Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: May 2012

Game is eternal and universal

There are those who say that Game only works with a certain type of women or that it’s an artifact of the present age. Which of course is bullshit. Game is nothing else than the reverse engineering of female hypergamy. And female hypergamy is eternal and universal. It’s a necessary feature of the female condition. It’s as female as boobs. More common than boobs probably.

All those MRA blogs that have sprung lately, and many conservative writers deplore how unbalanced the mating market is today, with so many men and women giving up completely. Or the hysterical ravings about the gender ratios in China or India. The assumption seems to be that all men should have one women to marry forever. Every single one of them. But did that ever happen? Even in the grotesquely glorified 1950s. I mean is that even possible? Players, homos, spinsters, sluts, all those are a fact of life. They have always been around.

Didn’t Madame Bovary chase bad boys? Didn’t Anna Karenina dump his huband (and child!) for a gina tingle? Japanese courtiers wrote extensively about alphas swooping noble girls in the 11th century. Ovid knew how to take a housewife to bed as well as Roissy. People may still be evolving but female hypergamy certainly hasn’t changed much.

Now of course women don’t always react to the same male characteristics. Hypergamy’s target is a relative one: it means getting the best man, which can mean different things in different places. Roosh recently discovered that poor Ukrainians won’t easily open their legs to the first witty and hairy guy that comes along. Also there’s this widely held myth that Oriental women are immune to game, that they just want a loyal and serious husband to make money with.

Well I have some experience with that, and heh, not even close. But don’t take my word for it. See what cute Chinese women do today. See how they run away with long haired musicians the day before their wedding. And see how in the comments, men curse her yet women defend her. That’s the way it is. Of course it’s far from being common (societal pressure and basic impulse control are big factors too), but it happens too.

That’s what a tingle looks like

Roissy always points out, to everyone’s chagrin, that it’s the hottest and youngest of women that fall easier to narcissistic assholes. And that’s because they have options. They can get away with it. They are in their peak, and what they choose, what their instincts tell them, what their bodies demand, is for them to fuck the useless alpha son of a bitch. And screw the consequences.

That’s female hypergamy for you. If game is the reverse engineering of hypergamy for the purposes of sex, patriarchy is the institutional framework designed to control and suppress it. That’s why it’s a feature of all civilisations. And it better come back soon.

Advertisements

On Babies

One of the biggest obstacles, if not the biggest, in front of civilisation is the natality problem. Feminism, jewish conspiracy, black savagery, muslim invasion; all that would be of little consequence if whites were reproducing at a higher rate. It’s a tribal problem, if you care about the future of the white race.

And if you care about the future of Civilisation itself, it’s a dysgenics problem. All high IQ populations, those of Europe and Northeast Asia, have a low TFR. And inside each country, the higher the education level (a good proxy for IQ), the fewer the babies. Recently government statistics in the UK showed that a big percentage of university educated women are childless.

I think we’ll all agree that is a problem.

Of course the trend has been apparent since the 60s, and the causes are anyone’s guess. What has changed?

  • Contraception
  • Female education and entering the workforce
  • General affluence
  • Loss of religious faith
  • Hedonism

These are the factors most talked about. It’s not hard to see how all these factors deter people from having children, and in combination, it’s a miracle that people bother to have children at all.

But there must be something else too, as non western countries are seeing decreased fertility too. See this graph by the World Bank (which I can’t seem to be able to embed here).


See how all the world, except the black countries in Africa, and the bomb testing grounds of the US military, have seen their TFR decline quite fast over the last decades. David Goldman, AKA Spengler made a name for himself by arguing that Islam is dying, and showing their declining birthrates. Why is that happening? Certainly not for a lack of religious faith, as Muslims today, at least in public,  are noticeably more religious than they were 40 years ago. And it’s certainly not general affluence. Myanmar is the poorest country in SEA, yet look at it. Now, as you can see in this other article by Spengler, education, and especially female education has a big impact on the birthrate. Education, even basic literacy, fuels the hypergamy instinct and makes women much less likely to acquiesce to breeding like rabbits with some average chump. Here’s a good example of an Egyptian university professor killing herself after reaching endgame spinsterhood. That’s a cultural trait we could learn from.

There’s a crackpot on nobabies.net that argues that birthrates necessarily fall if you don’t marry a cousin. Well I don’t know. I’ve seen totally unrelated couples of fundamentalist Christians with 12+ children and they seemed to do ok. When I was a teenager I remember wanting to screw my cousin, and most of my friends had similar feelings. Then again we wanted to fuck anything that moved.

Fertility is a very complex thing, subject to many different factors, and in different cultures it’s bound to depend on different variables. One factor that I find is not often discussed is that of urbanisation. Steve Sailer has written extensively on affordable family formation, saying that the higher rent and the consumerist culture in the cities generally disincentives having children. Well that’s true on a global scale, and with urbanisation rates rising all over the world, it’s only natural that the birthrates are also going down. Shanghai recently recorded a 0.6 birthrate. Hong Kong and Macao aren’t far behind. Also read the hilariously clueless housewife comments on the news. Wifi should never reach the kitchen.

African are generally insensitive to any incentives which work with 80+IQ people, but even South Africa, the most urbanised nation in Africa, has First World birthrates. Of course the permanent baby boom down there would sort itself easily if we cut all aid and all bleeding heart idle white ladies and missionary types had to actually earn a living back home. It will happen soon, I think.

So the lesson to raise the fertility rate seems to be get bombed by the USG for 5+ years.

Or, to ban women from going to college (high school?), and get people out of the cities and back to the countryside . If you think about it that was the way things were for almost all humanity until the late 19th century. Which is when the birthrates started to fall. Of course smart people today tend to prefer the cities, and smart women tend to have a longer education. So the recipe for dysgenics will be hard to break. It will probably get worse before it gets better.

Profiteering done right

A Jewish acquaintance of mine, an old man, told me once: “You Christians are nuts. What’s that about rich people going to hell? Blessed are the poor? You should praise the rich, they might be useful to you.”

I guess he had a point. Christianity, well understood, is not very conducive to doing business. This idea was confirmed on seeing a shrine for the Chinese Money God. How can we compete with a people for whom money is a god? See how the fuckers translate it to Mammon (see below the main banner in the website). Mammon is the bad guy, you know!

Nah, they have it right.

This news just cracked me up: 40k orthodox Jews gather at a New York Stadium to talk about the dangers of the internet. My first thought was about our friend Bill, who uses to admonish us of the dangers of modernity and consumerism. Well I am an internet addict, but perhaps these Jews have a point. The Internet is a very dangerous thing for an immature mind.

Payots for sale! Nice and cheap!! Made only with hair from chinese girls!

The I saw the punchline:

the meeting was sponsored by a rabbinical group that is connected to a software company specializing in selling web filtering software to Orthodox Jews. You won’t be surprised to find, therefore, that the conclusion reached at the end of the rally was that we should all, Jews or otherwise, install internet filtering software on our machines as a “minimal base line of protection.”

Hah. So this was just a huge sales meeting. Social marketing done right! A captive market of pious men who will rush to buy the filtering product.

We can’t win.

Old grudges die hard. But they die.

So it is now common knowledge that the Euro is toast, Greece being already well scheduled to go back to a third world currency. The patronage networks are safe! I wonder how they are going to pay for oil and other imports. Perhaps Greeks will start to work. Stranger things have been seen.

The election of Hollande in France signals a change of the zeitgeist. No more creepy austerity, no more spending cuts. Not that there were any spending cuts at all to start with, but the sole mention of balancing the budget is now buried. The Euro is to be saved by killing it through inflation. Oh well.

Now everybody, particularly the British, are shouting their lungs off pointing out how the Euro project was crazy from the start. You can’t have a common currency without political mechanisms to enforce fiscal policy. Well of course. But that’s not the point, the eurocrats knew from the start that the plan wasn’t solid, but nothing in the history of the EU has ever been well planned. There’s an ultimate goal: political integration, and in every summit they agree on the maximum they can get away with. If things then go to hell, then you use the crisis to push for further integration. That’s the strategy, it’s public, they never hid it. That’s why you hear about fiscal union today, and not 10 years ago.

Everyone in Europe understands it, except the Brits. Who are seeing their chance to break the whole project. Well Britain has always been the yank trojan horse here, no surprises about that. See Nigel Farage:

Now I have much respect for Mr Farage’s rhetorical skills. But why is he so angry? So the Euro is killing southern Europe’s economy? Well what’s it to you? Britain is doing mighty well printing those pounds and piling up debt, isn’t it? Enjoy the crash and buy cheap when it’s done.

Of course what Tories (the real ones, not the Cameron weasels) care about is UK independence. See Peter Hitchens again on the Eurogeddon, as Ed West calls it. He deplores the EU legislative activity in Britain. Oh yes the evil Germans are up to it again. Godwin’s law doesn’t apply to the British political discourse. It’s always about those evil Krauts. That’s all that matters. See how Peter despairs:

Our grandchildren will wonder, bitterly, why we were so feeble.

Your grandchildren? Hah! That’s funny. Your grandchildren will be sex slaves of Pakistani geezers and gipsy squatters. Your grandchildren will wonder why did you spend your energy fighting German hegemony instead of the race replacement of your people. And don’t blame the EU for it. You did this to yourselves.

Links

The Growth of Justice: Cheap Chalupa’s boys link to a “study” which spells out the creeds first article of faith:

in 1960, 94 percent of doctors were white men, as were 96 percent of lawyers and 86 percent of managers. By 2008, these numbers had fallen to 63, 61, and 57 percent, respectively. Given that innate talent for these professions is unlikely to differ between men and women or between blacks and whites, the allocation of talent in 1960 suggests that a substantial pool of innately talented black men, black women, and white women were not pursuing their comparative advantage

Enough said.

Agnostic has been doing some good posts on Jewish religiosity

So once more, the usual factors that explain religiosity are not the only reason why Jews are less religious than Christians. There is some set of genetic and cultural factors unique to them that split them off in the graphs above and that indeed place them closer to people who identify as having “no religion.”

As I mentioned in the earlier post, those are primarily the genetic adaptation to the white-collar managerial ecological niche, and the cultural tradition of legalistic bickering. The first leads them to not concern themselves with god — they figured out the right interest rate to charge because they’ve got big brains. And that goy hick who was trying to get away with sending less money to the tax farmers, well they ran circles around him because they’re so clever. As we saw during the mid-century, managerialismand godlessness tend to go together.

Brazil’s economic growth tanks. You don’t say.

Robin Hanson has been doing some posts on long term thinking. “Far mode” that he calls it. Basically pointing out that we don’t really know anything about the long term. Well yeah but we gotta do someting, right? Short termism is boring.  Long-term planning is fun, that’s why people do it even without any certainty.

Blacks are warming up to the idea of fag marriage. Simon Grey points out how blacks will obey the Cathedral, as the pets they are. Of course they will.

Medvedev vows to defend Syria with nukes.

Speaking of which, Assange keeps using Putin money to hang out with lame muslims.

Soros bargain watch

I’ve made the argument that democracy is just a conspiracy by the plutocrats to push down the price of buying political influence.

George Soros being the best player on the market. You know, buy cheap, then profit.

Well he sure knows a bargain.

See on BI:

George Soros Is Giving $2 Million To Democratic SuperPACs

So he’s buying up leftist grassroots activist organisations. Astroturf is a booming business.

But of course the real point is not Soros buying influence. It’s that he’s spending a whopping… $2 million! Which is like his weekly income. Or the amount of tax breaks he can get after buying Sarkozy a beer.

We shouldn’t be ofended the plutocrats are using money to influence the government. We should be ofended that it is so cheap.

On Absolutism

AnomalyUK was so kind as to write a response to my last post. I was commenting on his post at his blog, but it got too long, so I’d better post it over here.

He talks about the problem about organizations having a nominal and a real agenda is basically what it’s called the agency problem. Which it is.  The problem is that for any organization to be efficient, by definition, it needs to have goal orientation. And the goal must be shared by all. And that is pretty much impossible, as individuals tend to have their own individual goal. That’s biology. The old way of solving that problem is by absolutism: only one man gets power, so his goal prevails, and he has power to enforce that the people working for him actually do his work.

Of course absolutism solves the agency problem, as there is no agent, or the agents get no power. Absolutism, also makes administration way more efficient, the market shows that, corporations work when a man has absolute power, and he has drive. Absolutism has two problems, one is that not all monarchs are driven by any purpose, preferring hedonistic idleness. That historically has set their countries into chaos as other people driven to power fight between themselves to occupy the power vacuum that the idle king created by preferring poetry to politics. Eunuchs against military, you know the story.

Then there’s the problem that absolutism is so efficient that it cuts both ways: a king with a noble purpose creates heaven on earth, but a vicious king driven to create misery can create a very whole lot of it. It’s this risk that made absolutism demodé in intellectual circles since the 18th century. What if the king is retarded? We remove him? If he can be removed that his not really a king, is he?

But of course this is all idle talk. I’m no Marxist but the political arrangements of a society depend very much on the technology available for power driven people. And today absolutism is untenable; it’s way too easy to get someone out of power. Anomaly’s idea is trying to get away with organizations, solving problems with ad-hoc mechanisms as far as possible. That’s a quasi-libertarian point. And the basic answer to libertarianism is that things simply don’t work like that.

The fact is that government today is capable, by various means combining violence and suggestion, of capturing up to 50-60% of a country’s income. And the basic law of nepotism will make that money trickle down from the government making it expand until every single penny is spent in giving somebody’s niece’s job. Bureaucratic agencies and QUANGOs all being just excuses for that nepotism. An absolute ruler with 60% of the country’s income in his hand will be no less likely to make it trickle down to his family and friends. Happens in Africa all the time. Kings can be social too.

Of course Africans employed by the government don’t try to justify their position by “doing good” or trying to make themselves useful. They just spend it in whatever they please. Which would be an improvement over the QUANGO mushrooming we live with today. But not by much.

We need less parasites living off productive people. I fail to see how concentrating power would help.

On Sovereignty

Anomaly UK wrote a couple of weeks ago the kind of post I always want to write, but never do. It’s really good, and it touches many points that should be obvious to any interested in public policy. For example, on employment:

That isn’t wrong — within the libertarian framework it’s completely true. But I’ve left the framework behind. Political power will be gained and held by people who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration. I hope for a government whose hold on power is so solid that it does not depend on interfering in the market for labour, but that is not relevant to any present government or any feasible near-future one. Welfare is here to stay (even if based on private charity rather than the state, it would still have market-distorting effects), and unemployment will therefore always need to be addressed.

This is so true it’s painful. It should be branded on steel on every libertarian’s thigh. Politics is not about policy, it’s about power. And power is about patronage. It has been so since at least Roman times, who gaves us the words Patron and Client. Well it happens that the powers that be today have the widest and deepest clientela of human history, one that goes starts in government, goes through the civil service, big business, the academia, the media, and then directly to the underclass, bypassing the people who actually bother to work. Game players call the sex-starved betas Average Frustrated Chumps, AFC. Well you might call those bypassed by the government patronage the OWC, Overworked White Chumps.

The point is that government doesn’t intervene in the economy because it’s evil and loves fucking around with people. The government meddles because it has to. All human organisations are ultimately about self-preservation. Governments too, they just have more resources. The government is wrecking the labor market, is wrecking education, is wrecking the legal and tax system. If we just reformed any of these, any country would become way more efficient overnight. But it’s not going to happen. Because it would endanger it.

See Anomaly on education:

Well, the education system. It’s not that it’s failing to teach people “what they need to get jobs”. Rather, the purposeless and ineffective attempts to control unacademic children are actively teaching them not to work. Being forced to do schoolwork is a fairly crappy training for doing real work, but today the bottom stratum aren’t even getting that training. The result is they’re unemployable, not for lack of skill so much as lack of socialisation. It may be only a few percent, but the risk to the employer of getting one of them, and the costs if you do, push a large swathe of the lower classes out of employability.

(…)
The education system doesn’t need to be improved, it just needs to be in large part abolished. Actually doing useful work, for the family or for someone else, is not only a better preparation for being a useful adult than our schools are, it’s probably a good deal more personally satisfying and rewarding as well. The norm should be for people to be in full-time employment by the age of 16, and 13 or 14 is probably a good idea in a lot of cases.

All very true. But government can’t and won’t get its paws out of the education system. Public education is the perfect propaganda mechanism. And the government needs it for its survival. Imagine that education is privatised and totally liberalised, schools can teach what they will. Who is to stop the market into consolidating? Say 30% of schools go libertarian and teach the morals of not paying your taxes? Or say Bill Gates spent his money in building a school network that taught the virtues of charity and blasted the government for not doing more about it.

Japan, before the war, had a huge problem with its education system, which in the same way as today is full of liberals,  was full of fascists preaching the virtue of killing for the emperor. The government in that day was your run-of-the-mill racket of corrupt country politicians and pork barrel. Educated soldiers found it proper to go on a killing spree until the government yielded power to the army. Also see what Roman laissez-faire policy on religion did to them.

Once it was established empirically that people do as they are told, and that consistent repetition of the message is sufficient to have the populace at large believe something, it became obvious that government has to control education and the media if it is to survive. Which means it must add all education and media workers to the patronage network.

it was easier back then

As I wrote before, politics today is intrinsically unstable, as agitation using modern technology is very easy. See my first quote of Anomaly: Political power will be gained and held by people who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration. Well it follows that the incumbent’s first-order consideration is to stop other like-minded people from taking that power from them. For 100 years the socialist movement was a pain in the ass for all governments around the world.  People who believe that gaining and holding power are always a first-order consideration, i.e. professional agitators went around inciting the workforce to disobey their governments and take power. The USSR had them all well funded and ready to do its bidding. The way government reacted was by intervening in the job market, creating artificial job security and artificially high pay, plus the whole welfare system. The alternative was takeover by the mob. Sovereignty counts for shit when the people refuse to obey you.

Then the agitators switched to incite blacks and women. Government then reacted by giving them artificial jobs and inserting them too in the patronage network. Why didn’t they resist?, you ask. Why should they? They had money to spare. And they don’t have arguments to fight it, anyway. The civic religion is equality, one person, one vote. Who’s to say that women shouldn’t be CEOs? Or that blacks shouldn’t head NASA? Science? Science doesn’t vote. Any patronage network is happily willing to add more members to its support base, as it makes it stronger. See how fast fags have been let in. Of course a horizontal patronage network including 50%+ of society, which we call socialism, only works until the money runs out. Which is quickly doing.

Education and labor would work much better if we let the market clear, but we can’t let that happen. Even if the Antiversity took over, it would have to tightly control education, justice administration and the labor market, if only to keep liberals out of it.

Of course if 19th century technology makes agitation much easier, and sovereignty weaker, 21st century technology is quickly fighting back. China is leading the fight against “public” opinion, but it’s not being easy. If surveillance and online profiling keeps growing at the present rate, we might see very soon a government whose hold on power is so solid that it does not depend on interfering in the market for labour. But do we really want that? I wonder. It can’t be worse than what we have now, can it?

Quote of the week

From Adam Curtis’ blog:

Today it is possible to argue that we have all become gay white negroes. We all listen to “edgy urban” music, spend our time in the gym, go shopping and groom ourselves, take lots of drugs, have sex and then spend the rest of the time talking to our friends about the impossibility of finding real love and connection in the world.

Cf. Foseti’s take on Frost.