Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Blog moving to

***This blog is moving to ***
Please update your bookmarks/RSS readers., two ls.

First they banned Youtubers, but I didn’t say anything because I think Youtubers are all a bunch of f4gs. Who the hell speaks to a webcam for hours?

Then they banned people from Facebook, but I didn’t say anything because only f4gs are on Facebook.

Then Jeff Bezos started banning books from Amazon and I got quite mad at that because I had been thinking on writing a book, but I hadn’t yet so I didn’t say anything, besides making fun of Bezos going on TRT to bang an aging slut.

Then they banned people from Twitter and I’m on Twitter, but somehow I’ve avoided being banned myself so even though they suspended me for 12 hours this week for talking about f4gs, I still didn’t say anything.

But now WordPress just banned Heartiste (!!)’s blog. Well that’s it. That’s fucking it. I’m outta here, I have to protect this blog so that in 20 years people still remember it the way they remember Roissy himself and Moldbug.

So I’m out of here. This blog will be never again be updated. The content has been moved to , which is self-hosted and has a quite nice design if I may say so. Thanks everyone for your readership and please continue coming by to the new blog, same as the old blog, just better.


A few weeks ago I had a short exchange with Nick Land on Twitter on the issue of debt.

Debt is a huge issue, a big part of what’s wrong with the fabric of modernity, a big factor of what’s driving modern civilization into collapse. And yet it has remained largely underdiscussed in these circles. Moldbug, who to the end still remained something of a libertarian, did have a keen interest in finance, and after the great crisis of 2008 made a series of long posts on financial crises and how to design a properly sound banking system. His “favorite topic” he even called it. Well it’s certainly not my favorite topic, nor I’m sure it’s Mr. Land’s, but it’s nonetheless a fascinating issue, and more importantly, a critical one.

Again, my approach to all intellectual issues is to think about its history, and the one thing that strikes one when thinking about debt is how easy-going the ancients were about them. Sovereign bankruptcies were routine, and nothing really happened. But most importantly, debt jubilees were *very* common. Mr. Land here seems to think it’s a horrible idea, and he may be right, but I can’t be faulted for liking something that Chinese emperors did every few years as part of general amnesties. New emperor? Cancel the people’s debt. Emperor has a change of mood and sets a new regnal era? Cancel the debt. Cute imperial baby is born? Out with the debt. Some Emperors had general amnesties almost every year. It’s interesting to note that the Song Dynasty, famous for its fabulous wealth, commercial mindset and urban culture, and thus a polity which you would expect to have more care about enforcing contracts, had over 200 debt jubilees over its 318 year history. That’s one every eighteen months.

Again, you could say that the one thing that ensured the Great Divergence, the Rise of the West, the Industrial Revolutions and basically everything that’s nice and productive about the modern world (and there’s plenty of that, I do like fast transport, air conditioning and modern hygiene, thank you very much), was the establishment of the Sanctity of Contracts as an important part of Western culture. There’s certainly something to that. A non-negligible part of reactionary authors will spit on Libertarianism a dozen times a day, but they will stay give you a 2 hour speech in praise of the Joint Stock Corporation as the fundamental basis of the modern economy and Western Civilization as we know it. By that line of reasoning, the only reason we ever got away of the Malthusian trap was when we stopped forgiving damn debtors and we used state authority to enforce commercial contracts.

And yet, reactionaries since Moldbug have also been very concerned with the problem of sovereignty. Most precisely, the lack of it. We bemoan the lack of ability of the holders of political power in the West to take hard measures that could fix many of the social problems which afflict us. But, you know, that’s not surprising given that we don’t allow our political authorities to mess with “the sanctity of contracts”. If routine commercial transactions are held to be above the supreme power of the land, how the hell do we expect them to get anything done at all?

Why did the kings and emperors of yore issue decree debt jubilees so often? Why at all? Not just to get debt out of their own shoulders, obviously, they had the power to do that and just that, and do not relieve the commoners from their own debt obligations. And yet they did that, all the time: have commoners be free of paying back their debts. Again this sounds outrageous to our modern sensibilities, and yet it was routinely done for millennia, and everybody thought it perfectly natural. Part of that is because anything the Sovereign did was perfectly natural. The whole point of being king is that you get to do things like issue debt jubilees and screw the merchants royally. Pun intended. There’s such a thing as different sorts of power, and economic power, the power that arises from having massive amounts of wealth, is very real. And yet, all that power is good for nothing in front of the King’s authority, who on a whim can wipe out all your claims of debt collection. The merchants cry, and the indebted peasants rejoice. That’s just good politics for the king: gains him popular favor, and signals his power.

But was that all? Just the King, sticking it to the merchants because he can? The whole frequency of the measure seems to hint there’s something more going on. Maybe debt jubilees were an actual tool of governance. A good tool, a necessary tool, in order to achieve some positive outcome. Surely in terms of political stability, the most immediate concern of kings. And maybe something more. Maybe debt relief just actually fixes something in society, corrects some imbalances which lead to not just more safety for the king, but actually a better society, in terms of economics, natality and just general happiness and prosperity.

If you have read Peter Turchin’s book War and Peace and War, and if you haven’t you should stop right here and just go read it right now (if you have time for my blog you really should be going and read that book), you might recall Chapter 10, which Turchin titled “The Matthew Principle”. That’s a rather forced coinage from a quote of the evangelist. The idea is basically that the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer. That’s a historical reality and there’s plenty of evidence for it in premodern times, those very times I’m referring to as having frequent amnesties and debt jubilees, canceling everybody’s debt and starting over, screwing with creditors every few years.

Now, when talking at this level of abstraction it’s always important to take a pause and think carefully of the definitions we are using. Think of the proposition “the rich always get richer”. Who exactly is “the rich” here? Are we talking of individuals? Do rich men, on average, grow their fortune over time until their death? I’m not sure that’s true, but even if it were, analysis of a single lifetime are hardly interesting. What about families? Are rich families, again on average, richer over generations? That seems intuitively to be true, and Gregory Clark has written an interesting book arguing that case, The Son also Rises. The difference between families and individuals is that families to some extent get to choose their members, so rich family names persist by accepting rich heiresses and the like, and gently expelling underperforming sons, helping maintain or grow the family “honor”.

What about the rich as a class? That was the focus of Turchin’s argument. What he meant is that absent political action to counter it (i.e. violence), economic inequality always grows. And grows. And grows. It happens that it always ends, or at least has ended to this point in history, with some eruption of violence, either a popular revolt, a civil war, or some kind of crackdown by the government against the wealthy. But if you were somehow able to avoid violence from ever happening, inequality just would continue to grow, slowly but steadily, by its implacable mathematical logic, until we got a Gini coefficient of 1. That’s just a law of nature. Pure, abstract math, in practical terms. Just the way humans work. The rich just keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer, and there’s nothing you can do about it except using organized violence (i.e. politics) to stop the process. Those processes of growing inequality and eventual freak-out tend to last about a 100 years, so Turchin calls them “secular cycles”.

Turchin, who may be right or wrong but is nonetheless a great writer, describes his argument with a very easy example. In any competition, he notes, the poor are at a disadvantage against the rich, having fewer resources, and so overtime tend to lose ground. Think of land, the almost only source of wealth in civilized societies until very recently. Assume an initially completely equal distribution of land. And that’s, by the way, not an absurdity. There’s actually a very good example in China’s Tang Dynasty, which adopted an “equal-field” system. All land was owned by the state, which allotted equal sized fields to individual peasant families.

What happened afterwards? Concentration. Little by little, some peasants were thriftier, others more prone to spend. Some were luckier, some more unfortunate with weather, or disease, or family issues. Some peasants started mortgaging away their fields to other peasants who again, due to thrift or luck had money available to spend. Those latter peasants then ended up with more land. Rince and repeat the process for several decades, and you get some very rich guys and a lot of landless vagrants. Keep the process going for even longer and you’d get even more inequality.

As Turchin himself says it:

“The mathematical model I developed, however, tells us that this mechanism by itself will not produce a vast gulf between the rich and the poor. When land becomes a scarce commodity, however, another process begins to operate. Human beings need to consume a certain amount of goods to survive. Most basically, they have to get enough food. Those who do not have enough land to feed themselves will have to start selling what they have to make up the difference. As a result, they become poorer. By contrast, those who have more land than they need to feed themselves will have a surplus income that they can use to acquire even more land. Thus, the rich get richer. The positive feedback of the Matthew principle arises as a result of threshold of the minimum consumption level. The Matthew principle ensures that all people whose land holdings are below the threshold—the poor—gradually lose their remaining property, which ends up in the hands of the rich. Finally, the population is divided into a tiny minority of wealthy landowners and a huge majority of landless proletarians.”

But that seldom happened, as eventually some ambitious man always found a way of organizing those landless vagrants into a rebel army and started a big fat war. Chinese dynasties tended to all last exactly 250 years, with a big rebellion in the middle. Two secular cycles. And the Chinese historians always agree in the culprit. 土地兼并, land concentration. Every single time. Europe had less obvious closure but also plenty of wars to stir things up. And eventually, of course, the Age of Revolutions.

Things are of course different now in our incredibly diversified economies; even landless peasants or the equivalent today can work their way up some corporate ladder or find some new economic niche and start a successful business. But the fact that poor people, on average, are at a disadvantage in resource competition against the rich. The rich just have less to lose. As Half Sigma, unsuccessful candid Jew always says, talk of “risk-taking entrepreneurs” is just bullshit. Rich people have enough money stashed away to live comfortably all their lives. They are investing their spare wealth, and yes, there’s always a risk there. But big deal. They’re covered.

Again, I’m following Turchin and talking like evolution ends at the neck. Which it doesn’t. People are genetically different, not only in intelligence but appearance (a very important part of individual capital), and a myriad personality traits which affect one’s ability to gain wealth. Those successful genes, “moxie” as Greg Cochran calls them, also get sent up to wealthier families as successful people choose to marry into them, depleting the lower classes of the most fundamental resource, the very physical basis of economic success, especially in a culture like ours, without marriage taboos or formally separate social classes.

Modern debt has perhaps little to do with the debt of a peasant mortgaging his small plot of land to pay for his father’s funeral. While commoners today have plenty of student or consumer debt, most debt is hold by corporations or public entities, in a complete madness of intertwined obligations going on for trillions and trillions. But it’s not unreasonable to see corporations as the perhaps foremost subjects of the modern state, and not humans, who are but appendixes to corporations in the eyes of many bureaucratic agencies. Debt in the modern economy might not be as obvious as the poor medieval peasant of Turchin’s tale, but the deleterious social effects, and the existence of a class of advantaged people using their position to increase their wealth against the debt of the masses is still very similar, and fits Turchin’s equations.

Back to the beginning of the post, you can now see what debt jubilees were meant to achieve. Interestingly, Turchin’s book doesn’t mention the word “jubilee” even once. He probably didn’t think them important, as economic inequality historically did grow anyway. But surely periodic legal debt relief made the process slower. Eased societal contradictions to a more manageable level for the court. But it was never enough, it was barely a stopgap to the inexorable trend. But at least it served to lower the gas boiling the frog.

I just realized that I started this post with the intention of arguing in favor of debt relief, of learning from the ancients how to pacify society. But given the limited power it historically had, and given the trends we are seeing now, the complete obliteration of Western Civilization down the road to becoming Brazil, then South Africa and ultimately Haiti, maybe the proper accelerationist position is to make the fire stronger and make the damned frog jump from the pot once and for all. No jubilee. No peace. Let’s just observe the coming of the age of the oligarchs, and hope it breaks down fast.

If it does, though.

Acceleration by Yang

Tl;dr. It really is that simple.

Long version:

I’ve never voted. Well, I lie, I voted once. I was 18, and my mother sorta forced me. It also felt like some rite of passage, you know, you grow to 18 and you get to do grown-up stuff like voting, having a voice in the political process. I’ve never been into rituals though, and I felt stupid immediately after putting my vote in the box. I didn’t even like the guy! I thought he was retarded. All of them, really. I still do.

Of course ever time there’s an election people would ask me now and then who I’m gonna vote to. I evolved a series of bunch of canned answers. First one was “Nah they all suck”. Then I read Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter and started saying “one vote doesn’t count anyway”. This triggered huge discussions if there was even a single Boomer at home. “But if everyone thought like you nobody would vote!!”. 

-“Well sure but my not voting doesn’t influence other people’s behavior”.

“But you have to vote, if nobody voted…”

-“It doesn’t follow that if I don’t vote then other people don’t vote”.

“But you have to vote, if everyone did like you”

-“Where on earth are you taking that ‘if’ from?

“But you have to vote……”

You should try this, it’s hilarious. They just go in an endless loop bug. Talk about NPCs.

Later I started reading Moldbug and got into this little sphere, so when in good company I’d just say “nah, not voting. Democracy sucks”. I was exquisitely detached about most elections during my adult life. I honestly didn’t give a crap. The Deep State, the Uniparty, the Swamp, call it what you will, it’s all the same. I was beyond all that.

And then… Trump happened 3 years ago. It took me a while to get into Trump. I didn’t care about elections, you see? Elections don’t matter. It’s all the same. And not being American I knew little about the guy. I’d seen him on TV now and then but besides him being this kinda sleazy showbiz guy I couldn’t care much about him.

But I was on Twitter, and I was watching all the outrage, and man, Trump was good. He wasn’t good, good. He wasn’t Moldbug. Not even Pat Buchanan. Trump is really inarticulate, I don’t know his verbal IQ but he has the vocabulary of a dumb 10 year old. And yet he got his points across. Good points. Drain the Swamp. NATO is pointless. Make America Great Again. China is ripping us off. You’d be in jail. No more senseless wars. BUILD THE WALL. All great, and most importantly, hilarious ideas. Trump was trolling everyone that I hated, the press, the bureaucrats, the whole Cathedral was up in arms against him, and *he was fighting back*. Successfully! He was talking shit to AIPAC! I just couldn’t help myself. Trump was my guy. I couldn’t vote for him, I’m not American, but I would have. Honest to god, I’d wake up early and vote for Donald Trump.

The Trump campaign triggered in me a feeling of community, of adhesion that I’d never felt before. And I’d never felt it before because Trump was the first candidate ever who wasn’t representing the conservatives. Which I’m not. Or the Christians. Which I’m not. Or the fiscal conservatives or whatever. Which I care about but not very strongly. Trump arose in 2016 as the candidate of the fast-dying white majority of the United States. And again, I’m not American, but my homeland has a similar predicament, and American politics eventually trickle down to Europe in a few years, so it was easy to identify with. I hadn’t written that essay yet, but I had it in mind, and Trump was the first guy ever to appear to be fighting Bioleninism, then incarnated in the odious, horrible body of Hillary Clinton. And so I really supported the guy. When against all odds he won the election in November 2016, I got drunk and had a blast. I’ll always remember fondly that night.

Fast forward 2 and a half years later. No wall. No jail for Hillary. Narrowly avoided jail himself! The swamp is a big as always. Forever war still going on. Spending more time tweeting about Israel than his own country. Shits on Ann Coulter and says he wants more legal immigration. Did I mention no wall? What a disaster. Trump has been a huge and complete disappointment. Again, I don’t dislike the guy personally. I mean I never *liked* him. He’s weird, talks like a retarded 10 year old. I’d say I’d probably wouldn’t enjoy having a few beers with him but he doesn’t even drink. But I don’t hate the guy, I think odds are his heart is in the right place. He just can’t get stuff done. He’s incompetent. I mean, it’s hard. It was always hard. One just doesn’t come in as a complete outsider and reform the whole government from scratch. Then again, people who work in the heart of the beast, in Washington DC, tell me he’s just incompetent. He could get stuff done. Some stuff at least. But he’s messing everything up. He’s just dumb. Incompetent. A boomer after all, who gave his most talented child to a dumb Jew who doesn’t let her eat proper food.

So now what? Back to Moldbuggian detachment? Nothing ever changes, huh. The Cathedral really is all powerful. Ever since Trump made some protests about the intelligence agencies being disloyal or outright attacking him, the Establishment feels so powerful they just blatantly say in the press that the CIA are the good guys. Does nobody remember that the CIA being evil was pretty much proven by the 1960s, and that evil CIA ops have been a staple of books and films for decades? Not anymore; they’re not content with being powerful in the shade. They want outright public submission.

Democracy really is a sham; but it’s hard to go back to detachment now that Bioleninism is out in the open. Elections now are openly not about economic policy or social conservatism. Elections now are about the speed of the dispossession of white straight males. It’s for or against Bioleninism. The majority of candidates of the Democratic party are openly talking of “reparations” for black people, i.e. outright Danegeld. And don’t get me started with open hunt to mess with the sexual hormones of white children in schools. It’s going on right there in the open.

The US has an election next year, the campaign is starting now. Given the present demographic trends, it is very likely that Florida, if not Texas, will flip blue very shortly; that means a rock-solid majority for the Democratic party, forever. Donald Trump is likely to be the last white male president in American history. The 2020 election is probably going to be the last election which is more or less contested. Trump does still have a chance.

But Trump is incompetent. He’s not helping. He’s just treading water while another million Third-world immigrants sneak in, another middle-school boy gets injected estrogen because he doesn’t like football, and another hundred-thousand white men just overdose on opioids because you can’t even play a videogame today without being forced to play a black woman avatar. Can you support this guy? I sure can’t. Again, not my nation, but I wouldn’t. I won’t call him a traitor, although many have. But he didn’t build the wall. He’s letting Amazon, Facebook and Twitter campaign openly against him and censor everything to the right, and he hasn’t lifted a finger. He doesn’t deserve support.

It doesn’t seem anyone to his right is going to run third party, and even if he was removed as candidate, the most likely replacement would be the despicable bugman Mitt Romney. So what are the Democrats running? Beto, a tall white guy with a small face (as they say in Japan) which chicks dig, but sounds pretty much clinically retarded. There’s Elizabeth Warren which is the stereotype of the annoying high school teacher who thinks she’s an intellectual because she’s memorized Jane Austen novels. I’m being unfair to her, she did write the Two Income Trap which is a great book on the complete scam which is the modern economy. But still, come on. Pocahontas.

Then there’s Kamala Harris, which is like when you’ve beaten the final boss after an arduous fight, with only 10% HP left, but then the actual final boss comes in and he’s 5 times as powerful and more aggressive. Kamala Harris is a black woman who’s pretty much openly calling for the disenfranchisement of the white male population. She’s Bioleninism incarnated. Hillary in black. Not good. And precisely because of that the most anticipated to win the primaries.

There’s Bernie of course, the last hope of the residual white left. Not the modern Baizuo. The old White left. The Classical Leninists. Who haven’t still realized why they lost that battle. Why socialism is dead in the West. Bernie didn’t work last time, won’t work this time.  A bunch of black girls will twerk to his face in his rallies and then spew some poison gas to his crowd. The press won’t even report it. 

Seriously though, to the extent Bernie represents a constituency that’s not for instant Brazilification, I wish him well, but he’s old and frail, and his program isn’t very interesting. And most importantly, his own constituency is being taken over by a guy who’s 10 times smarter, is young, has actual good ideas, is not white and will give the Bernie crowd everything they want, and more. Much more.

To be precise, $1,000 a month more.

Come Andrew Yang. 

He became famous after an interview with Joe Rogan, which I strongly recommend. He’s good.

He was also good on Tucker Carlson’s (!). Note how he mentions that GDP and unemployment rates are completely bogus figures which hide more than they reveal. He deserves a 10 year dictatorship just for that. But I get ahead of myself.

He’s just very good. I mean look at him.

He’s the only candidate in this whole race that doesn’t talk like a bugman. You know what a bugman is. All those politicians and corporate guys who talk in that odd and disingenuous jargon designed to obfuscate. High-grade NPCs, that’s what bugmen are. Well, he isn’t. He goes straight to the issues, analyzes them intelligently, and then has a plan. It may be or may not be a good plan. But I dare you to show me a presidential candidate with a higher IQ than Andrew Yang in the last 30 years. That’s even more of a feat because the guy is East Asian, and God knows East Asians tend to be bugmen too. 

The guy even wrote a book called The War On Normal People, which is the perfect definition of the Left. I should use it as a subtitle for a Bioleninism book.

I’ve been comparing him with Lee Kuan Yew, another famous non-bugman Asian. Well, LKY he’s not. I don’t think he’ll ever go public saying this:

But Yang is perhaps the second Asian politician ever to be widely liked by the White right. The 4chan and related crowd which heavily supported Trump in 2016 has now gone wholesale to the Yang Gang. Part of it is justified disappointed about Trump not delivering on his promises. Most of it is Yang’s promise of Universal Basic Income (UBI), $1,000 dollars a month for every adult US citizen.

But a big part of it is just pure appreciation for the guy. Look at his interview with Tucker. You might remember my last post on Tucker, and how he’s revolutionized conservative commentary in the US by arguing that the focus of government should be taking care of working families. Well, Tucker himself liked Yang, and it’s no wonder he did. Yang is the candidate who’s using the closest arguments to Tucker. By far. He’s lamenting the plight of the working man. He’s calling to help the rural white middle class who’s being ravaged by the opioid suicide crisis. Note that Trump has said some stuff about that, and has tried to get China to stop exports of fentanyl, but he didn’t mention white people by name. Yang did, just like that. He’s the only guy who’s not only overtly or covertly calling for your extinction; he’s the only guy on the record for trying to stop it.

And, he’s promising to stop it by taxing the hell of the Enemy. Which again, as Tucker mentioned, isn’t a huge abstract thing The Jews or the Left. No. The enemy is Big Tech. It’s Amazon, it’s Google, It’s Apple. It’s Facebook. It’s Twitter. It’s Woke Capital. It’s those guys who aren’t only taking your jobs, they’re using their monopoly in the management of information to censore us, hide us, slander us and ostracize us. You might remember that Trump also hinted at doing something about that. Regulate Facebook and Twitter as utilities to make sure the Right could actually fight the Culture War, and perhaps show that there’s a majority of people against injecting synthetic hormones into 12 year old children. That he’d make big tech build in America and stop avoiding taxes with blatant laundering tricks. Well, Trump did nothing, and he’s avoiding the topic. Yang isn’t. I have nothing against Amazon’s business, but Bezos chose sides by buying the Washington Post and recently going on a censorship spree, banning right wing books from Amazon. He must pay. Yang says he will.

I don’t know if UBI would work. Americans are crying bloody murder about a proposed 10% VAT. I say cry me a river. Europeans have a 20% VAT. It’s annoying, but it’s not a big deal. Smart people say that automation is overhyped, it’s not growing that fast, self-driving cars, one of the biggest talking points of Yang, are likely to not even happen after all. That may be true. But I’d like to say that the beauty of UBI is not that it’s actually necessary in the way Yang says it is, to give people something to fall back on while they find a new job.

Tucker is also worried about the middle class trucker. But Tucker’s answer is to ban automation. Go full Luddite. Yang is talking about automation a lot. But he doesn’t want to stop it. By implementing UBI he wouldn’t stop automation, he’d accelerate it. Businesses would start automating like crazy once people left unsatisfying jobs to go play Fortnite on UBI or try an instagram e-thot career. A big majority of white collar jobs are complete and utter bullshit make-work made by government regulation to keep people busy and have some income to tax. If Yang succeeded in his proposed plan to completely change the regulatory paradigm to adapt to the computer economy at last, companies could actually get rid of all the inefficiencies, and automate everything. Starting with the bureaucracy.

You know who else is doing this? China. In 2017 when Xi Jinping basically named himself president for life, I was asked to look into his alleged eminence grise, Wang Huning. This guy wrote a book after a trip to America in the 1980s, when China was trying to find a way to square the circle of their adoption of free-market enterprise in the country. Wang realized he could justify free enterprise by saying that the United States “manages the people through their businesses, by regulating employment and taking taxes from labor”. Basically arguing that Communism and Capitalism weren’t so different, the latter as just outsourcing the “people management” to the business corporations.

Well China is pushing hard for developing AI and automation. Which is weird in a country which could have a serious unemployment problem if automation goes on. But China doesn’t care. Why not? Because China has realized that with Internet and modern computing, they don’t need the corporations to manage the people anymore. They can do it directly. Everybody has a mobile phone with a camera and a microphone 24/7 with them. The government knows your every move. You don’t need to shame people into buying your ideology by threatening with firing them from their jobs, like America does. That’s so 20th century. Now you can control behavior directly with internet surveillance. Social credit is an extension of this trend. It boggles the mind that accelerationists aren’t talking more about this. Not saying it’s a good thing. But the tech is here and it’s happening anywhere. The only place where it isn’t happening is Europe because we’ve outsourced it to American companies.

If you think UBI might work at giving people hope and readjusting the economy in a more just and fair way, sticking it to the oligarchs, vote for Yang. If you just want $1,000 a month, vote for Yang. If you think UBI would crash everything, vote for Yang, as this gay earth deserves crashing. If you just want UBI to show people that democracy inevitable ends with the people voting themselves money and thus proving democracy is a sham and discredit it as a political system, vote for Yang.

And if you want the final death of 20th century politics, and a new paradigm which breaks with the thievery of Boomers inflating the currency so that asset prices are rising through new records every year, while young people have to go through unpaid internships and ‘gig economy’ servitude until their 40s, while the Bioleninist government is busy with the soft genocide of every productive person with natural biological instincts.

Then Vote for Yang. I rest my case.

Tucker Carlson’s war against Woke Capital and the future of the Right

Well, well. Everybody predicted that 2019 would be an eventful year, with Trump realizing he must start to build the wall if he wants to be reelected; Cold War 2 against China heating up, and the trade war doing some serious damage to the Chinese economy, and China’s slowdown dragging down the world economy in exchange. It’s gonna be bad, but it’s not gonna be boring.

And just after we welcomed the new year, this video by Fox News’ Tucker Carlson came out and has owned the attention of political media for more than a week now. And for good reason: it’s good. Well, he’s usually good, but this time he was something more than good. He stated very clearly what the right half of his country wants, what got Trump elected. And he made it very clear to the media, think tanks and the wider propaganda apparatus of the Republican party what they must do to survive. They must go to war with libertarianism. To war with Woke Capital.

The cuckservative media went immediately in panic. Ross Douthat on the NYT, who, besides being the physical incarnation of being a cuck, is a pretty good writer, made a good summary here.

As we all know, the political left, born out of the chaos of the French Revolution, came of age when Karl Marx produced a working formula: class struggle. You go find the low status people in your country, tell them the world is divided in two sorts of people: them, and the guys on top of them. The guys on top are oppressors, the guys on the bottom are oppressed: if you, the oppressed follow me, we’ll turn the table, “liberate you” i.e. grab their stuff and their status and give it to you.

Then after WW2 the Western left realized that the oppressor/oppressed template worked much better with groups disadvantaged biologically than with mere social class. Hence we got Bioleninism. The industrial worker who was so much into socialism could after all become a manager, or start his own company and not be so interested in socialism anymore. Happened all the time. That’s not a good deal if you’re a leftist politician. You want your underlings to stick around and be loyal, and the underclass doesn’t feel so oppressed if there’s not an underclass anymore. Of course, you can change class (in modern Western societies), but you can’t change biology. The average racial minority, the sexual deviant, the mentally ill, the fat cat lady, those will always be low status, always feel oppressed. That’s firm, absolute loyalty right there.

Ever since the Left found out this trick, the ball has been on the Right’s camp. How do you deal with Bioleninism? The only workable strategy was formulated by Steve Sailer decades ago: if the Left is the Coalition of the Fringes, the Right must be the Party of the Normal. In the US, where demographics mean that the minority-supported Democratic party will by 2025 or so have a rock-solid electoral majority, that meant the Republican Party becoming the party of White people. It’s taken a while, but as the critical date when Texas flips blue approaches, the Republicans have slowly, if somewhat unawares, moved in that direction. Hence, Donald Trump.

Of course the Right has to do a lot of work before that change of direction is complete. The Left is more flexible and responsible to change, because its basic formula is simple. They’re the party of the oppressed. If things change they just need to change the identity of the oppressed, and they’re set. Easy. The Right though, can hardly be the party of the oppressors. At its core, sociologically, the Right is the party of the people who wanna be left alone. That’s not a very exciting way of running a political movement, though, so they must always come up with random reasons to justify their attachment to the status quo. The usual are traditional religion, which is useful as it doesn’t need to be justified, and has centuries of history fighting the Left, long a force for atheism. There’s also nationalism, to the extent it is allowed to exist post-WW2, which tends to be the refuge of secular, masculine people who dislike the Left’s push for egalitarianism.

And of course, capitalism. When the Left was primarily about economic socialism, about state-control of the economy, the Right had a very strong Schelling Point in free-market ideology. Opposing socialism made for good politics for non-leftist people, it has a ready source of funding from business owners. And it just makes a lot of sense. Socialism is a very stupid economic policy, which produces poverty. And nobody likes poverty, least of all the poor. So the political Right in much of the Western world, and even out of it, became mostly a coalition of religious people, nationalists, and business owners. God, Country and Capital. 

This kinda worked for a while; but it was never very stable. And most importantly, it was never very strong. Of those three parts of the coalition, the religious have the actual numbers. In America, by far, in Europe it’s a closer contest with the nationalists, but I’d say the religious still have a small edge. At any rate, the ones with the money, funding the whole thing was the business owners. Capital. And money talks. Capital was funding and basically running the political right for a long time; and completely so since the Thatcher-Reagan revolution where they took over the whole movement with force, and took over the governments of much of the Western world for quite some time.

What came out of the increasing influence of Capital in the political right was this weird intellectual movement called “libertarianism”. Libertarianism is a completely American phenomenon; in Europe it has appeared somewhat in the last 10 years, but it’s still completely marginal, and for a long time it was completely non-existent. In the US, though, libertarianism is quite big. Not in numbers, of course, but it is very influential in the economics departments of American academia and, as an extension of that, as economic advisors for the political Right. The DC think tanks and all that crowd. It would be an exaggeration to say that all Republican politicians in the US are libertarians, but they are very influential in those circles, and their academic prestige is quite high.

Libertarianism strikes me as an escapist strategy. Democracy was founded in the idea of frequent changes in government. We have a team of guys running the state; if they stop doing a good job, you change them. Most places developed a two-party system, around a left-right axis, which disagreed more or less on how to do things; but the point is change is built into the system. So everybody has an incentive to play the game, and try to be there when the next change happens.

But at some point, somebody discovered that this theory was crap. Power doesn’t work that way. Governments don’t work that way, fundamentally. You can’t change everything all the time, the incentives are just too big for people in power to find a way of keeping power amongst themselves. Like most important discoveries, different people across the world realized, independently, that alternation in power was absolutely not what happens in democracies at all; that most resorts of power are occupied by permanent bureaucrats, and that the different parties which prima facie compete for power, eventually find ways of helping each other achieve a stable sharing of power and money. The first to make a solid theory on how this works were the Italian elite theorists, Pareto, Mosca and Michels.

Libertarianism is what you do when you realize that the government is socialist by definition. Socialism being the control of the economy by the government, well, yes, odds are the government is going to want to control the economy. So if you don’t trust the government to respect your interests, then you go libertarian. You do that because you are a business person and have an actual reason to want the government to get away from your business. Or you do that if you are opposed to the government for other reasons, say cultural reasons, and just want to signal your distrust of the government. Libertarianism came from both sides of that. Not by coincidence, much of libertarianism came of the American South after the Civil Rights movement. US Southerners realized the US Federal Government wanted to destroy their culture; and many of them became free market fundamentalists as a way to oppose that. That again connects with the 3-way coalition of religious, nationalists and capitalists that has formed the Political Right for decades.

Well, Tucker’s speech basically said this alliance was over. The alliance of God, Country and Capital has achieved some electoral victories over the decades, but it has failed miserably at the only important task: the Culture War, influencing the behavior of the people so that they form stable and moral families. The Left has destroyed traditional culture bit by bit, and neither Nixon, nor Reagan, nor Bush, nor anyone, has been able to do stop it even by an inch. And why is that? Has God failed us? Do the people not love their Country? No, it’s the other guys. Capital has betrayed us. The libertarians have been playing a double game, and they are now pretty much the enemy. They haven’t just surrendered, or been neutralized. Capital today is perhaps the biggest force of the Left. They’re the biggest enemy.

Tucker Carlson makes his argument much better in this video where he is interviewed by Charlie Kirk, one of those classical cuckservatism propaganda guys, doing both the evangelical and the libertarian thing. It goes without saying that Tucker completely destroys him, and he has fun doing it. Understandably given what a complete tool this Kirk guy is. Do watch the whole video. 

Of course not all the video is good. The first 10 minutes are actually a very disappointing collection of cuckservative platitudes, where he talks how the increased insanity of Leftist activists is a sign of “fear” on their side. That they’re “losing control”. What is Tucker smoking? The Left is losing control? Of what? They can put transexuals on kindergartens. They have 10 year old boys in drag on national TV. They have successfully derailed pretty much everything that the elected president of the USA Donald Trump has tried to do for 2 years: a point which he makes himself all the time. Yes, sure, Donald Trump is actually president, and he confirmed two justices for the Supreme Court. But the Left is in complete control in pretty much everything they care for. Most importantly, the Left has the demographic advantage. They control the votes of every single Bioleninist constituency, and they are all growing. Single women? Growing. Gays and assorted sexual deviants? (can we call them GASD?) growing. Ethnic minorities? Growing. White Americans just posted the lowest fertility rate in history. It won’t be long until the Hispanic population of Texas grows to the point where the state votes Democrat, and then the Democratic Party will have a permanent electoral majority.

So no, they aren’t losing control. They aren’t “terrified”. Well, maybe they are, but that’s besides the point. When Stalin launched his purges in the 1930 Soviet Union, he was quite terrified of losing control. That’s indeed why he launched the purges. Which were wildly successful, killed a million people, displaced tens of millions, and made him a dictator for life. So yes, besides the point. The cuckservative idea seems to be that the utter defeat of the Right in the Culture War is a sign of some sort of demon-induced “insanity”, and that through a few exhortations to calm down given by DC aristocrats (like, say, Tucker Carlson) everybody will calm down and we’ll be back to the 1950s like nothing ever happened. 

“When you are standing on principle, and when you truly believe you’re right (…) that you’ll be proving right at some point; you don’t need to get mad (…) you can softly chuckle, and you can persist in the face of all the threats, in saying what you think is true, if you really believe it is. If everybody did that, this crap will end tomorrow.”

No, Tucker, no. I’m sorry, that’s not how it works. The current-year Leftist insanity is not a sign of anything, it’s just the logical progression of the Culture War, which the Left has won, utterly, and is now engaging in mop-up operations, gearing up the insanity just to gloat, to show off the power they have. Which they have, and we don’t. You can’t just tell people to “believe”, i.e. to have “faith”, and everything bad will go away. It won’t. When people oppose the left, they lose their jobs, they lose their friends, they lose everything. Sure, if everybody made a stand, and you had 100 million people in the streets, that would be something. But you don’t have 100 million people. You have at most 80. You have 200 million white Americans, of which taking out gays and single women and weirdos and nerds and snobs and cowards, you have at most 80 million people who oppose the left Out of a country of 330 million. So no, let’s not play the numbers game. 

And the Right isn’t even right. The Right doesn’t have a coherent theory of how things work, “consistent with thousands of years of human experience” as he puts it. The Left does: it has Marxism-Leninism, the old template of oppressors and the oppressed, now applied to biological groups. That may be wrong, quite bogus really, but it’s simple, and it works at the job it has to do: building a political coalition. Meanwhile the Right, which prides itself in caring about reality more than politics, can’t even agree on the reality of Human Biodiversity! No, Tucker, no. What we need is not just faith and courage. We need something more. We need smart politics.

But he knows that, and he elaborates that very well in the next part of the talk, where he puts forward his political platform. Tucker Carlson’s political platform is not about Freedom. Or God. Or Improving the world. He makes a much narrow commitment, which sounds strange for the absolute obviousness of its desirability.

—-The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.

“Period, that’s it”. Yes. That’s exactly it. That’s the one thing that all human societies since the beginning of time. Hell, that’s the one thing that all apes, all social animals are able to achieve. But modern liberal society is incapable of doing. You could rephrase this in more scientific terms to make it even more obvious.

 The goal of human society is to have a normal biological cycle of reproduction.

The genius of this is that in order to achieve this utterly obvious, minimal goal of existence, you’d have to completely dismantle liberal society from its foundation. And you could do that without hard feelings, without hate, without outright enmity towards liberalism. Nothing personal here, we’re just optimizing the government in order to achieve a normal biological cycle of reproduction.

Tucker then goes on explaining why he places the focus on government in the economy, not in cultural values per se. He says that the reason why young people can’t get married and have kids early is because of economic reasons, not cultural values, as the Right has been saying for decades. This is an important point. This is the most important point. This is everything. 

Everyone, from rat-voice Ben Shapiro to Cuckold General David French has come out against Tucker and his suggestion that economic policy may have something to do family formation being unaffordable in the only cities in the world where good jobs are available. It’s all about culture, they say. If people just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and read Shapiro’s or Jordan Peterson’s latest book, they’d be able to be productive enough to get a high-flying job in a big city and afford their their USD 5k a month rent.

Now, it is certainly true that many of our ancestors used to have lots of children, up to 5 or 6 children per woman, while being much poorer than we are. It is also true that other people, say Africans, have way more children than we do while being much poorer than we are. So sure, cultural values are more of a factor than economic factors are.

But it’s also true that economic policy is orders of magnitude easier to change than cultural values. It may be that people today are spoiled consumerist drones who think they are entitled to living the Sex in the City lifestyle, and even then won’t have much children anyway. That may be right. But it is also the case that economic activity is increasingly concentrated in a few global centers all across the world, and that people who don’t get access to those are increasingly depressed, with an epidemic of suicide by opioid abuse killing thousands of people a year.

The way that cuckservative pundits with their double libertarian-religious shtick (see Kirk and his “Proud Capitalist, Saved by Jesus” line) think of present economic trends reminds me of my friends back home who argue for the legalization of drugs. “People should have freedom”, they say. “Drugs are no worse than alcohol”, they say.

Alcohol is actually a great example. Obviously alcoholism is a big problem in some parts of the worlds, but oddly not everywhere. In many parts of Southern Europe, alcoholism barely exists at all, while in Northern Europe is quite serious. And with peoples like US Amerindians (“Native Americans”) or Australian Aborigenes, alcohol causes severe physical and mental problems to pretty much every single one of them. “Liquid fire” some call it, for how it wastes them.

The only explanation for this fact is that humans in societies with a long history of agriculture have developed genetic adaptations to digest alcohol, while people with shorter histories of agriculture have not. This doesn’t mean that people slowly developed an adaptation while merrily drinking their wine. No, that means that every single alcoholic in France or Italy who couldn’t hold their liquor died, while the few (at the beginning *very* few) who didn’t become addicted were able to survive and leave descendants. I have no idea what percentage of the population of early farmers in Southern Europe had to die in order for widespread adaptation to wine to spread, but given how Amerindians hold their liquor, it may have been in the order of 80%.

Legalizing drugs would start the process all over again. Sure, some people can get high on coke or meth and still be productive. The vast majority can’t. If we legalized coke and meth, we would be basically killing off the 80% of the population who would get addicted and waste away. Is that a reasonable price to pay for “liberty”? 

The same applies to our present economic system. At this moment, every single human population with an IQ over 95 has a fertility rate below replacement; and the places where the most intelligent and productive people tend to live, big cities, have generally fertility rates below 1. Not below 2, replacement, but below 1, half of replacement. As I’ve said again and again, big cities today are IQ shredders, where the genes that code for high intelligence go to get shredded in the corporate and bureaucratic rat-race, depriving humanity of the biological building blocks for a better future.

Why? Because some people are making money out of it. Who? The same people who fund the likes of Kirk, Shapiro, and the vast libertarian and associated free-market pundit ecosystem. Why are these guys on the Right at all? Says Tucker Carlson. And he’s right. It’s time they left. The cucks, cry, though “you can’t do this! Capitalists are our allies against Socialism and the Left”.

No. They aren’t. Not anymore. Capitalists were indeed mostly in the Right side of the Culture wars for many decades. But not anymore. Libertarianism was a rational strategy to signal one’s complete rejection of the state and the Cathedral and its associated cultural ideology; because the state wanted Socialism. It still wants it, of course. But not so hard, the Left has long reached an agreement with Capital, through which Neoliberalism lets Capital make some money in exchange of Capital going Woke. Woke Capital is a real thing now. It took decades of brainwashing and back-rubbing and cross marriage and outright coercion, but in 2019, the vast majority of capitalists, of investors, of bankers, of corporate executives, even down to the average middle manager, are now culturally leftist. They are Woke. If you don’t believe me, go read this guy for a couple hours.

And as Tucker mentions, in an age of technological revolution, in an age where Facebook, Amazon and Google (FAG) have more capability than any state bureaucracy, these guys are dangerous. And these guys aren’t in our side. They are completely sincerely Leftist. On average the tech population may be even more leftist than your average bureaucratic agency. Google is particularly crazy.

If Capital is now Woke, if the Left has successfully captured the capitalists, why should the Right be nice to them? Because muh-free markets? That was a means, not an end. The goal of the Right is, again…

The goal [of government] is to have an economy which makes it possible for normal, average young people to marry and have kids.

Or in other words, to ensure a future for our children. There’s another version out there in 14 words.

If it takes import tariffs to achieve this? Let’s have them. If it takes higher taxes for some industries or people, let’s have it. If it takes strict anti-monopoly laws, or even the outright nationalization of some companies, Let’s have that. If it takes strict controls on the media, let’s have those too. Whatever it takes. Liberty is a means, not an end.

The problem of means and ends, of process and goals, is of course an old one and a very hard one when you need to coordinate millions of people and keep them focused and loyal. An important point there is the careful use of language. When people speak of Capitalism it can mean a million things. You can have completely unrestricted markets or 90% tax rates, and they’ll both be Capitalism, because the only thing that the word Capitalism means is “not Socialism”, and the actual referents of those two words depend a lot on whether the Soviet Union still exists. National Socialism was less socialist than most capitalist countries today.

See that Tucker is careful to say he’s still a proud Capitalist, even though he’d probably crush most capitalists that live today. At least he sounds like he would. At any rate, using the same words as the Right has for decades is good rhetoric: you do want to signal continuity to the people you want to support you. And besides, Socialism *is* bad for you. Everything else equal, economic freedom does create economic growth. Which is why any good plan to crackdown on Woke Capital must be phrased in a way that blames big Capital of socialist policies, and promises to bring economic freedom to the middle classes and small business owners. That was also Trump’s rhetoric, Salvini’s rhetoric, and the rhetoric of every single successful right winger in a long time.

What the Right needs to do now is to reflect on how the Left was able to capture Capital and turn it into its most lucrative constituency. Any successful country needs a business community, and the capture of the West’s by the Bioleninist left has been so unexpected that still many people refuse to believe it. But happened it has, whether by political coercion, infiltration, or just mere cultural prestige. We better think carefully on what happened, how to reverse it, and use the same tools for our own cause.

The Intelligence Question

So my last post on Nassim Taleb’s mental retardation has triggered quite a lot of laughs and chuckles, and also some criticism. Some people say I was not rigorous enough when writing about Nassim Taleb’s books.

To those people I say: hold my beer. Seriously, people, this is a blog. A free blog, which I write under a pseudonym. I seek nothing from my writing, besides it being an avenue to make interesting friends. Which I have, dozens of them, and God bless them. But surely in this little place of mine which I offer free of charge, I’m entitled to shit on people for fun once in a while, especially if they’ve given good reason, as Taleb did by saying the most retarded thing that anyone can say: that black overpopulation is not a problem because they’ll turn out just as smart as the Germanic tribes did in post-Roman Europe.

That’ s not just retarded, that’s the most harmful and dangerous thing that you can say, period. The most dire danger to Western Civilization, to our lands, to our families, to our friends, to everything we hold dear, is the demographic replacement of Western populations by immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. Taleb is saying that’s not a problem! Well, fuck Taleb, fuck his books, his goatee, his accent. Fuck his deadlift, his insecurity about his racial background, and everything about him. And fuck you.

And besides, this kind of pedantic arguments about “oh you didn’t spend weeks reading his book to understand the math”, or concern trolling about the effects on group morale of criticizing a man who (to his credit, which I had always given before this week) at least makes a point of looking and sounding like a real man and not a soy-infused mangina, reveal you are the kind of person that Taleb hates. Taleb is a middle-eastern man who, by sheer biology, just can’t stand North-Western European nerds. And to be honest I can relate to that. So at any rate, don’t be a nerd and defend Taleb with nerdy, over-rigorous arguments. I don’t care, and he hates your guts.

Going back to the gist of Taleb’s argument, all he said was a bunch of wrong and disingenuous arguments about the importance of IQ (you can read a good summary here) , all done for the sole purpose of signaling his long dislike of nerds. And again, I can relate. There’s much to dislike about nerds. They are often annoying, and their lack of skill at enjoying the many pleasures of life is *very* harmful for many of us who just want to have a pleasant life and not live a life of drudgery at work. Let alone the harm that nerds do at showering thots and assorted single women with heaps of attention and money. Yes, nerds are bad. If Taleb had just said if he were King he’d randomly kill 5 nerds every fortnight just to make a point, I’d probably have retweeted that with implied approval.

But that’s not what he said. He went on a long obfuscating tirade about IQ being pseudoscience. And yes, IQ fetishism, the idea that IQ is all that ever matters, is weird and wrong, and mostly a vehicle for nerds who have nothing besides IQ going on for them, to feel good about themselves. But so what? Are nerds and their small attempts at mutually licking their wounds and achieving some tiny amount of self-esteem a serious problem for our world?

No, not even close. The real problem in our world is that high-IQ people, not just nerds, but just basically everybody half-functional, is failing to produce children, leaving a huge demographic vacuum which greedy business-owners and evil politicians are using to import dumb and hostile foreigners into our lands. *That* is the problem. And in our modern world, where the rights of ethnic peoples to their own homelands on purely ethnic and historical grounds is not accepted (because Nazis), in our modern scientistic modern world where the only acceptable public arguments must be written in the form of formal science, the only effective, true, empirically provable, and most importantly, legal argument to oppose the influx of millions of dumb and hostile immigrants into our lands, is the biological basis of IQ, and the different distribution of IQ between racial groups.

I wish it weren’t so. I wish the French could just say that France belongs to them and their posterity because they freaking say so, and everyone else will be expelled or killed. I wish White Americans could say they colonized and developed the continent, so it belongs to them, period. Talking about IQ is just a roundabout way of saying that dumb and hostile foreigners don’t belong to our countries. It has the obvious pitfall that East Asians are even higher-IQ than Whites, and yet nobody wants 100 million Chinese to immigrate to their countries.

Yes, it would be much better if we had solid measures of not only intelligence, but creativity, integrity, decisiveness, leadership abilities, and whatnot. If we had, we’d surely find out that different ethnic groups have different distributions of every trait. We could even use them to define the national character of many countries, and perhaps plausibly use that definition to set a psychological legal standard for the demographics a country wants to maintain. Perhaps we’ll get there some day. But we’re not there yet.

All we have is IQ, which individually tells you indeed very little about how useful a man is going to be for a particular task, but when averaged over populations tells you if a place is a shithole full of dumb people, or it’s a civilized and mildly pleasant place. IQ does an *exceptional* job at predicting that. Japan is nice. Denmark is nice. Morocco is not nice. Black Africa is awful. You may not like China, but it’s orders of magnitude more pleasant to live in than India.

So again, I understand all the criticisms about IQ itself, or about IQ-fetishism, or about nerds in general. I get it. I really do. My IQ is nothing special, I’m no nerd, I do my deadlifts myself. But that’s completely besides the point. The fight right now is for every civilized country to defend itself and its people. It’s a tough fight, and right now we’re losing it. Nerds are part of my people. Taleb, and the Africans he is so “sensitive” abut are not. A time will come to de-emphasize the importance of IQ and all that. But now it’s not that time.

Nassim Taleb is Retarded

Happy New Year folks, welcome to the 8th (!) year of Bloody Shovel. Let me start this sure to be eventful year with one of these posts which just need writing. A quick internet search didn’t come out with any article with this title; so if I’m lucky this post will at some point become viral on Google. You think Taleb is retarded? You heard this exact phrasing here first.

What am I talking about? Most of you should know who Nassim Taleb is; a finance man turned maverick public intellectual by virtue of a book, called the Black Swan, which basically saved all the western financial establishment from blame about the great financial crisis of 2008. If you read Steve Sailer you very much knew that all those Mexicans buying real estate with no down payments were going to unleash a subprime mortage crisis at some point. Not so! Said Taleb: that was a Black Swan.

A what? Some completely unpredictable scenario, a massive statistical outlier, he meant. He then colored the theory with a lot of fancy math. All those financial traders in Wall Street then could finally look themselves at the mirror again and not feel like evil failures. “It wasn’t our fault! It was unpredictable! Look at all that fancy math in the book. Only a genius like Taleb could understand that stuff”. It helped that Taleb is a Brown Man; hence a genius by default in our modern culture.

I know nothing of Taleb’s theories; although people who I respect intellectually, such as Eric Falkenstein, have written at length that they aren’t buying them. On the other side I see thousands upon thousands of bugmen and cucks who have nothing but praise for the swarthy bearded brown dude who likes to talk like an Italian mafioso because he’s convinced himself that being born close to the Mediterranean makes one white.

I could be wrong and the guy is actually a genius. But the geniuses I respect have a habit of not saying retarded things; at least not in public and when sober. That is not something that applies to Taleb anymore. One could read with some interest his stuff about finance math or “antifragility”, but now Taleb has come out as a full-fledged retard by saying what amounts (in my book) to the most retarded claim anyone can claim.

Taleb went on a Twitter rant (then about how IQ is a “pseudoscientific swindle”). His observation was based on his experience with “quants”, high-IQ math people who work for financial firms. He found them to be good at numbers but lacking at other skills, e.g. LARPing like a New York downtown mafioso or taking instagram pics doing low-weight deadlifts.

Now, to be fair to the guy; he’s right there. IQ explains some things. But it doesn’t explain personality, drive, extraversion, focus, dominance; a lot of stuff. But it doesn’t have to. Quants are quants. If he found them to be bad at making money in Wall Street; well maybe making money in Wall Street is not just about IQ. Big deal.

But IQ is real all the same. All else equal, a higher IQ is a desirable trait in any living thing. A high IQ may not guarantee success at any particular endeavor, but a low IQ absolutely guarantees failure at pretty much any advanced skill.

But of course everybody knows that. Which is why nobody really finds IQ to be controversial in normal life. Yes, it’s better to be smart than to be not smart. But to be smart, but a pussy, or a coward, or annoying, or just weird in personality is a bad thing. Nobody contests that.

IQ and psychometrics in general are only controversial, only a topic of discussion when applied to groups. Most importantly, to racial groups. That’s the only one reason why anybody objected to IQ research. To be put it even more clearly, the only reason IQ is controversial is that black people test low in IQ tests. And that’s why Taleb *had* to come out and say, oh, saying black people have low IQ on average is *insensitive*. After all, northern Europeans weren’t rich until after 1600.

Letting alone the point that the Chartres Cathedral was up by 1220; the very simple point that Taleb here is ignoring is this thing called genetics. Surely those “Meds” he feels so proud of (after all, the concept allows him to claim the glory of the Roman Empire, instead of accepting that the Levant has been a complete backwater for 2500 years) are genetically quite close to those Northern Europeans who, besides beating Roman legions pretty much all the time, were indeed not living in societies as complex as those of Southern Europe or the Middle East. Germanic and Celtic tribes even spoke closely related languages to Greece and Rome.

Not something that Africans can say; they’re the most distant race to Caucasians (and Asians) that lives on earth. And late last year we found very very interesting data on their genetic make up.

We estimate that individuals in two African populations have 6 − 8% ancestry through admixture from an unidentified archaic population that diverged from the ancestors of modern humans 500 thousand year ago.

Does Taleb know about this? Does he know about anything? Of course not. He makes a living by selling books to the soul-less bugmen in the finance industry; and he won’t be able to be able to keep being called to TV if he can’t claim to be part of the Bioleninism racket by hating on white people at regular intervals. He may not like being brown (half his waking hours are spent in loud reminders that he’s not an Arab), but he surely enjoys the privilege of not looking white.

Interview on Bioleninism

A few weeks ago, a great artist who runs the blog Parallax Optics was kind enough to ask me for an interview on Bioleninism, to follow up on a great piece he published recently where he interviewed the man responsible for the Twitter account Woke Capital. That interview was great, and I had never done an interview before, so I thought it could be a good idea to try this new format. As it happened, the interview went great, and I very much enjoyed the process.

What follows is the whole text of the interview for those who missed it up at Parallax’s. Let me use this chance to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and happy year end holidays. 2018 has been a quite eventful year. Hopefully it has been good for you personally as well (unlikely if you’re invested in the stock market, but nobody’s perfect). A lot has been going on in the reactionary sphere, much of it good. Bioleninism has become a widely known concept. Here’s for a great 2019.

Bioleninism has widely been acknowledged as perhaps the most important contribution to reactionary discourse in recent years. It represents a coming together of several strands of your political analysis / theory. How did you first arrive at the concept of Bioleninism, and what specific influences / texts helped shape the theory?

Well, it’s been a year now, and my episodic memory is pretty bad, so I can’t really trace my thought process that clearly. I remember I had been discussing with some fellow reactionaries about the “Crazy Glue” concept, the question of what on earth it is that sticks the many different parts of the modern left together. The coinage comes from Steve Sailer, and his idea was that the different factions of the left, the “Coalition of the fringes” he calls them, are united by hatred/envy of white people, especially white men. I tended to agree with that formulation, but it’s very rare that I disagree with Steve Sailer at all.

This fellow reactionary, though, pointed out that hatred only takes you so far, you can’t really run a political coalition on just hatred. You must deliver some goods, even if abstract. The way he put it is that the coalition of the fringes is united by their very reasonable assumption that whatever social status they enjoy today in Western society is due to political power of Progressivism; and that if Progressivism were to fall, they’d all be back picking cotton, or barefoot in the kitchen, or freezing in the shtetl. It is this rational fear that keeps strange people like gays and Muslims together on the same side of the political divide.

It made a lot of sense, and it got me thinking. Not all leftists hate white people per se; even if they do today, I remember a time when they didn’t. They could feel some envy and resentment, but hatred? After all, what is hatred? Hatred like any emotion is motivated by something. Hate is useful when directed towards targets which you can fight and plausibly win. There’s no point in hating someone who can crush you and make your life miserable. So, hatred towards white people today seems to have been orchestrated from above, it’s the result of a political campaign. That got me thinking about what kind of power or mechanism got this coalition together; the history behind the Left. That has long been one of my core interests.

I also remembered 10 years ago when I used to read Lawrence Auster’s (RIP) blog. He used to have a commenter, a Canadian anarchist Jew, who would write to Auster and tell him how he got Muslim associations to sign up for gay marriage and other leftist causes, which had to be completely abhorrent to any Muslim. But he did, in a very business-like way.

At the time I was listening to the Revolutions Podcast, which is somewhat pozzed, of course, but explains in a very realistic way the complete and utter mess that liberal politics was in the early 19th century in Europe; how every little splinter group was out there fighting for himself, with no organization or loyalty whatsoever. I also had in mind some stuff I’d been reading on old Chinese imperial politics, how the court used eunuchs and minorities to keep the very fragile imperial governance working. The collapse of imperial politics in 1911 led to another complete mess as the Chinese gentry failed to build a cohesive movement, and China remained divided until the half-assed Leninism of the Kuomintang, and later the proper Leninism of the Communist Party, built a cohesive state by privileging the unprivileged.

So, comparing in my head the experience of building a workable polity in China from scratch, with how the left evolved in the West since 1950, two words just came to me. Biological Leninism. I put that as a title and started writing my post. I write like Houellebecq writes: no plot, no plan, just start writing semi-unconsciously and see what comes out of it. Sometimes it works great; other times I just start to ramble and have to rewrite again and again. It took me months to finish that one, and I was not too satisfied with how it came out. But it was very well received, which was great.

Central to Bioleninism, is the insight that humans are hardwired to seek status more than they seek happiness / comfort. Therefore, as a powerholder, your best strategy to ensure ongoing loyalty is to promise individuals / groups an uplift in status, tied to the success of the Party, which exceeds what they would have ‘naturally’ achieved within a merit based social order. Can you expand on the role of status as a currency within the Bioleninist system?

Status is well understood, we all know how it works, as it’s the basic input of social life. But it’s not a very well defined term, there’s still work to do there. Status basically means whatever motivates people in any society once they have ensured the basics of survival. You could define it as “that which makes people want to become your associate and give you preferential treatment”. The particulars depend on the culture you live in. If you live in a commercial society, status is mostly about money. If you live in a hunting band, it’s mostly about hunting ability. If you live in a magical cult, it’s mostly about ability to summon the spirits. If you live in a communist society, it’s mostly about political favor. And so on.

If you’re King, who do you want as minister? The Duke of Orleans, who has more money than you do and a plausible claim to the throne if (God forbid) something was to happen to you? Hell no, you want a guy who is going to follow your orders, someone reliably loyal. And who is going to follow your orders? Somebody who has no better options than following your orders. It’s quite simple.

If you’re in a free capitalist society, with freedom to acquire and dispose of wealth, status is going to be linked with the ability to earn wealth in the market. That is not a good situation to be in if you’re the King; you basically have no power over people’s behavior if the status assigning mechanism goes through the economy and not the state. Over time, the states of the world figured this out, and either went Leninist, thus abolishing the market altogether and controlling access to status from above; or they went hybrid, like in the West. The West allows a private economy, through which a lot of status is assigned; but the economy is heavily regulated, so the state gets a say in who gets what amount of money. And of course, there’s also a wide propaganda system which includes the press, mass media and education. What we call the Cathedral (or the Polygon or whatever), in short. We can also just call it The Left.

The Left isn’t formally the state, it’s its own network which overlaps heavily with the permanent arms of the state proper (i.e. the bureaucracy) but is also larger than the state. It also spills over to other entities which aren’t formally part of the state, but which are under its influence. Say education. Some of it is part of the state, i.e. public, but a big chunk is private. It doesn’t matter, the social networks of public education workers are connected to private education workers, and so they all have the same opinions, marry each other, promote each other, etc. The same applies to the media, and increasingly to sheer capitalism companies, as we are seeing with Woke Capital. Managers of big companies have been integrated in the same social networks as the bureaucracy and so they are basically the same social class. Again, they marry each other, have the same opinions, etc.

A lot of critics have said that Bioleninism is not real, the most wealthy and highest status people are still white men, black people are still poorer on average, etc. And of course, to the extent that in the West we still allow market forces, we still have a merit-based allocation of status. But everywhere else, wherever the Cathedral has any decision power: in public propaganda, in entertainment, in government hiring, in education: all of those are completely committed in giving status to everyone but white straight healthy men, in direct proportion to how different they are from white straight men. They give status in the form of hyping up in propaganda and cultural broadcasts they control (black surgeons on TV, female pilots, women with hijab in fashion ads, black history month, gay pride, whatever), and in preferential hiring for highly-paid sinecures and positions of influence. Again, that used to be mostly getting hired for some make-work job in the bureaucracy, or some professorship of Grievance Studies, but now they’re increasingly moving into the corporate world, HR being a well-known reservoir for politically connected people.

Does Bioleninism function primarily by raising the status of low-status groups as a whole, or only the members of these groups who ‘officially’ join / pledge loyalty to the Party? Do you perceive a two-tier effect, whereby it raises the status of those who join the Party, but those that possess the inherent qualities of the group also get raised up / receive the benefits of protected characteristics, as part of a halo effect?

It does both, indeed. Black history month isn’t about any individual black person; gay pride isn’t about any prominent gay Party member. But the Left doesn’t have infinite resources. It can’t give a job to every black person in America, let alone on Earth. It can barely scrap enough to give each woman an Obamaphone to get her to vote on election day. But that’s the good part of the trick: you don’t need to actually pay cash to every single voter, in a Bueno de Mesquita sort of system. You can pay them with propaganda, telling them white people owe them because of slavery or colonialism or implicit bias, praising them 24/7, teaching in college about some Timbuktu pile of mud being the world’s first University, or women having invented whatever. You as a person of a low-performance group may not have a fancy job and make 6 figures, but the people with the megaphones are shitting on your enemies on TV, and that sort of effort merits loyalty. You’re certainly gonna vote for that guy and not for the guy who says you should be picking cotton or eating sand in Arabia. It’s a modern twist on the idea that the meek will inherit the kingdom of God. And who knows, maybe some day you do get that fancy job, or if you’re eloquent you can leverage your oppressed status© into YouTube fame or something. Maybe a seat in Congress!

You have described Bioleninism as a top down phenomenon, just like Leninism. Can you expand on the mechanics / incentive dynamics of the High and Low against the Middle, and why the Cathedral selects for loyalty over competence / ingenuity?

In any hierarchy, your enemy is the guy immediately below you. Because he wants your place, and he’s close enough to come get it. A good example of this is dynastic politics. Who’s the king most afraid of? His brothers, as they could take his place. The Ottomans famously had a period during which they enforced fratricide before any succession. The very existence of brothers was too big a risk. Chinese dynasties alternated between sending brothers far away to the provinces and keeping them under a form of house arrest in the capital.

To the extent that keeping your own position (your social status) depends on the loyalty of your underlings, everyone, everywhere, selects for loyalty over competence. No manager is going to hire a guy who’s going to take his place and make him lose salary or status in the company hierarchy. No company owner is going to hire a guy who is likely to end up starting a competing company and put him out of business. No way. He can be a genius who’ll make all the money in the world; but as a manager a subordinate’s loyalty is the foremost concern. Only once loyalty is secure you can start to select for competence. So again, the ideal subject is not a genius. It’s a genius who has nowhere else to go. There’s a curve between loyalty and competence but it bends to the side of loyalty. It’s better to have a mediocre 50% guy (provided he gets the job done) who’s gonna stick with you, than a smart 70% guy who’s gonna run to your competition. I’m sure many readers have seen versions of this phenomenon happening in their workplaces.

Same reason why every housewife wants a 40-year-old Honduran nanny instead of a 20-year-old Ukrainian, too. Given how human sociability works it’s a miracle that competence gets rewarded at all. Once I understood this I stopped wondering why it took so long for humanity to develop science and industry.

How does the problem of Imperium In Imperio animate Bioleninism? To elaborate further, Moldbug discusses at length the problem of divided sovereignty – divided Power does not want to stay divided, it has a centrifugal attraction, pulling it back together, like the shattered pieces in Terminator 2. I wondered what your thoughts were on the problem of divided Power / Imperium In Imperio specifically in relation to the structure of Bioleninism: how the problem / fact of the divided, mendacious, un-formalized nature of Power in the West gave rise to something that looks like / is structured as Bioleninism?

It animates Leninism per se. In a way, it’s the fundamental problem of politics. The way I described it in the original post was as the vengeance of Absolutism in an era of demotic politics. Power doesn’t want to be divided. Power wants to be absolute. That’s not only because there exist sociopaths among us; there’s a perfectly innocent yet powerful motivation for power to want to be absolute. See, in my view the fundamental law of the universe is status-conservation. People don’t want to lose status. Hence the guy in power doesn’t want to lose power. Ever. And his children don’t want to lose status either. In order to achieve status conservation for himself and his family, he pretty much needs to have power forever. In order to do that you have to stop other people from taking you out; which is hard to do, as they also want power themselves, again, sometimes out of sheer greed, but sometimes because they need to hold a more defensible position in order to achieve status conservation for their families. So, given enough time, power always tends towards concentration.

Given the restrictive mess that was feudalism, Absolutism was a way of doing away with all restrictions to monarchical power. When lesser nobles, merchants and country lawyers beat absolutism in Europe, they came up with liberal constitutions which made the division of powers into the basic principle of government. The result was completely unworkable, any decision by one power got blocked or stalled by the others. But given that all the powers of the state were occupied by the same sort of people (i.e. country lawyers), things got done by informal networking. I’m quite sure that this informal bypassing of legal limitations on power was what motivated Marxists to focus so much on “class consciousness”. It’s a really powerful thing, and Marxism-Leninism learned the lesson and engineered their own ruling class by giving poor people a class consciousness of their own. The Soviet Union and China then formalized the whole thing with a Communist Party, which controlled every single state organism and also gave privileged access to power for people of working class and peasant pedigree. Every single part of the government was controlled overtly or covertly by a party cell, and you just couldn’t get to high places in the Communist Party if your family was high status in 1910. Communists had a double layer system to make sure that central commands always went through. Power wasn’t divided.

Going back to the last question; Bioleninism is a top-down phenomenon insofar as it’s basically a personnel policy. Leninism in general is, fundamentally, a particular way of hiring people for your organization, and Bioleninism a variant of that. But Leninism didn’t come to exist in a top-down way; it was the result of a viral, memetic evolutionary process where power-hungry people tried to come up with effective ways of capturing more and more power. After a lot of trial and error, Leninism came up with class-struggle, and that not being a workable strategy in the wealthy West, slowly people started scraping the bottom of the barrel, hiring and promoting spinsters and gays and blacks and Muslims and whoever was unhappy with their status in the wealthiest and happiest society in human history.

Now every organ of state power, private corporations, religious denominations and every branch of the military, has a bunch of blacks and lesbians and transsexuals as political commissars to ensure that any order from the movement gets implemented faithfully. How is that different from Communist Party cells?

It’s less formalized than classical Leninism because it didn’t arise out of a complete break up of the old society, like in 1917 Russia. Bioleninism just slowly creeped little by little and colonized existing institutions without destroying them outright. And yes, they’ve had plenty of elite help, and increasingly so, but the elite didn’t come up with the process itself as a sort of Elders of Zion conspiracy. These kinds of processes can’t be accurately described as either top-down or bottom-up. It’s a combination of both: people on the bottom are trying out ways to agitate, the organizations which are able to command loyalty survive, while others don’t, in a classical bottom-up evolutionary process. People on top are watching for good organizations to invest in, so to speak, and they will integrate those which have survived the bottom-up competition into their top-down machines. So, there’s a bilateral flow of interaction concerning what kind of political organization is going to work better.

The Coalition of the Fringes, mobilized by the Elites, self-conceptualizes / propagandizes as a Coalition of the Oppressed. How does Bioleninism relate to SJW activism, victimhood culture (sensitivity to slight combined with appeal to authority) and slave morality, as historically conceived?

There’s a great article by this blogger called Devin Helton where he talks about “offense-bullying”. In the old days, peasants were meek people whotrash talked each other constantly; they had thick skins. It was the aristocrats who were extremely thin skinned and challenged you to a death-match (a duel) if you went so far as to diss their choice of shoes, or whatever. They were full of righteous anger at any slight to their honor. Interestingly, there’s an old quip of Chinese imperial bureaucrats, you may kill a bureaucrat, but you cannot humiliate him. They meant it. 士可殺不可辱.

Why were they like that? Because they could be. Being thin skinned is a signal of high-status, basically. An aristocrat must signal that he’s high-status, and thus untouchable, by making a fuss over anything, lest the peasants forget whom they’re talking to, the anger signaling confidence that you could make good on your threats by having access to higher authorities, or just more armed men. We all know that person who goes around saying “Do you know who I am?” in a menacing tone.

It’s no wonder that it’s now Bioleninist troopers who go around wailing in righteous anger at cross-dressers being refused to go to the female toilet, or packs of young, or tall, fit black men complaining that white women look at them in fear when they’re alone with them in an elevator. What they’re doing is signaling access to power, e.g. the ability to get physically violent without police intervention. Why are Antifa so in-your-face evil, shouting menacing slogans with a grin on their faces, and moving around the streets like they own the place? Because they effectively do, to the extent that law enforcement has double standards and they basically go unpunished.

They play this double game where they appeal for Christian charity (slave morality, if you will) from biologically high-functioning people, but at the same time use the support of state violence to engage in open extortion and random violence. Christian charity of course was its own power-play against the Classical-era pagans, who weren’t into charity at all; Greco-Romans worshipped strength and heroism. Being nice to children or slaves or lepers was, besides a reasonable way of seeking recruits, also a way of shitting on everything that the Romans thought holy. Now the (modern equivalent of) slaves and the lepers are asking for more than charity, they want power itself, and who’s going to come out and argue against that?

“Point deer, make horse” is the near epiphanic, central pivot in the first Bioleninism essay. How does your reading of Eastern thought, politics and history influence your understanding of Western thought, politics and history, and vice versa?

I would say my experience with Eastern peoples helped me in two ways. First, it gave me the detachment to look at my own history and culture in a more objective way. A great way of getting to really understand a concept is to try to explain it to a random Chinese person. You need to translate it into their language and explain the context in a way that makes sense to someone who shares absolutely no part of your cultural background. It’s hard, but it’s also very liberating. It forces you to come up with a narrative which is both simple enough to keep someone’s attention, and makes actual logical sense, but it has to be almost pure logic. The only words you can use are those that are very down to earth, common-sensical, limited to universal human nature. Short words any random guy who hasn’t read the same books you have can understand. A random Oriental doesn´t know anything about Abrahamic religion or liberalism, so throwing words like “reason” and “liberty” around makes little sense to him. At most, if he’s college educated he’s learnt a few sentences to pass the college entrance exam, but he’s long forgotten it.

The other way, and one trait of Asians I really like, is just how cynical and goal-oriented they are. To a large extent, discussing politics is just not done at all in Asia, unless you happen to work in politics or the media. That was boring, but also refreshing, coming from a European environment where everybody feels they must have a strong opinion on everything, from the price of bread to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Any abstract discussion of politics or philosophy in Asia is usually derided as a sophomoric attempt at showing off. Try to talk about anything not involving immediate money or gossip and you’ll soon get interrupted. “So what?”, “Your point?”, “What’s it to you?”. A common Japanese quip when you use some uncommon word is, 言いたいだけでしょ“you just want to say that word”, implying your vanity makes you feel good at using weird words that make you feel superior or high-status, but they’ve got you all figured out.

And they’re right. It got me thinking. What’s the point of all those conversations which don’t concern personal, immediate interests? It didn’t take long from that realization to finding signalling theory, and suddenly it all made sense.

Note that most of what we call Asian “philosophy” is also very down-to-earth, preoccupied with how to run a government, or how to live a good and content life. That’s just how the people are, and I still believe that they are genetically incapable of caring about metaphysics and the pointless abstraction it so often encourages. I like that trait in them, but I also think it’s deleterious to their building strong, cohesive polities. It’s not that they don’t ever peddle in bullshit or that they can’t be brainwashed; the suicidal Imperial Japanese Army and Maoism obviously happened, but Asians are always only so far from caring about their own personal interest that they need really tight, often cruel, discipline to keep them going. The old guilt/shame dichotomy doesn’t quite encompass it, but it’s not wrong.

How is Bioleninism to be distinguished from Tokenism – how do Bioleninists reify / exercise their claim on Power in a way which is qualitatively / structurally distinct from political mascotism?

I get this objection a lot. “Blacks or transsexuals or whatever don’t actually have high status. They’re just given powerless sinecures and it’s still white men calling the shots.” Well I wouldn’t mind one of those powerless sinecures with six-figure salaries for myself and my buddies. And one wonders how the demographics of the ruling class look in places where Bioleninism has advanced the most, like the USA, if you accounted for Jewish people. How many non-Jewish, non-gay white men are in positions of power in the USA? Not a lot, and its decreasing fast. 

Mascotism does happen but it’s not a stable strategy. At some point, younger generations are going to ask for and get actual positions of influence; and we are seeing this right now. No lack of female CEOs, of black congresswomen. The USA just got its first Somali. To some extent Bioleninist commissars are all likely to become tokens or puppets of some sort; but that’s only because they are dumb and lazy by nature. At some point we’ll get a high-energy black Muslim woman and it’s gonna be bad.

What confluence of political factors / dynamics served to give Bioleninists the “whip-hand” in contemporary Western societies?

Well, basically it was the defeat of Communism in the West. The “invisible hand of power-grabbing” (invisible hand of politics I called it in the third essay) came up with Socialism early on in the West, during the Industrial Revolution, using the (quite reasonable) resentment of the working class of the time. When that didn’t quite work out, after the working classes lost their resentment once mild-socialism became prevalent in the 1930s, and the boom times of WW2 made everyone rich, any aspiring agitator had to come up with some other resentful group. The first one was women; that had already arisen in the 19th century, and they got the vote mostly before WW2, but feminism was only developed thoroughly after WW2, when socialism wasn’t selling well, and the sexual revolution was throwing women into the open sexual market and the workforce, creating industrial amounts of usable resentment.

Gays and other sexual deviants also came out the sexual revolution, and they’re resentful by the mere fact of existing. I’ve written extensively about that: it must be hard when all the people you’re really attracted to find you disgusting.

And then obviously the foreigners. Third worlders came to the West to supply the cheap labor that the mild-socialist policies of Western governments were supposed to abolish. They soon became very useful to leftist political machines. Foreigners by definition are a low-status group in any society; unless the king protects them personally. That happened often in history; it’s basically the reason Jews still exist at all. Foreigners are weak, awkward, and so are loyal to whoever has the power to protect them.

Once all these groups were in place and had been agitated properly by the press and the academic establishment, basing a political coalition on giving official status to these people against the majority of, well, normal people, wasn’t a hard decision to make.

Do you regard the intersectional tensions at the heart of the Coalition of the Fringes as ideologically / politically stable in the long-term; or do you perceive the hotbed of contradictions as too inherently unstable to endure / govern as Power becomes further consolidated in Bioleninist hands?

I get that a lot. “Muslims and gays can’t get along, come on”. Well, they seem to be getting along quite happily in Leftist parties all over the West. I do imagine they’ll end up in conflict, but only after they’ve seized complete power. When all leftist parties in the West have become basically leaders of one-party states, then sure, the factions will start fighting each other. But in a one-party state you can unleash violence very easily. The early Soviets fought each other a lot too. Then they were all purged. And then purged again. And then Stalin came and unleashed the mother of all purges. I don’t know if Biolenin or Biostalin will be brown gay men or black lesbian disabled women; but I imagine violence will happen in due course. But they have to win first. While they’re still following the rules of liberal democracy they will stay put. They have to.

The concept of Bioleninism is simultaneously Essentialist, it draws on the explanatorily power of aggregate HBD forces; and Constructivist, it explains how political coalitions are socially constructed according to group-incentive dynamics. How do you conceive the inter-relationship of Essentialism and Constructivism in relation to Bioleninism, and which is the more dominant tendency in your thought?

I’m not an academic person but I think this is not a helpful way to put it. If there are two different academic cliques, one the “essentialist” and the other the “constructivist”, and I have to choose which one Bioleninism belongs to; then we’re doing something wrong. This is not a useful game to play; unless I’m gonna get tenure and a six-figure salary for choosing the right team? Am I?

I’m both Essentialist and Constructivist. I think reality is a thing, it’s out there, and it’s the same for everyone. That may map to “essentialism”. There’s real stuff out there and it has properties. IQ is real. Race is real.

But again, I’m a linguist. And language is constructed; it’s the result of social agreement. The only reason the sound string /dog/ forms the word “dog”, and that the word “dog” is used to refer to a certain animal is perfectly arbitrary and can be perfectly called a social construction. Every single word, every single part of grammar, every single linguistic pattern is like that. Every single “concept” is like that. It’s not completely arbitrary, and world languages have much in common, because there’s only so many ways to use language to form a society which is conducive to human existence. So, there’s an evolutionary process limiting how arbitrary social constructions can be. That applies to language (most languages – but not all! – have categories such as noun and verb), and to any other social institution. No human society that we know of (before modern Anglosphere) has had 20 “genders”.

To a large extent you could say that reality is non-constructed, but human perception, or at least public signals of perception (which is all we know. No matter how many MRIs you take, you can’t really know what’s going on inside somebody’s head, you only know reliably observed behavior), is all “constructed”. If only because going against social consensus is likely to get you killed or ostracized at some point, so you better follow the flow.

Then again, all political systems based their rhetoric on being objectively aligned with reality, following natural law of some sort. Constructivism as a theory arose as a way for the left to undermine Western society. It worked because constructivism points at a very real phenomenon: the fact that human knowledge is mostly mediated by other humans and not the result of any direct contact with nature. The right wing to a large extent is still trying to fight that fight, so they’re still pushing objectivism.

But that fight was lost many, many years ago. I’m one of the few, or at least one of the first, rightist writers who have been using constructivist arguments. Not only because they’re true; but also because they’re useful. Useful to undermine the present power structure. Let’s face it: we are not in power anymore. We’ve lost. Decades ago. Leftists are in power, they have a solid (if extremely flawed) theory behind them, and constructivist arguments can help destroy that.

You have been amongst the most insistent and articulate advocates of the need for a New Religion as a central / system of Schelling Point/s around which reaction could begin to build a parallel status system / coherent opposition to Bioleninism / progressivism. Which religions do you see as primary candidates to reboot, or would you prefer to work from a tabula rasa?

My idea was to start from scratch. Hence “a new religion”. I do understand now that it’s much easier to just co-opt or make a fork of an existing religion: that way you can attract a lot of people without implying they were completely wrong all their lives. But I honestly don’t know what’s going to work. At the beginning I thought the success of a religion depended on the ideas, it was a problem of ‘design’. I now tend to think that a sufficiently charismatic (and evil) prophet can get literally anything running, by sheer force of personality and tight discipline, however absurd the ideas may be.

That said, I’m just not a very religious person, and neither a very social person, so I probably won’t be involved with any of that. But at some point, I’m quite sure it will happen. It may be Zensunni, or the actual rebirth of a Deus Vult Crusader Catholic Church. Or something completely new.

If Bioleninism continues to proceed unabated, what do you see as its failure mode? Will it die of inherent contradictions, as Marxists fantasized capitalism would; or collapse of internal entropy and get overrun by external enemies; or ease up on adverse counter-selection dynamics, let competent people run things again, and transition to a neo-feudal oligarchy; or do you have faith in narratives of decentralization, fragmentation, Patchwork or neocolonialism; or do we face the eternal current year, on repeat, forever… or perhaps you envisage an End Game even more hideous than the possibilities I’ve highlighted above?

The scary thing about Bioleninism is that it has no alternative. Leninism existed for decades in Russia and China; but the obvious material success of the capitalist West provided a clear alternative. And at the point where internal contradictions went too far, Leninist countries could always say: fuck this, let’s just go Western. And that’s exactly what Soviet Union elites did. China took a middle way, but it basically dismantled much of its own system. Xi Jinping has been working hard to rebuild it, but he doesn’t have the old proletariat to man his system, so he’s basically running it on enforced sycophancy and internet surveillance. It doesn’t look very sustainable and cohesive to me, at the very least after the man dies.

Bioleninism has no alternative. Nobody in the West can get fed up with Bioleninist dysfunction point at one country and say: let’s do that! Well, there’s Japan and other wealthy places, which have not inflicted third world mass-immigration on themselves. But Japan still has big problems with feminism and sexual deviants. The fertility rate tells you it’s not a healthy society. And it just passed a law to finally bring mass migration of third worlders. At any rate, neither Japan nor anyone else has a solid, working non-liberal political theory to base their politics on.

On the right we may have many ideas of what to do, but we don’t have a clear, existing, successful example to point out to normies as a thing to emulate. Leninism died because Russians did have that. Let’s do America. We don’t have that. At some point Soviet Leninism became lower status than American capitalism. Right now, Bioleninism is the most high-status system in the world.

Taken to its logical conclusion, it will die of internal contradictions. As I said previously, at some point a Biostalin is going to come up and start purging people. Once he has complete and uncontested power he may change the Bioleninist theory by fiat to let competent people back into positions of power. At least the minimum number of competent people necessary to keep things running for another day. That’s a likely scenario. Slow, very slow decline. Collapse is also possible: Stalin was, after all, a very gifted man, and odds are the Bioleninists won’t be able to come up with one.

Then again, we might also see an ersatz Bioleninist rise to power. One of those Scott Alexander guys, who are perfectly smart and healthy straight white men but completely exaggerate any teenage trauma into a full-fledged mental illness, if not outright cause themselves a mental illness through excessive psychiatric medication, in order to fit in with the wider Bioleninist coalition of actually innately dysfunctional people. It’s no coincidence that reports of gender dysphoria and myriad mental illness are growing fast among young white people. Especially women: they know what our society demands, where status is, so they adapt themselves to it. Blacks and Muslims will protest that these guys are fake, that white people are all evil no matter how fucked up in the head, but odds are they’d lose in a frontal confrontation. So, look forward to the Dictatorship of depressed incel programmers. I’m only half-joking.

As for Patchwork and total fragmentation, the idea is cool and all, but I don’t see how the military equilibrium works for that. Ethnogenesis is in the end mostly a function of military technology. Fragmentation would be bloody, very bloody. And at the end of that war, I don’t think we’d get all that many polities after all. But I could be wrong.

Parts 12 and 3 of Bioleninism can be read at Bloody Shovel.

China’s CRISPR babies might have wasted our last chance

Yesterday I woke up to this piece of news:

Chinese Scientists are Creating CRISPR Babies.

Hilarity ensued. This guy, Hè Jiànkuí 贺建奎, professor at China’s Southern University of Science and Technology, with good, manly posture, was bringing the future to our time.

I was feeling weird already. But then this other bombshell happens.

Babies are already born! Twin girls, Lulu and Nana. Which are quite standard names for Chinese girls today, even though that sort of name would’ve sound like prostitutes 50 years ago. But I digress.

The mad scientist who had created the first CRISPR babies out of the blue, in secret, just like that! Had set up a Youtube channel where, in lousy English, he explained his whole project. Look at him here. His posture is not so good in the videos.

His procedure involved knocking down the CCR5 gene, supposedly giving immunity to AIDS. The guy went out of his way to denounce the use of gene editing (he branded his procedure as “gene surgery”. I’m just this doctor doing surgery, you see) for purposes of improving IQ. “That should be banned!” he said.

Oh man, we were just getting excited at the possibilities here. Immunity to AIDS? Getting AIDS is not a real concern for most people at all. Who cares about homosexuals really. Why is this guy using what might turn to be the most consequential technology in the history of mankind just to make life easier for homosexuals? And why is he bragging in English on Youtube? Which is banned in China. And why is his email in Gmail? Which is banned in China? Isn’t this some kind of secret Chinese government project to produce SuperHan?

Short answer is, no. Long answer is: we were all getting excited as state media (People’s Daily, The Paper, etc.) reported on the news on a fairly neutral tone. Those pieces were deleted a few hours later, as it surfaced that He Jiankui didn’t make the CRISPR babies through his university research. Oh no, he had gone rogue, cooperating with a hospital called Harmonicare, 深圳和美妇儿科医院. A maternity hospital, owned by the infamous, and I mean infamous, Putian hospital conglomerate. 莆田系.

If you search for the news in China, you don’t get “ethics” or “horror” or “brave new world”. No, all you get is “Those fucking Putian guys have gone crazy!!”, again and again, and again. If this had been a state-run project, nobody would be saying anything. Yes, some western educated scientists would protest. But the mood would have been “oh, wow. Cool.”. That was the general reaction of 90% of people when they first read the news, before the details started to trickle down. But once the Putian meme was out, most people in China wanted to grab Mr. He and tear him down to pieces.

He Jiankui must have known what he was getting into. He took a 3 year leave from his university post in February, supposedly to focus on this CRISPR baby project. The university has promptly disowned him, and 122 biologists come out asking for his imprisonment. China has started an investigation. It’s not looking good.

Putian is a small town in coastal Fujian province. There’s nothing special about it, besides them being Fujianese, and thus a bunch of cutthroat money-grabbers with no sense of ethics and morals. Yes, nobody likes the Fujianese, especially in China. For some reason the Putianese have a virtual monopoly of private hospitals in China; or at least that’s what people in the street will tell you. Supposedly they created a good political patronage network under Jiang Zemin in the 1990s, and since then, no private hospital can get an operating license in China if they’re not part of the Putian mafia.

Having a monopoly, and being (again, that’s the stereotype) genetically evil, the Putianese run hospitals are famous in China for outrageous prices and making up diseases so they can do expensive surgery to cure them. Allegations of baby theft and organ trafficking are also common. Again, I don’t know how true. I assume that the prices are high, and yes, unnecessary surgery happens, so the anger they have caused through those two things have escalated into Putianese doctors eating babies for breakfast and selling the organs to the Jews or something. Again, true or not, the street believes it, and that is newsworthy indeed.

It surprised no one that He Jiankui did his research through a Putian-owned hospital. Those guys will do anything for money. The question, however, remains: is this for real? Did he really pull it off? People on Twitter are saying they were classmates with the guy, and he was a physics major who only got into biology recently, no way he has the skill to pull this off. This could be just some marketing ploy to get fame for the Putianese IVF clinic he is now working for. Again, everything is fake in China. The Chinese will tell you so themselves.

I don’t know what to believe. If CRISPR babies are real, this guy is in trouble. If the babies are fake, then this guy got into real trouble for no reason at all. Yes, he got his Youtube views, and some fancy videos where he speaks in English. But what he did is kinda illegal in China; and while China enforces its own laws when it wants to, making an international scandal of THE MOST IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY EVER is pretty much the one thing that will trigger government attention in China. I hope for his own good that he’s just some mad scientist who went rogue.

If he is a fake, he’s gonna spend a long, long, long time in jail. All in exchange of 3 lame Youtube videos. If so, shame on you, He Jiankui. You are the dumbest guy ever, and you’d have brought shame on a great technology which could delay its application to humanity for decades. Decades which we don’t have, at this rate of IQ shredding.

China was kinda ok with gene editing, but by associating the technology with the most hated institution in China, he could very much have forced the hand of the Chinese government and have it effectively banned for good. The future of humanity may have just died by the intersection of a greedy hospital, a vain scientist and social media.

Say it ain’t so, He Jiankui. Better be true.

Patriarchal Sexual Law

We live in a world of sexual license. Sexual freedom we could say. You can sleep with whoever you want and neither state authorities, nor most people, will interfere with your sexual life. You can even engage in the most unnatural, disgusting and disease-inducing activities; but criminal law just has nothing against you.

This alone is a sign that the patriarchy doesn’t exist anymore. Patriarchies are systems in which all women belong to a man; the husband after marriage, the father before that, or the head of the household if she’s a servant of some sort. Women have this uncanny ability to make men want to have sex with them, and at the same time prefer to have exclusivity in that matter. Not to mention the potential for disease or childbirth. So naturally their legal guardians had to take care that women, i.e. their property, was not captured by other men to have sex with them without proper compensation. As such, law regulating sex in the pre-modern period where every bit as complicated, and as harsh, as laws regulating finance and property in our day.

Imperial Chinese law on marriage is a lot of fun, but most interesting are their laws on fornication. Fornication belonged to criminal law, ever since the very first complete legal code on compiled during the early Tang Dynasty in 624, which has remained to us as the 唐律疏義 tánglü shūyì. More importantly, rape was understood as fornication + force, a more serious crime but nothing really different. The difference is stark between a legal code which lasted pretty much intact for 1300 years, and our present day of female supremacy, when rape has been reinterpreted every few years as the single most heinous crime that can be committed, while at the same time requiring no standards of proof.

What follows is a translation of the legal code of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), the 大清律例 dàqīng lülì, tome 33. I have the book but you can find the text in Wikisource.

犯姦 Fornication

1. 凡和姦杖八十 . Any fornicator gets 80 strokes of the big stick.

zhang was a big wooden stick with a flat surface, the worst of two available corporal punishments. It was normally applied to the buttocks or the back. If done strongly it could kill a fit man after 50 strokes or so. The traditional maximum was 200, so it was usually never applied that strongly. Bribes to the executioner in advance helped make him feel weak that day.

At any rate, 80 strokes for peaceful, consensual fornication is a lot of strokes. 80%+ of the sex going on in any modern society is fornication. Think about that.


有夫者杖九十.  If there’s a husband, 90 strikes.

Obviously any consensual fornication with a woman with a husband is morally worse than if the woman is single, so you get 12% more strikes of the big fat wooden bat.

刁姦者[無夫有夫]杖一百. Seducers get 100 strokes, whether the woman has or does not have a husband.

– 刁姦 supposedly meant getting to fornicate on false pretences; the man (or woman, I guess) getting to seduce the other part by lying about its attractiveness or something. 100 strokes to you for lying. –

強姦者絞. Rapists [literally “forced fornicatiors”] get hanged. Not immediately, most death penalties were done after review on autumn. But rapists got hanged, period.

未成者杖一百流三千里. Attempted (but unfulfilled) rape  gets exile to 3,000 li away.

– A li was a bit more than 500m during the Qing (set at 576m around 1900), so about 1,700km away. –

凡問強姦須有強暴之狀婦人不能掙脫之情亦須有人知聞及損傷膚體毀裂衣服之屬方坐絞罪 This is commentary to the law: “All cases of rape require proof of violence, and proof that the woman couldn’t get away. Also they need someone in the know (i.e. a witness) and damage to the skin [of the victim] as well as her clothes, in order for the penalty of hanging to be valid.”

若以強合以和成猶非強也. If intercourse starts as forced but ends as consensual then [it means] it wasn’t forced”.

– Important point here. Very important point. Again this is commentary later added to the law. I wonder what case(s) prompted this to be added.-

如一人強捉一人姦之行姦人問絞強捉問未成—-流罪””If one man forcibly captures [a woman] and another man rapes her, the rapist gets hanged. Attempted rape gets exile”

又如見婦人與人通姦見者因而用強姦之已係犯姦之婦難以強論依刁姦律  If a man sees a woman fornicating, and because of that rapes her, it’s unfair to argue it’s rape, and so it’s sentenced as “seduction”. So rape of a fornicator gets you 100 strokes of the rod, not the death penalty. Hey, she was in the market after all.

姦幼女十二歲以下者雖和同強論. Fornication with a girl below 12 years old gets treated as forcible (rape), i.e. hanged, period. Not unlike what Anglo countries call “statutory rape”.

其和姦刁姦者男女同罪. In case of consented fornication and seduction, men and women get the same penalty.

姦生男女責付姦夫收養. If fornication results in a birth, the male fornicator must raise the child.

姦婦從夫嫁賣, 其夫願留者聽. If the female fornicator is married, her husband can sell her to someone else, or keep her if he so chooses.

若嫁賣與姦夫者姦夫本夫各杖八十婦人離異歸宗財物入官 If she is sold to the male fornicator, the fornicator *and* the cuck husband each get 80 strokes of the big stick. The woman is sent back to her father and her property is impounded by the government.

強姦者婦女不坐 Raped women have no punishment.

若媒合容止[人在家]通姦者各減犯人[和刁]罪一等 . People who promote or provide lodgings for fornication get the same punishment as fornicators, with one degree less. So 70 strokes of the big stick instead of 80.

[如人犯姦已露而代]私和姦事者各減[和刁強]二等 . People who, knowing fornication took place, do not denounce it to the authorities and instead helps the parties reach a private agreement, get the same punishment, with two degrees less. So 60 strokes of the big stick.

*This part is important*.

其非姦所捕獲及指姦者, 勿論. If someone claims there was fornication but didn’t actual caught them in the act, there is no crime.

若姦婦有孕[姦婦雖有據而姦夫則無憑]罪, 坐本婦. If a female fornicator is pregnant, she alone is punished. After alone, there is proof of her deed, but not of the man’s.

– Again, you needed proof, which wasn’t easy to come by. –

After the main articles come some further detailed regulations.

一 、凡職官及軍民姦職官妻者 , 姦夫、姦婦女並紋監候 . If a public official or military man fornicates with the wife of a public official, both male and female fornicator hang.

若職官姦軍民妻者,革職,杖一白的決. If a public official fornicates with the wife of a military man, he is fired and gets 100 strokes of the big stick, [maximum penalty]. In this case the sentence had to be executed, he couldn’t evade it with money (as normal penalties could).

姦婦枷號 一 個月,杖 一 百. Fornicating military wife must carry the cangue for a month, and 100 strokes of the big stick.


– The cangue was a square made of wood with a hole for the head, or sometimes the hands, which people couldn’t get off. It’s basically a very funny way of making everyone know you’re a criminal. In this case a huge slut.


其軍民相姦者,姦夫 、 姦婦各枷號 一 個月,杖 一 百. If two military people fornicate, they get the cangue for one month, and 100 strokes of the big stick.

其奴婢相姦,不分 一 主,各主,及軍民與官員,軍民之妾婢相姦者,姦夫姦婦各杖一百. If two servants fornicate, whether they belong to the same master, or have different masters, as well as when military men fornicate with the concubine of a military men or a public official,  both fornicators get 100 strokes of the big stick.

– Note that simple fornication between free people was 80 strokes. –

凡有輪姦之案,審實,俱照光棍例,分別首從定擬. For cases of gang rape, after investigating the truth, officials must follow the Thug Regulations, and sentence separately the leader of the gang and the followers.

– The Thug Act being apparently Qing Dynasty official jargon for a special law for hoodlums and petty gangsters that the dynasty set up pretty early on. A principle of that law was to punish gang leaders with immediate beheading, and followers with deferred hanging. I guess the idea was to get the followers to rat on each other with the hope of having their death sentence annulled before Hanging Season started in the fall. –


The following article was about 雞姦, literally “chicken fornication”, which my dictionary tells me means “sex between men”. That I think is matter of another post.

My classical Chinese isn’t perfect and my legalese is even worse, so if there’s any error please let me know. But I think my translations are decent. I hope you get the gist of the law. Sex happens within marriage; period. If you must fornicate, at least take care that nobody knows or cares.

The Wars of the Sexes

What do Bronze Age Pervert and Brett Kavanaugh have in common?

Not a lot. One is a nudist bodybuilder, a tropical Nietzsche who wants to burn the cities and reduce women to breeding stock. The other is a pasty Irish Catholic Yale graduate who was pretty much a virgin until his marriage at age 40, and to this day can’t help crying like a girl when referring to the women “friends” during his life who gave him the slightest amount of attention.

Imagine these two guys in the same room. Would they get along? I don’t think so. And yet here we are, in this strange world where not only BAP, but millions of people in and outside the internet defending this Irish cuck and his all-female team of legal clerks. So what’s going on?

Let’s talk about the Women Question (WQ). The WQ is the realization among a few select men of intelligence that female emancipation has been a complete and utter disaster for civilization. What started rather innocently with giving limited economic rights to women (having a bank account, inheriting property) has spiraled in less than two centuries into a full fledged war of the sexes, making life miserable for hundreds of millions. And most importantly, depressing the birth rate of the most valuable people on earth.

It used to be that genes for better strength and health, for higher intelligence, for physical beauty, made you leave more offspring, while the unfortunate carriers of genes that made you unhealthy, ugly or stupid were unable to reproduce themselves. Well not anymore. The best people on earth today are all, thanks to the open sexual market of all against all (the extension du domain de la lutte of Houellebecq’s first novel) brought by female emancipation, squeezing themselves into big global cities, competing for status in a non-stop rat race which makes family formation impossible. They thus fail to have babies to inherit their precious genes, wasting them into these massive IQ shredders which dominate the modern world. I called them IQ shredders as IQ is the most pressing concern (no IQ no electricity, folks), but it’s really shredding all the genes of excellence that mother nature has spent millennia making for us.

This is not exactly a race thing, as it’s genes for excellence themselves which are being wasted in the global status rat race. It’s not just Indians or Africans outbreeding Whites. It’s the worst blacks and the worst Indians outbreeding the best of their kind. The first ethnic group to literally go extinct due to feminism won’t be any European people: it would be the Parsis, long the highest-performing ethnic group in the whole of India. They are actually going extinct because their women would rather take PhDs than make babies. And they do that because women don’t actually like most men. Women are wired to like the top 10-20% of men, “top” meaning bigger, stronger and more violent. It’s how it works in most mammals, you can’t argue with 500 million years of evolution. Hate the game, not the player.


If you think this doesn’t concern you, you’re wrong. The whole Western world is slowly morphing into having the demographics of Brazil, roughly half white, half black. But Brazil itself is shedding its best people. The next step there is South Africa, 10% white. But again we know what’s going on with South Africa and their planned dispossession of its white population. You know what comes after South Africa? The endgame is Haiti. If feminism isn’t stopped and reversed, the whole world will be Worldwide Haiti (WWH). Now think of that.

So what do we do? Opposition to feminism has a long history, but as feminism advanced from demanding equal rights to achieving effective supremacy, more and more men are noticing what’s going on, and are growing apprehensive at the dispossession of the male sex and the likely coming of Worldwide Haiti. I see four kinds of reaction to late-stage feminism.

  1. Surrender. Marry, have children, live a life of enforced domesticity, take the risk of your wife destroying your life unilaterally on a whim, taking your assets and your children. Maybe you’re lucky and you get a good woman. Or maybe you actually enjoy domesticity.
    It’s not an ideal solution for most men, it doesn’t solve the evil of feminism; but it does produce children, so credit where it’s due, we should thank the sacrifice that these men do for the future of our peoples.
  2. Quit. Men going their own way (MGTOW). The Japanese innovated here, as usual. In 2-chan they call live as a beta man today (80%+ of men) “playing in hard mode”. What do you do if you just can’t beat the game in hard mode? You quit and run a different game, of course. You buy a pillow with your favorite anime character of a 14 year old nymphomaniac with H-cup tits and a 10-inch waist and proclaim her your wife on your favorite internet forum.
    Not a solution, and really fucking disgusting on times. Withdrawal from the sexual market tends to make people into ambiguous freaks. At any rate it doesn’t help at all. This is a “you can’t fire me, I quit” kind of move. If you couldn’t get laid anyway, you aren’t quitting the sexual market, you have been fired. Withdrawing into a fantasy world, while an understandable instinct in some cases, doesn’t affect the sexual market equilibrium in the slightest. Betas are just invisible to women anyway, getting out of sight just makes it easier for them.
  3. Play the game. When playing a game in hard mode, some people quit. Some people take the challenge and master it. In the sexual game, they learn Game. Seduction techniques. Become an alpha, what women want. You read Heartiste, go on learning how to pick up women. Pump and dump. It’s a risky game to play, but rewards are high. If the man is so inclined it might lead to a successful taming of a woman and the production of good children. In other cases it leans to decadence and long-term misery. It’s not an ideal solution, in that it doesn’t quite solve feminism, and in fact provokes women into further escalating their demands for supremacy in order to rein down on men. Remember, women don’t want “good men”. They went the statistical “best men”. They just want the top 20% alphas. Faking an alpha is a short terms solution that only leads women to recalibrate their algorithms to come up with a new 20%. But hey, as pointless as it often is, as a man I can only respect the man who takes up the challenge and beats the game in hard mode.
  4. Now I don’t know how to call this strategy. I could just call it the BAP strategy. Or the Mishima strategy. Maybe call it Retreat, Regroup and Entice. Strategic Withdrawal. Or Sexual Cannae. Perhaps the best name would be the Mannerbund Strategy. Ever since the Industrial Revolution broke the equilibrium of the sexes in the civilized world, and brought men into the cities and into wage labor, plenty of people have deplored the effect this had on men, becoming effeminate and weak. Amusingly many of those who complained have been homosexual, as the leaders of the German Wandervogel in 19th century, or Mishima in 1960s Japan, or Jack Donovan in present America. This makes sense; homosexuals like real, strong men, even more so than women do, give their higher sex drive. While Bioleninism has been taking care of homosexuals of late, in a purely sexual way, homosexuals are the biggest victims of the dispossession of men and state-mandated effeminacy since the 1800s.

Of course not all of the strategic withdrawalists have been homosexuals; Nietzsche obviously comes to mind. At any rate, their idea is that men should recover their masculinity, go back not to pre-industrial times, but to the heyday of manhood, the culture where were not only in charge, their were heroic, and even beautiful. Ancient Greece. The Greeks just didn’t saw much of a point in women, for them men were just perfect, got things done, were fun to be with, and were beautiful to see even. Women were annoying and not even that good looking. So what Greek fans argued is that, if women are gaining power and annoying men, men should withdraw, live together, form mannerbunds and do their own manly things. Have fun and stop caring about women at all.

That’s fine and all. And in the 1920s and 30s, these male aesthetes were in some way responsible for the uber-manly fascist movements in Europe. The Nazis, and especially their armed forces, the SA, were full of crypto-homos such as Ernst Röhm. And they carried the day; Europe was this close to fall into communist horror, and it was only the handsome paramilitary armies of the post-Wandervogel boys that saved Western Europe from communism. So cheers to them. Homos saved Europe from communism once because they found mass rallies of armed muscular men arousing. And… then they were purged, with long knives. Cheers to that too.

While mannerbunds sound like real fun, they’re not quite clear on how that solves the feminism problem. Well yes, Mannerbunds are different from omega MGTOWs in that the latter are invisible to women anyway, but the former, by the sheer size and hardness of their abdominal muscles, have a way of making women crazy

But still, getting women horny doesn’t solve the issue of producing quality babies if you don’t actually go through the trouble of impregnating them. Which you can’t in any civilized country, not if you want to stay in the mannerbund, given women’s legal power to enforce serfdom to the genetic father of any of her babies.

While I sympathize with the idea, and hope history remembers me as the man who provided the theoretical justification for destroying IQ shredders and salting the land, for better or worse, we don’t live in the Bronze Age anymore, and omegas married to their pillows are likely to be more useful at Razing the Cities through their knowledge of programming or nuclear engineering than Mannerbund Aesthetes with expertise in ancient art history.

The question remains, though: what can we do? How do we prevent Worldwide Haiti? Bring back the patriarchy? A subset of strategy 1, marriage, is trying to recreate a patriarchy inside an isolated society. A well known example is the Benedict Option, by religious-shopper Rod Dreher. The idea is that people should isolate from mainstream progressive society and try to pull a medieval Benedictine hill monastery kind of trick, and do their own thing in blessed isolation. A long but insightful review of the book by veteran blogger Handle can be found here

The Benedict Option is a really misleading naming for what should have been plainly called “The Amish strategy”. Because that’s what you need to keep your women in control. The Amish have a patriarchy alright. They even get progressive journos sent to document how evil and patriarchal they are. But they are left alone, for some reason. Doesn’t mean any neo-Amish movement starting from scratch would be. And that’s assuming any woman born in our feminist supremacist society would actually join in. The Amish are already there, after all, and nobody’s joining them.

The patriarchy only evolved in places where the local ecology made necessary the hard labor of men for survival. Places where women couldn’t feed themselves. Places with cold winters. Places where you needed granaries to store food for the winter, and men to guard those granaries from enemy peoples. In those places men got to rule, because what were women going to do anyway? They would starve and freeze without a man.

And so a system was set where every single women was subject to a man, either her husband or her father. Sexual access to women (and her labor, which was often quite useful at home) required a lifelong contract, or else. Now some patriarchies allowed polygamy. Europe didn’t. But the general point that women were subject to men was respected; and that was what kept most men with skin in the game, willing to contribute their productive labor to society at large.

That was just a function of the economy. There’s plenty of places where women can feed themselves without men. Warm, tropical places. You don’t have patriarchies in those places, unless a northern tribe conquered them and kept it by cultural inertia. You never get a matriarchy, women are never physically strong enough nor organized enough to rule over men. But you do get matrilineal and matrilocal societies: places where women do their thing, feed themselves, fuck who they want, and interact with men mostly on the women’s terms. The Chinese call one of these matrilineal hill tribes as having 走婚, walking marriage. Because the women live all with their womenfolk, sex happens when a man walk to the woman’s house, screws her, and then leaves. The kid belongs to the mother’s house, the couple can break at each other’s whim (though there’ll plenty of nagging and gossip in the village), and the guy may or may not feed the child depending on how much of an asshole he is. He usually is.

That’s how society worked in much of Africa and Southeast Asia; women lived in their own villages, fed themselves. Men live with other men, have their cool mannerbund where they dress up and decorate themselves and work out and fight a lot, come and go to women’s villages now and then to exchange food and sex. Of course it’s not that easy going; it’s heavily ritualized with festivals and ceremonies and so on, and sex pairings are supposed to be exclusive unless something goes wrong. The late Henry Harpending had a great writedown of this sort of societies, and how men and women relate to each other in the absence of a pressing need for marriage, as in winter societies.

That’s where we’re moving now. That’s the sort of society that arises when women can feed themselves. Of course our societies today are much worse than that. During the transition to a female-centered society, women want to have it both ways: they want the freedom of a tropical society, but they also want the amenities of a patriarchal civilized society. Every day they see their standard of living dropping as men refuse to marry them and pay for women’s lifestyles, women nag and cry about how evil men are. Well, that’s how it works. You can get to chase Chad to your heart’s content. You already do, and it’s been a thing in tropical societies for tens of thousands of years. But what you don’t get is to chase Chad and get Dad to pay for it.

Matrilineal societies have reasonable fertility rates, even today, so the total collapse of sex relations in modern civilized societies is probably more a function of the slow motion breakdown of the patriarchy and women knowing they’re screwed either way, than just a function of female choice. Women do like babies. They just want to have yours. And they want to travel too. And have a career. Aah! I can’ even.

Can we go back to a patriarchy? We could. I guess the Mannerbund proponents envision a small army growing steadily, first a dozen kids, then one hundred, then one million, then revolting, razing the cities, conquering the world. That would work.

Absent that, though, capitalism is here to stay, female labor is 90% bullshit but still 10% useful. Most importantly, food is cheap. Women can feed themselves either way. They didn’t like the patriarchy, they won’t go back without force; force that men just don’t have the organizational power to apply. The alphas are having a lot of fun, after all. A solution would be to flank the female army and come up with some technological innovation that made frontal engagement unnecesary. Embryo selection and CRISPR could again, in a few decades, produce quality babies without having to fix sex relations. Artificial wombs could make Brave New World a reality. Worldwide Haiti could be avoided, good babies produced and neither men nor women would have to cope with lifelong marriage, which let’s be honest, 80% of men nor women don’t really enjoy.

That’s assuming that advanced civilization stays in a more or less stable way. In that case the  breakdown is here to stay. If some big fat SHTF moment happens, if there’s widespread collapse, then all bets are off. An old school patriarchy would have the upper hand there. But it would have to be solid, have a strong religion behind it. A new religion, perhaps.