Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: April 2012

Stupid Cognitive Elite

Ever since Charles Murray’s last book stirred up the blogosphere, including yours truly,  everybody has written some opinion on Murray’s point that the smart people are increasingly concentrating in the upper classes, creating a cognitive difference between the rich and powerful and the people at large. James Donald has been the only one to deny the major premise: that the elite is getting any smarter than before. He says it ain’t so, that they’re dumber every day,  which has started many interesting discussions over at his blog. The thing is we lack hard data, so it’s all a battle of anecdotes on dumb or smart elites. And while the plural of anecdotes is not data, I have an interesting anecdote to put forward.

Let me talk about Julian Assange. Assange is a cool guy who is presently being victimized by USG, and he’s into putting cool data on the internet. As an infovore internet addict I simply have to like the guy. Now by all accounts Julian Assange is a very smart man. You need some serious brains to be a teenager hacker, and more than that to actually build useful software in your 20s. This guy has a 14o+ IQ, no doubt about that.

I won’t talk about the wisdom of going public with Wikileaks, which strikes me as the sort of enterprise you want to keep low profile. But well, I guess vanity is unrelated to smarts. He also wanted to get laid, which I won’t fault him for. But this vice of him is what in the end did him in. The surreal, Kafkaesque honey trap he fell in at Sweden is evil and wrong in more ways than I can count. You’d think that after USG had used feminism to try to ruin his life and throw him at some filthy American jail to be sodomized by Africans he would have learned how evil the Cathedral is, and put all his mind and body to attack it.

Assange is still on detention at London, the eastern capital of the Cathedral. They might as well rename it New Washington. Well, I had a glad surprise last month when I learned that RT, i.e. Russia Today, the only TV station who you should be watching, had made an agreement with Assange to give him a prime time show on their English channel. As Assange is detained, the show is an interview show, where he talks with famous figures, either through video call or visiting him in London.

RT is awesome because it’s totally focused on badmouthing the USG. I don’t know how much funding Putin is throwing at it, but it’s awesome. There’s Americans, Brits, Africans, everyone who hates the USG or is willing to badmouth it for money has time on RT to criticise the US intervention in Syria, the US economy, Bernankes QE, Goldman Sachs, you name it. I wish I could work there.

Now Assange is being crossed by the USG, so there comes RT to help. Now as I was saying, you would think Assange would use this chance to talk about some confidential papers saying that Obama eats babies for breakfast, or that all Hillary got a sex change operation last year. Or even some demagogic shit about killed children in Afghanistan. But no, his first show was an interview with Nasrallah, the Hezbollah chief. Wtf? Well Nasrallah is an Iranian client, so perhaps he wants to talk to him about how evil the US and Israel are. That’s what Nasrallah thought the show was about, so he starts with a smile trying to talk about killing Jews, when Assang takes the conversation to talking about Syria. He suddenly asks Nasrallah why he doesn’t condemn Assad, and what must be done to stop the killings.

Nasrallah can’t believe what he’s hearing. Is this guy nuts? Hezbollah is an Iranian client. Assad’s government is friendly with Iran. In fact Syria is the conduit through which Iranians get help to Hezbollah. Nasrallah totally depends on Assad, how the hell is he supposed to criticise him. So Assad is killing some hundreds of  Sunnis bankrolled by the USG and the Saudis. Big fucking deal! Kill more of them. Nasrallah is probably helping with the killing.

Of course he doesn’t say that on Live TV, he tries to please everyone as he can’t afford to cross the Sunnis, in case they actually win. Then Assange reminds him that journalist known to him as been killed in Homs. He says that in the typical liberal sanctimonious tone, implying “my friend was killed, you must condemn it”. Nasrallah again looks baffled. A stupid white liberal journalist was killed trying to stage some agit-prop during a war? Fuck him! As a propaganda agent of the USG he is the same as a hostile combatant. Probably worse than that. A foreign journalist is worth a colonel.

Assange, an uber-smart fellow who has valiantly challenged the Cathedral for years, is fighting for his freedom and anal virginity, when Putin gives him a chance to use the media to keep the fight on. And what does he do? He calls Hezbollah and whines that they don’t cry about a dead friend of his.

Multiply this example by 10.000 and you have a good picture of our cognitive elite. Yeah, they’re smart. And yet so stupid.

Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom

An interesting experiment is going on.

Via Vox

Paganism has been included in an official school religious education syllabus for the first time. Cornwall Council has told its schools that pagan beliefs, which include witchcraft, druidism and the worship of ancient gods such as Thor, should be taught alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Paganism is cool. I confess I have lots of fun reading about Norse mythology, the lost Slavic pantheon, or some strange Uralic tribes who still keep their ancient faith. The actual documentaries done about their religious practices are in reality quite lame though. Just a bunch of peasants putting on some wooden idols in the forest and cooking a horrid looking stew. But I wouldn’t want these people Christianized.

Well it seems that some Cornish officials are set on reviving paganism in their land. I understand their motives, but I’m afraid that Brits don’t know what they’re doing. Playing with religion must sound fun for atheists, but there’s a ton of reasons not to do it. Especially when you have millions of foreigners in your country who take their religion very seriously.

From Ed West:

Islam has made London a more conservative place than it was 50 years ago

He goes on to say how British institutions are introducing alcohol free areas, cutting down in feminism, fag liberation and other cherished British values. I used to hate it when Pat Buchanan defended Muslims as allies because they are social conservatives. Well I don’t want them anywhere close. But I’m not sure that making London a more conservative place is a bad thing.

The last time an eclectic society with loose morals had a sizable group of socially conservative sectarians on its midst… well we all know that story.

If any European nation is to fall to Islam, as the doomsayers repeat, have no doubt that Britain will be first. The French like wine and sex too much to succumb to Arab stoicism. But Arab homoerotic customs are something the Brits can easily adapt to.

Natalism revisited

I’ve been thinking a lot on religion these days, as you can see in some of my last posts. In part it’s because of Vox Day’s blog, where he has been talking theology a lot lately. I particularly enjoyed his debates with what he calls “Team Calvin”, which is a bunch of american calvinists. In Europe religion is mostly a thing of the past, and discussions on religious doctrine is seen as a freaky medieval pastime. But I’m fascinated by it, I always liked reading philosophy, and theology is the most hardcore part of it.

Now Vox, and many on the reactionary sphere are partial to Catholicism. I understand the attraction. We all like European Civilization, and the Church mostly built it. Catholicism evokes a distant past where men were men, women were women, and everyone knew its place.

Fair enough, but a closer examination of Catholic doctrine, and the actual behaviour of the Catholic Church quickly breaks the charm. The Church doesn’t acknowledge hbd, and it insists in its futile efforts to christianise African and South American savages.

And what personally bugs me the most is its passion for natalism. No abortion, no birth control. Keep the babies coming. It’s just nuts. We don’t need more people. We need better people. I simply cringe everytime I hear a bishop say that Africans shouldn’t use condoms.

But then I thought perhaps there’s something to the idea. Now there’s this old idea that the Roman Empire collapsed because of affluence. People had it good, free food and circus, no fear of deprivation, so they went all out on having fun with wine and buttsex. Over time the social capital that made the women raise good soldiers, died out, the empire depopulated and died. The idea being that we are seeing a similar thing today. Amusing ourselves to death and all that. Societies simply can’t function properly without the pressure of poverty.

See, the idea for eugenics and population control is that, with the proper technology, less population means more wealth per person, a more pleasant life. But the Roman argument is that a more pleasant life is bad for society. It looses morals and induces collapse. It necessarily leads to a Brave New World.

So perhaps the Catholic Church pushing for natalism is a conscious drive of pushing for poverty, because some degree of poverty is the only way our Civilization may survive. India is an abject shithole, but it’s still India. Christendom is quickly devolving into a Jewish Lesbian suicide cult.

Or maybe they  push natalism just because they the bishops get a bonus out of every 1000 converts. We need a foseti in the Roman curia to gives us the inside picture.

On Tribalism

Steve Sailer’s commentators are usually one of the best in the web, if only for the impression they give of being normal people who have just woke up to the fact that their culture is collapsing, and all they ever thought they knew is false. See this comment at a recent post on Sailer’s.


 Lizard Boy said…

Reading this article, it finally hit me why Multicultural societies always fail: Because they are so goddamn boring. Everyone is forced to sit around discussing race and ethnicity all day long. In a creative White society, the main issues circle around new ideas and new inventions. Are we socialists or capitalists? What kind of society will technology bring us? What can we do with new engineering knowledge? That’s the conversation in a homogeneous society with a decent IQ and level of creativity (most Western European people).

But from now on in America, it will be Diversity and Sensitivity training. It will be this tribe vs that tribe. It will all revolve around how to carve up power. No more productivity or creativity.

It will be this goddamn “Who Whom?” question for the rest of your life, then you die.


Indeed ethnic conflict is old as sin, and the dynamics that regulate it are also paleolithically simple and boring. But that’s our curse, and I digress in the fact that there’s a simple way out. Ethnic conflict is boring, but ethnic groups are a fascinating thing, if only because they spring out of nowhere. Ethnogenesis happens all the time, even among previously tightly knit groups. See my post on modern regionalism in Europe. Scots and English have a lot in common, yet they have been fighting a Who Whom for decades now. In many places in Europe, the official left/right political party divide is only a mask for regional (ethnic) conflict. See the Scots voting Labor, or East Germany voting Left. It will only get worse.

The simple reality is that tribalism pays. Cohesion pays. It’s artificial assabiya, but it works as long as its properly enforced. The 18-19th century nation building created the vastly successful nations of Europe and East Asia out of thinly related regionally focused peasants. The lack of internal ethnic conflict was merely a product of a vast conscious effort by the early 19th century liberals. Agricultural economies without railways enforced regionalism. Most people didn’t go farther than the market town close to the village. National allegiance was most of the time allegiance to the king, to his personal rule, not to the “nation“. Spaniards today hate each other, but they fought the Grand Armeé for loyalty to their “beloved” King.

As governments around the world have stopped enforcing centralized ethnogenesis, the native peoples of the West lost their tribal affiliation. Besides the emotional necessity to belong that humans may have, the enlarged modern bureaucratic government doesn’t have a center of gravity, a sense of interest or porpuse. So it has become partial to organized groups, if only because they are easy to deal with.  And tribes are one of the most tight-knit lobbies there are. So tribes, be them real tribes of third world migrants, or artificial tribes cooked up from medieval peasant identities, simply have the upper-hand. There’s money to be made by lobbying the government, whether it’s by La Raza, the AIPAC, Islamist groups in Europe or the SNP.

Who Whom is the language of modern government, so multiculturalism will happen, either with true cultures (the US) or with fake cultures (Europe and increasingly China). Whites aren’t forbidden to build a tribe, they are forbidden to consolidate it. Many regionalist parties in Europe have started to protest NAM migration in regional, ethnic terms. Perhaps its the only way. White nationalism per se may be against the natural scale of human loyalty. Let’s call it the political monkeysphere. Which means the solution is not integrating Europe into a white hegemon, but dismembering the US into feasible tribal states.

Let them go

Back when Pope John Paul II died, I let myself be bothered by all the media coverage. I heard that the new pope, Joseph Ratzinger, was known as a conservative figure, and went on to read one of his books, written before getting the big job. I don’t remember the exact quote, but he said in some place that the modern liberal assault on Christianity will continue, and the Church will continue losing numbers. But a small core of believers will remain, and after liberalism collapses, he foresees that small core of hardcore Christians to rise again and rebuild the world.

Of course he doesn’t say that now that he is pope. But I thought his thinking interesting. If you think about it carefully, it’s not only Church attendance what has decline in the last century. Public morals have collapsed, and taste in art has also declined precipitously. Does the Church really want to be relevant in a world in which people don’t have manners and artists build ugly stuff?

Few churches have been built in the last century, but see the few that have been done.

Basilica of our lady of Guadalupe, Mexico.


Metropolitan Cathedral of Liverpool

Church of the Holy Trinity in Fatima


Hideous stuff. That’s what modernity does to you. I hope that St Peter sends those responsible to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Mr Ratzinger must know that the Church is better off with its elegant decay. Modernity is toxic.

Don’t fix it

My RSS feed is full of reactionary goodness, as it should. But most of us are only part-time  thinkers, and good stuff takes time to come by, so reactionary blogs don’t update very often. For those quick fixes where I need something to read on my phone while waiting for public transport, I have a new feed which updates almost as often as Business Insider: Via Meadia.

I admit I only started reading Walter R Mead very recently, but he’s good. I particularly like his foreign policy commentary, the guy really seems to know what he’s talking about. Of course he’s in full communion with the Cathedral. In fact 3/4s of every article of his are all long expositions of how strong his faith is and how he still fights for the creed; then he proceeds to talk sense and cite some real data. See this article on the developments on Myanmar . He first says that it’s a great victory for the USG, how fortunate the Burmese people are for finally getting human rights, blablabla, but then advises to avoid gloating about it and antagonizing China. Which is a very grown-up thing to say.

But his domestic commentary is also interesting. For the last month or so he has been talking about the crisis of what the calls the ‘blue model’, that is the welfare state. It’s a funny thing when the leftists are the blue ones. The US media had this stroke of genius by which they changed the color codes of the parties, so the Republicans are ‘red’ and the Democrats ‘blue’. The purpose of course to dissociate Democrats from ‘red’, i.e. communism. Of course in a sense it’s fair to do so, as Republicans, as far as reactionaries are concerned, are no less communist than Democrats.

But anyway. Mead has been writing long (very long) posts on how the welfare state based on the manufacturing industry is dead, that we can’t do anything about it, and that we shouldn’t. Instead we should welcome it as much as welcomed the death of the agricultural economy with the Industrial revolution. Industry is gone, IT and China killed it, and with it easy employment for the low-skilled. It’s not coming back.

I think we can all agree with that. The problem is what to do. Of course human nature dislikes change, and the actors that claim to rule us are going around promising to the electorate that they will stop time and bring those jobs back real soon. Mead sees through the BS and notes that those jobs sucked anyway. And we aren’t producing less, we are just producing the same with less human labor. What we must do is fix the inefficiencies of our government to encourage the evolution of a new economy which assigns goods to everyone in an efficient way. Of course he defines ‘efficient’ in a way congenial to the Cathedral’s creed. See his latest essay on how we must fix the education and healthcare bureaucracy’s to help the poor.

Letting aside the naiveté of thinking that bureaucracies are fixable at all, the High School-like assumption that politics is about policy and the government is all about good intentions, Mead has a big problem. His ideas are good, the new economy is happening, and dismantling the welfare bureaucracies would do a lot to increase the overall productivity of the economy. But it won’t help the poor. The poor are screwed, and there’s nothing we can do about it. Nor we should.

He rests his case in two points:

The development of a good $10,000 bachelor program would do more for low and lower middle income families than doubling the size of all student loan programs. Generally speaking, anything that makes education cheaper and easier — shifting from a “time served” model to a skills learned model for awarding qualifications and degrees, breaking the guild monopolies through accreditation and other systems so that more institutions can compete in the market — will make society less blue, but make the poor better off.


A leaner, more effective government will promote economic growth and employment in other ways. If American cities could reduce the time spent obtaining permits by 50% while reducing their bureaucratic headcount, for example, we would see more jobs available for inner city residents.

He is right in that modern education is meaningless, an awful scam which costs way too much money and time and teaches little to no skills. And government does take way too much taxes and meddles too much in the labor market. But that’s not why the poor are poor. The poor today are, in the great majority, simply people with not enough cognitive power to learn any marketable skills, or people with personality problems which make them unable to hold a steady job. After the IT revolution, a few lines of code typed by a smart programmer are often more productive than anyone south of a 90 IQ. That’s simply how it is. Of course low IQ people have been around forever, and they used to be productive. But they were usually taught a craft since age 5, were drilled on it day after day, year after year, and only after decades of training they could earn a living for themselves. That kind of training today would be called torture. And it only taught you to make shoes. Not to use an industrial robot.

Society today has no use for “the poor”. And the relationship of the elites to them has changed too. Ever since the advent of agriculture, the idea of charity has always been a part of any ethical system. Hunter-gatherer bands were more or less equalitarian, but agriculture created a surplus of food which was there for the taking. That’s the origin of hierarchy, of elites. Elites got the surplus by force, and did a lot of nice things with it. I have argued myself that hierarchy itself is the way human culture has of producing selection by cultural means; artificial evolution. Ergo it’s a good thing. But still the objective fact is that taxation is theft, and elites everywhere have always had an uneasy conscience.  The guilt over grain taxes evolved into the Marxist sin of the Plus-value, the surplus that the capitalists steals from the worker. All societies have had charity as a requirement to heaven.

But with the new economy perhaps they shouldn’t. After all the IT society doesn’t stand on the surplus taken from the poor laborers. On the contrary, letting aside the banksta/government/media leeches, the elite today mostly provides for itself. The poor are not the laborers, nor the unlucky fellow who has been maimed through excessive labor since childhood. The poor today are the unproductive, the genuinely useless. What’s the meaning of charity after hbd? There isn’t one. And even in economic terms, it’s getting hard to afford it. It’s one thing to give food to the 5% of medieval society who were sick or maimed. But we can’t possibly give a middle class, ‘dignified’ living to 30% of society who can’t do basic algebra.

Mead argues for the government to go to rest and let society evolve by its own means. But that means more evolution than he is ready to accept. Or perhaps he knows about eugenics and is just trying to sell it in a palatable way to the Cathedral. If so, kudos to him. But I doubt it.

Perhaps he should read Cochran’s latest thoughts on genetic spellchecking. He could translate that for the faithful, and try to do some actual good. Who knows, it might even work.

Sola fide 2: The Enforcers

Liberals have been in power for over 100 years already, and we are more than used to their insanity. We dissenters have spent a long time thinking about their positions, have written long texts analyzing their creed, and since Tocqueville at least, have concluded that liberalism is a suicide cult, and that it cannot last. Equality as Paradise and Man as God is simply too detached from reality. Liberalism eventually must perish.

And so we still believe, but it’s been some time already, and Liberalism still hasn’t collapsed. The question is why a worldview with denies the most basic facts about reality is still around. There’s basically two factors: one that technological progress has made engineering the world to make it safe for Equality easier than it would otherwise be. The other that Liberals are very capable of accepting reality when they have to; but they don’t know it themselves. Larry Auster calls them ‘unprincipled exceptions’, and he’s mostly right. Of course all religions function in the basis of unprincipled exceptions: Christians don’t always give the other cheek. And Muslims aren’t constantly looking behind the rocks for Jews to kill.

Reality always has a way of asserting itself. But dogma keeps the hold over people’s brains. So while people keep doing exceptions to make life possible, the creed advances through correction events. That is when some smart true-believer uses some logic and sees that people are doing exceptions to the creed. And that’s not good. He must do something about it. At the very least he must tell people about it.

That’s what modern academics do. They analyze reality, compare it with the creed, and detect those ways where people’s behaviour contradict the creed, usually to make life possible and even a tad pleasant. But of course the academic is trained to enforce the creed, not to think about human life in holistic terms. So he (and recently more often she) won’t give a shit about the pleasantness of your life. Oh no. He is the thought police and he has a job to do. Life in Florence was very much fun until Savonarola spoiled everything. Monks were having a blast until Luther and his minions closed them down. Beirut and Cairo used to be so nice. Poor Arab liberals.

This correction events happen in a certain cycle, which I guess depends in the ability of the average human to accept bullshit. But somehow, today, the cycle is accelerating. In fact there’s no cycle at all. The thought police has gone berserk and is correcting every single piece of reality that contradicts the creed. See what has happened only in the last few months.

Ethicist argues for infanticide on feminism grounds

– Bioethicist argues for engineering the human body to be smaller so as to stall Global Warming (Dude’s chinese, so much for Asians having common sense)

California will sue City Councils which don’t reflect the population’s racial makeup

UN argues for forbidding all Pre UN literature (The world starts in 1945)

Another Aussie ethicist argues that pregnancy should be abolished on feminism grounds

Savonarola at least stopped in burning paintings and making people stay home. Progressives want to kill your womb and reengineer your body. All in name of the faith But what else can they do? The faith is all they have, it’s what put them where they are, what feeds and houses them. Through faith comes salvation. And their paycheck. But there’s many enforces such as them, and paychecks take you only so far these days. With the ruling class expanded more than ever before, the competition is harsh. And the easiest way for upward mobility is through ever harsher enforcement of the faith. And upward mobility is the real force the drives the universe. It’s the Ding an Sich. The Will of Schopenhauer.

The economy is bad, and will only get worse. The enforcers have to come up with further ways to advance the faith in order to advance their paychecks. A vicious cycle in which a bad economy forces  progressives to get busy and come up with shit to become notorious, and that shit they came up fucks the economy even more, which again feeds the cycle of madness. It has just started. It will get worse.

La Douceur de Vivre

Tayllerand allegedly said that people in the post French Revolution age couldn’t even fathom how nice life was for an aristocrat in the Ancienne Regime.

If only because of the leisure. If only I had the leisure of an old French noblemen I would have fixed every problem in the world by now.

But I don’t, and have been crazy busy this last week or so. Thanks for all those who still found time to visit. I’ll try to resume my old blogging pace in the next days.

On the meantime for those haunted by the crazy shit that’s happening over at Cathedral HQ, just read this discussion started by Jim Kalb.

I want Mr. Kalb and Moldbug in a showdown without time limit. I’ll start the donations campaign if necessary.