Posts Tagged ‘reaction 101’

Reaction 101: Priests and warriors

Friday, December 21st, 2018

We are always ruled by priests or warriors.

Priests are in the business of controlling what people think, warriors in the business of controlling people by hurting them and breaking their toys.

So who else matters?

Merchants can control people by offering them value, hence get targeted due to envy and covetousness, but merchants have no substantial incentive to cohere into guilds, whereas priests naturally cohere into priesthoods (see the Climategate files for this process in operation) because if you hear the same story from several different people it sounds a lot more convincing, and warriors naturally cohere into armies, because otherwise, likely to die.

And the rest should do as they are told, and if we make sure they get a wife, children, and a home by doing what they are told, they will surely do it.

If merchants group into a cartel, that would profit them collectively, but any one merchant has large incentive to defect on the cartel, and there is not much the cartel can do to stop him, whereas the priest does not profit by defecting on the priesthood. The warrior sometimes has large incentive to defect on the army, but there is a lot the army can do to stop him.

By “priest” we don’t mean someone overtly in the business of making supernatural claims. We mean a member of a priesthood, and by a priesthood, we mean what the Chinese call a “knowledge faction” – a bunch of intellectuals who conspire together to give everyone the same story and use the same shibboleths, so that it sounds more convincing.

In practice, even when a priesthood vehemently denies making supernatural claims, as for example the communists vehemently claiming to be strict materialists, they frequently wind up sounding remarkably similar to those that do make overtly supernatural claims. Thus “occupy” meetings sound like prayer meetings. The Occupy Priest chants an incantation, and the congregation chants a response. Similarly the Chinese communist party is always talking about faith and values. Everywhere in communist China there are official party books about “How to be a good party member who has faith”, “Chinese people have faith in the party”, “Have faith in the …” In China, you are forbidden to call Communism a religion, but it is perfectly OK to call Communism a religion in every way short of actually calling it a religion and the Communist Party itself does this all the time.

The claim that all men are created equal is transparently supernatural. The Marxist theory of history is the God of nineteenth century Judaism renamed “History”, a thinly disguised supernatural claim. Holocaustianity is the tenth commandment inverted, a somewhat better disguised supernatural claim.

But what makes a priesthood a priesthood is not supernatural claims. Long lived religions usually restrict their supernatural claims to unfalsifiable issues, like transubstantiation and so forth. In the long run, falsifiable claims, claims about this world, claims that conflict with science, lead to problems, as for example the progressive claim that men and women are indistinguishable, a claim that every music video must endorse, which restriction makes music videos and comedians boring. What makes a priesthood a priesthood is that they get together to get their story straight, so that all of them are on message – which is what makes them a knowledge faction. Lots of people are knowledge workers, but the essential element that makes a priesthood a faction is that they coordinate to get their story straight in order to make it sound more convincing, and what makes them a priesthood, a knowledge faction, is that they seek power by controlling what people think.

To be effective, a priest needs to be part of a group of priests who back each other up by telling the same story, and a warrior needs to be part of a group of warriors that back each other up by physical violence, thus warriors naturally cohere into armies capable of ruling, and priests naturally cohere into priesthoods capable of ruling, while capitalists naturally compete for workers and customers, workers for jobs, entrepreneurs for capital and workers, so do not cohere into groups capable of ruling. If you see a capitalist who appears to rule, for example George Soros, he is a hireling of those who do rule.

When we are in power the state religion will make overtly supernatural claims, but these claims, unlike the supernatural claims made by the current state religion, such as that all men are created equal, will be entirely unfalsifiable, and will never draw faith into conflict with science, for in such conflicts, science always loses totally and devastatingly, as for example in Global Warming debate, and the ensuing destruction of science is bad for your society, your technology, your economy, and your military capability. The reason that our nukes do not work any more is because men and women are supposedly equal. Nukes don’t work for the same reason that music videos and comedians are no longer entertaining. The state religion has to stay out of the way of science and technology, because science and technology are so terribly weak and fragile. Religions that make falsifiable earthly claims usually self destruct eventually, not because science defeats them, but because they blow themselves up, as for example the Jewish Zealots. The holiness spiral leads them to make earthly claims that require faith to be demonstrated by ever more disastrous earthly actions, as for example the Zealots destroying their own food supplies while besieged by the Romans, and transgenderism requiring one to castrate one’s own children and sit them on the laps of gays.

This account of priests and warriors make them sound like entirely bad things, that warriors are bandits, priests conspiratorial conmen. That is the libertarian and anarcho capitalist position: bandits and conmen.

The reactionary position, on the contrary, is that warriors performing the right role of warriors is the most honorable profession, and in a good society warriors shoud be honored, and that priests performing the right role of priest is an honorable profession, and priests should be honored second only to warriors.

Obviously we need warriors to prevent bandits. The defense of property and freedom is costly, the price is terribly high, and the honor due to warriors is part of the fair price we must pay for the security of our persons and our property.

What about priests?

Priesthood is rather more complicated. The state cannot really enforce law. Your computer is not registered with the government. You have to enforce your property rights in it. The government will back you up, but this only works because there is widespread agreement on property rights and right conduct, shared beliefs about good conduct with other members of the ingroup. That the state is all powerful is bluff and illusion. We are never out of anarchy. The state is a ramshackle ship on a storm tossed sea. It cannot really enforce law, only back up private enforcement. And private enforcement will only work if beliefs about what should privately be enforced are widely shared.

And lately these beliefs have been radically and rapidly changing – most notably in the direction that women and gays can do no wrong. The old testament position that if one’s wife or betrothed slept with another man, then it was fine to kill them, seems more in accord with human nature.

The American position on hot burglary, when a burglar openly and obnoxiously burgles an occupied dwelling, is that it is that it is totally OK to kill the burglar on sight without warning. The british postion is that it is totally and absolutely to do anything violent to the burglar, no matter how violent the burglar is, especially if you are white and the burglar is nonwhite. Similarly, the American debate about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman – some people took the position that it was totally OK for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon, if Trayvon was on top hammering Zimmerman’s head against the concrete, while other people took the position it was not OK for a “white” man to kill a black man, no matter what the black man was doing. (Zimmerman got white status from both those who supported him and those who condemned him. Those who condemned Zimmerman called him white, because they hate whites, even if they themselves are whites, especially if they themselves are whites. Those who supported him called him white because they wanted to claim a man who can shoot straight while blood runs over his eye as of their own race, called him white for being able to shoot straight while having his head banged on the concrete. One shot directly through the heart.)

The Book of Deuteronomy tells us that adulterers should be killed, but takes no position on whether it should be state, Church, family, or offended husband that kills adulterers. The position of the Rabbis at the time of Roman rule, the time of Jesus, was that it should be church (temple) that kills adulterers. The law as interpreted and applied at the time of King Solomon was that it was the offended husband, which is very much in accord with human nature. Gnon tells men to defend their own.

Adultery means adulteration as in beer – a man sleeping with another man’s wife or betrothed. If a man sleeps with a woman not his wife, but that women is not married or betrothed to another man, this is not adultery in the sense used in the old and new testaments.

If it is right for a man to defend his television set with deadly force (the American position) it is surely right to defend his capacity to reproduce with deadly force. State, family, and church should apply less extreme measures to adulterers, as they do to burglars, while backing the choice of the man who was personally threatened to use more extreme measures to adulterers, as he can to burglars.

The useful and proper function of warriors is to prevent mobile banditry – the stationary bandit prevents the mobile bandit. The useful and proper earthly function of the priesthood is to get the ingroup all on the same page of right conduct – to create a synthetic tribe, to get everyone feeling like part of the ingroup, and to promote shared values of right conduct, to get everyone acting like part of the ingroup.

You want everyone to agree on what constitutes cooperation, what constitutes defection from fair and reasonable expectations, and what constitutes defection so serious that violence on the spot is necessary and justified. And the legitimate earthly job of the priesthood is to form, represent, and communicate this consensus.

A priest should be in the business of teaching values and managing group identity, managing shared mythos and shared values. Thus something very like a priesthood creates something very like a religion, not necessarily in that it is about overtly supernatural claims, but in that it is an adoptive kin group based on shared values.

That the claims of traditional Christianity were either verifiable or unfalsifiable makes it a lot less supernatural than its new age competitors such as global warming or cultural Marxism, whose claims are not only supernatural, but entirely falsifiable, and usually falsified.

You want your warriors to be fighting for God, King and Tribe, as well as for gold, pussy, and land. And if you don’t have a priesthood that is on your side and on the warrior’s side, you don’t have a tribe.

For being a warrior to be an honorable profession, the warrior must fight not only for gold, pussy and land, but for God, King, and Tribe. If a warrior fights only for gold, pussy, and land, not honorable. If only for gold and pussy, he is a mobile bandit, which is the most dishonorable of professions. And without a good priesthood, hard to have a good tribe.

And since the west is detribalizing, since the priesthood is hostile to us and to our warriors, we are going to be overrun by mobile bandits soon. The great asylum seeker migration, which is largely military aged males, prefigures this.

From the time we defeated the Mongol hordes in Hungary in 1241, to our defeat in Afghanistan in 1840, the west was uniformly victorious for six centuries. (The Mongols were victorious in Hungary in that they successfully devastated and terrorized it, but were defeated in that they were never able to control it, that they never were able to draw revenues from it, that they kept on losing large amounts of treasure, men, and horses in it, and that the west gained the secret of gunpowder from them.)

Since then, since 1841 we have been suffering defeats by ever weaker enemies, notably the hilariously humiliating British defeats in Basra, the Persian Gulf, and Helmand province. The writing on the wall is that the west is ripe for conquest, like a wealthy elderly widow in a neighborhood that has turned bad. Not so much conquest by a major power like China, but rather a dark age collapse, when ever changing minor actors engage in mobile banditry – closer to the New Year rape festival in Cologne, or the car burning festivals in Paris, than D Day. There is a lot of loot and pussy for the taking, and neither the will nor capability to defend it. Something is like to go pear shaped sooner or later. The forever war in the middle east is a sign that the west has delusions of power – that its actual military capability is far less than it is used to, far less than everyone tends to take for granted. The west has not fought a war against a substantial enemy for quite a while, and has been losing, or winning inconclusively, against absurdly weak and tiny enemies.

As a warrior is honorable when he fights for God, King and Tribe, as well as for gold, pussy, and land, a priest is honorable when he performs the earthly task, the task in this world, of ensuring that there is a tribe to fight for, and that the tribe has agreement on what constitutes good conduct such that good members of the tribe do not feel like fighting each other, that the interactions are, as far as possible, cooperate/cooperate.

Since our current State religion is headed towards suicide and mass murder, we are going to need a replacement, assuming we survive at all. And that replacement has to grant warriors honor, and enable men and women to form families.

Reaction 101: The reactionary red pill on women.

Friday, December 7th, 2018

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.  They want us to ingroup our enemies, ingroup those that outgroup us, and outgroup each other.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east Asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce in the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from what social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty though there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against “pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

This repression, repression of awareness of what is in front of everyone’s face, and repression of male sexuality, is depressing every male’s testosterone levels and sperm production, though if you consciously recognize it and consciously reject it, this reduces the impact on your testosterone levels a bit.  Men go overboard on repressing each other, as a displacement activity because they are denied their deep desire to control women.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she must have been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.