Monday, September 24, 2018

Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, II

"Standards of beauty are oppressive."

It goes without saying that the sort of people who constantly harp on this sort of thing are seldom themselves paragons of beauty. lolz feminists are fat and ugly is not a novel observation. It is curious, however, that Leftism, the philosophical parent of anti-beauty resentment, tends to make otherwise beautiful people ugly when it sinks its claws into them. Case in point, this young woman:
It never ceases to horrify me.

It is impossible to apply a concrete standard to an abstraction. Beauty, being a transcendental value, is by it's very nature abstract. We created works of beauty not as a final goal to judge ourselves by, but as an attestation to something greater than ourselves. Beauty is not a standard in the way neurotic females gripe about the models in advertisements or on the cover of lurid grocery store magazines. Beauty is a goal and a purpose simultaneously. The goal itself is unreachable because of entropy. In time all things fail. The great works of art will someday crumble to dust and ashes, and long before then your body will betray you, bowing you to the ground under the weight of your age and weakness, before you return to the earth from whence you came. The tapestry of the stars will one day fade away as their lonely lights go out one by one. But it is the ephemeral nature of the beauty that we behold and manifest that gives it value and wonder and splendor. Without entropy, beauty would be omnipresent, and therefore impossible for us to notice. Ubiquity is the scourge of value.

But because the goal is unreachable we are mistaken in believing that the journey is not worth the undertaking. It is not the goal that makes us better, it is through each step along this great undertaking that we gain, becoming more than we were the day before. To dwell in and strive towards beauty is valorous in the same way that a last stand is valorous, only stretched out over the collective lifetimes of everyone who came before you, and all who will come after you, who worked to keep that candle lit against the eternal power of entropy. To shake your fist in defiance against an unassailable enemy, knowing that you will lose none-the-less: that is glory. That is beautiful, for the same reason Oswald Spengler thought so highly of that Roman soldier who died at his post when Mt. Vesuvius buried Pompeii. I will be better, even though I will someday die. It is not in merely being attractive that we truly are beautiful, it is in dwelling in beauty and creating the beautiful that we stand on the shoulders of giants to perpetuate the manifestation of beauty in our universe, and therefore ourselves becoming Beautiful, the transcendental by proxy.

But we do not dwell in beauty any longer.

Instead we purposefully make of ourselves an ugly spectacle. Is it any wonder that the rise of solipsism in modern Westerners coincides with the disfigurement of our physical bodies? The tortured fashions and whims of modernity are a thin veneer covering the hollowed out shell of our collective soul. An emptiness that pervades, conquers and occupies everything, turning it into nothing. We flatter ourselves with our simplistic and ugly art, the thoughtless and haphazard creations of the lazy, envious, sullen and weak. In reality, we are nothing compared to what we once were. We have become entropy, and in time enough, we will become nothing in the worst sort of way.

And that is a tragedy.

Sunday, September 23, 2018

Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, I

"Wealth inequality should not exist."

In order to reduce wealth inequality to a marginal scale, the range of characteristics a population exhibits would have to be reduced to a similar scale. Assuming that equality is even a worthwhile goal - I believe it is not - serious wealth inequality will persist so long as we have a population with an IQ range of 60-160. The difference in quality among individuals cannot be immediately rectified through legislation, and can only be gradually reduced via a bottom-up engineering approach - eugenic or dysgenic incentives. Or, if you are particularly amoral - liquidation of the population outside of your acceptable range.

Dysgenic incentives are easy: We have a practical model in late stage liberal democracies, where the lowest quality people are given vast incentives through subsidies to reproduce, which has created a bottom heavy society that struggles to accurately identify - much less solve - its own problems. The problem, of course, with engineering a low IQ but otherwise equal society is that without the brainpower to maintain the accouterments and technologies of modernity, we would live in a world similar to the one inhabited by the people of Somalia and Zimbabwe: Poor, dysfunctional, corrupt, fragile, violent and uncomfortable. You cannot send a man to the moon with Zimbabwean statecraft. You can't even farm.

Eugenic incentives are simple, but probably cannot be implemented. You can engineer the gradual reduction of the low through simple trades - cash or other goods for sterilization - but the middle to middle-high IQ population has a strange sense of empathy for the pathetic, and actively seek to stymie attempts to manage or otherwise gain control of the exploding population of low class people (with a notable exception being the fervent devotion to abortion rights, which is used by blacks and hispanics far more often per capita than the white, asian or jewish sub-nations of the late American republic).

The amoral path - liquidation - is only politically tenable under excruciatingly stressful political situations, which we have not [yet] reached. It is not worth considering beyond that, because by the point that we seriously debate such a thing, it is likely that the lights have already gone off and will not turn on again for many years. God help us if it reaches that point.

If there is a strategy to be had it lies in the curious sense of empathy the middle and middle-high exhibit towards the low. In truth, it is not a sense of real empathy but the presentation of empathy, which is an important point to note. Middle and middle-high tier individuals use fervent and public displays of empathy towards the low - which cost them nothing - to virtue signal to one another, which may simply be a mating strategy rather than a true political orientation. Others have noted, at length, that protest culture seems to be as much about shouting and waving flags as it is about meeting people of the opposite sex, and all the fun activities that follow. Most obviously, even the most dull dissident rightists have noticed that male feminism is a rather obviously disguised white-knight strategy, which usually results in awkward or horrifying sexual encounters (see: Louis C.K.).

All in all the idea that flagrant and public displays of empathy are really empathetic are, of course, laughable, but we run into a problem when we realize that public and flagrant displays of empathy for status are cost-free. Since the cost of the hyper-empathic worldview is subsidized by people who are not white liberals, they are forever insulated from the cost of what they are doing. A tautology, sure, but a point that is worth parsing out when we realize how we must approach this from a social aspect:

We must make this cost them something. But what? Obviously, directly inflicting cost vis-a-vis violence a-la Right Wing Death Squads is only funny on paper, but is exactly the sort of situation we are trying to avoid. We have already established that liquidation is unacceptable up until the point where there are no more choices - and at that point, God have mercy etc. Indirectly inflicting cost vis-a-vis exposing Leftists to the consequences of importing 3rd world people is better, but still practically untenable. A few Leftists may experience the reactionary version of "come-to-Jesus", but many times more will simply pack their things and move to safer neighborhoods where they will continue to signal and continue to export the consequences of their signalling on the natives, until they move again. A few conversions gained for territory lost is sub-optimum, especially considering that conventional white-millennial Leftism selects for lower quality white-millennials. We don't really need these people, we just need them out of the way. In fact, at the end of all things, we really don't want these people period. It seems we need not consider that aspect beyond said statement because given their hesitation to reproduce, over time they may simply vanish on their own.

The path that remains then, is to remove the gain they harvest from signalling. To do that, you have to attack their ego. Part of that, naturally, is ridicule, but it must be done from a position of strength. What a position of strength is should be obvious when you take a cursory look at your average college-educated white leftist, and understand how they want to be seen relative to how they actually are:

Become great, build strength, dwell in beauty.

Thursday, July 19, 2018

A Regime of Sun and Steel: Bronze Age Mindset

I recently finished Bronze Age Mindset. I bought a copy before I went to Canada for a week of fishing. If you haven't read it, I recommend it. If you don't want to buy it, allow me to give you a two sentence summary of what you should take away from this book:

Our enemy is ugly. Why are we not beautiful?

There is, obviously, a lot more to Bronze Age Mindset, but this is less a review and more of a reflection. I've often wondered where the Alt-Right went astray. Some, less charitable and perhaps more personally malicious, would suggest that Richard Spencer is a clown and that the TRS guys should have stuck to being the Opie and Anthony of the Alt-Right. Organizing really isn't their thing. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps it is not. On the other side, some, more deluded, seem to believe that we haven't told enough people about the Jews. I highly doubt this, because often when I talk to new faces on the Alt-Right the conversation follows a predictable path: Let me tell you about the Jews. You may or may not like Zman, but I think he hit the nail on the head when he said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the thing about the counter-semites on the Alt-Right is that they never actually shut the fuck up about the Jews. You might even call their worldview "Jewish Supremacism" for the same reason that it isn't unfair to call the Black Lives Matter people "White Supremacists".

Let me tell you about the Jews did White Nationalism 1.0 no favors, and it withered and died on the vine, promises unfulfilled. Following the same pattern, so did we.

There are two big problems with the counter-semitic information you commonly find on /pol/ and repeated in Alt-Right circles. Problem numero uno is that a portion of it is not true. Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi was not Jewish. I've seen plenty of infographics that genealogically link Hitler and Marx to the Rothschild family, but I can't confirm them. Can you? Can anyone? When people see that stuff, do they really care one way or another? What does it matter when you want to believe?

Problem numero dos is probably worse. While there is plenty of disturbing but true information to be found bandied about the world's #1 Nigerian speed knitting forum, the thing is that it is freely bandied about. There is almost no barrier to entry for normal, regular, everyday jagoffs. Should a normal, regular, everyday jagoff discover /pol/ and somehow not immediately eject, the information given (even discounting the outright lies) seems to produce a sort of mania, an information overload. It produces a certain neuroticism that is extremely dysfunctional, which is completely counterproductive when your enemy is also extremely dysfunctional, and can be simply and easily swept aside by publicly displaying qualities that suggest high levels of function, normalcy, aesthetics, morality, etc.
Pictured: Dysfunction - easily countered by eating healthy, lifting weights, and worshiping the sun.
I'm pretty sure all the let me tell you about the Jews conversations I've had over the years are a function of free floating information that should really be readily guarded on an esoteric hierarchy, only to be divulged when the seeker proves himself worthy.

I'm not sure how you wrestle the Alt-Right away from this losing strategy. Things are preceding at an interesting an amusing rate with or without the Alt-Right, and for those who come after I would offer only suggestions:

They are ugly. You must be beautiful.
They are weak. You must be strong.
They are wicked. You must be virtuous.
They are craven. You must be noble.
They are hollow. You must exude vitality.
They are bugmen. You must be Men.

We are not a cold, dead people. The struggle of the various flavors of the dissident right - those present and those yet to come - against the orthodoxy of the powerful is less about rebuilding this or that iteration of Western Civilization. More often than not, however well intentioned we started, we get lost in the details. This is unfortunate, because our common goal is less about such and such details that you cling to as a raft of identity to guide you to safe shores, through the roaring tempest of modernity. Our common goal is to recapture the intangible but sacred quality that propelled our forefathers to the four corners of the map, where they planted their flags and dominated the earth, the seas, the skies, and the peoples therein. Our ancestral birthright is not this or that country, ancient or modern or mythological. It is not any iteration of the great Occidental religious tradition, nor any particular custom over another. The European peoples are as varied as the stars that wheel overhead, whether you pause to wonder at their majesty and their distance, or no.

No, friend, our ancestral birthright, the mantle that those that came before us passed to us, which we have fumbled and lost, is greatness. We are not great anymore, nor, in our supremely autistic assessment of the who and the whom, are we treading much closer to that ancient and glorious quality.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Cognitive Dissonance and the Right Side of History

Cognitive dissonance is a term that suffers from the same affliction that plagues "begging the question" and "literally". This affliction, which appears to only have gotten worse, is the terrible social disease called using words and phrases incorrectly. In small doses, distorting terms can be tolerable, even humorous, as we live in a world where people exhibit a range of intelligence, from the smartest to the least. As such, we would be woefully mistaken to hold everyone to the same standard in that regard. Only a self-important asshole would attempt to correct an idiot's spoken grammar. And you'd have to be a bit of a cunt to expect your average Becky to explain quantum mechanics.

The acceleration of the distortion of words and meanings is probably due to the expanding ranks of the educated, who are exposed to a near lethal dose of the prestige philosophy of academia called postmodernism. Among other its other premises, postmodernism staunchly denies objectivity and truth, which opens the door to a whole host of ancillary social ills. "Fat is beautiful" is a quick example of one of postmodernism's delusional, inbred offspring. Agreeing that humans with male genitalia are woman if they declare that they are female is another example. Explicit postmodernists are, interestingly, rarer in academia than you might think, and practically nonexistent in the wild. This is probably at least partially due to the Millennial tendency to eschew permanent labels. It's probably mostly caused by the Millennial tendency to never actually read academic literature. Repeating stuff over and over again is easier (and just as profitable).

Nevertheless, despite the paucity of actual postmodernists, the philosophy itself is surprisingly widespread. Here, an epidemiologist would use the term "virulence". Whether or not a young scholar explicitly subscribes to postmodernism, he likely believes, or at least repeats until he convinces himself that he does believe, in the main tenants of postmodernism, which was transmitted to him by an adjunct professor who did very little reading himself, who was taught by a professor who, however disinterested he may have been in anything other than tenure, nonetheless assigned literature written by an ancient ideologue. The core of the philosophy and the prestige associated with it are what gets passed down, even if the original nuance was lost. Hence the tendency of academics to butcher words and phrases in favor of whatever is currently fashionable among the mob.

Which brings me back to cognitive dissonance.

People point to young earth creationists, for example, and laugh about how they must be afflicted with a bad case of cognitive dissonance whenever they look at dinosaur bones. I haven't bumped into a young earth creationist in a very long time, so I am skeptical of the threat that they supposedly pose for our new society, but we'll play along for the time being. Young earth creationists, unfortunately, do not suffer from the effects of cognitive dissonance when they see a fossil, or geological stratification, or radiometric dating techniques. This is because the young earth creationist does not hold two contradictory views with regards to the existence of dinosaurs and other extinct megafauna. However erroneous, the young earth creationist satisfactorily explains all evidence with some elaboration on 'because the Bible tells me so', and because the young earth creationist believes that the Bible does, indeed, tell him so, it is so. And God saw that it was good, etc. Stupid, perhaps, and it would not be unfair to say that this branch of low-church Protestantism has done far more to damage the Body of Christ than, say, the Crusades, but cognitive dissonance it is not.

Where might we find a fresh example of cognitive dissonance, then?

I recently read that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was retiring. In my post-workday lethargy, I happened across a number of salt-mining threads on the ol' Cambodian basket weaving forum. For those of you who do not know, salt-mining here means reveling in Progressive butthurt. I will probably giggle myself to sleep tonight. Maybe not as enthusiastically as the night of the election, but I will sleep soundly.

Progressives have many interesting and thoughtful ways of transmitting ideas and feelings to one another and the public, most of which revolve around the Harry Potter franchise, but because our interest here is to examine cognitive dissonance rather than chuckle at millennial-twitter asspain, suffice it to say that their exasperation at Trump's second Supreme Court nomination can be summarized thusly:

It wasn't supposed to happen this way; we were on the right side of history.

"The right side of history" is a nebulous term, at best, but in reality is a rhetorical trick based in the same sort of thinking of that one kid when you were young enough to play superheroes at the playground who decided that his superpower was to have all the superpowers.

Substantively, there isn't a whole lot behind the words of the phrase. Conservatives, being a near perfect foil for a reactionary like yours truly, ask their political opponents how you can logically conclude that you are on the correct side of history, when history has yet to happen? This, in typical conservative fashion, is nonsense. Thanks conservatives!

The right side of history doesn't mean anything, because people who declare they are on the right side of history are just repeating stuff. The more I have interacted with run-of-the-mill millennial progressives, the less sure I am that the person opposite me is actually thinking about anything. If philosophical zombies exist, this is the closest I've gotten to proving it. The best I've been able to tease out of these people when they use that phrase is basically the future is going to be better because there will be more stuff that I like. And you like said stuff because? Hold it right there, if you start telling me about how said stuff is moral, I'll call bull fucking shit right now. You're the most narcissistic, self-important people ever in every category, period, but I'm supposed to suspend my disbelief for this one category. Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

It seems to me that the impetus for the liberal overreaction to Trump has less to do with anything Trump does, but rather because he is. Progressives must constantly contend with two contradictory statements: They are on the right side of history, while at the same time Trump is Hitler and he's going to send progressives to death camps. Oh, if only. It was never supposed to be this way, though. As people on our side of the fence like to gleefully repeat, they actually thought she was going to win. When we say that, of course, its always in reference to the elites and their behavior. The would-be elites, however, thought the same thing, but for different reasons. Imagine, if you will, being ripped to shreds by your political opponents for having repeatedly said something as stupid as "Nuh uh, I'm on the right side of history", only to be proven wrong by a boisterous, strawberry blonde comb-over with an orange glow - who by the way is busy stacking the courts with your political opponents while you reeee. Imagine how embarrassing it must be to be as stupid as Marie Harf, once your cover is blown and the whole world is laughing at your shocking ignorance masquerading as beneficent nuance. Imagine blindly following the advice of people who told you that it's in your best interests, even empowering, to spend your most fertile and attractive years as a desk jockey, only to shock yourself awake when you finally hit the wall you thought you critically analyzed out of existence, but now you're old, wrinkly, fat, an alcoholic, and alone. Imagine watching everything you hoped would give you power over your fellow man only because you craved the power and not because you deserved it come crashing to the ground, leaving you with nothing but the inescapable realization that you are incompetent, stupid, and worthless.

Now imagine that boot on their faces, forever.

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

Hot Hot Take: Conspiracy Edition

Take a look at this picture.

That is, indeed, Sheila Jackson-Lee, U.S. Representative from the 18th Congressional District of Texas. While this woman is astonishingly stupid, one picture of Sheila Jackson-Lee isn't much to shake the proverbial stick at - if you don't mind me butchering an old colloquialism.

But what's on her finger allegedly is. If you don't mind looking closely at the ring on her finger, you may notice that said ring sports an interesting design: A triangle that runs into itself. Allegedly, and I will return to the alleged in a moment, this design is a pedophile symbol, according to those among us who claim expertise on the narrow field of pedophile symbology.

Now, I cannot confirm whether or not pedophiles have adopted symbols by which they may quietly signal their preferences to one another. It is interesting to me that a .pdf was released by Wikileaks some time ago, which you can reference here. It would not surprise me if pedophiles used codes and symbols to signal to one another. Pedophiles, being a group or caste, would be likely to develop their own internal culture (however despicable) much the same way groups as innocuous as RC airplane enthusiasts have their own internal culture. Groups far less innocent than that, who routinely engage in illegal activities - habitual drug users and gang members, for example - develop their own internal culture, language, symbols, etc. of which there is generally wider public knowledge. Why would it be less so for a group engaging in the ultimate social taboo? If there is a subset of the population that routinely engages in cannibalism, I would also expect that they, too, would develop their own internal culture, assuming that they were capable of congregating.

That said, I still cannot satisfactorily confirm, for my own purposes, that they symbol on Sheila Jackson-Lee's finger is a pedophilic symbol. It certainly is intriguing, and if you happen to watch the CSPAN archived recording of the December 16, 2009 meeting pictured in the above image, you can confirm for yourself that this image is, indeed, genuine. You'll see it at the 5:01 mark.

I was certainly moved when I did the research myself and watched the recording of the meeting in question. I cannot say to you, without lying, that my pulse rate didn't rise when I saw videographic confirmation that Sheila Jackson-Lee was, indeed, wearing jewelry that matched a known pedophilic symbol. It would not be untrue for me to say that I want to believe. But want or no, my purpose here is not to substantiate that our overlords are a cabal of pedophiles. I'll leave that to you to figure out for yourself.

I generally do not indulge in conspiracies, as I have mentioned in several other posts. I generally do not do this because, like the constant griping about a certain tribe of coin clutching merchants, I see conspiracies as a counterproductive force. Reading about conspiracy theories is an interesting past time - certainly one of my stranger hobbies - but there comes a point where you depart from merely orbiting that black hole. You enter the event horizon, and nothing short of a miracle will pull you back out. I've seen it before with my own eyes, the madness - oh the madness. And it is, indeed, maddening to think of the more convincing conspiracies. Constantly fretting over it, in my opinion, serves us more as a placebo than as actual medicine. There are other things you should be doing! Lift weights, read old books, make friends, fall in love with a woman who has fallen in love with you. Become great! The false promise of easy (if painful to swallow) knowledge a conspiracy theory lends an individual inhibits him from creating his own destiny. His own invictus. It becomes an obsession, and then consumes him. He will grow no further, turn inwards, and hollow himself out, only to replace his potential with a sort of deification of a power other than his own. Let me tell you about the Jews, etc.

There are no shortcuts worth taking because nothing worthy is ever gained without extracting the appropriate cost. Your muscles can be artificially swollen with synthol but you will still be pathetic and weak even if you manage to make your synthol injections appear natural. When a savage challenges you, he will throw you down and carry off your woman. The same, I think, holds true for the promise of hidden knowledge conspiracy theories offer. I cannot think of a better analogy, so let's leave it be.

That long winded (I am a reactionary) caveat out of the way, allow me to contradict myself somewhat.

Should there be some sort of mass revelation that unequivocally shows (i.e. through video evidence) that our elites are Satan worshiping pedophiles, I would not in the least be surprised. This isn't because of the purported evidence surrounding Pizzagate and QAnon, but because our elites have already demonstrated through their public actions that they are unrepentantly evil. I need not reiterate their crimes to increase the wordcount of this essay. I am no longer in college and therefore word counts don't matter much anymore. That said, should Pizzagate and QAnon be revealed as a rather elaborate bit of larping, my opinion on our elites would not change the slightest. You and I, friend, see beyond the veil already. We chose the path of the reactionary: the path less traveled. We have paid the price for delving too greedily and too deep. You know what it cost you. I know what it cost me. And consequent to that, we already know what others have only begun to suspect. I could wax poetic in true reactionary form for a few paragraphs, but brevity is the soul of wit, and some humble anon conveniently deduced the psychic fate of all reactionaries since the end of the Kings:
We don't need anything more. no elaborate conspiracies, no grand narratives, nothing, nothing, because we already know how awful things really are.

But you know who doesn't know? Normal, regular, everyday jackoffs.

Since we're on the topic of QAnon, one of the more interesting parts of the conspiracy is the alleged motive for Trump's presidential bid. He was asked to run, implicitly by a cabal of military officials. The 'why' belongs to those who have chosen to go down the rabbit hole. I have no need to, but you are free to do so - I really don't recommend this, by the way. But consider a hypothetical:

Suppose you needed to depose a wayward ruling class. They're completely off their rockers. Everything they touch turns to shit, and when they hold the most power things fall apart in the most spectacular fashion. If you want your nation to survive, these people have to go. So what do you do? Killing them is an obvious solution, but even if you managed to kill all of them, their offices, positions, titles and powers would only be vacant for a brief period, before someone else filled the void. How would you go about destroying them and discrediting the power they've gathered under themselves?

Something worth thinking about.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Matthew 7:16

The topic of rural America, the hinterlands, is a topic I return to time and again, because I have chosen the path less traveled. Where old friends - and so old and dear they once were! - departed the safe and boring harbor of Suburbia for the fashionable lifestyle and associated accouterments of urban living, I chose the opposite. The countryside is where you will find me now.

On occasion, I happen across and old friend, or worse, a former friend, who discovers what I did. The horror! The horror! To associate with ruralites is a shame unto itself, but to become a ruralite? Apostasy! Heresy of the worst degree.

Don't you know those people vote against their own interests?

Yes. Yes indeed I do. I have been told many times, though from what I can gather, what you mean when you say that such and such people do not vote in their best interests is that you are aggrieved that they refused to submit to the political whims of the mob, the very same mob that allows you to willfully delude yourself into believing your power is more than what it actually is. You think because you say the right words that you have power. You have been deceived.

The mechanics of your self-deceit are irrelevant and boring as your grand political pronouncements. People have willingly, joyfully walked off cliffs believing they could fly countless other times, so forgive me for disagreeing with your grand internal narration, but you are not so special.

It is disconcerting, even alarming, though, that you have not taken an account of yourselves. Perhaps, were you to measure the quantity and quality of your own fruits, you would gain a greater understanding of why we came to hate you.

You place such grand importance on charity and altruism. "We must help such and such people!" you say among yourselves and nod in self-flattered agreement. And indeed, there are many people who are doing quite poorly in this little world of yours. But you need not travel far to see how poorly. It was so close to home! A metaphorical stones throw away, out beyond the corn fields. It's there, if only you would drive through instead of flying over. They closed down the factories, and one by one their eyes close too, under the weight of alcohol and methamphetamine and self-inflicted gunshot wounds to the head. Where were you? Where was your altruism then? They were your neighbors! They are your kin! Instead of appearing with at least words of comfort, alms in the name of charity, a helping hand, what did you do? You spat on them. Called them names on every flickering screen from sea to shining sea. Reveled in their demise. You demanded sacrifice for the common good, the brotherhood of mankind - whatever the fuck that vapid, empty poetry means - and it cost you nothing! You took everything from them! And you ask more, still!

And when in fear and anger they cling to their guns - the only thing standing between you and them and the final rape of the hinterlands, you scheme and plot and wring your hands rage. How dare they defy you! Don't they know who you are?

Of course we know who you are. We know you by your fruits, because the rewards of this world - the dust blowing around in empty factories and the purposeless service industry jobs and the broken families and heroin addiction and suicide and death and agony - are rewards only because you rule when you have no right, when you are not able, and when you most of all are not worthy. How could you possibly be worthy when everything that could have gone wrong, has gone wrong?

Every single thing you people touch turns to shit. White people have gone to shit. Black people are shit. Men are wimpy shit, women are blue haired, shrill shit. Academia is shit, the economy is a pile of service oriented shit. Music? Shit. The military? Shit. Traditions? Shit. Science? Shit. Media, art, history, the humanities? Shit, shit and shit. Our nations prestige is shit, foreign relations are shit and the massive conglomerations that sold us out to pay off our political masters? Well what do we have here but more shit. But at least the food is great, amirite famalam?

Forgive me for being skeptical that one last time of allowing you to have your way, to dictate what shall be and shall not be will somehow result in anything other than shit. You chafe at our skepticism, our disobedience, our rebellion, because you already know that you are not worthy and our wrath grows daily and your power, such little that it exists beyond the delusions of grandeur you've concocted - oh your power is so tenuous. So fragile. Wearily, I will shoulder my rifle when the day comes to take up arms. The days of the White Leftist are drawing to a close, and it seems likely that there will be war, sooner or later. And my side? We may yet fall. Whatever limited advantages we have may fail us. This is fine, if I at least go down swinging when the time comes, then I will return to the Earth from whence I came with no less honor than the victorious who came before me. I know who I side with. But you? There is no way out for you, and you know it. No exit. No salvation. No redemption.

If we win - when we win - you already know your fate. Even now, as Heritage America is just beginning to stir, just beginning to dream of victory, you sweat out your ancient nightmares - the hinterlands have come! There is nowhere left to hide, and they come not to negotiate - but to kill. And they will. They will, before the end. They will seek vengeance. I hope they receive it. You flatter yourself by chiding them on how they have no hope of winning a war against the U.S. government. Who say's they're going to fight the Feds, or the Army? They aren't coming for the cops or for the marines. They're coming for you, idiot.

And when you win? If you win? You don't really win, because assuming the third world mercenaries you imported to do your dirty work for you actually fight instead of flee when the gibs machine dries up, you go against the wall all the same. You'd know this if you actually studied the communism you love to preach.

One way, or the other, we won't be seeing you in Valhalla.

Thursday, June 7, 2018

How Not To Rule

I attended a long string of high school graduations this month. I cannot say I particularly enjoy graduation ceremonies. Even out there, beyond the corn fields bordering the urban sprawl, when the principal or superintendent recites the "I confer up on you... that you have faithfully executed your academic duties... that you have met the standards set by..." blah blah blah, I am reminded that the insidious tentacles of the Cathedral truly reach far and wide. Even out here. A man, disgruntled and sweating in the 95 degree heat commented on the quantity of teachers and how he now understood why his property taxes were so high. A few people around him chuckled. The pensions! Ah, the pensions.

If I were to say that conservatives were the sort of people who routinely fail to see the forest from the trees, that would be unduly charitable. To take the metaphor and extend it appropriately to describe your average Republican thinker (syndicated or otherwise), it's not just that they don't see the forest. They don't even see a tree, because they're too busy staring at a single leaf. Case in point, the curious tendency of our ruling class to sympathize, if not wholeheartedly subscribe to, the teachings of Karl Marx. Well, it may not be exactly fair to say that they subscribe to Karl Marx, because a cursory reading of the Communist Manifesto should alert the most unserious of students to the decidedly bourgeois nature of academic communists. Then again, most academic communists haven't actually read Marx.

Anyways, conservatives, when their political lethargy and cowardice are not otherwise inhibiting them, will sputter about how communism doesn't work and how communism killed one hundred million people and even, if they happen to be slightly more clever than the rest, will recite Rothbard's explanation on how communism necessitates managerialism, begetting a classed society, and returning communists to the rejected premise of a stratified society.

That's actually the point, dummkopf.

The whole point of the wholehearted subscription to communism isn't to bring about a better world. Perhaps somewhere in the back of their minds these sort of people believe that communism is, indeed, a more just system than whatever you want to call the system we're living under. But justice, true justice or otherwise, is a decidedly ancillary goal for these people. So ancillary in fact, that the rotten consequences of putting communists into power are basically as inconsequential as a bug colliding with a windshield. Why is that? Because goal numero uno is a goal sadly rooted in the solipsistic nature of our bourgeois friends: The acquisition of power, and all of it's benefits, minus the responsibility and obligations. Next thanksgiving when your obnoxious relatives screech about the Trumpenreich, remember not to marvel too hard at the thought of a world run by these sort of people being the sort of world where one hundred million people starve to death, purposefully or otherwise.

Of course, "total communism", a-la the rhetoric of stupid idiots such as this unfortunate young woman, the theory of, the implementation there of, and life under, are the leaf you don't want to get caught staring at, lest we find ourselves to have degenerated into conservatives. So help me God, may I never.

The distribution of power has been repeatedly fractured since the dissolution of the European monarchies. Each iteration of power smashing did not reduce the sum total power, as it were, but rather distributed it among a wider, more specific tier of people. To childishly simplify the idea of power distribution, first we had kings, then we had an aristocracy, followed by senators under republicanism, which eventually beget the individualized power of the mob. Each step down has been a disastrous lurch towards anarchy as the new power holders scrambled over one another to consolidate as much power as they could, before they died and the power evaporated as their corpses cooled to room temperature.

In the here and now, power has degenerated so much that the petty squabbling of self-interested parties is almost entirely comprised of the college educated, aspirational urbanite class. Once in a while, the mob contracts violently and vomits out a class of people to shave off a fraction of competitors for those tiny shards of power. Most obviously, since you are probably a dissident right-winger, the whole "white privilege" schtick was less about rectifying social ills and more about removing competition for power, resources, access, social networks, whatever. The Alt-Right mistakes the over-representation of Jews among the power grubbing nascent and real elite for an explicit conspiracy by our coin-clutching guests, rather than the implicit conspiracy of a group of people predisposed to grasp at social authority because they are, ahem, less-than-worthy by any classic metric of "who-should-rule vs. who-should-be-ruled". In a sane world, these sort of people would have been, how shall I say this politely? Put down?

Less obviously, the mob recently experienced - really, is still experiencing - a violent contraction vis-a-vis the #metoo movement. Hilariously, most of the expelled are prominent Jewish males in the media class, with a smattering of Black and White men as well. How exactly this coincides with the explicit conspiracy of Jewish power is, frankly, beyond my interest in attempting to explain. If you get stuck at "the Jews", you are unfortunately staring at that leaf again.

Consequent to the shattering power and the vicious scramble by newly enabled individuals to consolidate said power, the self-interested class of power seekers must constantly climb over one another for said power through the cancerous phenomenon called "virtue signalling". Because virtue signalling necessitates one-upsmanship, what is considered virtuous is subjected to an exponential curve. Forty years ago, 'virtuous' was not calling black people racial epithets. Twenty years ago, virtuous was having a black friend without noticing that your friend was black. Today, virtuous is ceding all moral authority to blacks - no matter how poorly behaved, no matter how ridiculous the circumstances. Again, to avoid leaf-gazing, I should strongly emphasize that mentioning blacks has nothing to do with blacks per-se, but has everything to do with the wildly degenerated condition of White people. Blacks don't do anything to us that we do not allow. Same for Jews, banks, globalists, Muslims, Mexican illegals, etc.

Several iterations of power shattering and the consequent scramble through virtue signalling is a highly degenerate selection pressure on would be leaders. We need not mince words here - the people who lead us are mostly awful. Whether they lead us from a seat in congress or from the media bully pulpit or from the red carpet, they are, almost without exception, awful. It isn't just that they themselves are often physically repugnant or hilariously deformed in some way - David Hogg's pathetic frame is a perfect example of what I mean by deformed - what's even worse is that they are bad at leading. You would be extremely hard pressed to find a subject matter where our ruling class actually made an improvement rather than made a problem worse.

Their ideas in and of themselves are utter garbage. Last post I joked about how these people effectively delude themselves into thinking that it is education that makes a person smart, rather than natural aptitude. They, of course, believe this entirely out of self-interest. They are educated, therefore they should rule! Probably an easier subject matter to illustrate what I'm getting at is the debate over the individual's right to own firearms. Forget, for a moment, that the vitriol aspirational urbanites spew at their gun-toting countrymen is entirely predicated on the (very well advised) fear that one day Cletus and Bubba and all their cousins and relations and neighbors might finally reach their breaking point with the snotty liberal douchebag shtick and lay waste to hipster neighborhoods (if only they would). The proposed mechanism behind gun controls is, at least on paper, hilarious. We'll just tell them to turn in their guns! Or, We'll get the cops or the army to go around and take their guns!

I really shouldn't have to explain to anyone why that's stupid. Besides the prospect of unarmed urbanites starting a war with people who own lots of guns, even more ammo, and who produce food, the idea that cops are going to be really enthusiastic about becoming a bullet sponge for some dipshit hipster's utopian wet dream is, well, only the sort of idea a demented ruling class could come up with.

Here's to hoping that they follow through.

Friday, May 18, 2018

High Score

Today, yet another young man came to school with a gun and opened fire on his classmates. At the time of this writing 10 are dead and 10 more are wounded. The young man is in custody, and preliminary evidence - by which I mean his confession, if I am reading this correctly - suggests that the young man in question wanted to commit suicide, but was too scared to take his own life. So he chose the darker path and, remarkably, went unrewarded in his quest for death by cop.

Somewhere out there, a great and screeching chorus of holier-than-thous are wailing and gnashing their teeth about guns. The fact that this young man used his father's shotgun and a revolver must be putting a slight damper on the frantic efforts to remove AR-15's from the hands of the red empire proletariat.

Never mind all that - being largely unwilling to dabble in conspiracies beyond idle amusement, I'm not going to prod too terribly far into the details of this latest, greatest iteration of the American youth in steep decline. Dimitrios Pagourtzis has the unhappy look of a social bottom feeder. The circumstances of his life probably are not all that different from the last mass shooter, or the one before that, and on and on and on. There really isn't anything more for anyone to say on the matter. We have reached an impasse - no further progress can be made in rectifying the ills that plague our civilization. Nothing that we do now, given the tools at our disposal and the people wielding said tools, will resolve the crisis of Western Civilization.

Supposing for a moment that the solution to gun violence were as simple as removing guns from the general public, we'd be at a dead end anyway. Confiscation would trigger a civil war, and for all the Left's bluster, I somehow doubt that the soft, squishy urbanite core of their demented army is really all that enthusiastic about going down to fight in the trenches. More likely than not, they expect Paco, Jamal and Ahmed to do the dirty work for them, and despite the vast over-representation of our minority castes among the population that commits random acts of violence, and despite the tendency of Muslims in particular to spontaneously combust, minorities are even more bluster prone than the White Left. Fred Reed once asked a jailed Vice Lord why he didn't direct his gang to wage war on whitey. His response? We'd get wiped out. Smart - maybe - although I don't have such a high opinion of most White people I interact with. And furthermore, confiscation is out of the question without even considering civil war. How, logistically speaking, do you plan on rounding up every gun? Who would volunteer for such a task? The police? The military? Unlikely, as survey after survey shows strong support for public firearms ownership by police officers and members of the armed forces. Doubtless, though, they are extremely flattered that the screeching-signalling caste has designs to have them go kicking down doors, and possibly catching a bullet, for the utopian vision dancing through the heads of Brahmin from sea to shining sea.

Of course, solving 'gun violence' isn't as simple as removing access to guns from the general public, and the people who screech about guns after a mass shooting are, frankly, severely retarded by their own need to virtue signal to one another. If they could simply virtue signal in their own containment area, no one would care that much. When I was in high school, the clique I despised the most were the theater nerds. For a host of reasons, every single one of them rubbed me the wrong way. They were annoying, pretentious, boorish, outspoken, overly dramatic, and had a wildly unwarranted sense of self-importance. However, I didn't go out of my way to pick on them because I seldom saw any of them. They had their area and I stayed away from it, and despite by general distaste for them, this formula of you stay over there and I'll stay over here worked out quite well.

This is not the case with the screeching-signalling caste. Unfortunately, at some point, they ended up in charge of the megaphone, and not only do they routinely beat the rest of us over the head with it, but they get to dictate policy too. To add salt to that wound, they engage in what Alexander McNabb called a "sickening pretense of non-power", where they pretend that they are the plucky little guy bravely going to bat for even smaller guys against the indomitable power of Fascist Reactionary badguys. Oh, if only.

Anyways, what is particularly awful about the screeching-signalling caste dictating policy is that their policies are awful: If we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population. Brilliant. Truly, staggeringly brilliant. Indeed I say, the sort of people who believe such a thing are the collective crown jewel of the evolutionary chain. We, the little people, are indeed blessed by the beneficence of our academic overlords! All hail the smart people who are smart because they were taught to be smart and let you know that they are indeed smart by saying smart things!

Of course, no one actually says if we send people to college where they are taught to say smart things then we will have a smart population, because if I caught you saying that specific phrase in my vicinity I would drop whatever my task at hand was to bullycide you into hanging yourself. But people ultimately say this when they speak loftily of the virtues of universal education, of the benefit to our population, and when they, wayward and deluded, screech in rage when you dare to challenge their policy pronouncements. To challenge what they say is to challenge the virtues of education, and should the virtue of education suffer a challenge then it suffers a crisis of legitimacy. And when education suffers a crisis of legitimacy, so then does the educated suffer, as his or her (or xir, as the case seems to be more and more) authority is undermined. And if their authority is undermined, then they can no longer maintain the public facade of enlightened, beneficent intelligence, and when no one around them pretends to believe that they are an enlightened, beneficent intelligence, then they must contend with the underlying reality that perhaps they aren't really all that smart, and perhaps they have long labored under the willful delusion that they have somehow bettered themselves by repeating - without challenging - the oh so smart things that oh so smart people taught them to say.

Then, when all is laid bare, the lies come to the fore and reality sets in: By fraudulent means, you have taken power, and what have you done with it? You ruled, poorly. By all rights, you are not worthy. But alas, worthy or no, they rule. This is their world, and they should be reminded at the very least that a world where young men increasingly descend into the fatalist release of an orgy of violence direct at their peers is a world built by the Left. It's theirs, to own and cherish, for what little it is ultimately worth. For today anyways. Tomorrow, or perhaps the next day, or the day after - it doesn't matter - eventually will bring a man to town with a sword in his right hand and a list in his left. What good our delusions of grandeur and self-importance are on that day I cannot say, other than probably not a whole lot.

Every time some kid lights up his classmates, I remember: We put the wrong people in charge.

Thursday, April 26, 2018

Why Civilizations Die

Life arose on Earth around 3.8 billion years ago, although some evidence suggests that life was here closer to four and one quarter billion years ago. It's been a bit of a struggle ever since. A crude understanding of the way of life is the classic, cliched "kill or be killed", but that's inelegant and nihilistic in the way that we characterize petulant, moody, brooding teenagers as nihilists. They aren't really nihilists, you understand, we call them that because we don't really understand nihilism (because Nietzsche is, like, hard, man), and they call themselves nihilists because the word nihilism sounds pretty fucking metal.

A better way to characterize the way of life, and indeed the way of the universe, is that everything has a cost. People think of dollars and cents when they think of the cost of something, but what something costs really means what the requisite exchange is for an intended result. The man lifting weights in the gym is spending time at the gym, money for a membership, and calories and ATP expended during exercise for strength and (more often than not) improved aesthetics. The man who spends his evenings playing vidya instead of working out is exchanging his hours of leisurely (but pointless) stimulation at the cost of doing practically anything else.

In a more natural setting, the eternal war between predator and prey comes at a cost to one or the other's life. For the predator to eat, it must take the life of it's prey. For the prey to survive, the predator must expend precious energy on a fruitless hunt, thereby risking starvation. This is the story of life from the beginning to the present, and beyond. The struggle is an immutable, omnipresent fact of life. It has always been so, and as such, we should expect life to be finely tuned to the need to struggle. Life and death are balanced by the war between predator and prey. While the brutality of failure startles us - either through the agony of being consumed, or the ignoble end through starvation - struggle is not without hope. There is no hope of reprieve from the struggle, other than through death. But there is hope in that, over time, the better will win out over the worst, and the good will accumulate while the bad is washed away.

The accumulation of the better and the erasure of the worse is the very condensed version of how we got from simple single celled organisms to the complex civilization of today. Obviously, this version of the story is a little misleading, as there were quite a few ups and downs along the way, but the general trend of life has been a move from less complexity and less organization towards greater complexity and greater organization. And, again, the point must be stressed that getting from there to here cost something - the countless creatures that were eaten or starved or perished in some cataclysm or unfortunate accident.

This is all well and fine, but at this point all I am doing is reiterating, in a very puffed up fashion, the sort of narrative that you'd find in a middle school zoology textbook. How do we know that life is finely tuned to struggle? Besides going into the wild and observing that animals tend to eat one another, we can go beyond base observations and examine what happens when the opposite conditions are met. What happens to a population that isn't forced to struggle?

Thankfully, this question is not just an idle hypothetical. In the 1960's an ethologist named John B. Calhoun embarked on a series of experiments using lab mice that culminated in the famous (but widely misunderstood) mouse utopia experiment. You can read a scan of Calhoun's paper here. I strongly suggest that you do so.

Calhoun's mouse utopia experiment, naturally, involved observing mice in a literal mouse utopia. A colony of mice was introduced to a controlled environment with unlimited access to food and water, zero risk of predation or natural cataclysm, and thanks to regular testing for the presence of harmful pathogens and periodic cleaning of the mouse enclosure, mitigated risk of disease. For the first year, the mouse utopia expanded rapidly. Between the first year and day 600, the birthrate declined as the mice began displaying increasingly aberrant behavior. After day 600, no more birthed mice survived, and the aberrant behavior reached its crescendo with a complete abandonment of natural behaviors as the mice became withdrawn and solitary. From there the mouse colony collapsed into extinction, with only 27 mice surviving to the close of the experiment. For reference, at it's peak, the mouse colony contained over 2000 individuals.

Calhoun, incorrectly I believe, postulated that the cause of the decline of his mouse utopia was a "behavioral sink", where aberrant behavior formed as a result of all space and roles being filled with no outside release to vent the excess. The problem, I noticed, with this line of reasoning is that the mouse colony never ran out of space. At it's peak, the colony still had room for almost double the population. The 2200 mice that existed seems an arbitrary point of collapse if we are to accept that all 'social roles' being filled was the cause of the colony's decline. Why 2200? Why not 2300? Why not 1000? Why not the 3900 that the colony could, in theory, accommodate?

The answer, I've concluded, doesn't have to do with numbers, but is rather drawn out from the aberrant behavior displayed during the decline of the colony and the natural mating habits of animals. First, copying directly from Calhoun's Wikipedia article for convenience, the following are the irregular behaviors Calhoun observed in his mice:
"...between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.
After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed "the beautiful ones." Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed."
Does any of this sound familiar?

The next important piece of evidence, which Calhoun evidently did not consider, is why animals breed the way that they do. Of course rabbits fuck (and therefore, reproduce) like bunnies, everyone knows that, but the why actually has to do with... resource availability. Animals favor one of two selection patterns, r or K, a theory (really, less a theory than a simplified categorization of observed behavior) more or less given new life by a Dissident Rightist who calls himself Anonymous Conservative, to whom I at least owe the courtesy of a link.

The two strategies, basically, are quality versus quantity. A population of r-strategists favors quantity, like rabbits and mice. The characteristics of r-strategists with regards to mating are promiscuity, polygamy, low parental investment, rapid sexual maturity, and low tribal loyalty. These characteristics are important for a successful r-strategist because r-strategists inhabit an environment of resource plenty. In order to spread it's genes as effectively and as efficiently as possible, an r-strategist quite literally fucks like a bunny, because investing in a life-long mate, rearing your young, or fighting over (nigh infinite) resources means that your competitor who wastes zero energy on any of those things while burning all of his calories in the pursuit of making more of himself has a genetic advantage over you in the long run. If you have not deduced this already, r-strategists are exclusively herbivores, although herbivores are not exclusively r-strategists (elephants being an obvious example of an herbivore that doesn't clearly fit the r-strategy profile, off the top of my head). The herbivore thing will be a little funny later. In a dark sort of way.


K-strategists, being quality, are the opposites, naturally. A population of k-strategists favors quality, like the wolf. The characteristics of K-strategists with regards to mating are low promiscuity, monogamy, high parental investment, delayed sexual maturity and high tribal loyalty. These characteristics are important for a successful K-strategist because K-strategists inhabit an environment of resource scarcity. Where the r-strategist is reproductively advantaged in an environment of extreme plenty by promiscuity and extreme fecundity, the scarcity of calories available to harvest relative to the calories a K-strategist must expend in the acquisition ultimately mean that promiscuity and extreme fecundity are simply not survivable options. However much a wolf might want to mate with every female he encounters, his young will never survive - and therefore his genes will not pass on - if great care is not taken in rearing of the young. Hence the opposite traits from r-selection manifest in large predatory mammals: Tribalism, monogamy, paternalism, delayed maturity, and - for lack of a better word - chastity.

This all basically boils down to a ratio I referred to in the paragraph above: Calories available for consumption compared to the calories burned acquiring said calories. In simpler, individual terms, we use this rough approximation to gain or lose weight, depending on what your goals are (or aren't - the most grotesque fatbodies I know don't seem to think all that much beyond the reflexive action of shoveling food down their gullets). A 1:1 ratio is stasis, 1:>1 is surplus and >1:1 is starvation. A pack of wolves (that survives to reproduce over a given time period) is probably closer to 1:1 without descending into starvation, while a selected population of rabbits is far more heavily skewed into the 1:>1 range.

What I believe John Calhoun's experiment actually demonstrated wasn't a behavioral sink. I also don't believe his experiment simply showed the consequences of simply introducing an r-selection population to an environment free from culling. If this were the case, we should have seen a population continue to expand exponentially until all available space was occupied. What the rise and then fall of the population seems to show us is that - surprise - an environment does indeed shape a population. In this case, Calhoun took natural features and benefits the average mouse might expect to find in the wild - namely an abundance of calories for cheap - and removed the natural hazards and revealed that the selection strategy will eventually produce and extremely warped population that displays aberrant behavior. In a sense, the 'individualism' Calhoun observed at the end of the mouse colony is r-selection taken to it's superlative form.

Isn't that curious? But what does that have to do with why a civilization dies?

Near the end of the British Empire, a soldier by the name of John Glubb was stationed in Outremer - the British holdings in the Middle East - where he sated his soldierly boredom by voraciously reading the ancient texts of the old Islamic scholars. Later in life he wrote a fascinating essay called The Fate of Empires, which I strongly suggest you read as well. The Fate of Empires is short enough that I need not explain the entire essay to you - really, go read it. The most important takeaway from the essay, in relation to this one, is that civilizations follow similar life cycles. First comes the outbreak, colonization or conquest by the strong and adventurous. After establishment and a period of growth, a mercantile class arises, which generates wealth. Wealth eventually begets great public works, and then intellectualism, as duty, industriousness, strength, optimism, and virtue fade. In their place, selfishness, sloth, weakness, pessimism and corruption take root. Soon there after, the civilization dies - no longer capable of maintaining itself, it collapses under it's own weight. Glubb noticed that the tipping point in all great civilizations was the onset of great wealth, but he could not explain why.

Some specific, curious developments that Glubb linked between the downfall eras of the great civilizations he examined included cosmopolitanism and an increase in the presence of foreigners, the loss of martial and religious traditions, the liberation of women from traditional roles, the primacy of higher education, and the growth of state welfare and benefits reserved for the underclass.

If you haven't already caught on to what my argument implies, allow me to hit you over the head with it: The reasons civilizations die is because they prosper themselves to death. We've demonstrated this phenomenon under laboratory conditions, we've experienced it through the many iterations of the civilizational life-cycle, and it's happening to us right now.

Why do you think that is is now, at the apex of Western prosperity following World War II, that this exists?
Or this?
Or this?
Or this?
Or this?

Go to any major city across the United States and the freakish signs of this sort of dis-ease will smack you in the face with the tsk-tsking noise constantly coming out of the mouths of hipster urbanites with a chip on their shoulder for their ruralite cousins and an unrelenting, unwarranted sense of self-importance. The garish hair dye, the obtuse politics, the ugly mode of dress, lumpy bodies, poor aesthetics, weak arms and necks and backs... these aren't mere signs of a culture swirling the drain, hijacked by a merciless cabal of coin-clutchers. These are the outward manifestations of a deeply sick population. This sickness is caused, essentially, by gains at no cost. The prosperity we live in is like nothing that has ever existed in all of history - ever. All the way back to the primordial era of proto-cellular life. At no point was life ever conditioned to live in such absolute plenty. We're living longer, fewer of us die at birth, giving birth, during our childhood, or through the violence of war and conquest. Our lives are mostly sedentary, food is so easily accessible that our underclass is grotesquely fat. Jobs less and less involve direct labor, most of us sit at desks or in chairs, talking on phones or typing on computers. We weren't built to live like this. And given the clear indications of decline, it appears that nature isn't too keen on letting us live like this for a whole lot longer. Someday, the bottom will drop out on us. The imbalance between naturally occurring hierarchies will bring this whole thing toppling to the ground, and the survivors will sit in the wreckage, dazed, confused and covered in ash. It may happen as soon as 10 years from today, or 100, but whatever date it will look like 410 all over again.

As an aside, the biological reality of unaccounted prosperity equals aberrant behavior conveniently answers the question of why former vassal-states of the U.S.S.R. seem immunized to the call to degeneracy, while their Western neighbors are completely enthralled by hedonistic pursuits. Material prosperity is, ultimately, more toxic than communism.

Go figure.

Any system that arises out of those ashes (our out of the clay that formed the West, remolded) must take into account the toxicity of accumulated gains without paying the costs. This is why I never really enjoyed or supported Richard Spencer's policy ideas. I met Spencer once, at a clandestine meeting near my hometown [if you're reading this, I asked you if BAP was your Chad-Nationalist alter-ego], and while he was a likable fellow in his own right, I immediately realized that Spencer's policies were designed to entice the shit-lib urbanite crowd. This is a mistake. Supposing, for a moment, that a significant portion of shitty White urbanites can be enticed into a racial awakening by baiting them with "you can have socialism! but only if you let go of darky", that would win one battle while leaving us desperately weakened in the face of our most important obstacle: The decline in quality of our own people. So far as I am concerned, the genetic shredding urban sprawl is a boon to we who wish to make it through the dark of this night. The worst of us migrate to the cities, where our desire (and eventually capability) to reproduce fades under a deluge of alcohol, hedonism, swelling fat cells, and cats. Good riddance.

This also explains why Feudalism, however unrefined it may otherwise be, provided the momentum for the greatest technological advancement in human history. One thousand years of segregating the bad from the good (usually vis-a-vis the gibbet) provided us with the intellectual and social fuel to get us to the moon. We are on the downward side of that rise, but with we catch, or really, make, a new wave, then perhaps we really will be able to claim the stars as our birthright.

Thursday, April 19, 2018


Essentially, what we've found behind this particular Universalist mystery is the assertion that Universalism has triumphed because Universalism is good and good triumphs. Good triumphs because Universalism is successful and Universalism is good. Spot the unsubstantiated assertion!

I thoroughly enjoyed Moldbug's multi-part essay on the pwning of Richard Dawkins - enough so that were I a university professor who taught reactionary theory, and were I only allowed to make one selection from a particular author, How Dawkins Got Pwned would easily win the honor. Of course, I am not a university professor, and were I stupid enough to be one (and stupid enough to try) I would likely find myself at the poked and burned end of a pitchfork and torch wielding mob. Anyways, I like to re-read it on occasion, and it was during a recent re-read that I felt a small tingle of inspiration. These little hints come so infrequently nowadays, so absorbed am I in the here and the now that I have little time for the esoteric or political.

Anyways, on a curiously and seemingly unrelated note, I have been dwelling on the Alt-Right's public mishaps recently. The misadventures in Charlottesville, the doxxing of the TRS guys, Matthew Heimbach's affair...

What happened?

If you listen to the voices from on high, it's more or less over, or something. Probably for Heimbach, because live action role playing as a stalwart defender of traditionalist values while banging your buddy's wife is a pretty good way to lose your street cred with people desperate for a stalwart defender of traditionalist values who likewise embodies said values. I don't know, I didn't really keep up with the TWP, and it's too late now anyways.

Enoch and Spencer are still plodding along to my knowledge, not that I listen to TRS much either. It just doesn't move the needle for me anymore. My understanding is that recent attempts by Spencer to speak at universities were, well, lackluster. Or something. My recaps of the Alt-Right's antics are best viewed with the understanding that I've kept much of this at arms length - increasingly longer arms, mind you, since some time after Trump was elected.

That said, the 'death' of the Alt-Right is laughable. Even if all major public figures sympathetic to the Alt-Right spontaneously combusted today, the Alt-Right would not die because the conditions necessary for a White Identity movement to arise still exist. Like a hydra, should a head be cut off another would grow in its place. I'm not puffing the Alt-Right up by giving it nearly mythical qualities - believe me I am far, far more dissatisfied with White Identitarians than I am satisfied - it just is what it is. You can only take so much screeching from dumpy blue-hairs about the plight of the melanin-enhanced being magically your fault before you say "fuck-it". When you aren't going to win anyways, most people would gladly go down swinging.

But specifically, with regard to the string of failures, what happened?

I have a guess, and to get you there I'm going to borrow a little from Moldbug. I'll try not to be as turgid. If you go back to How Dawkins Got Pwned (part 4), Moldbug reiterates his strategy of testing Universalism's circular appraisal of itself by working his way back into the past until he's free from the iron grip of Whig History as told by Whig Historians, and taking a different branch - specifically, the reactionary path, the most logical path as reactionary is the antithesis of progressive. Hence, Moldbug ejects the dead weight of Universalism's survivorship bias in appraising what actually happened and... well, you've either read the rest, or will get to it. I don't really want to reiterate Moldbug, because my inspiration here is more technical than historically specific.

The Alt-Right has tried and repeatedly failed on the Left's own turf; said turf being mass demonstrations and protest culture. I don't blame them for trying though. There is a certain logic to the whole affair: We feel outnumbered and we want others to who feel outnumbered to know that they aren't alone. We want to flex our muscles. Frankly, we want to punch commies in their stupid bourgeois faces. That's all well and fine, but the unfortunate reality is that all of this is on the Left's turf and defined by the Left for the explicit purpose of strengthening the Left. It doesn't matter whether the Charlottesville protester's said "you will not replace us" or "Jews will not replace us". What matters is the Left says it was the latter, and it was so. Because the Left says so, and they have the megaphone.

So what to do?

The answer, more or less, is don't try to beat the Left by using the Left's strategy. It doesn't play to our strengths. We aren't a mass movement. We aren't a mob, or a rabble. Our ideology, such that our disparate gaggles of LARPers can be connected, is an ideology of order and hierarchy. How we exist should reflect that. Browsing through some of the Charlottesville pictures, I saw a lot of good signs. The Chad Nationalists flexing with David Duke were a good sign. The Dodge Charger mowing down that fat chick, not so much. Hilarious, yes, but otherwise bad optics. The thing is, though, that one slip up, one fat dork in a Trump hat, one Roman salute, and Salon dot com will be there like flies on shit to show the world that Nazis are still a threat. Dorky, and perhaps a little dumpy, but a threat none the less.

If I'm allowed to be a bit candid for a moment - of course I am, these pages are mine - the biggest disappointment for me when the TRS guys got doxxed was't that Mike Enoch's wife is part coin-clutcher. It was that he is fat. I mean, I never pictured Enoch as a thin guy or anything, and I am more than well aware that the Left will take your worst frame and plaster it everywhere to give everyone the worst impression of you possible but... come on. And frankly, the same goes (worse actually) for Heimbach. I can, to some degree, look past being sexually promiscuous. I was a frat boy. And while I definitely don't condone marital infidelity, I am a man who has failed before to ignore the temptations of the flesh. But being fat? While being a White Supremacist? And yeah it doesn't matter that you don't call yourself a White Supremacist, because you aren't holding the megaphone, they are. They're going to point at you and sputter and shriek and froth at the mouth about how evil and awful you are, so why give them extra ammunition? To paraphrase Mr. Enoch, they're going to call you a white supremacist anyways, so why the fuck aren't you supreme?

How do we get from there to somewhere better? Unfortunately, the answer is simply forcing people through an entry process and a subsequent hierarchy that requires increasingly difficult hurdles be, well, hurdled. A simple entry test would be something simple like bench press your own body weight. Just once. Success means you're a candidate and failure means you can try again in a month. The next tier would have a more difficult physical test, and an ideological test. And the next tier would increase the difficulty of both and add a third test, and the next and the next and so on down the line.

This is all back-of-my-napkin, but the point is to illustrate a means by which a Right-Wing, White Identity group increases its quality and therefore it's efficacy. The Left's power lies in quantity - being a mob. We will never beat them by being a mob. A side effect of a tiered system is that it also substantially mitigates the likelihood of subversive agents of the Left gaining any real power in this hypothetical iteration of a Right-Wing, White Identity group.

Convenient Answers to Stupid Thoughts, II

"Standards of beauty are oppressive." It goes without saying that the sort of people who constantly harp on this sort of thing a...