the time. Worse at large group dynamics than men. All women, all the time. All women are like that.

It is obvious to me that women are having a devastating effect on male efforts to create wealth, and I have long been puzzled at other people’s inability to see what is not merely right in front of their faces, but repeatedly spitting in their face and then slapping them.

A business appoints a female boss because progress. She acts in an angry hostile manner, infuriating customers and vital employees, disruptively knocking the business off track instead of keeping it on track, as if the business was a beta husband, and she wanted a divorce with the house, the children, and alimony. Business goes down the tubes. No one notices. Supposedly the business ran into mysterious head winds that have absolutely no connection to the new boss whatsoever.

When males aggress, they get in each other’s faces, they shout, there is always a hint of the possibility it might turn physical, a suggestion of physical menace. Women aggress and disrupt in a more passive manner, and these days we are not allowed to react to female aggression by shouting at them and getting in their faces, by menacing them. It used to be, within living memory, within my memory, that female misbehavior was met with a male response that hinted at the possibility that she might get spanked, put in a metaphorical cage, or put in metaphorical or literal irons, just as an aggressively misbehaving male got then and gets today a response that hints at the possibility of a punch in the face or imprisonment. Women today therefore routinely aggress and disrupt in a manner I find shocking, crazy, disgraceful, bizarre, and extreme, and do so with shocking and disgraceful impunity, as if within my lifetime women came to be possessed by demons, and everyone is walking around like zombies pretending to not notice. Recall in the infamous interview, Jordan Peterson looks away from Kathy before calling out her bad behavior, because if he looked her in the face while calling out her bad behavior it would have been socially unacceptable, because women are supposedly wonderful.

A male quarrels with a male. They get in each other’s faces, you feel that violence might happen, or at least one of them will call security and have the other shown the door. They have the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over possession of a female goat.

A female quarrels with a male. She interrupts him and talks over him in a supposedly friendly and supportive way “So what you are really saying is …”

A male who intends to aggress against another male who is ignoring him intrudes into the other male’s space and just plain gets close enough that the male he is aggressing against has to drop what he is doing and pay attention. Again we see the body language of two male goats about to butt heads over a female goat.

A female who intends to aggress against a male who is ignoring her also intrudes, but not so close, and proceeds to interrupt what he is doing and distract him with some halfway plausible excuse as to why he has to stop what he is doing and pay attention to her, which excuse is something that in theory should not irritate him, and he has trouble understanding why he is irritated, and why she lacks any real interest in the nominal justification that she supposedly has for demanding his attention and interrupting his activities. Supposedly she is helping him in a friendly pleasant nice way, though her “help” is hostile, nasty, angry, disruptive and entirely unwanted, and she ignores his forceful denials that he needs any such “help”.

We need a society where women feel that if they act like Cathy Newman did in that infamous interview with Jordan Peterson, they might get slapped in the face, or sent to the kitchen and the bedroom and restricted from getting out except on a short leash. But if Jordan had responded to her bad behavior by getting in her face as if she was a man, they would probably have called security and tossed him out. Notice that whenever Jordan calls out Cathy Newman’s bad behavior he looks away and gives a little laugh. If he called out her bad behavior while looking at her, it would have been socially unacceptable. What needs to be socially acceptable is that her husband should have given her a slap in the face for publicly disgracing his family with her bad behavior. The same government policies that helicoptering women into powerful positions are allowing them to act badly and destructively in those positions.

As affirmative action makes the differences between men and women starkly and dramatically visible to everyone, at the same time it makes it a criminal offense to notice, or even think about, those differences.

A woman in power is like a woman who finds herself the breadwinner, and her husband is a kitchen bitch, like a dog who finds himself the alpha male of the household, like a woman who intrudes into a males space and proceeds to feminize it and make it hostile to males. She behaves badly in an unconscious effort to smoke the alpha male out of hiding by provoking him to give her a beating.

Supposedly the reason there are so few female CEOs is because of evil sexism, not because boards keep appointing female CEOs and those CEOs keep driving their companies into the ditch. From time to time some big important Harvard expert informs us that female headed or female founded companies do better than male companies, but they will not show us their data, which data conspicuously flies in the face of common sense, anecdote, and casual observation. And if you ask to see their data, you are a racist sexist islamophobic misogynist, and the only reason you could be asking such an obviously hateful question is because you just hate women and are trying to harm them by asking hate questions about hate facts. Also, you are anti science and a global warming denier. We ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence that women can do a man’s job are just like those ignorant hateful hicks who keep asking to see the evidence for global warming. We are anti science, because the science is settled.

Well, fortunately, a surprisingly truthful feminist chick went looking for the data.

Her graphics were truthful, but somewhat misleading, as she de-emphasized and partially hid the most important and dramatic datum, so I edited her graphics for clarity. The graphic at the start of this post is mine, but based on her data and graphics.

The Fisa Memo

February 4th, 2018

It has long been known, long before the memo, that the Deep State engaged in illegal spying both with a false warrant, and without a warrant, on behalf of the Democratic Party Presidential Campaign.

It has long been known the Deep State, three letter police and spy agencies that were effectively part of the Democratic Party Presidential Campaign, illegally spied on the Trump campaign at the behest of and in coordination with the the Democratic Party Presidential Campaign and shared this information with the Democratic Party, the MSM, and Google. In course of this illegal spying they obtained one or more FISA warrants on false pretexts. In the course of spying on the particular individual or individuals named in these unlawful or falsely obtained FISA warrants they engaged in massive “unmasking”.

When one spies on someone named in a warrant, it is inevitable that one will “accidentally” pick up information on people not named in the warrant. “Unmasking” means that one forgets that one is pretending that this is supposed to be accidental, and just plain spies on people not named in the warrant, on the basis that there is supposedly some connection between them and the people named in the warrant. “Unmasking” means that the fig leaf that one was using to spy on someone without a warrant fell off.

The memo, with much drama, does a big reveal of one part of this story, one small part of a story that we already know, that they obtained a pretextual warrant on behalf of and in coordination with the Democratic Party Presidential Campaign.

Expect, leading up to the 2018 elections, further big dramatic reveals of the story that we already know, which will provide a legal basis for a political purge of the supposedly non political appointees in the Deep State, and to send Hillary to prison.

Expect a 2018 campaign as referendum on impeaching Trump.

If they get the numbers to impeach Trump, or get away with pretending to have the numbers, he goes to jail, and so do many members of his administration, followed by numerous Republicans, leaving only shadow rump composed of a rapidly diminishing number of the most overtly and loudly cucking Republicans – European politics. If they don’t, Hillary, or key members of her organization, go to jail.

Politically, if we care about how voters wish to vote, the best thing to do would be to refrain from purging the deep state from the three letter agencies until after the mid terms. But we are rapidly approaching the European situation where it seldom matters what the voters vote for, because all parties are the same, and any party that is not the same gets its members beaten up by Antifa and its key members sent to jail for racism, Nazism, hatred, misogyny, violent speech, Islamophobia, etc. Thus it would probably be wiser to purge the three letter agencies after another couple of big dramatic reveals, but well before the 2018 elections.

The science is settled

February 2nd, 2018

A little while ago I saw cited yet another Harvard study supposedly proving that women CEOs are just as good as men, except better, not withstanding the fact that anyone can see that women in charge are profoundly disruptive and destructive, that women can no more run a large group than they can chop wood with an axe, pilot a plane, do science, or clear a path through the jungle with a machete, that putting a woman in charge is pissing away shareholder’s assets, as divorced women piss away their husband’s and their children’s assets, so I thought I would remind you of this golden oldie:
hide the decline

Click on the graph to see it in its full glory.

Is not science wonderful?  I have been finding a pile of similar science data not just in global warmering, and in studies of demonic males viciously oppressing saintly women, but also dietary science, medical science, biology, and even string theory and materials science.  These days, the way to get ahead in any area of science is to discover that your field has some political relevance that is unlikely to occur to any sane person, and then produce data that supposedly comforts the oppressed and saves the earth from cruel exploitation by white males.  For an added bonus, you can destroy the careers of your colleagues as oppressors of the weak and vulnerable, because back in the bad old days they upheld the old evil theory (now refuted by your new data) for no reason other than hatred of some saintly victims and desire to cause harm to those saintly and long suffering victims.

The Reichstag is on fire

January 19th, 2018

If Trump had been successfully given the perp walk by social justice warriors wearing recently issued police uniforms on the basis of a court order obtained by Mueller on the basis of being an accomplice after the fact in Russian spying on Hillary from some judge no one has heard of, or if he had been successfully stuffed into a straitjacket by social justice warriors wearing recently issued psychiatric orderly costumes, on the basis of a long distance mental health diagnosis by some psychiatrist no one has heard of, this would have been a deep state coup by the permanent government against the merely temporary and merely elected government.

If, however, high ranking members of the deep state are arrested for illegally spying on American citizens, which is to say, illegally spying on members of the merely temporary and merely elected government, this is a coup by the elected government against the deep state and the permanent government.

For the elected government to act decisively, it necessarily has to be incarnated by its president, just as a corporation can only act decisively as incarnated by its chief executive officer. For a group to act decisively, one man has to decide, and everyone else decide to go along with it.

If on the other hand, no one gets arrested, well, we are getting closer to the point where someone does get arrested, and there will be a next time, for as the left moves ever lefter, there will be another crisis, each crisis bigger than the last.

I am not making a prediction about which coup will happen, or that a coup will happen now.  But I am telling you what it will mean if someone does get arrested,

Request for research assistance

January 14th, 2018

Since our existing state religion has gone rabid in an insane holiness spiral, we are in the business of designing a Gnon compliant state religion.

We need to steal from the best. If all societies had the economic system of twentieth century Hong Kong, all societies would have the economic outcomes of Hong Kong. If all societies had the healthcare system of Singapore, all societies would have the health outcomes and healthcare costs of Singapore. And if all societies had the family law of Timor Leste, all societies would have the fertility of Timor Leste.

Well, then, we need to steal the state religion that Charles the second imposed, which gave us empire, science, and industrialization.

So how did his state religion handle courtship and marriage?

I hope to find a clue in the County microfilm records: Library of Virginia:  Available by interlibrary loan.

Lancaster County:

Reel 102 Marriage Bonds & Consents, 1706 – 1819

Reel 350 Marriage Bonds, 1701, 1715-1736

Northhampton County:

Reel 99 Marriage Bonds & Consents, 1706 – 1780

Reel 62 Marriage Register, 1706 – 1853 c, Unpaged (Stratton Nottingham Compilation)

The consents and bonds are the juicy part, since that is the parent or guardian contracting with the prospective son in law that he damn well will get married.

The bond is a promise to pay damages if the marriage is not carried out – so I assume the couple are having sex at the time of the bond, or immediately after. (Otherwise, there would be no need to pay damages)

Bonds go from 1660, When Charles the Second’s Anglicanism was imposed in England, to 1860, when marriage as it has been understood for the past couple of thousand years was legally abolished in England (though it continued to be socially enforced till about 1972. ) Virginia of course was not subject to English rule in 1860, but its state religion was still effectively the Church of England, much as the State Religion of Israel is not Judaism, but United States State Department progressivism.

I am not at present located where it is easy to get an interlibrary loan, so will someone please look at these, see what is juicy, and if there are any good parts, send me a scan, or a link in the comments to a scan.

Fixing Christianity.

January 11th, 2018

Some argue that Christianity is irretrievably cucked, and is the cause of our current problems. And there is much truth in that. Maybe we just have to say “Let Gnon sort them out”.

But, on the other hand, Europe was saved, and indeed formed, by the Roman Catholic Church under the holy Roman Emperor, and we got World Empire, Science, and Industrialization under the officially official State Anglicanism re-established by Charles the Second.  We became what we are under throne and altar, and without throne and altar, are declining from what we were.

If you are going to have a state, you are going to have an official established Church. If you officially do not have an official church, you will unofficially and informally have an officially unofficial Church, a formally informal Church, the arrangement that we first saw with Cromwell’s puritans. Which unofficially official Church tends to wield unaccountable power and is subject to holiness spirals, so they became holier than Jesus, thus Unitarian. A unitarian Bishop, rather than striving to be like Jesus, congratulates Jesus on striving to become as virtuous as her very holy self. Then holier than God. Today’s progressives are holier than God puritans, who have dumped God for insufficient holiness as the unitarians dumped Christ for insufficient holiness.

Natural selection has a huge amount of explanatory power for describing the world that is, and accounting for how it came to be;  Evolution contains vital and important truths about the nature of man and the world, which we must not discard.  The story of the fall, the book of Genesis also contains vital and important truths about the nature of man and the world, which we must not discard.

But the story of evolution tells us that we are risen killer apes who rose over the corpses of a thousand genocides, whereas the story of the fall tells us that death only entered the world in the fall.  We have to reconcile these positions.

We gained knowledge, we were black pilled by it.  We want to go back, to return to innocence, to unknow what we have learned. But we cannot go back.  This is the fall.

The fall is spiritual aspiration rather than a literal descent from a literal plane of existence. The loss of innocence in the story of the Garden of Eden is the black pill, and we cannot return to Eden by unknowing what we have learned, cannot regain our innocence, but must instead take the white pill.

The tower of Babel

The Legendary Tower of Babel

European poster

European Poster of the Tower of Babel

Actual tower of Babel

Actual Tower of Babel

Rather than the Tower of Babel being the last attempt to return to that higher plane of existence, to regain our innocence, to return to Eden, it was the first of many. The story of Babel reflects our consciousness of tribalism, and the problems that it poses for larger political units.The EU is consciously reprising the tower of Babel, which was, so legend tells us, raised by the first city, capital of the first King. Read the rest of this entry »

Trump is on the ball

January 8th, 2018

I had hoped for a self coup making Trump King and erasing the constitution by now, but he is making significant progress. Maybe we will see a self coup on his third term.  He is not yet in control, but he is definitely biting the permanent government at the edges.

Protecting American Workers

Read the rest of this entry »

The vast majority of rape accusations and the vast majority of rape convictions are false.

January 1st, 2018

It is perfectly obvious that few if any rape accusations against white heterosexual males are true, and the “rape on campus” case confirmed what was obvious to everyone who was not keeping his eyes tight shut.  There were thirty six rape accusations that year on Virginia University Campus, none of which led to disciplinary action, and if any of them had been the slightest bit believable, Rolling Stone would have run with them instead of Jackey Coakley’s story. Read the rest of this entry »

All women are like that

December 27th, 2017

Women are attracted to arrogant violent men. They are attracted to IQ<80 criminals because criminals are allowed to be violent, while high status males are not, with the result that the status hierarchy as perceived by women winds up upside down from the status hierarchy as perceived by men. AWALT. All women are like that.

Hypergamy never sleeps, a man must always perform, can never relax, is always on stage, can never let his guard down.

Read the rest of this entry »