Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: November 2011

We need a new religion, 2

One of the best rightist blogs around there is Lawrence Auster’s View from the Right. Auster himself while having occasionally very brilliant insights, is no scholar, but the sheer force of his personality, or his chutzpah if I may put it that way, attract all kind of brilliant people. Today an outstanding post there, where a commenter of his says:

Politics is the religion of leftists. Since there is no divine agency in the world it’s all up to man, omnipotent man, who controls the destiny of all worldly affairs in his hands through the science of political activism. So they obsess endlessly over politics, political theory, and political strategy, investing all their passion and hope in political argument, action, and intrigue. For only politics can bring about their perfect world where all problems are solved, all conflict resolved, and politics the pivot around which the world revolves. So every problem in the world, reduced to politics, is of deep concern. Not a sparrow falls to the ground but politics could have prevented it. If a tree falls in the forest it makes a political statement. Every man, woman, and child on earth must concern himself with politics. All art, science, medicine, education, leisure—they all must be about politics. The personal is the political. Embroidery and millinery are political. Look up at the sky at night and what do you see?—politics. To the leftist this way of seeing things seems normal. To the non-leftist it’s obviously distorted, unbalanced, and unhealthy. Not to mention unrealistic. But such is man, in his folly and sin. And that is the reason, or part of the reason, why the traditionalist places little faith in man and man’s politics.

Very well put. That’s why we need a new religion. Not a revival of the old one, mind you. Christian egalitarianism makes people all equal, which means that if someone is good, or someone is sacred, as there’s always someone, then by force ALL people are good, and ALL people are sacred. Which ultimately ends up meaning humans are all sacred, inviolable beings, so we are forced with a weird kind of human DNA worship. Somalis are dying from hunger!! We must save them. So we do. 10 years later, the population has doubled, they starve again. We must save them! Why? They are human beings too! They deserve to live! We are all equal after all. And so we’re stuck with breeding ever bigger amounts of Africans as our international sport.

Of course the converse stands too, and if some people are bad, they ALL people must be bad. Well some protestant sects were all about humans being damned wretched creatures who could only be saved by some random grace from God. A very weird way of seeing life, methinks. It of course can’t sustain itself for long, people tend to think of themselves as inherently good. So we got liberalism.

We need some kind of Mormonism without christian references, where people are stupid, God is in charge, yet we can get closer to God if we behave and practice eugenics. First goal must be colonization of space, which after an indeterminate amount of time, will result in us meeting Him. Fill with the narrative/theological details you want.

Advertisements

On bare branches

My last post about Arab sexual dynamics has been criticized (here by TGGP), for asserting the Bare Branches theory. That’s the theory that says that a surplus of single men in a society causes crime, instability, general havoc in short. I honestly wasn’t thinking about that (I’m most interested in understanding why Arab females wear burkas and love it) but I guess the criticism is fair and deserves responding.

Well the Bare Branches theory is pretty mainstream, nowadays used to explain quite different circumstances: one being the China-is-going-to-hell meme. Theory says that selective abortion has caused tens of millions of single males who won’t be able to form families, so they will grow frustrated wreak havoc, and eventually be used by the evil commies in a war against Taiwan. The other bare-branches everyone cares about are of course the Arabs, who according to western bleeding-heart liberals, grow into jihadis out of sexual frustration.

Well TGGP quotes Jason Malloy on how the Bare Branches theory is false. Jason Malloy is the kind of guy we all wish had his own blog, alas we can only read him through comments on others. He’s good, and he quotes real data. We rightists tend to like data because in general the data agrees with us, in HBD, Game, welfare, social policy in general. Still statistics are raw data, and don’t explain the mechanism of it. You need a theory for that. And while quoting historical British data is better than being Matthew Yglesias, its still prudent not to make any assertions about human nature based on Anglo data alone. Societies tend to differ in many ways.

The mechanism behind the Bare-branches-are-good theory must be, as I see it, that a lack of females creates greater competition against males, who are forced to behave well to get a female. There’s too good examples, the Chinese coolies in America, almost all male, and very well behaved, versus modern American blacks, who enjoy a surplus of females, and can consequently get away with slacking and crime in general. Well I that’s a good point. Men don’t just get frustrated, give up, and start to wreak havoc. They are most likely to strive to gain an income, then use it to get a bride, if later on life. In the end, women being women, they want primarily financial stability, so if there’s a surplus of males, they can bargain better status. 20 year olds males have almost never in history been all sexually satisfied, the fact that all men should be married is a quite recent meme coming from a modern tendency to idealize the 50s.

Anyway to the point, on my last post I was not arguing about Arab males being violent because of the sex-ratio. First of all Jason Malloy on his post does quote his sources as saying that polygamy does correlate with violence, saying that polygamy programs for being a cad. Well a cad without access for females is a very unlucky dude. But I wasn’t talking about that either, in fact I wasn’t talking about the sex ratio at all.

The sex ratio doesn’t matter these days, as the pairing mechanisms in modern societies are utterly broken. China has a very famous male surplus, yet there are millions upon millions of spinsters (called 剩女, shengnü, leftover women) who simply refuse to marry. Again it looks like Arab countries have their own problems with spinsters too. There’s a strong correlation between economic growth and spinsterhood (or catwomanhood as Roissy would say). As they aren’t in peril of starving anymore, and family won’t pimp them out, they’d rather stay single than marrying a beta.

Islam has a very strong mechanism to shield women from unwanted male advances, those being by definition advances by beta men. Women in western countries wear revealing clothes only to be able to ride the cock-carrousel. As there is no cock-carrousel allowed in Arab countries, what do they do? Wear burkas. As they would rather be invisible than be subject from the looks of betas.

As for TGGP’s contention that conversion to Islam is more common in males, well I remain sceptic. I see little advantage in converting to Islam, besides the odd spiritual guy who wants out of hedonism and needs something to pray to.

The plight of the Arab Beta

Its not often that you see news that both make you laugh out loud, and make you think about deep cultural anthropology issues. This is one of them: Saudi Arabian court dictates that police may force a women to hide her eyes if they are deemed to be too sexy. (H/T Bivouac-Id). Well the news is quite absurd, they already wear the burka down there, if they have to hide their eyes, how can they even walk down the street? There’s the option of staying in the kitchen, if you ask me. Anyway, rather than doing the all too usual thing of deploring Arab barbarism, I will cut them some slack, and try to analyze how that shit gets to happen at all.

Let me put on front that the Middle East is not my area of expertise, I have had business relations with arabs and they are the most despicable of peoples. Still I think cultures should be understood in their own terms if we want to understand them though. Whatever I say below is in no means an attempt to justify their behaviour, and I’m the first advocate for Nuking Mecca.

To the point, my understanding of the Sexy eyes-gate is: there’s a huge population of sex-starved betas in Saudi Arabia. Low class arabs are also likely to have a degree of black admixture, with the impulsiveness, low IQ and high horniness that implies. As most women just wear a black burka where you can’t see a thing, internet porn is blocked, there’s really little to take the ball-pressure away. So if you happen to see a women’s eyes through the little burka window, and she happens to have big, black, luscious eyes; well, that may well suffice to get you horny. So most likely some horny dude just groped a sexy-eyed broad on the street.

The thing went on trial, where the defendant explained : “My honor, I couldn’t help myself, you should have seen her eyes! So tempting my honor. Drove me crazy. She’s a tempting whore she is”. Islam also has this amusing habit of blaming rape on the girl, filthy whore who provokes pious muslims into thrusting their penises into their vaginas by force. So this Saudi committee naturally concluded that if the broad has sexy eyes, its her fault she got groped, and sexy-eyed women should cover their eyes. Don’t they cover the rest of their body to avoid provoking man? Well why are eyes different? Arabs may be a lot of things, but they are not incoherent.

ugly as fuck under it

All this begs the question, THE question probably, of why in hell are guys so horny that they can attack a girl only seeing her eyes? How fucked up is that? Well in my view its only a problem of access. Saudis prole males are a distinctly unfortunate group of men. Saudis will only give the hand of a daughter to a male who is richer than the original family. Women being hypergamous and all that (this is causing the Arab birth rate to plummet, subhan’Allah). And if you don’t get married, there’s no local sluts to pick up, no bars, no alcohol, no porn… nothing! This causes two things: huge homosexual rates (see Afghanistan’s boy harems), and burka clading of women.

It seems unintuitive that women wear burkas to hide from horny males. We tend to think that Islam is a horrid patriarchy that forces women to hide themselves, oppresses them for the benefit of the men. But as any western man would tell you, there’s no benefit on hiding women like that. Even if you’re not intending on picking up girls, burkas are hideous things. We would all prefer women to show their hair and some of their bodies. Most girls aren’t that attractive anyway, and normal men with a sex life don’t get worked up by just seeing a hot woman. But here lies the key, in that most Arabs don’t have a sex life. The Arab Spring riots were caused in great part because ordinary Arabs can’t afford to marry. And in the muslim world, if you don’t marry, you don’t get sex. And if you don’t get any poon, even the sight of some sexy eyes can get you horny.

I remember watching this TV show, Anthony Bourdain’s No Reservation, which has Mr Bourdain going around the world basically to try the local food, making some commentary on local customs while he’s at it. I remember watching by chance his chapter on Saudi Arabia, where he had a local woman as his guide. The local woman, married, upper class lady, showed him around. Of course the English dude asks her:

aren’t you ladies oppressed in this country?

And she says:

oh no, on the contrary, we feel protected here. From what? From the eyes of single men. Once we are married, we owe ourselves to our husband, and having the horny eyes of single men over you is like torture. The burka saves us from all those lowly men looking at us. Western women go all semi-naked on the street, having all those men oggling at you. We Arab women can’t fathom that.

What she means is that the burka saves her from the eyes of BETAS. She married an alpha (or else she wouldn’t have married), and she doesn’t want all those betas on the street looking at her golden pussy. The West is a cursed society because it forces women to undress to compete with alpha cads who won’t marry them, exposing themselves to unworthy betas looking at them. Ask any women why they get angry when a guy stares at their boobs. They don’t get angry at the staring, they get angry that a beta thinks himself worthy of looking at them. She doesn’t dress like a slut for you beta, she is waiting for an alpha to notice.

Once you understand that Islam is a bad deal for men, and conversely, catnip for chics, you will understand 1. support for multiculti among women, 2. women converts to Islam, 3. lack of women apostates in muslim countries.

I used to think Islam was the solution to feminism, as their women are pretty quiet compared to our obnoxious white women. Alas, not so: Islam polygamy is what women really crave. And men are forced to support them if rich, complete celibacy if poor. No wonder them poor Arabs end up on our shores paying big bucks to fuck white whores.

Evil Empire conquers Australia

Its a wonder that some people still say with a straight face that America is not an empire. Or that the Democrats are pacifist.

Well breaking news: America is setting a garrison in Darwin, Australia. Of course China is mightly pissed.

Well I have a question. Australia’s economy is booming, the country has a relatively young population and no demographic problems.

Can’t Australia defend itself? Why is Australia leasing their own land to the US? The official line is that is so the US can police SEA shipping lines. Well I don’t think Australia ships their stuff through the Malacca strait, and anyway shouldn’t Australia strive to develop their own army to, you know, defend itself? Is Australia a sovereign country? Or a US/joo conspiracy/globalist outpost. Figure out the answer by yourselves. I know mine.

You know something is seriously fucked up when a guy who received a goddamn Nobel Peace Prize goes abroad to set a garrison in a foreign land 10k miles from home, totally unprovoked. How is this different from Crassus building an army in Syria to prepare to attack the Parthians? How leftists deal with the cognitive dissonance is beyond me.  Of course even conservatives agree with this. Support the troops! right?

Well if anyone honestly thinks China is more of a threat to us than the US is, please grab a gun and shoot yourself. Last time I checked China wasn’t lobbying France to promote Muslim culture, bombing Lybia or, in probably the most evil genocidal bullying ever known to man, bring Pakistanis and blacks into Serbia.

The US led leftist hegemony is openly waging race war against Europeans all around the world. And we fear China? Please.

Women don’t belong in political society

Via bakadesuyo.com (H/T Roissy) comes a very, very interesting post from Psychology Today (yes, the place where Satoshi Kanazawa used to blog before being busted for having good taste in women).

Read the whole thing, but let me stress the important points:

When men watch wrongdoers getting punished, there is activation in reward centers of their brains, whereas women’s brains show activation in pain centers, suggesting that they feel empathy for suffering even when it is deserve (Tania Singer and collaborators).
Women are more likely to factor personal cost into decisions about whether to punish an unfair stranger, which suggests that women are more context-sensitive, and men adhere to principles (Catherine Eckel and Philip Grossman).
Women were twice as generous in a game that involved dividing $10 with a stranger (Eckel and Grossman, again).

Ok read this carefully and tell me how it is not obvious that women should not be allowed to vote or be voted. Women do not belong in political society. Period.

Hey for you Christians, its in the Bible:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. (NIV, 1 Timothy 2:11-12)

Now I think this must be held as one of the standard tenets of any reactionary theory. Women don’t mess in politics. No exceptions.

Disclosure: I am soon to be married to a great girl whom I love deeply. She also tends to ask me how to dress herself, what to cook and where to go out. +2 too.

Meanwhile Islam was busy suiciding: Saudis just gave women the right to vote. Good luck with that.

Secular Liberal Feminist Vegetarian Individualist Egyptian strips

Does anyone remember the Amina McMaster hoax? Where a white-bread dude made a blog pretending to be a Lesbian (and hot) Syrian girl oppressed by the Assad regime.

Well the dude got famous because there’s a huge market for western style weirdos in Arab countries. The problem is its real had to find any. It really looks that muslims really are as boring and barbarous as they seem.

The big problem in Mr MacMaster’s hoax was the he made his character into a lesbian. And lesbianism is a big no-no in most countries. Of course he needed to make it a lesbian in order to flirt with other women, but still. Its overdoing it.

Well look no further! We have a new one.

Aliaa Elmahdy. Here’s her Twitter. Here’s her Facebook. Here’s her blog.

And here’s her pussy. NSFW of course. Still please take a look.

Her twitter claims she is a “Secular Liberal Feminist Vegetarian Individualist Egyptian”. Through Facebook we know she is a 20 year old student at the American University of Cairo. Her facebook’s picture are public (!) and she has like a ton of profile pics. Typical narcissist young chick.

So this is time its real! We got a western style debauched hot arab. Giving us the pleasure of her naked nubile body. Let’s hope that softcore porn breaks up muslim societies, and young muslim man discover that whacking off daily to fresh porn is more satisfactory than jihad. We can call it the Beta Revolution.

Of course she might just be Coptic. In which case the Copts will be massacred to the last man. Well let’s see what happens.

We need a new religion

Schopenhauer used to write that Judaism is not a religion, but a tribal cult, because it lacked any teachings about the afterlife. What kind of religion is that who doesn’t tell you what’s happening after you die? Isn’t the afterlife THE big question of existence? The ultimate enforcer of morality is the threat of everlasting hell after all.

Well now that you think of it, isn’t modern liberalism kinda jewish too? In that it has obnoxious moral codes, a pretty dense theology, but no teachings about the afterlife. Which makes it all pretty stupid. Why should I care about anything if, as Keynes said, long term we are all dead? Who cares about doing good things? About caring for posterity?

This sort of nihilism is often pointed out by those Christian rightists as the origin of all evil. On the other way the only thing Christianity has for it these days is that it has hell. Religion can coherently enforce morality. Liberalism can’t. Therefore we should go back to Christianity. Well I don’t know about that.

But the lack of faith in an afterlife really does poison everything. As any fairly philosophical person has surely noticed, given enough time all intelligent discussions end up talking about God. Because all morality has to ultimately be based on some ultimate authority. Reading today Steve Sailer’s, he has a post with summarizes perfectly the great divide between left and right. Who are we? The point being that liberal theology states that all humans are equal, therefore nations are illegitimate, and national discrimination verbotten. Aren’t we all the same? Then why can’t I live in your house. Ok.

Of course the obvious reduction ad absurdum is valid: if I can’t discriminate for my countrymen, why can I discriminate for my own family? Aren’t we all the same? Why should I raise my kids then? Then in the comments some clueless libertard comes out with this gem: “Maybe American workers not being able to reproduce and afford families is bad for them now, but it will be good for American in the long run and for all citizens as well”. i.e. the allegiance is not for our families, or our nation, but for ‘America’. May we all disappear from the gene pool if the future America ends up stronger.

Of course all rightists may and do strongly protest: what the fuck is the point of America if our posterity is not part of it?

Well what if it is? What is the rationale for defending our posterity if there’s no afterlife? Why should I care for my potential kids, grandkids and other posterity if I’m not certain of meeting them in some other place later? Roissy would argue: what is the point of kids? They suck the fun out of life.

There’s this modern trend of Darwinist rightists trying to answer this question with biology: we are programmed to reproduce our genes. But how is that a moral imperative? You can’t deduce an ought from an is, right?  The programming certainly isn’t very good when developed countries are objectively amusing themselves to extinction.

This nihilist zeitgeist is what makes current level of debts possible. Of course we are fucking our posterity’s future, forcing them to pay our current consumption. Who cares though? Long term we are all dead.

To the point: any intelligent political discussion will necessarily end up with this question: Why should we care for the future? Modern liberalism can’t answer this question. They know it, so they don’t even ask it. Which makes any discussion inherently stupid. And if intellectual debate is stupid by design, questions can’t get answered. Things can’t get done. We are doomed.

We need a new religion.

Butlerian Jihad or Autarky?

Whatever ultimately happens with Europe’s debt crisis, or Bernanke’s QEs, or China’s housing bubble, it seems pretty clear the world economy is pretty much in shambles. The diagnostics vary but in general everyone agrees there is too much debt, huge trade imbalances and lots of unemployment without end on sight. Today all branches of the Cathedral are arguing how to tinker with the accounting to save the day and stave off another crisis, but in general it is agreed that deep structural changes are unavoidable.

So what is it then?

The HBD preferred hypothesis for the economic decline of western nations is, duh, HBD. i.e. You bring hordes of third worlders to our countries, our countries become third worldish. Which is to say a huge fall of human capital, with all the evils that diversity brings: conflict, segregation, unsolidarity, welfare scams, general state corruption, etc.

But of course the official explanation can’t touch that. We are all the same, right? So the real problem is… free trade! i.e. we can’t really compete with 2 billion Chindians with and their sweatshops. Which is of course a good point. I know China well and there’s no way in hell a western country would tolerate that standard of living. S.A.M Adshead tells in his awesome history book how the West from the late Middle Ages already showed a trend to luxury, while Chinese stoic populace just used any extra income to have more kids to be exploited.

The other, more recent meme is that western decline and unemployment problem is caused by machinery. Most of the technical advances these days are concentrated in software, particularly enterprise software. Huge areas of clerical work have become obsolete, and its getting better (worse). Factory robotics is also growing well, too much that even Foxconn Taiwanese boss dreams of getting rid of its chinese serfs.

All this instantly triggers the old Luddite passions  of how machinery dehumanizes people and threatens good old workers’ livelihoods. Maybe I am too young, growing up in the postproletarian era, but I don’t have any warm feelings for the working class. Besides the lost sense of shared culture between leftist-brainwashed proles and us traditionalists, Democracy has given them a huge sense of entitlement (we all have 1 vote so we are all equal value), and any functional business works out of the ego of the managers. As Steve Jobs’s biography shows, a huge part of a successful venture is sheer bullying of your employees. Well you can’t do much of that anymore. As a business owner I find myself constantly thinking about software solutions to reduce my workforce. Automation is the only defence against communism.

But of course what might save my business and sanity won’t save the whole economy. We basically have two solutions to our problems, Butlerian Jihad (i.e. destroy computers) or Autarky, that is to say Protectionism. As a foreign trained linguist and trader the idea of trade barriers scares me, alas I don’t see the solution. As much as the Cathedral likes the whole Invite the world, in hock to the world we just can’t pay for it anymore. The money is not there. For better or worse we must use the clay we have and make some bricks home. I see trade blocks coming back with a passion. That’s what the EU was all about. Let’s see how America’s TPP turns out.

Compassion as a leftist scam

I’m sure everyone has the bad habit of looking up unfamiliar words on Google before finishing reading a text, shortening the attention span and all that. Well reading the last article of Steve Sailer, where he strangely doesn’t mention HBD (I guess he wants Pinker to be able to respond), I ended up reading about the Khodynga Tragedy.

It basically happened that during the celebrations of Tsar Nicholas II coronation festivities,1896,  they had this panem et circenses oh so Christian charitable places where meat and beer were given away to the loyal subjects of the crown. Over time rumors flew that the free stuff was running out, so people ended up running in, pushing whatever came on their way, with the result of 1300+ people dead, trampled.

If such an accident happened today in say, the US, we on the HBD sphere would be writing one after another posts claiming how Idiocracy is coming, we-told-you-so, how this proofs HBD, and wishing government would just get around abolishing welfare so the left half of the bell curve would just die off and spare us the shame. As a matter of fact fatal stampedes happen all the time in India, and the usual reaction is just some amused grin.

What would liberals do, though?

Well if the ruler happened to be a non-leftist, they would be astroturf gatherings in all big cities raving about how the government is responsible and Capitalism kills people. Its really not hard to imagine, it happens all the time.

So what happened back in Russia? Us reactionaries tend to think than in the old imperial/monarchical days, leftist scum was treated like it deserved, and their demagogic propaganda was not spread with impunity as today. Well, wrong. There was a massive stupor all around the capital, so big the impact was that the new Tsar and his wife went to hospitals to attend the wounded! And the oh so compassionate Tsar Nicolas declined to attend a party in his honor hosted by the French ambassador. Better brains than his told him that you don’t decline France’s hospitality to mourn for some stupid peasants, and in the end he did attend the party.

Despite the government giving big sums of money to the families of the dead, the fact that the Tsar of all Russias dared to attend a diplomatic ball instead of crying the death of his subjects caused a wave of indignation, with the intelligentsia claiming that he would die an early death because of it.

This is in the, we are told today, dark and spooky totalitarian monarchy of Tsarist Russia, where the Tsar had absolute power, unlike the enlightened democracies of the West. Well, absolute my ass. It seems to be the Tsarist authorities were no more absolutist, or rightist, than Bush Jr. That is, they were fake monarchists who caved to all leftist pressure, playing the leftists game. And they lost, of course.

This links with Jim’s point, in a truly insightful article on his blog. European monarchies were not reactionary polities at all. They played the game that Western democracies decided, they were subject to the same fashions and pressures. They surrendered their legitimacy to leftist demotist thought, surely because they couldn’t argue against the Christian pedigree of socialist egalitarianism. And because Whites are a religious people, if one party has a better theology than yours, given enough time, they will replace you, kill you and your family. That’s what happened to all European monarchs.

Rich people play the compassion game, i.e. we are good people because we give free stuff to the poor. But giving things to the poor, means you accept the poor people deserve free stuff. And they deserve free stuff because we are all equal. But if we are all equal, thus we should achieve full equality. And in order to have equality, socialism always trumps charity. So when leftists demand compassion, what they are asking is for socialism. Always.

The biggest proof of this is that Chinese or Indians don’t do charity.