Britain, America, abyss

A small note of what I find incredibly obvious and tedious to explain but it lines up some dominoes I know a lot of you struggle with. I hinted this before
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/can-america-be-conservative/
for example but I deliberated whether to explain in case I get in some sort of trouble for it.

Life has its spoilers.

~5,000 words.

Allow me to pretend I care on a global level. This isn’t merely space but also time.

Like I have any skin in that game across the pond. Every day I thank God that at least I’m not American. You are the most screwed and the most degenerate, you deserve to be.

Parade of the horribles. That’s basically all they keep doing to Spencer and it tires after a few hours.
Read After the Empire by Todd. It was prognostic to the situation of America’s fourth, collapsing stage. Things must collapse and ruin before anything can be rebuilt. You cannot avoid the cycles of life, whether they’re in other theories like biohistory or cliodynamics.
The American Empire (USA) gained in prosperity because the British Empire fell from pathological altruism. The American Empire is falling because it allowed its WASP gene populace to be replaced and also from libertarian policy, the pathological altruism of funding the industry and infrastructure of competing countries, also leading to a direct opportunity cost of one’s own. Over time, decline. You had porous notions of (White Savior) obligation and the parasites took advantage of that. Shame on you. Demographically, the USA is more ruined over a lengthier scale of time than Europe, which has never been a melting pot of white people and never could be (look at the low IQ of Eastern Europe that would drag us down, or the sloth of the South). All Empires have fallen when they took on libertarian trade (read: foreign investment) policies, including investments of foreigners residing at home, as slaves or labourers. Too big to fail. They couldn’t down US, snobbery.
America has no national identity. Its current demographics won’t allow a resurgence. The chain is impermissible, it is not allowed based on decisions made over decades, in previous centuries (usually to relax a standard or dilute the pool of values with new additions).
Identity and ethnicity are one and the same, it’s rather easy to predict someone’s politics based on what they are (psychology is jam-packed full of such studies) and the probability is far beyond chance. Look at stereotype studies. You cannot reason people out of what they are, to paraphrase Swift. Open-mindedness itself is part of the problem that got us into this mess, it evolved for a completely different world (the tribe of 150 people, by social memory) to the one we live in. Your ignorance is not equal to my knowledge, kinda reasoning. Tribes would deport antisocial people all the time, to die as individuals following their own rules. We have no mechanism for dealing with the stupid and contagious now. In its way, the gulag was trying to exert this selection pressure via the State’s power. Corrupting the good is a problem.
America stepped into its mother Britannia’s standard – it replaced her as the reserve currency, kept the Gold Standard, kept the legal principles enshrined in our common law, retained our emphasis on the Rights of Englishmen, yet it didn’t want to pay its fellow Anglo for services rendered in the naval defense of your many, many ports.
Those ports are your weakness, a strategic weakness. Britain’s small size as an island and reduced number of possible outposts is the best possible defense of the population. If you rule the waves, you own your own country.
Tell me, how is Cuba?
The debate wound me up because everyone was playing the autist. They mostly looked at What ifs and literally played Whataboutism at many points. This is purely ideological, theoretical academic posturing BS. They refuse to reach out to the (they think, stupid) majority of whites, the working class, because those (“stupid”) people responsible for all grand social change would demand practical actions and solutions. It’s a bunch of SWPL men whining at each other, like that middle-class march again. That’s why everyone laughed at them, they deserve no social power because they do nothing but bitch. Society could carry on without them. Their jobs are busywork and Ikea people posturing. Sometimes they’d make an appeal to history, from pragmatism but alas, in a vacuum. Societies don’t exist in a vacuum, morons.
If people are the root and centre, whether you claim left or right wing, it behooves us to study humans, their individual differences (scientific terminology) and their dynamics, their processes. No context was given at any point in the discussions of social history, military strategy, models of governance (freedom is an illusion, you forsake some abilities e.g. to kill without comeuppance, in a civilized, non-corrupt society). Corruption wasn’t really mentioned, in a discussion about truth. That is retarded. Sorry, but it is literally working backwards. It’s like discussing shadows in the night when, to prove light, all you need is to light a candle. It isn’t about being For Truth, that’s a category error, it’s about fingering and punishing the corrupt. The latter is actionable, you may note.
White people have a long, cold night of the soul because all our Empires have crumbled. First GB, now the USA.
We are becoming second-class citizens in the societies we founded, which are having fundamental changes forced upon us. Class is never mentioned, in a discussion ostensibly about power dynamics….
All of you are dumb.
Power dynamics is class, class is power dynamics. That’s all a class really is, the body of people holding or not holding power.
There is no state without (unifying) culture and no culture without nation and nation is a scale within a race, containing one to three local-origin subraces. In practice.
Assuming everyone in the world is like you is false, it directly denies genetic evidence in HBD but there’s, for the pseudo-intellectual, the softer science of cross-cultural difference studies. There are entire journals replete with these findings. Everyone equal under the law only really works if everyone has a lot in common. Like, a LOT.
You are trying to discuss science and reality via “philosophical waffle” and subjectivity.
Look at who Hume was and what he is known for. You are all missing the point for right-wing virtue signalling points. You only represent your own class (middle-class men), the appeal to race is disingenuous and we are not stupid, we can see this. Common people have more common sense. You just want power over us justified in a different way. At least our enemies are honest about hating us. Being disrespected we are used to (culture) but we refuse to be under the boot of our own, while they lie and claim we’re all equal because skin pigment. “It’s for your own good” is no better than “You deserve it because colonies”. There is nothing to hope for, aim at and you’re all quite pathetic individually. Negative Nancies, at least. You have no right to rule, you cannot even use reason the way I am doing here, hardly trying. You cannot be the better man that people would naturally follow as leader. You stand for nothing, culturally you are vapid (dreams, egoism*) and empty (output, talk is cheap). Volume isn’t correctness. You’re rentseeking activists on the whole, doing a slightly different dance. We are not impressed. We are not amused. We are not fooled.

Do not forget. Do not forgive.

You’re punching a puppy after somebody else did. Stupid white majority, stupid working class, stupid women, sit down and shut up while we, your equals, describe ideas that are misinformed, dissemble and that we never dare try ourselves with our personal resources because we know they’d fail. You sound like fucking Communists. I have a nice idea, let’s make everyone try it on taxpayer money!

Libertarianism has never been tried. At least Communism has!

Let’s ignore all the evidence we don’t like because words hurt. Women are such snowflakes. We can’t let women in, because a sausage fest of outcasts, deviants and misfits is the best way to plan a society. We’re better than them, but why aren’t they attracted to us? Bitch, whine, bully.
Why does nobody respect you? I wonder.

[Women went ‘MGTOW’ when men stopped marrying them. Food costs money.]
You sperg out by looking at everything in isolation (that’s low SQ) instead of cause and effect, trends, social dynamics, themes and movements. People move, people evolve, same with ideas.
You’re talking 20th century shit, bringing that weak political game into 21st Century realpolitik.
This is obvious to women, we bathe in this system. You don’t ask us, though.
Feminism took hold because women were sick of men ignoring them when we were trying to help, when we knew ahead of time how things would work out e.g. black men got the vote before white women. Instead, you lead us to disaster for social power ego-stroking of “looking good on the global stage”.

Politi-cucks are men, at the end of the day.

Oh, men refuse to marry? Birth rates slowed? ‘TIS BUT A SCRATCH.
Let’s discuss pronouns without nature/nurture identity and sluts without the Pill.
Men are so logical, just accept it! If we don’t understand you, you must be the thick ones!

Could we contribute to the social problems we complain about? Why would men ask hard questions and take responsibility for their actions? Women are the cause of all our problems, women have hypoagency.

I hope I needn’t make that point ever again. Painfully obvious to us.

[Women are inferior.
Women control us.
Pick ONE.]

You need competence. You need order and structure. Leaders need moral authority. Bill Clinton came down because of that last, pay attention. Degenerates cannot lead, even other degenerates. Where is your honour? Do you still mock the prospects of goodness and virtue?

Then you’ll never live in a society possessing them and prizing them.

You can’t have a white society without white people, this is true.
You can’t have a culturally white society without a state that protects them.

Where is the lie?

Isn’t that the reason you have a state in the first place?
Prove that logical sentence wrong, shitlibs.
If your government run by people like you won’t do their fucking job, they will be replaced. You will be fired and someone capable brought in. Existentially, a society is all about culture, enforced by the Gubmint. Your spiritual purpose and value is the uniqueness of that culture.

Yes, it’s exclusive, in the same way your house is exclusively yours. Property is 9/10 of the law. Your duty extends to the ingroup and ends with the outgroup. Reality isn’t nice, it will never fit in your academic molds. You did nothing to feel guilty about, except maybe your personal life. Example? All of American history?

The purpose of Government is to protect the people better than they can themselves (as individuals). Fuck your rights, your frivolous, present-biased notion* of them, you have a right – to leave.

Smart people don’t get to lead because smart-assness doesn’t rewrite reality.

America was founded on the WASPs who emigrated from Britain to expand the Empire. We succeeded. America decided it could better govern itself. This is the result. Your fault was one of personality. Disproportionately, too many emigrants had libertarian, not conservative inclinations. At best, you would imitate whatever France or Britain were doing culturally. Libertarians are left-wing, judge by their sexual habits and the constant cucking for Asia. They are the vanguard of the Old Left, who assumed everyone was like them (because pre-invasion, it was true, they assumed stupidly this was a constant than a social construct when they literally invited in all of China) and a hands-off approach could work. In which case, why have any governance at all if you’re so self-sufficient? Why can’t you obtain water, food, sanitation, as an individual? It’s absurd. That was traditionalism, you rejected it for gadgets. It’s impossible, there’s no such thing when you invite in the world and expect your reserve of power will never dilute (manifest destiny mythos). The smallest effective scale is a tribe. Individuals die, even supported by modern tech, you need other people. Many nations formed from merged tribes, similar in genetics and (I’m sure this is a complete coincidence) belief system. Individuals cannot have a belief system. I repeat, individuals do not comprise a system. Stop acting like one person but also a huddled mass when it’s rhetorically useful. You are never alone.
Libertarians like to live in low population density areas, making them incompatible with democracy. As such, there will never be a libertarian democracy, it’s like a virgin brothel or a vegan steak. It’s a category mistake, again! You don’t just set up a system and then it’s fine, it must operate! Men cannot sustain systems, that is down to the women. We maintain the home, we rock the cradle and rarely mentioned, we maintain the men. Women chastise from the same root as chaste, to chasten, to enforce standards of moral purity. Men don’t nag each other to sleep more, eat better and be less rude. This is why you die earlier and married men live longer. You need us. We civilize you but you make a nation we’re safe in to do it. Those are the only gender roles. You failed us first. There is no culture to possess, no competence to respect and no hearth to keep.
Men are brutes but only socially, women are trying to get by in the economy they ruined. Your ancestors would slap you for the things you shout in the street, imitating your cultural betters, the rappers. Oh, but you’re too wimpy to deport these people? What would your ancestors have done? If you could talk to them now, what stern words would they have? You’re worthless to anyone, including yourself. You ruined yourself and refuse to address this or change anything because oh, what might the neighbours think? ….But women are weak, sure. Modern men are like women, but that is only a bad thing because you have neglected your duties, women are still not in the wrong however you spin it. If women follow men, generally, what have they done worthy of following lately?
Talk doesn’t count by the way, you’re not even good at that as we are (white matter studies).

When tribes to Empires stopped casting out those hostile to their people and values, they declined. It is hastened by importing them, whatever your bank balance says at the end of the year. Importing those who live differently is a direct threat and libertarian’s love of the outgroup is pathological. The preference to its own native culture is antisocial. If you cannot make it yourself, you don’t deserve it. Those systems from the past century will begin to visibly break down next year.

Those who made them are dead. They took the money with them. They went off the Gold Standard to take even more value from the currency than was nominal or physically possible.
As mentioned before, Mexican immigrants aren’t the threat to your society, America, it’s the Chinese. They’re taking over everywhere, even Australia. They are the largest group immigrating to you and importantly, you are not allowed to criticize them. Israel is easier to criticize in public than China, which should tell you how deep you’re in it.

The race of “white”, an umbrella term of sub-races from Europe the continent, is innately individualistic. There are nuclear families, a return to tribe. This is mistaken for liberalism. It is not. Everyone else is effectively collectivistic.
Like r/K, I would argue there is an overlay case to be made, individual citizens can be a little more or less in comparison with their kin, but their kin and kinship (virtue of philia) still exist because DNA!
Classic liberalism was entirely nationalistic. What Spencer appears to want is another form of supranationalism, where all of Europe becomes like America, a white melting pot to cooperate in the libertarian model of scale. No. It is also impossible to govern a continent’s population numbers and density in this way, as the EU is proving before your very eyes. Classic liberalism live and let live – with limits. Those limits were primarily what you were and secondly, what you did. Step out of line and the tribe (now local council) would enforce via the government, gaining legitimacy from representing the people. British legal theory goes into this in copious, painful amounts of detail.
Citizenship has only ever effectively worked when granted on the basis of race, and then with a caveat for character (aggression is a proxy for IQ). Otherwise, the one-drop dilution works over time, as a wave, a ratio to corrode the original virtues and the Empire slides down the stages into the final headlong collapse.
Libertarians cannot afford their current belief system. The painful truth is they never could, it is only because they isolate themselves from large groups, up to and including the world, that they could deny this for so long. Coddled by the masses and State they hate. Most of the alt right are supposedly “former” libertarians who discovered Darwin (not American) or socialists using race as an excuse to get free shit on the bandwagon, fellow White.
Where is the antonym of effete? That’s why toxic masculinity stuck as a term, btw. Calling men effete may be true when all they care about is being nice over their line dying, but it’s technically impossible to be something you’re not, and they are not women (gender feminine) so it must be a perversion of their masculinity into negative manifestations. Still, they use terminology that blames Da Wimminz. Imagine my shock.
Look at IQ or any other metric where humans vary. Biodiversity is a fact of life no amount of pleasantries and nice ideas can overcome. We must handle these carefully but we cannot afford to ignore them.
There is a dynamic shift in power and class from the homeland of the WASP genome, Britain, to America and now, into the abyss. The demographics are a symptom of the apathy and atheism. Liberalism was fine when it was agnostic. It has gone from skeptic to cynic and the worst stereotype of the nihilist. This is a culture-killer, the suicide of old, working culture because they have nothing to replace and claim they need nothing to replace it. This is what the new Left represents. The old, original left-wing could only survive in a homogeneous, high-trust society. In their pathological altruism, given mealy-mouthed weasel word intellectualizations by money-loving libertarians, we have lost things that are priceless. The real Left opposed immigration and outsourcing for culture and the native economy.
You could possibly get those prosocial things back, some of them, but there is now a cost. There is now a price, and if we don’t discuss that, we cannot minimize it for the desirable results. Do not be cowards.
Spencer is wrong and Spencer is right. Spencer argues for teleology dishonestly, in bad faith.
When we had identity existentially with no evolutionary competition (DARWIN) then the objectives of society wrought by culture were clear. It doesn’t pop back into existence and the cycle will run its course, as it always does. Why? We are animals, not ideas. We live and live in ecosystems and those are party to cycles.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/population-r-selection-food-supply-and-famine/
We live and die on cycles. Empires, therefore, since they are comprised of humans, rise and fall on cycles.
HOW IS ANY OF THAT HARD TO GET?

Why are people appalled at Millennials living at home? It is common in white societies to move out, detach from the extended family network (that oppresses all other, collectivist races) and strike out alone to form a new family unit. That is individualism in psychology, this is studied and proven. Two individuals are the seed – the spousal unit. Immigrants want that freedom from their elders, their relations that remain in the original country. Talk to them, ask.

Freedom to sedition, to oppose everything the nation stands for and be protected by that State.
Yes, you’re so smart. Read much about Emperor Constantine? Is Italy still pagan?

The premise isn’t what you “self-identify” that’s trendy SJW bollocks.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/01/hello-2018/
Your skin is your uniform. Your genetics will determine what you do and can do. You are limited.


Epigenetics is a response to the choices already made by your genome, or that of your family/culture/society. The intergenerational effect has the most evidence, not the individual. You are not and have never been an individual.
The planet is beholden to cycles. Your ego is not bigger than the planet.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/video-earths-magnetic-field/
There is no society of individuals because you need people. Plural, to breed.
At minimum, you need families, the nuclear family. Left-wing societies die because they don’t have a handle on sensible, prudent breeding patterns. It’s very simple. Nobody dare bring up eugenics, although the core principles continue to be discussed in the open (for abortion, euthanasia, vasectomies, medical life extensions).
There is sociological data you ignore at your peril. Families matter, anything less doesn’t exist on a societal and historical scale. Stop talking down past your navel to your penis. This is bigger than you.
If you value human life (sanctity is religious), that isn’t universalism, your compassion has natural, biological limits. That is at odds with tradition and security (a society must be those things to exist and be stable). Universalism treats the outgroup as if it were the ingroup. That is pathological altruism, read Oakley’s book. You destroy a society one sin at a time until the collective (pathogen?) load causes the whole infrastructure to finally collapse in, from weakness. Death by a thousand cuts, morally. The Bible didn’t say, honour everyone else’s mother and father as if they were your own. It was specific loyalty to your kin, and the most to your closest kin (all the verses about brother, not a metaphor). The things lefties do and the things they want from wider society are mutually exclusive (hypocrites, for thee but not for me), they want to have their cake and eat it, save and spend your public, communal money, they rely on the fact their own personal standard will never apply to society but social trends do this. Let one group do drugs, all do eventually. Let one sleep around, all will eventually. Humans are social animals. Why do you think the Bible crunches down on individual instances of sin? It is addictive to the individual (there is no logical hedonism) then contagious to everyone else, who sees them go unpunished. There is no such thing as harmless hedonism (Boomer lie, postmodern fallacy), social harm is the spread and acceptability of things that ruin groups e.g. adultery destroys the family unit, harms the children. One group of sinners leads to decadence unchecked, this is the rule of history. Groups can’t ruin themselves, it is individuals, selfish hedonists, who kill the group. We cast them out of the tribe for that reason. Just because someone is born among you, doesn’t make them good for you or agreeable to our way of life. Borders are good for everyone, making everything safer. I feel like I’m reciting the alphabet, this is too obvious.

I know exactly which half I’d wanna be. Clue: Power structures cannot be universalist.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/where-spencer-is-wrong/
Chimpanzee have territorial borders, FFS. No State required.
Social policy is also reliant on technological states. We have advanced past the point where certain policies are feasible.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/06/what-is-automation/
Libertarianism can only arise to get things wrong in reality for a pretty theory, in a decadent society. The moment you act like a beneficient ruler to the outgroup, you feed them at the expense of your people. You become the fifth column to your own undoing. When you conquer a peoples, you do not suffer them to live. Mercy for entire, competing groups is for the weak, mercy means you will lose in the long run. The race for life is zero-sum. In a sunk cost fallacy, you cannot change what a person is. Inside everyone in the world isn’t a 100IQ WASP waiting to burst out. Collectivism is genetic, white people are Goldilocks with our family structure but our individualism (scientific kind) comes at the novel cost of PA, since we can now interact with tribes and alleles we never evolved these instincts for. The libertarian instinct to help is rationalized, not rational. It was fine cooperating during famine with the next tribe over, they were close, by genetic diaspora. Investing globs of money in another country though, has a direct impact on what would’ve happened in your own. Libertarians are always unfit to lead and hence never do. They do not adapt around their instinct to accommodate new situations and hence, will not survive. There is no conception of the group, and their humbling place within it, let alone loyalty. The love of money is the root of the evil. The opportunity cost to the ingroup is suffered to uplift an outgroup, whether they live in your borders or out. Missionaries killed the British Empire. You can’t spread gospel to people who don’t understand it. Post-Babylon, there are language differences and those, too, are genetic. You do not rule over them either, (foreign aid) that is enabling them to live at your expense,like children, as dependents, until they have the power to eventually overcome you. You certainly do not allow the enemy to feast at your table. I don’t care if all the homeless are homed, all the poor are middle-class and all the cold are warm. That is pathological altruism. That directly harms your people by opportunity cost and should be socially disgraced as a personal weakness, vying for a boost in status and the known brain drugs that make it irrational. There is no such thing as altruism, and psychology is proving this cynical hypothesis (literally, no such thing as true altruism because humans are reciprocal creatures, incapable of it). Jesus said to love your neighbour, your kin. You owe nothing long-term to anyone the next town over.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. If they follow good laws, they will prosper. If not, they must be allowed to decline.
We are continuing to fail because we do not question the laws that put us here.
Where did we deviate from, let’s be honest, the Biblical model of ensuring that a society is healthy and it survives?
The Bible discusses this ad nauseum, that to follow the law, you live and you’re happy. You don’t get to personally select the law, so what? It’s baked into nature, call it evolution if you want. The good life sought by philosophy is pre-programmed but we don’t know fully what it is. Do you want the choice to breathe air too? Hubris is the worst sin because it leads to all the others. No coincidence, most philosophers are genetic suicides, they are too selfish to care about anyone past their own hedonic treadmill of maximizing utility functions.
There is no greed, there is only theft. Thou shalt not steal. If you want to work abroad so much, be honest enough to severe the ties of citizenship because that is a traitorous act. You deprive the state certain taxes (to save money, e.g. by ignoring minimum wage laws) while continuing to draw from its pot. If you don’t owe society (muh freedom!) society shouldn’t owe you (pension, police, STD treatments/contraception). It’s the male version of the spoiled girl who says she’s so independent but still using Daddy’s credit card. My house, my rules. Our society, our standards. Like we should say to the immigrants and any other griper, if you don’t like it, you can always leave. If you can do so much better, leave and do it or shut up.
You don’t need to control everything, quit being control freaks. Learn the natural law and obey it.
Work within those liberties afforded to you by your very being.
HOW IS THIS HARD?
You already are those things already, you simply must accept it and live, rather than wasting your lives talking about philosophies of life. Philosophy is subjugated by the realities of biology. Get over yourself.

If you did manage your White Melting Pot ethnostate Spencer, the one place it already exists (America) then you’d still need a culture and I have a funny feeling you’d still be basing it on the primal Briton model.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/birth-rates-and-western-culture/
Because you’re so different and superior to us, you can’t even invent your own language.

WEIRD isn’t enough, you must be WASP again. You can’t lose any rights you never had.
Catholicism is also a no-go, the Vatican bank is Rothschild. WASP is the Goldilocks culture everyone wants to live in. Bring it back or die for good, the British Empire can’t reconquer you and it’d be easier to do once you mostly kill yourselves for your eternal, noble losers, the libertarians anyway. Hey, at least you made some money. Gains, bro. Judas was paid to betray his people too.
Spencer will never do this necessary WASP resurgence, because he’s been cucked by a Russian cunt.


The Russians who killed their aristocracy, Spencer? That Russian?

How much self-loathing must there be to ruin a good genome with outbreeding?
Like the quality of Europeans is homogeneous? Hardly matters, your brood will be less competitive as a result of your stupidity, Darwin wins. Do not fuck over your fitness. The one rule.

The fastest way to get through this stage and survive in one piece, as intact as psychologically capable, is to control the flow of money. Statism isn’t the answer to a problem caused by bad leaders. The good leaders do not yet exist. There is no trial by fire to Christen them. Focus on the economic, then the cultural. I’m doing it in reverse since I honestly do not give a flying fuck about preserving the structures we have now, I’d prefer a total burn down for cleansing the systems implemented after so — might as well skip to the cultural bit. If you have a sentimental attachment to your ideas of the past, the economic is your top priority (especially where money reduces or stops flowing, look at NGOs for your treason candidates) and culture once you’ve stopped feeding your enemies. First things first. Game theory, mate.

You won’t give up dual citizenships and cheap foreign versions of what you produce at home so no, you do not care about your country.
There are also degrees to loyalty.
I am most loyal to my family, over another English one.
I am loyal to an English family, over a British one.
I am loyal to a British one, over a Frenchman.
I am loyal to a Frenchman over an American (they didn’t leave the continent, blend the subraces or go to war with our Empire after letting us set them up, worsening our debt -still being paid off- and killing our Empire).
Finally, we are loyal to America over the racial outgroup.
However, there are many outgroups on a case-by-case basis.
European nations cooperate, in that sense the race is already blended. It’s a social construct that needn’t be genetic and couldn’t survive if it were. We need nations and unique cultures and America will only survive if it goes back to its WASP origins. Fuck Mother Russia.
Never breed with someone whose country you would never live in.
When Putin dies (quite soon), you’ll see what Russia really is.

Quotes on women and misogyny

Warning: food for thought.

I was deeply dissatisfied with my final post of the year and figured I’d slapdash together something that is more intellectually stimulating, in a similar vein. It’s only mildly controversial if you’re interested in labels over substance.

“When women act like women, they are accused of being inferior. When women act like human beings, they are accused of behaving like men.”

Does that sound like a healthy civilization with any longevity?

What happened to all the meritocratic arguments to incentivize contributions in capitalist theory?

So we can accept racial differences and class differences and national differences and age differences but sex differences you can prove in a scanner or under a microscope are evil (well if God made…) and we must all be the same (the male standard is also shit) in misery and behavioural equality, the neuroscience be damned? Is that the world you want, putting power trip fantasies aside?

No society with catch 22s will survive, let alone thrive.
There must be two paths: to do, and to not do. There must be clear praise and condemnation and no blurring between those paths. No muddying the waters or blurring it for certain people. Either a thing is right or wrong, unless you are a moral relativist and then you believe in neither, for they’re absolute concepts.

The logic between sexes must be consistent also, it is no more right for a woman to steal than a man (Ten Commandments shout-out). It is no more moral for a man to assault, as they do, mathematically. Naturalistic fallacy is not an excuse, we are all biological and still retain the human quality of impulse control.

At the least, we ought.

We can uplift both sexes in a society without oppressing anyone. The technology exists now, where most of us can probably live in leisure most of the week. If we discussed it and developed it, i.e., cooperated together for mutual betterment! Where did you get the idea oppression has limits? It can’t be historical… Wealth is the hard cap but aside from that, men won’t be spared the same societal factors women would live under.

e.g. Employed singles of either sex still pay for the living of feckless breeders and the spawn without limit.

Misogyny is prominent when rich men wish to evade their intrasexual responsibilities and do so by blaming the women.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/12/10/da-wimminz/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/12/12/a-post-about-truth/

You can’t appreciate your fellows? Well, we don’t have a future then. Darwin always wins, darlings. Think of the tribe, we are not atomized, lonely individuals like the 20th century tries to force down our throats.

Where it exists, oppression spreads. Sadists work that way. It’s a betrayal whoever is on the receiving end, these circumstances predate our birth. Nobody living is fully responsible for this system, another red herring.

If we spent a little of our time wasted on the Third World that doesn’t want to change on improving our own lot, imagine what could be achieved. Immigration and multiculturalism are a deliberate ruse to throw off our resources, especially time, into establishing what used to be a norm. We’re stuck playing catch-up and tempers fray, stressed we lash out at the in-group, worsening our collective condition. It is no coincidence we replaced child labour with female. The economy will take its pound of flesh, I suggest we do robots instead of adult people. Society cannot ever again be ignorant of the female potential exemplified around the 1940s but bursting in brief lights long before. Can we afford to turn away our own kin for something minor as not being exactly like the current leaders, who, by the way, are clearly doing such a bang-up job of running things, aren’t they? /s

Do the foolish deserve to fail in any good society? How to deal with their complaints?
Failing men (and women) will complain about it. They’ll say the competition is wrong.
Obviously they will, never before have the dregs had such a loud voice. Nobody else has time to protest that much or write such long blog posts. ~glances at viewer and nods~ The antisocial and envious must be constrained from infecting everyone else like the emotional vampires they are.

They live better than Henry the Bloody Eighth. Prisoners do too. We are the grandiose brats of modern history. To compare farther back is sickening.

Again, there is no need to ban the un-competitive, they simply fall away in a fair contest. It’s obscure to claim a barrier, arbitrarily, in equal opportunity theory, either they misunderstand it or argue in bad faith.

Good for whites, bad for whites, you all say? We have a word for it, prosocial or antisocial. Use the proper terms, the Left will not. Accuracy is our strong suit.

If you only read male philosophers, sorry, but you haven’t read the subject. This isn’t like novels where they’re basically all the same, you get a pass on that for preference. Still, I didn’t skip out on male poets because that would’ve been sexist, you should be fascinated to hear the other side of humanity to which you may never belong. Unless a person really can change their sex? ….Thought not.

Violent crime statistics. MRI studies of psychopathy. Appeal to history (which cannot be demonstrated when called upon, because it never existed in fact, it was a helpful societal myth from around the Enlightenment era). Concepts like Patriarchy are unfalsifiable both ways. However, when I see Husband Selling like they’re subhuman chattel, I might believe in a Matriarchy. If you whine, do it with a smidgen of self-awareness?

Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud Freud and a little bit of Nietzsche.

If you had a loving wife and children, you wouldn’t feel the need to rage at wombs.

#wombenvybites

Do you want us to try equally hard (effort) or are we allowed to be lazy, pick ONE.
Don’t give us shit for doing as you asked us to…?

That left-side of the bell curve… we all have stories, men don’t really think twice about it though. The sexual prevalence of obnoxious people doesn’t strike them, which is convenient and annoying.

Maybe we need studies.

They don’t even notice the abundance of Men Doing Stupid Shit stories in the newspapers, it’s like a goldfish noticing water. You don’t get to pin a badge on your chest reading Accomplished because you have a Y-chromosome. Arrogance is a male quality in all the myths for a reason, men over-estimate themselves in studies vastly more frequently. Arrogance is not esteem, far from it, nowadays it’s called narcissism. Men need to be the slightly simpler sex, because otherwise they’d have never taken the stupid risks to survive once kicked out of the tribe at the time they hit majority age (otherwise incestuous rape with female relations was a possibility, plus they needed to find a mate by travelling to other local tribes and passing their tests). Shall we bring back that rite of passage, if we want strong men again? You can’t have strength of character without the fatally high stakes that turn boys into men. Courage and stupidity are blurred but while shouting about the former, they literally deny the latter…. which rather suffices to prove our point.

Relevant so included. The mediocre ones are easier to control/rescue from life-risking stupidity that ends up ruining your whole family along with their misplaced sense of arrogance. Other men used to check them in youth but that isn’t happening soon. Average evolved as a sexual preference.

Original form of “the map is not the territory”.

It’s strange they’ll go on about Rand but only the economics and ignore De Beauvoir’s existentialism.
By strange I mean completely intellectually dishonest.
Arguments from bad faith, a certain moral cowardice common in young men at present.
Maybe some slice of laziness where they assume there’s nothing worth reading, but recall, they aren’t misogynists, somehow…
Well, if that prejudiced disdain of anything female isn’t a misogynist, what is?
She pre-empted Dawkin’s Selfish Gene: “Life is occupied in both perpetuating itself and in surpassing itself; if all it does is maintain itself, then living is only not dying.” If you care so much for truth, why not credit? It’s also a sweeping condemnation of hedonism.

If quoting a woman makes you feel insecure, women aren’t the weaker sex.

A little on metrics before I go.

Once the priming effect and other systemic, proven problems in all academic testing are accounted for, women are beginning to score objectively better than men on the blind-marked IQ test.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2174528/Yes-women-higher-IQ-men-thats-Ill-make-prediction-enrage-them.html
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. HBD doesn’t tell you what you like, it tells you what is possible.
The narrow definitions of IQ have never been legitimate, and this goes for verbal, for instance, that women score better on overall. It’s a global metric of all-round functioning as ‘g’ or invalid to be counted as the theoretical construct.

IQ is originally a learning ability test and since learning requires obedient following of instructions, you would expect women to do better on it. Learning is feminine-oriented, as an activity. It isn’t a marker of human superiority the way America has tried to make a genius idolatry a form of hero worship over Hollywood. There are no ‘celebrities for smart people’, scientism is old. The Hollywood people actually have to do something – other than exist?
Paper genius is bullshit. They sell the official piece of paper to ditzy parents.

However, IQ and other metrics correlate to life outcomes, it is useful scientifically.

Identification (with celebrities) should inspire you to act, not live vicariously like a stage Mom but claiming involvement in the glamours of STEM work (anyone can get involved, go clean test tubes).

Wilson: “And a second very big question is, since, women are as intelligent as men, or more so, why did feminism take so long, historically, to get started?”

That one is easy, compulsory schooling about 150 years ago, universities places about 60-80 years ago, in living memory women were forbidden from competing fairly. He goes on to make the classic error of assuming men haven’t changed too. They don’t try at school, porn is a distraction during school years and schools are mixed when evidence says that reduces scores. A blend of exam and coursework is best, not to avoid favour – although this too – but because the more metrics of knowledge, the better the qualification in the market.

And isn’t that the point? These aren’t vanity academics.

Boys were pulled off the farms in the middle ages in the first schools, same boom of intellectual achievement happened then too… since it pre-empts the mythical Enlightenment time period, atheists do not wish to discuss that priests might’ve done something right, to the collective denial of male work ethic and social mobility. The middle class sprang up and families were liberated.

Simone on the decline:

“Whatever the country, capitalist or socialist, man was everywhere crushed by technology, made a stranger to his own work, imprisoned, forced into stupidity. The evil all arose from the fact that he had increased his needs rather than limited them; . . . As long as fresh needs continued to be created, so new frustrations would come into being. When had the decline begun?

The day knowledge was preferred to wisdom and mere usefulness to beauty. . . . Only a moral revolution – not a social or political revolution – only a moral revolution would lead man back to his lost truth.”

You don’t read this stuff, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Remember the original feminists objected to the idea that former slaves would be treated better than them, relatives of the men drafting the laws with demonstrable intellect and accomplishments. It has a history soaked in race realism. We can pick and choose the structures from history that suited us best then and apply now. Nobody is doing this. The scientific approach. Machiavelli would be disappointed.

I hope Odin brings you plenty of shiny Asian-produced crap this year.
It’ll break by February, much like my patience on the topics that are life/death to conceited white people. We are all human and all flawed and all riding in the same, sinking boat.

This is a post I’m proud of.

xoxo

p.s.

“Like all dreamers I confuse disenchantment with truth.” Sartre, her lover.

Elegance or decadence?

5 min. Male designer speaks.

There’s a line, isn’t there? Think how much we spend on clothing today. Think how little is any good. If anything, it ought to be better. In menswear you see a lot of circulation, for instance, the gilet is a doublet.
A related discussion in vintage or re-enactment circles is the glamour/beauty debate.
Beauty is natural but human beauty never has been. Primitive tribes had shell necklaces and the torc or crown were made alongside spears. This is something we are so immersed in we cannot see it, there is a hierarchy of style and the modernist love of minimalism (it’s been almost a century now! come on!) came from an American urge to distance themselves from Europe and carve out what is ironically a more rugged, romantic* standard.

Boomers were defined by the hippy look, androgyny that mimicked the political shift.

People wore wigs in most centuries for decency reasons, like hats, they wore heels and girdles, eyeliner was medicinal. Male watches, wristwatches, were originally ladies’ bracelets. To this day, the face is too large for the male wrist, they go overboard to make it look manly with a chunky appearance. If humans put effort in, and since wearing clothing is legally required, they naturally want to express who they are and where they come from and that art form shouldn’t be dismissed. The utility belt began as female, with its height in the chatelaine. Men would only have things strapped to a military uniform from the shoulders, where their muscles could take the weight. Heavy belts help women, whose strongest muscles are our thighs.
The 1950s makeup aesthetic was heavily painted, more than some looks now. There was a full face of foundation and a lot of powder. These days, with HD cameras, it would look cheap as Hell.
Men forgoing makeup is modernist, inspired by the Romantic* philosophers because it was au naturelle.

To this day, many of you don’t know where this sudden squee over the working class came from.
https://www.artofmanliness.com/2010/09/19/3-archetypes-of-american-manliness-part-iii-the-self-made-man/

Yes, it was totally your idea… like the American eagle that isn’t Napoleonic that isn’t Roman…. calling it, Empire = eagles. Sciencey.

The Romantic poets had a fetish about the countryside and farmers, this continued on into Vincent’s art but began around the 17th century with still life and paintings of farmers and cooks. The simple life to contrast the urban “Enlightenment”. Industrialization got the Romantics down, they thought machines were replacing men and making them more effete, dependent. Actually, how many men can stitch a button?

There’s a physical component to gendered presentation, the scale of masculine to feminine.
Modern looks are androgynous, even for men. Denim is andro, cotton, andro, jeans, andro, boots, andro, ties, andro, scarves, andro, t-shirts, andro, it’s all andro-andro-andro-andro!

For real.

Look around and see for yourself.

Women aren’t dressed like men, men are dressing more like women. Do you need a loose fit of maternity wear? Think back to 1980s suits to now, picture the silhouette. Modern men cover up way too much skin, historically. Why? Well, they don’t fight, there’s no body heat being lost. Sports replaced wars. The wealthy areas tend to be cold or polluted, so we cover up. Powerful men are in vogue, fewer dandies and more fat old men, who tend to cover up.

Long coats are Byronic, like long sleeves. Cravat and tie are basically the same thing in French. Grooming became more important, they didn’t just drop a standard so telling women to forgo makeup would be like telling men exactly which hairstyle to wear regardless of face shape and job and climate and whether or not they were allowed a beard, absurd in any time period. Makeup, like hair style is also cultural. You can see comparisons on Youtube of say, French and American makeup. Men couldn’t have beards in the upper classes until soap and good hygiene became the norm. There were reasons for the aristocratic fashions and all grooming is good grooming, with the exception of anal bleaching.

That would be masochism.

Suits, for instance, change how a man walks. Other men don’t notice, we do.
If a man can’t buy a good pair of shoes, do we trust him?
The effect on manners and a sense of personal dignity cannot be under-estimated.
As one man I know put it, he recently got into vintage and said “I know now that I felt like shit because I looked like it.” People responded to that insecurity signal. Depression is linked with unemployment but also sloppy dressers.
Why is there an envy of the stylish? They look happy. We imagine them contented.
It’s different to pin what caused what and I’m not a man so your feels aren’t my beeswax.
When we picture a utopia, what do we spotlight? What they wear. Instinctively, you care. Cosplay is all about the style and the feel of an era, what it represents. Living history, I’ve heard it called, like recipes and music.

They build up on skills and those traditions are rooted in history, in a country and time.

20m. German lady.

A critical aspect of femininity is presentation and expression.
It isn’t limited to women, however, men gain a collective identity more.

It affects how you carry and identify yourself. Think military uniforms.
This concept was floated in NRx years ago but I figured I’d bring it up again.

6m. French designer.

There’s a distinct pride element, whether it’s class, sex, nation, occasion (we still dress up for weddings..) and think how many aspects of appearance are banned or frowned upon (up to the English flag, because it might offend).
SJWs themselves cannot resist the siren song of a uniform but the blending is childish, Monroe catseye glasses with a Betty fringe and Audrey shirts, they signal an ignorance of feminine style. It’s pure fashion and poorly crafted as a look. There is no style.
How many people dress like hoodrats and chavs that wouldn’t dream of it ten years ago? Thanks to Anonymous making it middle class rebellion.
How did wearing Mom Jeans become Tech Guru status? Apple smartphones.
Why don’t men wear hats and spats and carry canes?
Where did all the petticoats go?

These sound superficial but the fabrics follow the philosophies. Designers respond to demand.
We dress cheaply because clothing is made cheaply. That makes us cheap people. History will view us as such. Trends set in LA temperatures look ridiculous in Europe. I said it.
Please can men discuss this because obviously I don’t want to tell you what to wear but women notice. We note the expression and effort, why else do you think the gay best friend thing came about?

This isn’t superficial, aesthetics is critical. It’s the ultimate emotional appeal (looking good) and, no offense, but the signal of sophistication and elegance is one few people could ever make. Natural beauty is genetic but style is a level playing field. The dress-up montages in film and anime are a token marker of stepping into a social role (think Iron Man suiting up) and mature responsibilities.

I’ve noticed one particular thing I want to point out before I set this festive post on a timer: PC culture has risen as appearance has gotten more sloppy. With weak signals from look, the verbal mannerly side has gone into overdrive.

A Critical Review of Genius Famine’s Review

Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]

5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.

Because I can.

I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.

That’s its name now.

They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.

I need another yacht party, preserve me in Russian Standard.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-genius-famine-the-death-of-religion-will-lead-to-the-death-of-genius-and-the-death-of-civilization

WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic.
Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.


There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.

There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).

HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse.
This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not.
The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.

e.g.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.

Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
DNA PROVIDES.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.

The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence.
It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.

Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.

Get with the clickbait times, grandpa

The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck

There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.

Here’s where I go off on one.

“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”

There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.

Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up?
Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.

 

It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.

“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”

That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.

Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?

The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state).
Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.

You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.

Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.

The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.

And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.

“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.

It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…

The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.

“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.

“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!

Let’s wrap this up a little.

The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.

Obviously.

“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.”
Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.”
Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever!
Sweeping statements!
Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones.
Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!

Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.

“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.

“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.

“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one.
Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.

These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.

Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.

Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.

Adults in the room, inwardly:

Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual.
Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…

It justifies the homesteading and other stuff you advocate when civilization ‘dies?’ If tribes in the middle of nowhere can acknowledge this, the higher IQ should be able to wrap our heads around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property#Exclusive_ownership_and_creation
Anything less is slavery. It’s a theft of one’s LIFE-TIME.

It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.

Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.
http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/curr-students/IB/IB-lecture-notes/ib-p7-plt-handout-1.pdf

At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.

Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.

“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.

STAHP.


“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic.
Stop.
Being.
Stupid.
Question.
Your.
Assumptions.

Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.

I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.

“They tend to be useless at everyday things”
I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
No.
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.

Do they look this up?

*whispers* NO.

INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE.
DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.

WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.

If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.

“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.

“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”

And I must scream.
What problem.
Define the problem.
HOW.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.

I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.

I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.

How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.

It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.

Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

World War Three?

You might think this is an eerie kind of fanfiction…

it is not.

Just bear with me here. Listen a little. 2,000 words.

What if the EEC, later known as the European Union, were in fact part of a long line of Empires? A chain stretching back into Ancient times? Now, every kind of society has a maximum size, and various points of failure, like a building.

The function of each of these Empires is simple – labour. Slavery in its brutal form but productivity nonetheless.

The only means by which this can operate is control. A series of levers and social ‘memes’ that keep the whole machine ticking over, because humans must be entertained. It’s not bread and circuses, it’s hot dogs and reality TV. Consider every Empire, by size or density of its population, an experiment. A living experiment with humans much like Calhoun’s rats.

With the same dismal end.

You could relate this to the circling of the degenerate drain known as r-selection.

I’m afraid it’s a little broader than that, you’d need HBD, biohistory and various other theories including psychiatry for a complete picture.

For example, I covered the probable role of syphilis and especially neurosyphilis in the formative modern history of the West. Then there comes the obvious selection pressures of war, Black Death and various toxins, released deliberately in many cases.

The Romans probably fell in IQ due to the cumulative brain damage of lead in their piping.

The Victorians later had problems with cholera.

Basic sanitation is a key vector of disease transmission, ironically. This would relate to water fluoridation in the modern water supply, I’ve linked to its neurotoxic state, acknowledged in science.

Population control can also be achieved by sterilizing STDs, the most recent being Ebola in that is sterilizes via death. Before that, the mysterious origins of HIV and the unusual number of strains, including those tested by militaries. Naturally, this would only work if you pushed some kind of Sexual Revolution to increase the transmission potential but kept it low for your own group.

I’m getting off topic. Let’s keep to certain facts.

Each Empire was doomed to fall, based on its sheer volume of inhabitants.

This is a rule of history.

The EU has already failed based on metrics alone. Its currency has failed.

With the Euro gone, there is nothing to prop it up.

Even the human labour doesn’t exist in both the numbers and the quality (IQ) required. The fall of the EU isn’t an achievement so much as inevitability. The dysgenics put in place for the world wars guaranteed any such plan was doomed.

Much like taxation of the wealthiest (most productive within a year), you can only push so far because people break. They’ve long been suffering the slow death of inflation. This changes a person, it alters the amygdala at least. People seem less polite, more crass and less content with whatever comforts or luxuries their money buys them.

Social power never existed, it’s a polite post-war lie to cover armament for military might.

Considering all of these facts, how can I explain recent events?

Russia is not the danger. The USA is a defanged hound.

It’s China.

A war with MENA is good for the money-lenders, based entirely on the resources found there and nowhere else. How dare those pesky locals demand to be paid for what’s in their country?

Hence, open borders aka NO borders.

It’s Communism with other nation’s resources.

A war with China, however… they don’t believe China has the balls.

Oh, it does. It’s been preparing since WW2 for the next match.

It produces most goods in the world. How quickly would it win, owning all the equipment? They understood Marx well, you cannot produce tanks without a Means of Production.

This isn’t by any stretch all. To keep this short.

There are many economic unions in the world. Only the EU gets attention.

They are temporary alliances, that shall evaporate upon trial.

Nobody wants to upset China, because they’ve been selling their people’s labour at the price of slaves. To foreigners, no less! Some of the most racist people in the world! But why?

As part of a long-term plan to overthrow the West using capitalism, its own invention. Capitalism’s weakness is the honesty of white men, also why ‘free trade’ is BS. Other races prize lying to outsiders, whether you call it taqiyya or etiquette, where they suddenly stop inviting you round if you get fired. The people who seem most polite are lying, they’re hiding something.

It’s been gagging for this shot since the Industrial Revolution, and two world wars weakened us all nicely.

To sacrifice a few generations in the name of their collectivism, indulge in the West goodies but be not of it. To send some r-types overseas to settle and become key figures in politics (this is happening in America as we speak, a Red tide rises) and I already linked to the Economist ages ago predicting WHEN, not IF, but when China will overtake the US economy.

Most people would read that and go back to crying in their cornflakes about feminism.

It’s all connected. Would there be any Yellow Fever, without anime porn?

Would Western men who think they’re too smart for Hollywood porn, be so useless and lotus-eating, like the parasite single (bachelor) men of Japan, without it?

Back to the economy. When any country becomes a dominant power, it gets to play world police aka start as many wars as it likes.

Ask yourself: Is China more bloodthirsty than the US?

Has it dogmatically enforced its own culture, unlike the USA?
Has it tortured its own people to achieve?
Which tries to be the fairer?

What are the signs, you ask?

They learn Western culture e.g. the violin, religiously, to blend in.

But they do not expand the canon.

They punish their children to achieve at any cost, and top the league tables.

This allows them access to the prestige western schools, to befriend future politicians and observe any blackmail material firsthand.

What does a war need? Money and bodies.

Well, there’s a story that they could march all their fighting age men and encircle the world. They have the largest self-sustained population in the world. An excess of men. Anyone read on history knows there is only one means to get rid of a surplus of men. Who can sustain greater losses, all of the West or China?

OK, but what about one baby as a rule?

Why did they make that rule? They knew in their culture it would lead to a surplus of men. Why would a government obsessed with military investment need a huge stock of men to outnumber their main capitalist competition? They’re being trained, and not in factories.

Asia is obsessed with STEM and the military.

Why? Well, engineers and doctors are the two occupations critical to any war effort.

Ideally, you want to train your people overseas, use up their resources while building connections to exploit as informants later, and then extract them back home, depriving the enemy of key workers to subsistence peace-time level.

Gee, which race has a near-monopoly on those two occupations?

But people who read foreign papers will know they changed the baby rule recently.

Again, I ask you.

Why?

Two babies. This is interesting. It means the fighting age culled population will have sufficient females (baby 2) to breed with. It all fits.

The Marxism of China still encourages child-bearing, but the grandparents retain a prominent role to care unlike the West aka Baby Boomers.

People have been spoiling for a war since the 80s, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, all just paper targets.

There are many economic unions and these libertarian experiments (inc. the EU) are, whether they know it or not, pawns in a wider game, the leagues before WW3. You need the upper hand before the game starts, and that’s why nobody wants to start it. The US is not the strongest player, it’s the UK because we can push the US based on our unique geography and naval supremacy. However, the US doesn’t know which enemy will rise up next, or believes in arrogance nobody will dare challenge it (naive) based on two wars it lucked out of. They can’t attack everyone.

That’s why Hitler lost.

Russia and China are in an economic alliance together, I forget which one. The US is not.

That is why both Russia and China have been buying up gold.

You only need that for one thing as a nation.

A gold standard.

China has been faking its gold exports, look up the ones pictured with a Panda hallmark.

Why do that? Aren’t they our friends?

They’ve been taking over cyberspace too. Most hacks now come from Asia, not Russia.

Why need gold practically? It can be used in electronics, especially high-tech war equipment.

They have a lot of men to equip.

If they run out, they can always use some older women. Thanks, feminism!

If China announces it’s moving to a gold standard, the USA will be forced to default.

I believe this may be the black swan you’ve all been looking for?

The EU is backed by the IMF, whose traders include Deutsche Bank, close to open failure.

Like Lehman Brothers in 2007.

UK gilts are bought off the backs of nothing, you’re supposed to trade heavily in gilts during times of war. As in, we’re fuck out of options.

The bubbles accruing on top one another for decades, sped up since ’08, will go at once like dominos. Where do we owe this money, ultimately? Not so much the Jews, although yes historically. All roads lead to China, they keep buying up Western debt, ostensibly for ‘social power’ and out of the goodness of their commie little hearts.

I wonder if we can learn anything about massive indebtedness from the Weimar Republic.

These people poison their own baby formula and don’t withdraw it from the market. They don’t care about one another (beyond direct blood relations) and they hate us.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-shipping-human-flesh-cans-8217761

Russia wants to be able to trade with them. This requires gold. People like Putin watch commodities over the Forex.

I don’t often talk shop or economics but this next piece is illustrative.

What’s the immigration rate of China?

So, if a series of riots were to take place based on new, entitled ‘citoyenne’ … we’d be too busy dealing with civil war (4th generation) to consider the mere possibility of another.

Does Crimea make more sense now?

How about in light of the fact that China’s greatest enemy, the Japanese, are being antagonized by North Korea as China’s bitch?

Why do that on their behalf, draw fire like that?

It doesn’t many any sense. If you’re too close to the people who hold a grudge like the Middle Eastern population only with slightly more common sense.

Which countries have retained their culture, yet appeared right-on to embrace multiculturalism?

Even Israel can’t claim that, they’re losing key demographic territory to Palestine. They’re over. Finished.

China, meanwhile, has about a billion. It can afford espionage, brain drain to export and cuddle up to the natives.

It spreads all sorts of rumours about how superior their women are, truly feminine (fake).

India will side with whoever pays them, it has a surplus of men, China has been purchasing Africa in such a ballsy colonialist move I’m astounded nobody has mentioned it.

Africa is key territory for manufacturing weapons. That’s why British Empire.

Natural resources, vital elements.

I do know more, much more, but alas, I can’t really say atm. This is all quite easy to check. The Red Scare is aimed at the wrong target, the Russians are broadly white, Christian and share our culture, including our art.

Who retains their own ‘art’ but appropriates Western culture down to our clothes and eyelids?

..Who sells the dinghies to the ‘refugee’ invasion?

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2093030/rickety-boats-used-smuggle-migrants-europe-made-china

http://www.reuters.com/article/europe-migrants-china-idUSL4N1I62PD

CHINA.

I’ll drop this for now. I’ve been working on these premises for a long time, they’re accurate. I am still here and still thinking, just longer term than the stark majority of shitposters.

Look around. All I ask of you.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/21/chinese-ships-planes-hold-war-games-sea-japan.html

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/05/08/Chinese-coast-guard-sails-near-Japans-Okinawa-Senkaku-Islands/5641494268445/

I’ll just leave these here. No reason. It’s all a coincidence.
http://www.thetower.org/article/chinas-deepening-interest-in-israel/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/topic/israel-china-relations/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israel-china-relations
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2080572/china-and-israel-vow-deepen-relations
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-investment-israel-idUSKBN187080?il=0
“”China’s international surge of state-driven investments in emerging technologies should put the United States and our allies on notice,””
“”Once we became a portfolio company of these Chinese investors, they helped with opening doors in China … where the business community really relies on connections you build there.””
“”We are not worried to take Chinese money over U.S. money,” said Bar-Zeev of IronSource. “If you can deliver, there are endless opportunities.””
The EU is a distraction. The future flag is…

The G8 is nothing.

Alliances are everything.

Video: The story of your enslavement

10/10 would share again. Shop around.

[read after]

Molyneux is the only redpill that hasn’t shamed himself with degeneracy.

Breath of fresh air.

The question you’re not allowed to ask:
Who are the farmers?
There is a social contract of slavery. As soon as you are born, there is a price on your head. What you’re told you owe society. It’s called national debt and ‘we’ can’t even pay the interest. It’s a con. You never agreed to it. This is why people are giving up. There is no fairness or incentive. The system is rigged via the devalued currency.
It’s the scientific model of management, Fordism. They’ll be nice to you, because it keeps you docile. They’ll tell you they care, because it means you’ll behave. They’ll promise you the world, if you work. Which is real? Only the work is real. Communists and capitalists come from largely the same stance, with inverted conclusions. The capitalist wants to be his own boss in this system. The Communist wants to be his own boss, self-employed, direct his own labour, in another system. Each believes they can maximize utility in their chosen system. Overall, there is hardly any difference in what they want – to keep what they earn. But from which State? Marxists think the State cares for them, but Marx wanted to destroy the middle-class, not the owners they are uniquely  empowered to oppose, and he never went into politics. Politicians are rich. They pay themselves above minimum wage and then flout that law to hire illegals. At least the capitalists are somewhat honest about those Homo Economicus motivations. The key difference is theft. Capitalists say enough has happened, wise to how shitty this system is but hopeful about improvement, at least for individuals who…work hard, Communists want more theft, to put the shoe on the other foot and get The Man tomorrow. Who will enforce this? The angry mob? No, they aren’t intelligent. The Man will never force measures against The Man. I alluded this in “Best Post“.

The only thing they care about is what they can take. They can’t take something you haven’t produced. This is a generational strike. Millennials (and younger) won’t get these goodies. There is no bribe, it’s fucking Monopoly money, fairground tickets for broken rides. But we’re still held responsible for governments and debts we weren’t alive to vote for. That’s illegal, it cannot be forced in either case. The system was damned long before we were born. We are not responsible. We cannot save it, nobody can ‘save’ it and they shouldn’t want to. Those people with the power to do anything are dead (they did manage to take it with them, in experiences and hedonism) or at the top of the chain, they don’t see it as a ‘problem’ to fix, a feature, not a bug. Intergenerational betrayal, and the young will live to see it.

Hey, I have been trying to warn people. I’m not alone in this. Why the maybe passive approach?
They control you with lies. It isn’t for public sector pensions, unfunded liabilities – it’s for the children! It isn’t for the whore down the road who you wouldn’t buy a drink, let alone the lifestyle of contraception, it’s for Family Planning! It isn’t for the ingrates in other countries who try to kill us, it’s for the foreign poor! Lions do not own lions because there would be a fight, eventually. We call this empire collapse. However, humans can own humans if they lie about why.

What are you working for? Which system is it, you support? Are you free to say ‘no’, openly, to your owners?

First lie: Who rules over you? Do you know? Do you know their names? Are you allowed to know?
Second lie: Who writes the textbooks? Are you taught the controversies, all moral sides or the Official Party Line? Who decides what is true for the poor, who attend state schooling?
Third lie: What is your currency? What is your value? Does money give you that? Does office paper? Gold? Food? Where is your value? External or internal? Who lies about this? Who says, in effect, ‘you need us, so you’d better behave’ or ‘toe the line, or you’ll be sorry’? Is that not a threat?
Fourth lie: Do the government do things on your behalf, in your name, without asking? Is that a democracy? Do they do the opposite from what they promised? Isn’t this… fraud? Do you even know what they’re doing? Why not tell you?
Fifth lie: Do they divide you from your kin? Isn’t this a distraction? Didn’t this start with preschool, when they told your family to abandon you (causing known psychiatric damage) to the state schooling system? Do you ‘defend’ groups you do not belong to? So… who defends you? Are you allowed to defend yourself?

It is Reverse Psychology and a fair amount of gaslighting (the true purpose of propaganda, doubt your own mind and they run it, in effect). The State tells you that you are worthless, from birth. Without you, they have nothing. They produce nothing. The state is innately parasitic.
Are you allowed or encouraged to succeed, or shamed and guilt-tripped? Isn’t this abuse? In a relationship, wouldn’t this be domestic abuse? Coming the state, isn’t that propaganda? Are you allowed ambition or achievement? Or, whatever you manage to scrape together from these seeds, do you get told ‘you didn’t build that’? Did someone else file those papers, grow those crops and study for those grades?
If they couldn’t profit from their ‘policies’, they wouldn’t push them. Who is held responsible for their failure? Those who created them and promised results (fraud) in academia? The politicians who wrote them into law? Or is the general public called the failure, since nobody is allowed to question anything else? Look to the second question.
Who has the power? The rich? Are they the same thing? What about the bribed? The workers keeping the system going? Who could improve the system? Who runs it? This relates to the first question.
Who claims to be one of you, but drags you down? Who are the crabs in the bucket making you hopeless? Calling you worthless, like the system itself?
What do they promise? What’s the alternative? ‘Bad things might happen‘ – how does that rationale differ from the Boogeyman? This is used on adults, mind.
The ‘arts’ is a good example of unofficial welfare. If you don’t want to see a play, why should you pay actors and co. for a play you’re never going to see? Why should middle-class hobbies be subsidized? Why not football matches? Why not bread and circuses? Who gets priority? Why? Which information do the arts convey to the public, how can they control the proles that the other hobbies and leisure pursuits do not?

How did this happen? Democracy is a good idea but has certain prior conditions that must be met e.g. population homogeneity, industry, longevity. When people step over the line and survive, there is no line. Find the crime without a punishment. People should have freedom, the State (a press-gang of a minority of bullies over the majority People) should never, they must be servants limited by necessity and mutual agreement. That is capitalism as an idea, some libertarianism without the globalism.

Instead, think of the ultimate minority group: the elite. Have some sympathy with the champagne socialists. Someone’s gotta crush the grapes, might as well be yours.

Denial is psychologically easier than dealing with it, they’re primed (the real subliminal effect, look it up) to be immature – less grit, lower impulse control, shorter attention spans than previous generations. We were bred to be weak by the State. Like Carlin said, just smart enough to run the machines but never to question why. We didn’t cause this mess, but this is how we live now. We must deal with it.
In a crisis, there is a normalcy bias. People will walk around as though nothing is wrong. On a societal scale, this is ongoing. There are problems, but not the problems the State feeds and funds. I repeat myself. The State is the enemy of the People, whether it be a Communist or capitalist one. If every man is equal, there can be no judges, no politicians, no lawyers, no preachers, no teachers, every man must stand alone. If every man is equal and not an animal, why need a State?

You could simplify that K-types are producers, the little red hen baking the bread and r-types the swarming locust of consumers.

I wonder what lesson that holds for Ks, when the Malthusian trap, the demographic crunch (or economic correction of all the bubbles popping at once to make ’08 look like a child’s Frozen birthday party) snaps on us. It may not happen overnight, but in politics a week is a year. A few years this would take for the shit to trickle down, a few months tops.

The r-selected need a State because it steals the wealth they cannot, as it steals the wealth they cannot produce themselves. The K-selected, dwindling in number with a small, short boost recently, do not need a State. They use the State to connect with each other. That already existed in ancient times, the tribal business.

What is control, in these contexts? Who is controlling you?

Economics works by quintiles, and taxes from this (aka Who is rich?). If you wanna go the typical way, sure, ask WHO is the 1% and what do they have in common? But realistically, they maintain power as the 20%.

The people screeching about the 1% are doing damage control as false opposition. To have a platform in the first place, to have the MSM’s ear, they are the privileged 20%.

I posted this at the beginning of the year.

Good luck. We’re all going to need it. If you’ve read this far, I sincerely wish you well.