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.

Anyways.

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

Foundations

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.

Monday, April 9, 2018

Your Memes Are Shit, Vol. III of MCDLXXXVIII

There is a certain incongruity between the way a specific class of people are versus the way that they want you to see them. This is notably reflected in their art and their rhetoric, which I believe is the ultimate explanation for why the Left can't meme.

To our Left lies a solipsistic trap. The core idea of postmodernism is an inversion: language creates reality rather than language being used to describe reality. This may explain why there is an intense effort to redefine words, which continuously produces further redefinitions, which produces yet more redefinitions, and on and on down the line. You can redefine a word from here until infinity, but an apple will never be a banana. The redefinition never produces the desired result, and yet they continue to chase the dragon.

In isolation this would be curious, amusing even, and certainly worth studying in the same way we attempt to understand mental diseases like schizophrenia. Unfortunately these people are not isolated. We are trapped in an open air asylum that they are attempting to burn to the ground with everyone else locked inside with them.

Friday, February 23, 2018

The Lost Boys

On any given day, from these ignoble pixels in front of your face, to the furthest shores of the react-o-sphere, we grimly count the evils of these days. Today I set aside time to gripe to you, dear reader, about the tragic fate of men, or what is left of us anyways.
I found this Quora post by a Marine concerning bullying and the innate need for boys to channel their aggression in productive ways through Heartiste. It is illuminating enough that I suggest you read it in full. The author recounts his experience both as a target of bullying who escaped his social hell by beating the crap out of his bully, and his experience as an instructor who discovered exactly how bad things have gotten for young men. Again, read it in full, it's worth every sentence.

It hit me right in the feels.

From what I can gather about Nick Cruz, he was a loser with emotional problems and poor romantic prospects. That roughly describes every single mass shooter, but with the focus on firearms people seem to gloss over who Nick Cruz was and the circumstances that led to him killing other young people. This is very low tier thinking - the sort of immediate reaction that should make conservatives pause and wonder about why they take cultural marching orders from the screeching lunatics colleges and universities make of their very children. But is and ought are very different things, so never mind. Conservatives are useless. Etc.

Jon Davis' post roughly parallels the reactionary critique of the modern world, despite him being, as far as I can tell, conventionally conservative. I haven't read far enough into the guy to nail him down or anything, at least further than saying he isn't explicitly reactionary.

In our neurotic haste to shield the young from the pain of life, we have created a monstrous generation of emotionally stunted losers. The consequence of a padded world with no outlet and no hope of truly introspective self assessment and improvement is that occasionally someone succumbs to the red-eyed rage of fatalism, and kills a bunch of people when he snaps. And it's almost always he, because the very bottom of the demented social hierarchy we've created is always a male, no matter what. In the later days of the West, even the homeliest of women can find an emotional outlet by being someone's (excuse me, someones' plural) cumdumpster. This is not to say that I recommend that sort of thing as a healthy exercise or anything, I am simply observing that even the wretched girls I knew in high school knew how to get male attention by offering them cheap sex. Having an outlet, however distasteful, is vastly better than no outlet. Because, as they say, there comes a time in every man's life where to get to where he needs to go, and finding no doors or windows, he walks through a wall. In the case of Nick Cruz, his breakthrough came out of the barrel of a gun. Assuming we aren't being fed a heaping line of shit about what happened, this is indeed tragic.

Naturally, right next to the screeching about guns from shameless opportunists comes the wailing about yet further anti-bullying programs, tolerance, love, letting every child unequivocally know that they indeed are a special snowflake like everyone else. Which is horseshit. The mollycoddling of our youth has brought us to this exact point. What girls need, developmentally, beyond a strong and healthy father, is not the sort of thing I am prepared to comment at length upon. Nor do I particularly care - because the problem with women, i.e. the sluts, cumdumpsters, fatties, thots, screeching feminists and cluster b attention whores is simply remedied by making our men strong again. The MGTOW movement is completely retarded because the task of fixing women's behavior issues and our civilization generally requires the combined effort of men who are, well, men. The withdrawal of men is the surrender of our civilization. You do not step away and say "No, girls, you need to move."

The problem with men is that they are not men, but instead are weakened, sedated, deprived of masculine hobbies, outlets, mentors, by a quasi-religious cult that is overtly hostile to masculinity in and of itself. I was fortunate, I played football in middle school and high school, and I had a string of coaches who, even if they sucked at coaching football, were men and allowed us to be men. Football was my sparring ring - practice well and you played. Practice poorly, get bested by someone else, and you lost your spot. In the weight room we developed our form and camaraderie, and we finished our lifting cycles with wrestling competitions at the end of the week - a crude bastardization of sumo, classic wrestling and football. Boneyard wrestling we called it, and I looked forward to it even more than hitting a new peak in a particular lift. It was exhilarating, another chance to cut my teeth against the strength of a peer.

That a horde of self-important women blessed by God with a heaping dose of completely fucking retarded took away dodge ball and wrestling and handed kids participation trophies because they wanted everyone to feel nice is the sort of thing that makes me wish death by drawing and quartering was still fashionable. What has happened to men is worse than a mistake. It is the worst sort of evil - the kind that regards itself as the highest good.

It isn't that the bottom of the adolescent social hierarchy is inevitably a man in today's world - that will never change. I can imagine a few blue-hairs shrieking that I simply want to oppress women by placing them beneath men. This is mostly true in a round about way because I've noted, in retrospect, that the most "liberated" of women adore the sort of man who puts them in their place when they're acting up, and who slaps them firmly on the ass when they do something nice, like having a warm meal on the table when you get home or giving you a world class blowjob (if I had any doubts she was a whore they evaporated with the noticeable absence of any gagging noises).

The tragedy, as Jon Davis points out, is that young men shielded from conflict are stuck when they hit bottom because there is no natural outlet, no way to climb back up. Men measure one another off of four fundamental traits, according to Jack Donovan: Strength, Courage, Honor, and Mastery. As young man, demonstrating your strength and courage and defending your honor are the basics of building yourself up both socially and internally. The foul women who run the academy and public school system either do not understand this, or maliciously deprive young men of the opportunity to be young men because - and let's not mince our words here - they are evil cunts.

The solution, of course, has little to do with guns, or with bullying, or committees of hags with an unwarranted sense of self importance. The people who bitch the most about guns [rightly] fear their political opponents, who are both armed to the teeth and increasingly irate at the little dictators running amok over their culture. The anti-bullying, pro-committee crusade is an outlet for those who are desperate to validate their sense of self importance because deep down inside they not only do not feel important, but they deeply resent the fact that they are completely dispensable. They contribute nothing but white noise to the ether, untidy sandcastles far below the crest of great waves they have no hope of containing. The age of intellectualism has dragged on too long.

Men must become great again, must become Men again.

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Valentine's Day Lesson On The Decline Of White People

Customary Topical Link Preceding Tirade
From the article:
In the past, students celebrated Valentine’s Day with the traditional exchange of cards and candy. But the district slowly has been phasing out those traditions for the past few years. The new holiday guidelines have not been fully implemented at each school yet, but no schools in the Bethel district will have traditional Valentine’s Day parties — with candy and card exchanges — this year. That prompted some parents to accuse the district of selectively “taking away” other traditional school holidays as well. For instance, Bethel district students no longer wear costumes for Halloween, and Thanksgiving celebrations have been renamed “harvest parties.” 
...
“As a public school system, we can’t intentionally plan events that we know will exclude children,” McGillivray said Tuesday. “Schools (in the district) are thinking creatively about how we celebrate with children and how we can have those activities at school where everyone gets to participate.”

If you are the sort of person who has stared into the abyss for far too long, no doubt you have the sneaking suspicion that somewhere out there a coin clutching merchant is at the bottom of this. Whether that is the case or no is, unfortunately, irrelevant to yours truly because the question and answer do nothing to solve our problems. I would not be surprised to discover a resounding 'yes', but I could also not be more apathetic. Partially this is out of a permanent lack of surprise when I discover certain people of a certain ethnicity behaving badly. Mostly, however, this is because noticing that certain people of a certain ethnicity tend to behave poorly has not moved us closer to resolving the crisis of Western Civilization. Blaming the other forever is the strategy of African-Americans and lesbians, and look at how well they've fared. If we are to avoid a similar fate then we must look inward:
The key is to look at this not as a moral problem, but as an engineering problem. Any solution that solves the problem is acceptable. Any solution that does not solve the problem is not acceptable.
There are a few tells hidden in the piece I linked to that point us in the right direction. Notice that last quoted sentence by McGillivray:

... and how we can have those activities at school where everyone gets to participate.

Does this sound familiar? If you look closely at the above article there are a few sentences that imitate McGillivray, spoken or implied by others. Coincidentally, these ought rationales sound a whole lot like the very obvious resentment you hear from fat feminists when they crab about Stacey Sorority. While they wrap their rhetoric in grandiose moral platitudes, most find it fairly obvious to point out that the source of their 'moral' crusade is that Stacey Sorority is a universal object of male desire, while they are often mistaken for a particularly lumpy potato.

The pretense of high morality thinly coating an obvious core resentment is so ubiquitous today that you can be forgiven for not pointing it out. Behind every screeching soccer mom is a girl who never got invited to the dance, or worse - got pumped and dumped throughout college and high school. The tragedy of helicopter parenting is that it is antithetical to the universal law of suffering: You must exchange in order to gain. Every once in a while life has to punch you in the face. This law is immutable, unchanging, omnipresent. Even if you manage to delay it for a short while, it is merely a delay. The cost, multiplied by the time you have managed to stave off the inevitable, will make the suffering far greater.

Case in point, White America decided that they could give their kid's a jumpstart on the rat race into a good college by forgoing chores in favor of paying Paco and Juan to mow the lawn. As a bonus, Paco and Juan's labor would fund generous pensions for Whitey. The consequence of that seemingly well intentioned plan is that America is no longer a homogeneous nation, societal trust is consequently at an all time low, the state is in financial tatters, and instead of gaining a good job through old boy networks at college, White America woke up one day and discovered that their boy was wearing dresses and makeup and screeching incessantly about the evils of cisprivilege.

Way to fucking go, guys, you really knocked it out of the park.

The solution, naturally, is to cull, by which I mean some form of exclusion is necessary for the perpetuation of civilization. We may, may, be at a point of no return with regards to the extraction and utilization of cheap energy. If we go back we may never reach the stars because restarting the industrial revolution from scratch isn't possible with known energy reserves increasingly requiring advanced, post-industrial revolution technology in order to harvest, refine and use it. Starting back at square one and advancing to tier 3 of the Kardashev Scale is, therefore, out of the question. This is, of course, just a hypothesis, but the risk falls under the theorem of expected value: When the cost of failure is infinite, odds no longer matter.

Culling, of course, brings to mind Social Darwinism - the sort of idea that immediately raises the deflector shields of the fashionable urbanite cohort. Ironically these are the sort of people who gleefully describe themselves as a reality based community or some other drivel, while eagerly excluding certain topics from debate. This brings us to a seemingly unsolvable problem in that the fashionable urbanite cohort, being obsessed with masking their own sense of inferiority with outward displays of unwarranted self-importance are intractable, obsessed with the gaudy trinket called "social affirmation", as opposed to the relatively unsexy rewards of "problem solving". The division among White America - and remember that Whites are unique in that they do not vote monolithically - is so harsh that it seems insurmountable.

In order to think so you must first believe - and this is usually an unconscious thing - that White people should unify.

This is a mistake.

The negative side effects of urbanization and excessive secondary and tertiary education are a blessing in disguise: Those most susceptible to the siren song of progressive idealism are not breeding at even close to replacement rate. In a handful of generations they will be irrelevant. Let them go, and wait for your labor to bear fruit.

This, of course, does not solve the problem of how to keep the insane and wayward soccer-mom types from seats of power, but that's a discussion for another day.

What is most interesting is that one hundred parents stormed a PTA meeting. How many kids do you think the administrators have on average? I'm guessing it's far less than one.

How many kids do you think the meeting-stormers have?


Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Feedback Loop

Everybody signals. Many signals are small, unconscious, or at least unintentional. For example, I speak unaccented English, which should signal to you that I am from somewhere in the Midwest. I don't mean to speak the way I do, it is simply a byproduct of my upbringing. I used to wear band shirts and ripped jeans and uneven haircuts because I was a drummer in a crappy punk band in high school, and I specifically and intentionally wanted everyone to know what clique I belonged to. One signal was unintentional, one signal clearly was not. One I have to this day, one I have long since abandoned.

Everybody signals.

There isn't anything wrong with signals. Signalling is part of communication, it's how we build and maintain our reputation. Reputations help us socialize. Without signals, and therefore without reputation, there would be no interaction beyond a perpetual series of introductions that would fade into meaninglessness once proximity was lost to time and space.

Sometimes people rail against signalling and it sounds to me a lot like the postmodern tears shed over hierarchy. By that I mean that it is pointless and ineffectual and, frankly, stupid to rail against a permanent and ubiquitous phenomenon that is directly caused by the human aspect of being human. You'll never end signalling any more than fat feminists will ever really end hierarchy.

The postmodernists want to obliterate hierarchical arrangement for one of two reasons: either they are personally dissatisfied with their own rank and wish to cheat around the lie of equality by bringing everyone down to a level below where they currently stand, thus allowing them to leapfrog over their natural superiors - or - they are in such an excruciating state of perpetual mental distress (as VoxDay has claimed on several occasions) that they wish for the sweet embrace of nothingness. Reducing the distinctions between unique points interspersed throughout the universe is the same as reducing everything to nothing. The total erasure of time and meaning in a singularity. They long for the release they instinctually believe oblivion offers but are too cowardly to kill themselves. So far anyways - some have claimed that a great millennial die-off is coming. We shall see. Perhaps thots with no marriage prospects will start throwing themselves of tall buildings en masse, but that time has not yet come - if it ever will.

Sometimes postmodernists rail against hierarchy for both reasons at the same time. Never mind that this doesn't make sense, it doesn't have to if you understand that you should not be approaching this sort of thing in a linear, premise premise conclusion format. They certainly aren't.

Slightly downstream from the postmodern camp is the conventional urbanite cohort. Not quite wayward enough to mutilate themselves or dye their hair garishly, but in enough of a state of dis-ease that they will enthusiastically signal their academic credentials. Most frequently this is done by disparaging Donald Trump, as if their collective groan were somehow enough to undo the dawn of the Trumpenreich.

As if.

That part is important in understanding. Kant placed a premium on intentions. The intention of your friend signalling on Facebook is not to bring down Trump through his words and frantic gesticulations against the God Emperor. He may wish it so, but his intention is internal, and yet paradoxically solipsistic. It is paradoxically solipsistic because while his intention is to gratify himself through likes and pats-on-the-back from other thralls of the zeitgeist, he is ironically dependent on positive reactions from things outside of himself. Others. While he may have succumbed to solipsism, the superlative form of selfishness, gratification and relief must come from outside of himself.

You may say something to the effect of this dumb idiot cannot be fucked to pick himself up by his own bootstraps and you wouldn't exactly be wrong. You just wouldn't be telling either of us something we don't already know.

Keeping with that noble tradition, I too am about to tell you something we both already know, but that to my knowledge has not been fleshed out in exact terms.

The tendency of the millennial urbanite cohort to virtue signal is directly caused by the atomizing effect of city life. Cities are no longer centers of economic activity. Cities are high school 3.0 to the high school 2.0 of college. Lonely and emotionally stunted, this last, worst generation is lured to the city for economic reasons and the promise of frequent socialization. While for some the economic prospects do bear the fruits promised, for almost no one does frequent socialization result in genuine, permanent connections. Cheap, alcohol fueled sex and access to euphoria inducing hard drugs reduces inhibitions and long term planning in exchange for immediate gratification. Unfortunately when the high diminishes the user is left with two choices: hangover or redose? When the money runs out and the hangover sets in the loneliness that never really left comes back into view. Hence the pervasiveness of antidepressants and other prescription mood stabilizing drugs. What is remarkable is how nonchalant many people are in this regard. Everyone is medicated and yet no one takes a whole lot of time to stop and marvel at the implications. When you point out the profound and ubiquitous level of unhappiness the immediate answer has to do with some material or monetary want or dissatisfaction. Jobs, free schooling, higher pay. They screech about installing total communism and people who already failed to allow them to sink or swim chide them sheepishly about communism being impossible or killing one hundred million people in less than a century or a million other tired conservative cliches that mean nothing and solve nothing a do nothing because conservatives are tired and useless and cowardly and cretinous. The signalarity operates well inside conservatives' ooda loop, and the bait of virtuous materialism propels their wayward offspring to screech ever more. Each outburst is a feeble attempt at connection, the longing for the lost pats on the head mummy and daddy never ceased, even for a moment, to lavish upon their children lest they hinder their development.

Pure irony.

The rub of the whole stupid affair is that it isn't about installing full communism over the current late-stage capitalism OS. It's about the socialization points - signals - the speaker acquires for saying this, or that, or fuck Drumpf, or whatever. What is said is meaningless. What it results in means everything to a generation that is addicted to the social affirmation feedback loop.

There is a glaring weakness in this system of demented feedback loops hinted at in a (misattributed) G.K. Chesterton quote I've seen bandied about quite a bit recently:

When people stop believing in God they do not simply believe in nothing; they become capable of believing anything.

Something capable of out-turning trickle-down postmodernism in a dogfight is capable of taking the cultural reins and either bringing this insane spiral down to the ground in one piece, or, as they say, crashing this plane with no survivors.

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Lamentations III: There Is No Normal Anymore

The noise never ends. I've noticed the TV is on constantly, and it disturbs me. A decade ago it would have disturbed me because television on that scale was a surefire symptom of sloth. My grandmother has been a thrall of the television since before I was born. She will die a thrall of the television. Her son and daughters took her on a surprise visit to Ireland to visit the home of her ancestors. She stayed in the hotel watching TV the entire trip. This is tragic, but not so tragic that I would move heaven and earth to change it. I cannot. Therefore, it does not matter.

No, here, now, where the television buzzes constantly with the chatter of people saying things, I am disturbed because this is a new pattern of behavior. It is not just the television. Laptops and tablets and sometimes the radio constantly make noise. At first, I thought it was an attempt to relieve the onset of tinnitus. Too many loud concerts.

Then I realized what I was hearing, seeing, swimming in.

Talk radio. The news. Shows with panels of chattering teeth and vocal cords, metaphorically jostling for attention, claiming every microsecond as their own, lest some silence slips by into the void. Lectures and sniveling and talking points that have been hashed over so many times that no hash remains, only a blackened carbonized lump.

Over in our corner, I am quite used to people being jacked up constantly on the politics drug. If you've ever been to a college or university, you have surely become familiar with the constant shrieking of wayward progressives. Even libertarians, such that they remain, are constantly proselytizing. Libertarians are shockingly similar to vegans and cross-fit enthusiasts in their constant need to inform you of their particular identity.

What I am not used to is basic-tier crunchy conservatives being constantly amped up on the politics drug. Sure, I know plenty of weird, obnoxious, or cretinous Republicans. But when it's the guy who quietly reads the Wall Street Journal on his tablet on the train to and from work, when it's the housewife who quietly sighs and rolls her eyes when her siblings bitch about Bush at Thanksgiving, when it's the retired couple who plays tennis on Wednesdays and goes sailing on the weekend...

When you start seeing this from the quiet people who you would otherwise unequivocally describe as normal suburbanites with office jobs and 2.1 kids and a mortgage, you may have your double take moment just like I am constantly having.

Everyone expects this sort of thing out of Millennials. The worst generation of all time must constantly insufflate their own gas while preening incessantly about the virtues of fart-sniffing. More still, they demand that you sniff their farts as well, and they'll demand that your employer fire you should they suspect you of harboring insufficient enthusiasm for fart sniffing. When you see that sort of zeal in crunchy conservative suburbanites, you may pause to wonder.

Some people blame the Crisis of Western Civilization on the Jews. There certainly is no denying that a number of Jews exhibit behavior with regards to their host nations that you might describe as malicious malfeasance if you were the sort of person who tries to be very polite when recounting another's negative traits. Quite frankly, there is enough damning evidence against a handful of them to warrant a serious argument for the sort of wholesale extermination /pol/tards salivate over without twisting yourself inside out trying to square the circle of morality and genocide. Further still, you can't even mention how bad some of them behave without setting off the worst impulses of progressives or Leftists or ultracalvinists - whatever you want to call them. Them. Those people. The other sort of white people.

Still, the counter-Semitic camp is a whole bunch of abyss-gazing by my own reckoning. People seem to readily recognize that Common Filth has stared too long into the void. You may yet come to realize that others on the Dissident Right have as well. This is not criticism, however - I don't blame you if you feel that way. It's almost impossible to not, and only through an intense regimen of isolation from the news and the media and world events have I clawed my way out of that event horizon. I would not definitively say that I am the better for it either.

Still, it lends me some perspective.

Some people blame the Crisis of Western Civilization on other mechanisms. Tied for second best, as far as I'm concerned, is Moldbug's narrative on Ultracalvinism, how the absence of a State religion and a legal prohibition against the establishment of one accidentally created the environment for a particularly hostile and virulent mutation of Puritan Christiantiy to evolve into an anti-religion, or Non-Theistic Christianity, take over our institutions on the sly, and install itself as the defacto State religion. Alongside Moldbug's Puritan Thesis is the narrative in John Glubb's Fate of Empires and the exhaustive work Anonymous Conservative has put into solidifying a biological hypothesis on why our civilization (and, indeed, all successful civilizations) experienced a change in average character before the decline. Professor Bruce Charlton has repeatedly asked if there is a biological answer for our decline and, if you will wait a post or two, I will give you my best shot.

First place is the inward journey. There is something wrong with us. But, again, that ties into Bruce Charlton's question. All of that will be revisited later. While in the interim I can only give you a reasonable guess on why in that regard, I can tell you exactly who to blame for what's coming:

Isaac Newton. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

My general suspicion is that a violent awakening would come from hinterlanders who finally realized the door shut on them and would never open again. Probably the defenestration of Trump (or another Trump-like figure down the road), or a similar political catastrophe. They, of course, are in an actually optimal strategic position even relative to much higher achieving groups like Asians. While not as numerous as the White-Urbanite cohort, they breed faster, are handier and craftier, make up the bulk of our fighting men, own guns, hunt, farm, fish, aren't exceptionally susceptible to postmodern nonsense, etc. They've earned my affection through a slow but thorough assessment of their general characteristics, and despite worrying about them I don't really fret about them. As that one song I've never actually listened to says, country boys can survive.

But now that I consider it, I wouldn't be surprised if the flames of rage reach new heights on the bellows of crunchy conservatives who dutifully paid their taxes and sent their kids to college only to find that their money was wasted on a scheme to exchange votes for handouts to Paco and Jamal and Ahmed and that their kids were somehow transformed into a sick and twisted parody of a human being by Socialist Sociologists and other snot nosed ne'er-do-wells at the ivory tower.

They haven't moved in so long. So long. There's a good screencap floating out there somewhere, where some humble anon ponders the possibility that one day we'll wake up to discover that 60 or 70 million people vanished overnight, lost to the brief but spectacular conflagration of crunchy conservative rage when they finally realize that talking and being civil was just tires spinning in the mud.

Really made me think. I recently came into contact with a progressive I tormented during Trump's ascension. She, and everyone else I gloated at for a few months, are (shockingly) in worse health than before the dawn of the Trumpenreich. Not that I've heard much about Antifa recently, but considering my brief survey of Leftist rank-and-file... Whatever is coming for the Left is going to bring a world of hurt down on their heads.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The Horror of Hubris

A frequent strategy, for example, is to present the delusion as recondite and counterintuitive, and the truth as simplistic and wrong. This "emperor's new clothes" strategy is a proven recipe for defeating Occam's razor. Who, for example, really understand the Trinity? But if you don't understand the Trinity, aren't you just stupid? Through internal competition, this counterintuitive delusion generates a revolutionary elite deeply steeped in Trinitology. The harder it is to understand the delusion, the more dedicated your cadre will be.


If I were to somehow remove the crunchy reactionary coating from my psyche, the next layer down in the great chain of my mental being would fall under the 'futurist' subheading. Ironic, no? I have a bit of a fetish for theoretically practical space travel. The credit to my fascination with outer space goes to my dear mother, who bought me a telescope when I was young. We'd spend hours looking at fuzzy images of the planets and gazing at the craters on the moon. Funny enough, there's a crater on our dusty satellite that bears my mother's maiden name.

Few people who gaze on the full breadth and majesty of the Milky Way walk away from the experience feeling anything other than small. It is remarkable then, knowing what we know about just how big the universe is (whatever fraction that we can actually see) that the end of history memeplex has taken root. For instance, it wasn't until the 1920s that we finally realized that the Milky Way wasn't the universe, but only one galaxy in the universe. Perhaps we can be forgiven of that because the technology to produce high quality telescopes that can bring you the stars in a decent resolution is not the sort of thing a civilization without advanced, precision manufacturing has any hope of creating. Then again, back closer to home, it wasn't until well after WWII that plate tectonics gained widespread support among geologists. Nothing about that is to say that civilizations without x y or z technological marvel should be castigated for not knowing a b or c fundamental principle of (modern) science that coincidentally enough requires x y or z technology. But there is a curious, and very serious, incongruity in both knowing that only a few lives of men in the past we were astonishingly less knowledgeable while triumphantly proclaiming your generations political soup du jour as the be all end all of all of history ever. Because that is what progressive idealism is. As triumphalist as it is stupid and vacuous. Behold! We have conquered the wild and uncovered the secrets of the universe, and the purpose of life is... bitching about racism and the virtues of universal healthcare. Blink blink. Blink.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It has become increasingly clear that none of this is going to end well. Perhaps a last, tiny enclave of Wypipo will grumble among themselves that Camp of the Saints was not supposed to be an instruction manual, the way that Libertarians (lol) once tut tutted about 1984. Some dream of a rising tide of Right-Wing violence that will quickly, quietly, and efficiently sweep away the cancer of the modern world. The merits of those thoughts aside (indeed it is hard to resist when you can't get away from the screeching), my nightmare scenario is that the coming conflict, born up to unimaginable heights and tension by the runaway dysgenic effect of modern medicine, modern farming, modern energy and modern comfort, will leave the remnant that survives unable to resume the course of technological progression. It isn't that the oil is all dried up, its that a hard reboot of civilization and technology means that we would be in a catch-22 situation regarding energy: The technology required to reach the oil that remains is paradoxically out of reach because easy access to oil is required to start an industrial revolution which will eventually give you the technological refinement to reach the harder to access oil which you cannot reach because our civilization imploded and no one can reach the information on a hard drive because the power went out one day and never when back on and...

We'd be fucked. And we're serious teetering towards that. The suspicion that this is our last, best and only chance to get off this rock adds a certain sense of urgency to the mission of revitalizing our civilization. The fear is compounded by the aggravation associated with knowing that a deeply unnatural philosophy has come to power and is cheerfully driving us off the edge while it's adherents preach that they are the pinnacle of philosophy, science and the human condition. Blink. Who the hell looks at a handful of billion years of things eating each other and comes to the conclusion that the most sensible method of organization is expending insane amounts of energy and resources coddling those who cant? You are telling me, with a straight face, that doing the exact opposite of the selection method that powered an ecosystem for 3.8 billion years through trillions upon trillions of organisms perishing before they could reproduce and pass on their genes and contribute another generation to the tree of life... will somehow not have serious negative consequences. Oh! The solution to our problems is sooo easy! Just give people stuff! Who the fuck seriously sits down and looks at that and says brilliant! At this point, the answer is either people who are intentionally tricked into a believing something that is degrading in exchange for cheap virtue points - or people who have unintentionally tricked themselves into believing something degrading in exchange for cheap virtue points. The difference between one explanation and the other is the difference between Mike Enoch and Mencius Moldbug. Try this the next time you're at a fashionable party in the city: Tell everyone you know that you hate Trump and count the number of pats on the back that you harvest. For a moment, it feels good, yes? Suddenly people seem very interested in talking to you, yes? Tempted, yes?

And into the abyss we go.

Oil, of course, does not power spacecraft, and human ingenuity is perhaps the only thing comparable to human stupidity in its pervasiveness and tendency to surprise you. The idea that this is the end is probably overwrought, but I cannot help but think, when looking from these heights, that a fall from up here might actually kill us.

Friday, January 5, 2018

Lamentations II: AKTCHUALLY

Some time after I began dating my girlfriend I began quietly divorcing myself from a number of friendships.

People come and people go, but unlike the connections that fade with time but otherwise remain pleasant memories, the people of whom I now think and write about have their memory forever tainted by the impetus for their ejection from my social life: They revealed themselves as zealous devotees of the progressive religion. In my professional and familial circles, and in the circle of those loose associates around which individual faces orbit more familiar ones, I am generally forgiving of theological, political, or philosophical diversity. I even maintain a small, but - as I consider it - elite cohort of friends who are decidedly leftist, yet unaffected by the bizarre, social iteration of rabies that is so ubiquitous among my generation. They remind me of a spaceship that uses a black hole's gravity well to perform a slingshot maneuver, as opposed to disappearing into the event horizon. These people, rare though they may be, are the sort of precious social connection you should hunt for, and in the finding, jealously guard a treasure that will serve as an excellent counterbalance to your own eccentricity: the human whetstone, the perfect foil.

Strange though it may seem for a reactionary to pause mid-thought to give praise to his opposite, I do it in juxtaposition of conventional Millennial ultracalvinism. I have become more and more reticent to refer to the political and philosophical proclivities of the passing era by their traditional markers. Perhaps it is simply an exercise in mindfulness as I remember friends who would traditionally be labeled "de la gauche", but are nonetheless the sort of men I would include in my roster were I tasked with the construction of a working model of civilization. But less on the personal side, eschewing the traditional labels of right and left, conservative and progressive, and even some popular colloquialisms like cultural Marxism, makes sense to me because most of these no longer make any taxonomic sense whatsoever. Some of them never made any sense at all. The nationalist vs. globalist divide makes much, much more sense, but even still I find that less precise than I would like. Moldbug is a far greater thinker than I, and so I bow to his ultracalvinism in deference to his rank above me. Furthermore, ultracalvinism is a good 'stealth' descriptor - the sort of word that can phase through social deflector shields long enough to make a fair point that an otherwise sensible person can actually grapple with, as opposed to rejecting out of hand because heresy. I dislike 'cultural Marxism' because it has the opposite effect. I found another excellent term at the Orthosphere blog the other day. Romantic rationalism. If you stare at it long enough, you may just see the shape of a stiletto wedged through some ribs.

But that's less here than there and I've gone all tangential. The reason my girlfriend is important to this essay is because it was through my girlfriend that I became intimately acquainted with provincial American culture. I admit that I am a suburbanite by birth. My parent's choice of home location was certainly a boon in my formative years, as my childhood was beyond happy, but in the suburbs you're always living on the outside of a city while looking forever in. Everything past you really is flyover country. It wasn't that I consciously harbored any ill will to the people beyond the corn field border, I just never thought of them much, and if I ever did - and I know I did - hear of scorn for hicks and hillbillies and rednecks and the like, I didn't think much of it. I knew zero of them, whatever your word for White ruralites may be.

That changed when I found my girlfriend. My introduction to her "hick-ish" family, to use her own words, was illuminating. And despite the cultural gravity well in my immediate vicinity begging me to throw myself in for the cheap social gains (and easy, albeit B or C grade, women), it was in the corn strewn wasteland beyond my hometown that I finally, finally learned to hate. And it wasn't them that I learned to hate. Getting to know the extremely large circle of small town people intimately bound through blood and friendship that eventually begot the woman I love was both beautiful beyond words and sad beyond reckoning. I have never felt such sympathy, and I owe that in no small part to the quality of the people I met, who, despite their material poverty, were endowed spiritually, communally, and otherwise beyond measure. Where the people I met are not what you would call 'educated' - whatever that means nowadays - they make up for it in handiness, craftsmanship, and earthiness. While I have fished for nearly a quarter century, I hadn't picked up a bow or a gun since - I shit you not - Jesus camp.

(My parents, being naive Catholics, sent me, also a naive Catholic, to an Evangelical summer camp. It didn't end well, but that's a story that was only interesting when I was an angry atheist.)

After a short period of the customary sizing-up of a foreign male romantically interested in his daughter, my girlfriend's dad took me under his wing and taught me everything he knew about firearms and bowhunting. He lent me his old bow, somewhat oversized since he is quite tall. Under his tutelage, I took my first deer this year. I am forever grateful to him for that, as I had no one to show me the ins and outs of the ancient art. Someday I will pass that knowledge on to my sons. And while people come in all sorts of flavors, the overall earthiness and communal orientation of the ruralites I encountered puts the spray-tanned, Escalade-driving soccer mom culture of suburbia to shame. I passed out candy maybe once ever 20 minutes this year at Halloween. My girlfriend's parents step out on their door at 4pm and don't step back inside until the procession of kids in costumes ends. And when you go out there, you see the telltale signs of the communal values so many people on the Dissident Right lament the lack of in more populated areas. Everyone knows their neighbors. Families still have large, extended gatherings. Pregnant women are abundant. Etc.

But don't take this uptalk for the idealized vision of a utopian fool. There is a tremendous amount of sadness out there. There's a lot of rust, a lot of poverty, a lot of alcoholism and drug addiction. I had a strange, chance encounter with a young friend of my girlfriend's sister who offhandedly made a comment about her stepfather who used to beat her regularly before her mom dumped him, and was somewhat taken aback by the nonchalant attitude. It wasn't what you would call justification, but it was a sort of shrug at a commonality. The jobs are dwindling, and the town my girlfriend comes from is getting by better than most thanks to a few remaining factories, but for years everyone's been on edge about who will close shop for the penny wages of East Asia next. When I talk to people about their lives out in the sticks, I get a lot of pessimism:

How long have you lived here?
My whole life.
Yeah? Do you like it?
Hell naw, man. It sucks out here.
Why don't you leave?
Everyone I know lives out here. We've always been out here. 

And there, right there, is where you get the gold shining behind layers of shuttered factories and rust. People I know from the suburbs pay lip service to not wanting to leave family and friends behind, but given the opportunity to go elsewhere, they cross country on the next flight out. People from where I've been spending my free time know there's better somewhere, and they won't go. That's some blood and soil shit right there, even if they don't know it's blood and soil, nor do they articulate it as you or I might. They just do, and their stoic resignation to their grim fate as the grand losers of globalism reminds me of that Oswald Spengler quote about the Roman soldier who died at his post in Pompeii.

And that's where the hate really sets in. You go out there and you see what I saw, and suddenly the vitriol piled on Heritage America from the coasts becomes intolerable. At first it was annoying, but then you see the rust and the closed factories and hear about the occasional suicide and your blood just boils. Moldbug once made a passing comment about how despite his decidedly brahmin upbringing, he found himself utterly horrified by the sheer and unjustified hate spewed forth from the coasts against middle Americans. I remember reading that when I first encountered UR, and like my previous disposition about the relationship between the city and the country, it went over my head. Now? Every encounter I have with an urbanite is likely to produce some frivolous yet vicious banality, a conversational trope used to juxtapose the backwards, awful, evil faceless hinterlander against the virtuous, enlightened, beneficent urbanite speaking to you.

You know, the sort of people who hate black people and vote against their economic interests.

There was a time where when I'd hear that sort of thing my eyes would roll into the back of my head and I'd sigh and silently here we go AGAIN to myself. I hear that now and I flash back to the first Christmas after I started dating my girlfriend. We'd been together for barely two months and these total strangers took me into their house, belatedly bought me inexpensive but utilitarian gifts, and lavished me with food and company and the sort of cheer you'd think they'd save for an old friend long thought lost who stumbled through the door. I remember her dad explaining to me, in his particular fashion, how to set up the sights on his old compound bow, where to aim. I remember the farmer who not only let us pass through his land but helped us search while we were tracking a wounded buck. I remembered the small but charming interactions I'd have with strangers in a small town. And I remembered every lamentation from some broke, broken middle aged schlub or old timer as they recalled the respectable prosperity lost to the maelstrom of globalism, and the people alcoholism floated down the drain.

Every time I stumble into one of those AKTCHUALLY conversations with some nu-male soyboy, I am reminded of my own peculiar 'wait a minute' moment. Life is a series of lights going off in your head across the perils of time and entropy, and like Moldbug's comment on his upbringing, this light had a herald some time prior but didn't make sense until I got my hands dirtied myself.

The Dissident Right, by virtue being unconstrained by conventional, suppressive morality, has produced a patchwork quilt of  explanatory narratives that seek to unravel the mystery of the decline of the West. Some of these are excellent - Anonymous Conservative's r/K selection and Moldbug's formalism for instance. Some are less so - the abyss-staring neuroticism of much of the Alt-Right no longer seems quite as edgy and funny to me as it did previously, as I see no resolution to any of our problems coming from that quarter.

That said, for good or ill I sometimes wonder if we're overthinking much of AKTCHUALLY culture. While what I read from the broad Dissident Right is vastly, vastly superior in quality over basic conservative, libertarian and progressive writers, I suspect that the petty motivations and virtue signalling and desperate desire for social affirmation make up 100% of the fuel that drives 99.9% of wastrel progressives. Sometimes I think we see forests and not trees, or the reverse, or however you want to frame it.

I constantly wonder what it is I am missing - I'm always missing something, somewhere.

And ironically, that is what drives me nuts about most people.

They don't.

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 mo...