Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Monthly Archives: July 2012

James Holmes is a scientist

From Wikipedia:

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizesknowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Yes, they will visit him in prison. (HT Half Sigma)

On Anglo Sexual Mores

So it’s summer time, and people are starting to show some skin. It’s real hot actually, and I spent the last weekend in a seaside town. And people there were showing a lot of skin. Tank top, tight shorts, you know. Lately it is common for people to complain about the old and ugly women who also wear revealing clothing, which makes most men want to puke. It is really disturbing. But I wanna complain too about the hot young girls in short and tight clothes.

Yeah they are hot as hell and they make me wanna fuck them all. But that’s wrong, fellas. That’s not a good thing. You shouldn’t feel like watching porn just walking by the street. And it’s not only in seaside towns; it’s everywhere. On my way to work, going for groceries with my woman. I guess I am easily distracted, or perhaps more horny than average. But I can’t control that and women can control whether they cover up their tits and legs. But why would they cover up when they can go semi naked around the street? It’s empowering! If it’s empowering for a woman to use her natural weapons against men’s weakness, then if a man uses his natural weapons (fists) against women’s weakness (her face), then beating the hell of some woman is also empowering, non? That must be why hot chicks dig violent assholes. They both dig empowering.

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps muslims have it right after all. Their women don’t go outside uncovered. Some are hot, some are not, something that men are very good at telling, so there’s always some amount of distraction when a cute girl comes close. But they don’t have a constant stream of teenage girls in hot pants. I have been in Muslim countries and you don’t get distracted much by women.

But in the way to asking for conversion papers at the neighbourhood mosque, another thought crossed my mind. Islam is a hotbed of fags.  It’s common knowledge that in Muslim countries sex with boys is widespread, and not even considered homosexuality. The most extreme case is of course Afghanistan with its harems of prepubescent boys, but it happens all around the muslim world. And its prevalence is directly retarded with the issue I’m talking about here: the access to young women. Young muslim girls aren’t uncovered so as to net elicit improper desire on others and wreck a long prepared cousin marriage which would produce cute little retards for the family. All during the summer you’ll see lots and lots of horny boys and men going out approaching those sluttily dressed girls, desperate to get some poon. It feels pathetic from outside, but we have all gone to ridiculous lengths to get a shot at it. And you just couldn’t stop it because the poon is everywhere. Sheer probability means you would fuck someone if you try long enough. And you eventually do.

Well what do muslim boys do then? Their girls aren’t accessible but surely they are as horny as we are. But there’s no girls to chase, let alone fuck. So they mostly fuck each other. Or get fucked by some older patron. It’s as simple as this. And is not even uniquely Muslim. In fact the sexual openness of western women is a very rare exception in history, which makes sense when you think about it. All agricultural civilisations have tightly controlled access to their women. Women were property, which was only given away after a hard bargain, and you couldn’t really do away with her once you got one. So you couldn’t sleep for pleasure. Boys are expendable though, those can be fucked. So girly looking boys have always been screwed. In Ancient Persia, Greece, Rome. Big shot samurai lords satisfied their urges with boys. Medieval Europe and China aren’t famous for buggering but we know that it did happen. Modern England is of course famous for its boarding school homos.

So it seems that the alternative to having sluts constantly at your face making your balls ache is to live in a country where your little brother is pretty much certain to be assraped sooner or later. Which is not to say that the West is free of homos. Obviously not, bu we have created a society for their own, instituted a scientific myth about buttsex being a genetic “trait”, and set clear barriers for people who are into it and those who aren’t. Caesar wasn’t that lucky. He liked them nubile girls à la Cleopatra, but when he was a young man Nicomedes got a piece of his ass. 

So perhaps is not such a good idea to cover your women and hide them at home. But I still think that having 15-20 year olds out in the street half naked waiting for alphas to sweep them off their feet is a good idea either. Simply because young women are too valuable just to be allowed to waste their youth in the cock-carrousel. Women used to be property, and property is sold when its more valuable. Now women boast that their body is their own property. Still doesn’t make sense. Nowadays women give their bodies away for free when they’re nice and tight, and try to sell it higher when they’ve lost all value.

Old Europe had a curious arrangement, one in which adultery was subtly promoted and pretty much expected after some time. For all the talk about the spartan bourgeois and their puritan mores, western merchants have been sleeping with each others’ wives for ages. In fact most provincial soap operas over here are based on that. “You slept with my business partner! How could you do this to me! Come on, you have been screwing my sister since before our wedding!”

It may seem severely wrong, but it’s a much saner arrangement than the cock-carrousel/serial dating culture where women are fucked silly from 15 to 30 and lose all sense of what life is about, and the ephebe slavery of old. If you have to fuck around (and a fair amount of people do), society is better off if you play around on the older second hand market, rather than disrupt the much more important world of young mating and marriage. That’s how the French do it,  or did it.  Clueless anglos tend to take it too seriously and run away leaving your family behind. That’s probably the reason why Anglos have always been more open about homos. They take women so seriously, and their women take themselves so seriously, that they restrict supply in effectively the same way as muslims.

And women are getting worse. The obesity epidemic combined with continued Muslim immigration might very well bring ephebophilia into Britain or the US. Progress!

The Endgame

Nick Land has finished his long series, Dark Enlightment. It was fascinating to find in an obscure chinese expat site a middle aged Philosophy lecturer writing what effectively was a summary of Moldbug’s blog, with a slight touch of cyberpunk.

Of course the most interesting part in this series is that it has an ending. Which means it reaches a conclusion. In the last post before this one, his 4e, he advances how he sees the future unfolding. He basically sees three possibilities:

  • Utter collapse (Postmodernism)
  • Chinese takeover (Modernity 2.0)
  • A miracle (Western Renaissance)

His bet is on a Chinese takeover (and he walks the walk living in Shanghai), because a Western renaissance is really unlikely. Not that it is hard, in fact one can easily come up with a handful of policies that would make any Western polity become earthly paradise. As he puts it:

(1) Replacement of representational democracy by constitutional republicanism (or still more extreme anti-political governmental mechanisms).

(2) Massive downsizing of government and its rigorous confinement to core functions (at most).

(3) Restoration of hard money (precious metal coins and bullion deposit notes) and abolition of central banking.

(4) Dismantling of state monetary and fiscal discretion, thus abolishing practical macroeconomics and liberating the autonomous (or ‘catallactic’) economy. (This point is redundant, since it follows rigorously from 2 & 3 above, but it’s the real prize, so worth emphasizing.)

But it’s not going to happen. Politics has its own dynamics and people don’t suddenly renounce rent seeking and agree on becoming more cooperative and focus on the long term. So no Western renaissance.

But if we can’t go forward, can’t we at least go back? Democracy is bad, but not so long ago we had functioning societies without democracy. So let’s go back there and start again. That’s the implicit idea behind what we call reactionaries. Surprisingly Land had some words for us.

Democracy’s relentless trend to degeneration presents an implicit case for reaction. Since every major threshold of socio-political ‘progress’ has ratcheted Western civilization towards comprehensive ruin, a retracing of its steps suggests a reversion from the society of pillage to an older order of self-reliance, honest industry and exchange, pre-propagandistic learning, and civic self-organization. The attractions of this reactionary vision are evidenced by the vogue for 18th century attire, symbols, and constitutional documents among the substantial (Tea Party) minority who clearly see the disastrous course of American political history.

But he quickly dismisses it, because the past has a big, huge, gargantuan taboo. Race. In the past there was racism. Ergo we can’t return to the past. He succinctly summarises the progressive’s sense of mission with this sentence: “The alternative to more government, doing ever more, was to stand there, negligently, whilst they lynched another Negro”. That’s how progressives saw themselves, and how they see themselves now. Being reactionary means you have to deny that blacks deserved freedom and civil rights. And that claim requires HBD, which is a tough sell, and a greasy slippery slope.

So Nick Land analysis of the political situation ended with him declaring that reaction is dead, and ergo Western Civilisation is dead, because of racism. So what does he propose in his last article? He proposes the only way of transcending race. Transcending humanity. Bionics.

It turns out that Nick Land has long been focused on cybernetics, and in his younger days actually flirted with leftist agitators such as the Situational movement. All this is forgivable given his age, it was really hard to be non leftist in the 70s. Still the man was intelligent and his flirt with leftism surely left hi with a profound sense of despair in the ability of humanity to pull itself together by its own means. Hence cybernetics. He probably came up with cybernetics as the ultimate conclusion of the leftist critique of modern crony-capitalism. See Organisation is suppression, and he seems to have liked the Deleuze-Guattari critique of modern capitalism as sapping human creativity and crushing happiness and whatnot.

It seems like on reading Moldbug’s blog, he felt inspired to reinterpretate cybernetics as not only the endgame of 68-ish leftism, but also of reactionary HBD thought. The Cathedral holds HNU as dogma, race can’t be discussed. So if we can’t say that blacks are backward we will make ALL races backward by creating a new bionic man, who will leave all the old political bullshit behind.

Singularitarianism is popular among the dissenter crowd. Candide and I agreed in this foseti’s thread that Singularity is popular mainly because it gives some hope of preventing the Collapse of civilisation. There are two opposite dynamics today, which might decide our future. Either dysgenics continues, accelerates, and civilisation collapses under the weight of rent seeking elderly leeching resources of the deprived and deluded young, who die outbred by the NAM and prole hordes ushering in a new Middle Ages where all modern technology is forgotten. Or we reach the Singularity first, so technology grows by itself and supersedes politics.

I blogged before about the two competing Singularities, the computing Singularity (a kickass AI), or the biological Singularity (we discover how to make people smarter, feeding a positive loop). As I said then, genetic engineering seems more achievable than superhuman AIs. It is also more exciting. A self-teaching AI is an alien organism, fundamentally different from any human. It makes us wary, whether by the rational fear of Skynet, or by the mere eeriness we feel against the non-kin.

But bionics is exciting. It’s just us become more awesome. Who wouldn’t like that? Nick Land is very insightful in connecting Bionics with racism and modern orthodoxy. I have been recently feeling very wary on the consequences of HBD becoming widely accepted. There are thousands of reasons why no political society can survive if people knew that genes come in various classes, some better, some worse, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Old society worked through the hope of heaven, but Modern society works through the great fiction of Upward Mobility. HBD effectively kills that.

My first intuition was that we need a new religion. But perhaps Nick Land is right and the Bionic Singularity is at hand. Funny thing is that his article was published not after Greg Cochran’s latest speculations at his blog, where he argues that blacks have a larger mutational load, which might explain their backwardness. The corollary of this is that he not so long ago argued that mutational load in the genome could in the near future be “spell-checked”, i.e. fixed, ushering in smarter and healthier people. If low IQ is caused by mutational load, and this is fixed, the “gap” is fixable! Not exactly the same as Nick Land’s vision of a small group of elite bionically enhanced humans who bored with the petty divisions of humanity decide to evolve by themselves, but similar in that it implies that engineering could solve the Race issue without old fashioned ethnic cleansing war.

Nick Land quotes almost half his article from this writing by John H. Campbell. It certainly is an inspiring piece.

What has the future in store for humanity? Will our descendants succumb to pollution, the population explosion, exhausted resources or grinding poverty? Might they arrive at permanent prosperity or enter the golden age of leisure? Each vision has its advocates and ethical implications. I predict that human destiny is to elevate itself to the status of a god and beyond. We will transform ourselves by evolution, the same creative process which raised our branch of life to the level of Homo sapiens. This advancement is hard upon us. In a dozen generations people well may advance as far above our contemporary form as we surpass the apes. Descendants of another dozen generations may regard our mental capacities as we do the mind of a mole. When they have progressed as far beyond us as you and I have over a mushroom surely our descendants will match more closely our images of minor gods, if not Jupiter Himself, than humans.

I’m sorta tired of bitching about high taxes and Big Corporations and fags and NAMs and feminists and joos and the UN. Damn I also want to inspire people talking about becoming God in twelve generations.

But perhaps we bloggers are also giving a hand for the evolution of mankind. After all if we didn’t complain, if we didn’t raise awareness, if there was no pressure against the Cathedral program, in 12 generations there would be nothing left but Reducciones of nice white ladies controlling NAM villages praying to the goddess. Let’s fight the boring political attrition war until we figure bionics out.

The Dunning-Krueger Spring

While I am what you could call the bookish type, I am not an academic. I lived among academics for some time but I never felt at ease in that culture. That tendency they have to make easy things sound so difficult. The funniest academic concept is the Dunning-Krueger effect. At first I thought it was some awesome intellectual breakthrough, like the Doppler effect or the Westermarck effect.  It must be double awesome because it took two academics to discover it! But of course the Dunning-Krueger effect is simply the academic way of saying the intemporal truism that stupid people are so stupid they don’t realise how stupid they are.

The DKE is bad as it is with individuals, and the illusion of equality democracy brought has made it much worse. Even the dumbest prole might understand after 40 years of failing that some people are smarter than he is, capable of doing things he is not. But our government propaganda is day and night telling him how everyone is equal and has the same rights. Well if we are equal when why do I suck while others don’t? Confusion ensues.

Now imagine that at the nation level. I was having dinner a while ago with a friend who goes often for business in the Middle East, knows the place well. I asked him about the political situation, with the Arab Spring and all that. He told me about Egypt. ‘Oh, it’s a mess’ he said. Business routinely stopped by new authorities shutting down anyone who dealt with the old regime, their owners arrested and jailed.  The cynical reactionary that I am, I asked him if my hunch about the opposition being just a bunch of astroturf groups bankrolled by Cathedral QUANGOs was right. To my surprise he told me no, people really wanted Mubarak out, the genuinely wanted regime change. Probably the start of the revolution was staged, but once it reached a critical mass everyone was out and joined it, at least in the cities.

But what do the people want? Egypt during Mubarak rule was a horrible basketcase, no doubt about that. Mubarak and his army cronies just ran a typical kleptocracy while the people kept breeding and breeding till they got the present 80 million peasants in the 30.000 sqm around the Nile. But what do the Egyptians think they are going to achieve by overthrowing Mubarak? Let’s face it, Egypt is a basketcase because Egyptians are stupid. And no possible form of government is going to change that.

My friend told me that young people in Egypt are all convinced that Egypt in the days of Anwar Saddat was earthly paradise, the people were cultured, modern yet devout to Allah, the economy was booming and the people were well fed. All changed when Sauron Mubarak came and Egypt, the natural leader of the Arab World, decayed into the hellhole it is today. And now that Mubarak is gone Egypt will again flourish and captivate the world. Next thing you know they are building pyramids.

I feel sorry for this people. It’s sad because they believe our bullshit, and they try to be like us, but it never works out. We are fueling their delusion, supporting them in their heroic endeavour in self-improvement. But they won’t improve. They can’t improve, not until a ruthless military commander puts some discipline in them by endless drilling. But it won’t happen, if it did, they wouldn’t like it, and even if they did, it wouldn’t amount to much. Egypt and all the neighbourhood is screwed. Instead of pushing them into trying to be like us, it would be more humane to let them be the chaotic hellhole they deserve, falling back into mindless following of Sharia. That they can do properly, and they can justify their lack of economic performance by rationalising it as “we focus in what really matters”.

I wonder if HBD could be a good sell with muslims. Yes, humans have biological constraints. Yes we are smarter than you are. But think about it. Allah made you stupid so you would not get uppity and betray him. You were made dumb so you would still love him and follow his law. Blessed are the retards because they will get the huris.

Eugenics on action, 1995

A while ago Greg Cochran wrote a very insightful post, saying that older civilisations necessarily produce populations of cynical familial slackers, because the realities of warfare and human society mean that those more likely to fight for abstract ideals were killed off over the thousands of years of successive civilisations.

That’s why more recently civilised places like Germany or Japan are still more orderly than, say, Iraq or Egypt. Still the historical data is patchy, so many people refused to accept the theory. I however just found a piece of evidence for it.

Andrei Lankov is a Russian expert on North Korea, and he regularly writes about it in Asia Times. He being Russian he can afford to write about the reality of life in North Korea without falling in paroxisms of righteous rage like American writers. Turns out that life in North Korea has been changing rapidly, even before the death of Kim Jong  Il. The famine of the middle 90s basically destroyed the old rationing economy, and trade (smuggling) with China have created a quite pervasive market economy, which the state is powerless to control. Following the Chinese and Russian example, instead of cracking down, the government officials are cashing on the new markets, and lately you can see functioning shops and restaurants on the streets of Pyongyang.

Lankov writes in his last article how bribery has made an appearance in North Korea, in such a big way that virtually all government employees take them.

Countless times this writer has asked a North Korean whether it is conceivable that a police officer or bureaucrat would refuse a bribe. My interlocutors always look at me with some bewilderment, since the question itself sounds strange – and recently a middle-aged woman, a market vendor, said: “Are they crazy? How else would they stay alive?”

You get the point. The government doesn’t give out rations anymore, and the market works on money. And the only way to get money is from bribes. But what about Socialism? The noble teachings of Marx and Lenin!! Surely the communist officialdom, brainwashed for decades into despising money and commerce, should show a righteous disdain to accepting money from capitalist dogs.

Minor officials were hit very hard by the crisis of the mid-1990s. Many of my North Korean friends have stated that during the famine of 1996-99, honest officials – those who sincerely believed in the official ideology, and operated strictly in accordance with rules – were usually among the first people to die. In most cases, their food rations were no longer delivered and, being loyal soldiers of the Great Leader, they did not want to involve themselves in any kind of illegal and immoral capitalist market activity. So a sorry fate awaited these true believers, and their colleagues learned a lot from their demise.

So you see how Natural Selection killed off the true believers in communism. Hey it’s the best example of eugenics I’ve read in some time. While I am on the record for arguing for stronger selection pressures for IQ, I think the dying off of magical thinkers is perhaps of even more benefit to society. Just think what would happen to all those honest anti-racist, disability deniers, feminists et al. when the shit hits the fan and the economy collapses.

Huxley thought that the future would worship Henry Ford. I can see shrines for Darwin though.

QUANGO empire

What pushes Globalisation? Michael Pettis says that Globalisation is caused by inflation. Which is an interesting theory. But I’m not here to talk about economic theory. Let us say in more general terms that Globalisation has two vectors. One is economic; globalisation is pushed by money in search for yield. The other is ideological; globalisation is pushed by a faith in search for converts. Both can work together and add impulse to the process, but they don’t always do, and sometimes they work against each other.

I’ve been blogging for a while about the last addition to the Cathedral’s empire, Myanmar. What was until last year an isolationist military regime has in a very short time unconditionally surrendered to the US State Department. The US was ecstatic for having acquired a big vassal with 60 million people in China’s backyard. Clinton was there, Petraeus was there, Soros was there. The generals went home, elections were held, press controls abolished, the internet legalised.

I’m presently in the international trade business and I hear and read every day how the hype about Myanmar built up among the business community. Famous Soros disciple Jim Rogers is on the record for his excitement about a new virgin country ready to accept investment dollars. Asia Business has for two decades already meant almost exclusively China, the only place in the region where consistent profits could be made. But China has already grown a lot, salaries have been getting higher, and the government has stolen most of the foreign technology it wanted, so China is not as accommodating to foreign companies as it used to be. Many companies are looking for alternatives, and Myanmar’s surrender came just in the right time.

China Law Blog is a very good blog written by a team of lawyers in China. They especialise in working with foreign business in China, helping them with their legal problems there. Their position means that they have very good information on the general mood in the market in China and the whole East Asia region. As part of it they went to the first Myanmar Investment Summit that was opened in Rangoon earlier this month. The 1995 website design didn’t stop hundreds of foreign companies from attending the summit and listening to the Burmese government new policies.

The conference started well, with the new government clearly stating its new allegiance to Western values.

Stage 1: Transition to a stable, open political system. This stage includes at least the following factors:

a. Participation of all parties in the government. The recent participation of Aung San Suu Kyi’s New Democratic Party in the parliament is an example of this process.

b. Accommodation with all minority groups. The government has signed peace treaties will all the important minority groups (Karen, Kachin, Shan, Chin, Wa, Mon) and intends to bring these groups into a multi-ethnic union of Myanmar where their interests are respected.

c. Termination on restrictions of information. This will be manifested in several ways: free press (newspaper and magazines), open internet, general access to mobile phones and other forms of communication, free and uncensored publication of books, access to foreign newspapers, periodicals and books.

See? It seems like some American Political Science Professor drafted the whole thing. Elections! Multi-culturalism! Free Press! If Fukuyama were right, Myanmar would have jumped from the darkness into the pinnacle of history in just a semester.

Imagine the hundreds of new jobs for the Cathedral youth. Political advisors and marketing consultants for Aung San’s party and her friends’. Cultural anthropology grads and human right NGO activists flooding the country’s borderland to ’empower’ the tribes and document their victimisation by the Evil Racist Burmese Patriarchy. And foreign press agencies free to roam the country and report the crucial opinion of the activists mentioned above. All in a cultured and mild mannered Buddhist country where young girls from rich families won’t be gang-raped (though some might miss it).

The businessmen present were probably all smiles after seeing a foreign government give such profound reverence to their Values. These people are embracing human rights, like we do. This fellas get it. Let’s see what follows.

Stage 2: Reform of the financial system. The government is working with the IMF to entirely reform the domestic financial system. The first step was to unify exchange rate conversion. Myanmar until recently had five different exchange rates. These have been eliminated in favor of a single exchange rate that more closely reflects the value of the Myanmar currency. The next steps will be to modernize Myanmar’s banking system and integrate that system with the world system. Eventually, this will involve partial or complete convertibility of the Myanmar currency.  Finally, Myanmar plans to open a stock exchange within the next five years. The goal is to fully internationalize the Myanmar economy within a five-year period.

Hehe. Convertible currency. Stock exchange. Integrated bank system. Did I mention that George Soros has already set up shop in the country? Bankstas around the globe rejoice. They are going to have fun.

All this is nice and good, but what about talking some business? We’re here to invest and make money.

Oops, not so fast.

foreign invested enterprises are treated dramatically differently than domestic enterprises. For example, a foreign invested enterprise cannot lease a building for a period greater than one year. For longer periods, foreign invested enterprises must rent land and build the related buildings at their own expense. The resulting lease is limited to an overall term of 60 years, at which time the building and land revert back to the government. Second, all foreign investment projects must be approved by the central government. Local governments are not permitted to grant such approvals. Many business terms such as the price of leased land must be approved by the central government, preventing private business people from negotiating their own terms.

The central theme is that the government desires to increase GDP and to allow the benefits of such increase to accrue to the people rather than to government officials. Though FDI will be a part of such GDP growth, the government is still concerned about preventing foreign investors from obtaining an unfair advantage over the local people. For this reason, the government still insists on restrictive terms for foreign investment and still insists on remaining actively involved in investment decisions to “protect” the people and the assets of the country. In this way, the opening to foreign investment on the part of the government can at best be termed half-hearted.

China Law Blog’s lawyer elaborates here. It seems obvious that the Burmese government is not interested in letting foreigners profit from their investments in the country. All projects must go through the central bureaucracy, which at present, is taking 6 months to decide on anything. And that’s now when not much activity has started. Myanmar is choosing democracy before development, it has surrendered to the Cathedral, but not to global corporations. You could say that Myanmar is the private fief of the State Department, instead of most American satellites which were conquered by the Pentagon and colonised by Big Business.

Cui bono? The Cathedral priesthood and Wall Street. In 1840 the business community was so strong that they commanded the Royal Navy and forced China to buy their opium. Missionaries also went through, but failed to achieve much impact. The tides have changed now though, the zealots have got their upper hand, and the fight for progressive souls has become more important than profits.

Look at one comment in the article, which as I said is focused on business in China:

What was your experience with the repression of the Rohingya?

Now that’s important!

Dicks versus leftism

Back in my libertarian days I remember reading a piece (or was it an interview?) by David Friedman, about the future of freedom or something like that. He said that there are 2 mainstream wings of libertarians. There are those who think that what is needed to further freedom is a change in the culture, i.e. we need to persuade people into valuing freedom. And there are others who think that it is a legal problem, that what we need is more libertarian laws, a better designed constitution, etc. Then he said that both views were shortsighted because they fail to take into account the fact that statism may not be contingent, but a necessary by-product of states. That all bureaucracies, by their sole nature, will necessarily grow bigger and push for more statism. That the intrinsic structure of power will always push for more power. I was young and I thought this guy was a genius. What I failed to understand is how his conclusion didn’t make him stop being a libertarian. It certainly helped me grow out of it.

In a way this reminds me of a similar issue in the altright movement. We are the enemies of leftism, and at the present stage most of us writers and thinkers are mainly engaged in the analysis of the leftist hegemony. The Cathedral’s rule is so pervasive than rather than think “how do we get out?”, many of us are still mostly concerned with the “how did we get here?”. There are three mainstream etiologies of leftism circulating among us. Most famous, old, and simple is the Jewish Conspiracy theory, which is quite intuitive given that Jews have been always present in numbers in any revolutionary movement, from Austria, Russia, Germany, South Africa. Still a superficial analysis of history would tell you that we had leftists before Emancipation, and so some prefer to go further back and blame Calvinism and its utopian offshoots, foremost among them American Puritanism. The Reformation did break the old clerico-aristocratic order, and brought loony utopianism to the masses. Lastly then there are some race essentialists who channel Nietzsche and blame Christianity itself, for forcing its slave morality on the noble European stock. I’ll refrain from commenting about this, mostly because we have little data on the political theory of Valhalla. Still it is true that Christianity was the first religion to openly state the equality of all men. It brought the first Universal God, who superseded tribal deities.

Common among all these theories is the fault of Eurocentrism. Now, don’t get me wrong, Europe is cool, and it is the birthplace of most high political philosophy in the world. You could study only the history European political theory, ignoring all the rest, and you would know all that is worth knowing. But that doesn’t help us in the study of the origin and nature of leftism. Granted that modern leftism worldwide can be safely traced to European nations or groups, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist outside the West, nor that Western contamination is its only source. Western power is indeed the only source of political leftism, i.e. the use of state power to further leftist aims. But political leftism is not all there is, or it wouldn’t have flourished as it has. Leftism got his teeth because it is nourished by societal leftism, i.e. the equality cult. There is a Cathedral, and many small churches, but they were all born out of the faith of the people. People believed in equality before the United Nations Charter, before the  Déclaration des droits de l’homme, before the Declaration of Independence, before Luther, before the Bible itself. It’s not the Jews, it’s not the Christians. It’s not women, nor is it fags. It’s not Lenin, nor Marx, nor Wycliffe, nor Jesus. It’s Gauss. It’s people.

There is a long new post at Razib’s GNXP, which would be funny if it weren’t so sad. He’s talking about his 10 years of blogging, and of particular interest is the paragraph where he writes about comments policy. Razib is quite notorious in the blogosphere for he being a dick with commenters he doesn’t like. When somebody writes something, no matter how polite, that he doesn’t like, he’ll quickly threaten to ban people and attacks them with quite an angry tone. His tone is really very unpleasant, and many people have called him out about it. It’s not that he curses or calls people names, but many people regard him as being a dick.

He defends itself of the charge, by arguing, as I understand it, that his blog isn’t a damn college canteen, and that he doesn’t have time for stupid people with no expertise on the subject just trying to seem smart. In other words, his time is limited; he writes most posts with holes in the argument, expecting people with real expertise to correct him on the comments. Meaning that comments which are not by experts on the subject, and don’t provide him with any knowledge, aren’t tolerated in his blog. He makes his policy clear in this two sentences:

I think most of the readership of this blog should keep their opinions to themselves on any given post, because they don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute.


The reality is without aggressive supervision the arc of the human social universe seems to bend toward idiocy & group-think.

As far as blogs go, he has perhaps too high expectations of what blog comments are, but the fact is that very smart people do comment in his blog, and the average comments that smart yet un-expert people such as you and I write are a positive nuisance to him. My blog isn’t about science, so I can happily accommodate people nitpicking my logic or putting out some speculation of their own. But in real life I have experienced the same thing Razib is describing, and I too am very often regarded as an arrogant dick, who thinks he’s always right. Happens that I am. It is my cross that I happen to be knowledgeable at history and politics, topics that even average people enjoy talking about. I also strive to remind people to don’t talk about what they know nothing about. I also don’t curse or call people names, but they tell me there’s a certain look of contempt in my face. That created me many enemies at college, and also the odd gina tingle. I don’t enjoy being a dick, but sometimes you have to. Razib seems to feel the same way.

Now why should the writer of Gene Expression, which is the holy shrine of HBD in the blogosphere, where people should know what a damn Bell Curve is, need to explain himself about the objective fact that most people don’t know shit? I assume that he wrote this to explain further a point he made in a post earlier this week. There he writes in a less apologetic tone:

Over the 10 years of running my own blog(s) I’ve shifted in my own perspective and outlook. In the beginning I was rather laissez faire. But it became rather obvious that most people were either stupid or ignorant, or, they took advantage of the anonymity of the internet to waste other peoples’ time.


In real life most people are not worth deep engagement because they’re dull or incurious, or, our interests do not overlap (i.e., I’m incurious about their topics of passion). It’s no different on the internet. Sitemeter says thousands of people read the content on this weblog per day. The vast majority do not leave comments, obviously. I’m glad for that.

As you see he is saying the same thing: most people don’t know shit and I don’t have time to deal with their crap. You would think that people in GNXP of all places would be understanding, but there a commenter left a comment that stroke me as the most condensed example of popular leftism ever.

But surely blogging is about the conversation, a two way street? Otherwise it’s just a print model, talking at the audience. I know this is sometimes difficult or uncomfortable for bloggers, especially when people disagree.

While it’s true that there are many trolls out there, I fundamentally disagree with your assessment of humanity, e.g. people not being worth deep engagement. That strikes me as highly elitest. I think you might find that just about everyone has a story worth telling, experiences that are unique or that confirm profound commonality in what it means to be human – but you aren’t going to experience that if you assume everyone is dull or stupid, because believe me people will pick up on that very quickly in real life and make some assumptions about you in return.

It’s pure gold. It has every single point of leftist thought, all in one short comment. See how he 1. totally misunderstands the point: Razib likes the two-way street, he just doesn’t like every single pedestrian. Then he 2. signals his higher status in a totally uncalled value judgment: “I disagree”. Then the 3. all too telling spelling error, “elitest”. The 4.  long-winded profession of faith in the equality cult: “everyone has a story worth telling”. And finally the failsafe, the leftist theory of evil 5. if people sound stupid is because they are withdrawing their expertise because you are a bad person who looks down on them.

As I was saying I am a real life dick, who looks down on people and disregards their opinions. I have heard people make the same argument as this dude at least 1000 times, in all countries and languages. The idea that everyone has a story to tell, that all people are interesting and fun, and that is your hardened heart that doesn’t let you share their humanity. Damn they told me so many times that my brain pulled a Goebells and internalised the shit, and I took a long tour to the Third World, trying to share the unique stories of the natives. It was fun for a while but after 10 minutes you can mostly guess what a 80 IQ is going to say.

Then I stopped trying, got in the internet and read about HBD and all that. It seemed so obvious, it was just proof of all I had already known since childhood. But why did everyone lie then? Why did everyone insisted that all people had their own unique-snowflake take on things, that everyone’s opinion was valuable? Is it the Cathedral indoctrination? You might say so, but it sn’t true. It can’t be, I’ve been around, talking to Lefebvre followers, Neo-Nazis, people educated under Franco and Salazar, to Chinese pro and anti-Communist, Japanese or Koreans. All these people have not been into Cathedral dominated schools, don’t read Cathedral-ish newspapers nor participate in Cathedral churches or NGOs. Yet they would still appeal to HNU when called out on their bullshit.

Japan is perhaps one of the nations less contaminated by mainstream Leftism in the world. It’s not free of it, the UN is there, the US embassy is there, and some pockets of the bureaucracy are undistinguishable from what you would find in the West. But the school system is old-school (pun unintended), racism abounds and is widely tolerated, women’s careers are blocked by a rather thick concrete-reinforced glass ceiling.

Last year Satoshi Kanazawa was Watsoned for saying that black women are unattractive, which is as easy to prove as 5 minutes spent googling porn videos. Well I wondered what would have happened if instead of the LSE, Kanazawa was working for a Japanese university. The news got back home, and I read the reactions in the popular forum 2chan. I was expecting that Japanese netizens would rally to defend their countryman for saying the truth against the Ministry of Truth. Big error. 95% of the posts were lashing him for being a dick. “That’s bullshit”. “He’s a scientist?” “That’s a matter of personal preference”. “How could he say that? Every one has its own taste”. “People like him make us Japanese look bad abroad”. “What a dick”. “Send him to Africa so he learns to respect people”. “I like them black girls!!”.

Poor fella couldn’t find solace even in his native land. And take my word when I say that 90% of Japanese people would say that Black women are hideous, look like men, look barbaric, surely stink, or that black pussies are just revolting. They wouldn’t tap a black girl even if their lives depended on it. Hell they are so picky they don’t even tap most of their own womanfolk. But Kanazawa couldn’t be excused, he had committed the worst of crimes: he had denied equality.

Political leftism produces long-winded texts and majestic declarations on the equality of all humans, justifying in religious or pseudo-scientific terms. But popular leftism is not really about faith. In sociological terms, is the manifestation of the desire for equal status. As Aretae would tell you, authority is evil. He couldn’t really answer why, but I’ll tell you. Authority is evil because it means that some people have more status than you. And people HATE HATE HATE that. It’s violating Jante Law.

There are tons of reasons why people would like to enforce equal status, or at least drag down those who would have more status than themselves. By any definition of attractiveness, or intelligence, the unattractive and unintelligent will always be a majority. The problem is that society can’t function without a hierarchy, and that enforced collectivism disables natural eugenic instincts (hypergamy, greed). As I see it, society used to function because collectivism was only enforced ingroup, while the outgroup was out of the status hierarchy. Peasants in a village will all be very vigilant about respecting each other and don’t let any neighbour get uppity. But the lord of the land wasn’t in their group, he was part of the aristocracy group, where themselves had their own status rules where they contained each other.

Democratic society destroyed all classes inside society, so we are all one big group. And inside each group, status disparities aren’t easily allowed. People’s instincts fly when they feel slighted by someone in the ingroup, and you see how democratic politicians, no matter how privileged their upbringing, all try to be “one with the people” who respect and understand them. This dynamics apply to any human group, and you see priests ganging up against “arrogant bishops” or the peer-review mechanism who effectively controls any eccentric scientist.

Still as much as people like to pull down those with superior status to them, they like to tread on others to feel superior to them. In a homogeneous nation state, you aren’t allowed to be superior to your countrymen, so all that energy is channeled against other countries. Why did people enlist en masse during WW1? To teach a lesson to those uppity Germans. The move towards world government and the deconstruction of nation states has pulled the collectivist instinct to an ever bigger scale. Now the ingroup is the whole world. No one is better than anyone else. The proposition is insane to begin with, but it didn’t do much harm while the real world consequences of it was that you had to be polite to your immediate neighbours, or towards your fellow peers in your nation’s court. In that scale it does what it was designed to do, human’s evolved collectivism as a way of tightening the bonds of the tribe. For the purposes of war against other tribes. Societal cohesion only makes sense if there are enemies to use it against.

But what would social cohesion do in a global village? Who would people gang up against? In the absence of real enemies, the collectivist instinct only flares up to put down the superior. Whitey. The patriarchy. The arrogant. The dicks! The oldest instinct of humanity today is only used to put down the arrogant. The People against the dicks. If you include feminism it makes up for a good metaphor.

Apple as the model of the Future State

The Singularity is probably not happening any time soon, but lately we are in the midst of a technological revolution. At last software and computing power has become so good that many tasks are becoming completely automated. Self-driving cars, robotised factories, automatic translation are already a reality. And then there’s 3d printing, aeroponics, graphene. I don’t know if technological progress is slowing down compared to 1900-1950, but some good stuff is coming along, and it seems it can revolutionise the way our economy is presently organised. It seems the trend is towards decentralisation. Software has to be designed only once, then shipped at no cost; 3d printing and aeroponics negate the benefits of location: you can build or grow anything anywhere.

All of this sounds very nice, but the real revolution is not in the production of potatoes and logic boards. As always, the quickest sector to make use of new technologies is the military. Already we are seeing how air forces around the world are quickly shifting from expensive manned airplanes to unmanned drones. These are cheaper, deadlier, and can be controlled remotely. One of the most interesting blogs around is Global Guerrillas, by a former US Air Force pilot turned military theorist and survivalist geek. His blog, and his uber celtic face staring at you on the homepage tell you of a future world, soon to come true, where drone swarms with millions of small weaponised insect like machines and bullet-sized missiles fly around projecting power around the world, controlled only by a handful of men in the comfort of their homes.

While swarms of killed drones aren’t here yet, bullet missiles were demoed earlier this year, and I can easily imagine the Chinese Politburo using them to decapitate a protest by targeting its leaders, or the Israelis using them to harass Arab agitators. At this rate there is no doubt that the need for huge armies with millions of soldiers has disappeared. Fully autonomous robot armies may not happen yet, but software assisted remote controlled weapons are here already. A pity for fans of Gundam; you won’t get to ride your attack mecha.

Now I don’t think that all these advancements will totally negate the advantages of scale, there are parts of the supply chain that are prone to centralised control, and states won’t downsize without a fight. But the incentives are there for easy secession. The problem with this IT revolution in production and war is that not every man has the necessary brains to design a drone or its attack algorithm. All this new technologies are designed and managed by as old time reader Zhainan calls them, the geek squad. Joe Sixpack isn’t going to design a new algorithm so drone swarms can outflank their Canadian rivals. You need a good programmer team for that.

But geeks, if smart, have a problem with focus. They tend to get obsessed with trivia, and while good at incremental improvements, have a hard time at innovating from scratch. A lot of geeks are libertarian, that should tell you enough about their ability to perceive reality. The geek squad might control the new automated world, but they won’t know what to do with it. Geeks need external pressure to focus their minds in reality. They need to be led.

The best example of a non-geek leading a geek is Steve Jobs with Steve Wozniak. Woz was the guy who knew how to design a computer, but he never did anything useful or sellable. It was Jobs, a self confessed Humanities type who had the ideas, the charm and the guts to grab Woz and persuade him into building the Apple II. Over the extent of their relationship Jobs would cheat him, take his money, take all credit and fame from him. But he didn’t build or design shit. He just ordered people around.

That’s what Jobs did all his life. He knew what he liked, and he knew how to get others to do it for him. All his employees and acquaintances tell what a narcissistic jerk he was. But it worked. It worked beautifully. His company designed the best computer of his time, then the best OS, then came back to Apple and revolutionised music and phones. But he didn’t do shit, all he did was get the best people available and bully them into performing. To this day working conditions on Apple are one of the worst in the industry, with bad pay and much overtime. Yet it still has great minds working there producing the best tech.

Now imagine a little Steve Jobs was born in 2000. Later this decade he meets with a little Woz, and they talk how hot it would be to design bee-sized weaponised drones, and use them to build for themselves a kingdom in Central America. Apple is the most valuable company in the world with just around 20.000 real workers. If you harnessed that talent to build next-gen weaponry you could conquer yourself a kingdom in no time.

Not to say that traditional militaries are going anywhere, no amount of drones can counteract an H bomb. But little by little the big top down structures of the industrial era are going obsolete. When the time comes you can eat local food in a robotised aeroponic factory, print a car with a graphene printer all running on painted solar cells, what do you want a nation state for? The future of human society is thousands of Apple-like kingdoms ran by geek squads following a charismatic leader. War will be like Starcraft, a bloodless, frantic and fun affair run online by teenagers on their widescreen monitors. Until they lose and loser n00bs are enslaved by the conquerors and forced to debug foreign code on sweatshops. Or something.

Freak morality

Nietzsche used to decry the post-Victorian liberal worldview he lived among as the ideology of the weak. He was a Greek scholar, and imbued in the heroic mindset, he couldn’t help hating what he saw around him in the real world. He blamed Christianity, who said Blessed the Poor, who gave hope to the wretched. Slave morality he called it. The idea being that Christianity, by saying all men were equal in the eyes of God, was merely pandering inferior people’s envy of the better men.

Envy is a very powerful force, especially when in big numbers. Riots, rebellions and revolutions all show how vicious commoners can be when they can strike at their status superiors. It’s slave morality, or as recent research says, forager morality. People just don’t like having others rule over them. They like to feel they are better, or failing that, at least that no one else is better. Gaussian distribution of most human traits also gives strength to the average man; they have the numbers.

That viciousness towards the powerful is only surpassed by the commoner’s cruelness towards their inferiors. The dumb, the lazy, the deviant, the crazy, the sick, the indecent, the psychopathic. Shunned, humiliated, bullied for life. Killed in many places. Christ said we are all equal in the eyes of God, but peasant life is harsh and people didn’t have resources to waste in unproductive assets. The fact that being nice to the depraved was cause of sanctification should tell how rare it was.

Not that long ago we used to have freak shows  where people would pay to see weird genetic defects, which no doubt gave visitors reason to feel content with their lot. But not today. We are rich now, rich enough that we can afford to let the left half of the normality Bell Curve to go on with their lives without being shunned. We are all equal now.

But can we? The first manifestation of equality was the idea of the Common Man, the working man who owned a house, a car, a wife, some children, drunk beer and watched sports. There is a socially defined mean of behaviour and achievement, and equality is assumed to mean that everybody can reach it. Even today society is supposed to provide for any man to marry a woman. People cry in outrage when they hear that some Chinese men won’t ever be able to marry. The horror! There is no Chinese Common Man.

The Western cult of normality was mostly based in dragging down the overachievers, taxing them at 91%. But there is also the other half of the revolution: of the abnormal. First it was women. They wanted to be normal too. It makes no real sense, as status was given to men as heads of a household, women attained status as dependent of their husband. Women having independent status is a contradiction in terms. It only makes sense when you see that feminists were lesbians, i.e. men with vaginas. Lesbians had it quite bad in a traditional society. They wanted to be like men, but they were naturally regarded as women. So they used a subterfuge and demanded to rights for all women. Somehow they got it.

In fact when it comes to it, most of the equality cult program is pushed by the dregs of traditional society. Jews, sexual deviants, the ugly, the fat, the weird. Roissy reached this insight a while ago. Traditional Christianity had equality as a dogma, but didn’t really push it really hard. Traditional society is everywhere intolerant of abnormality. It can’t really afford it. Only slowly could equality push its way forward. Once it reached a critical point, the shit hit the fan. If we are all equal, we all deserve to be normal.

There’s two kinds of abnormal, those of the mind and those of the body. Those of the mind don’t really want to be normal, just want to be regarded as such. Thus homos want to be have families, and marry, but in their terms. Pedophiles want the right to bugger boys, sluts want the right to be a vector of disease and misery and still get a man to marry them. Cultists want their wacky beliefs to be respected. Addicts want the state to pay for their kicks.

Those of the body thought just want to be normal. They want the infrastructure to be redesigned for their convenience, they want preferential access to jobs. They want to go to the Olympics. They just want to do whatever a normal person is capable of doing.

But they can’t. Not without assistance. So the point is that if society is to be moral, assistance must be given to make every single disabled person as able to function in society as any other. Living in Japan, it always struck me that you seldom see disabled people on the street. No wheelchairs, no Down syndrome kids. The bureaucracy is trying to implement Cathedral directives, and you often see big banners on the street saying: “We must strive for giving full participation in society for the disabled”.

Well I think we all agree that disability is a bummer, and making life easier for disabled people is a good thing. But equality? Government gives carrots and sticks to businesses to encourage hiring of disabled. Over here we used to have commercials of happy Down Syndrome kids in their factories, talking about how happy they were, “feeling useful”. It would be amusing if unemployment for healthy people weren’t so bad.

And today it’s never about being normal. The threshold for what is considered a normal life is getting higher every day. Everyone must be above average. Once on a time it was a great advance to make paraplegics able to drive a car. Now blind men can climb the Everest, and men with sacral agenesis can climb the Kilimanjaro.

Both of them are listed as “motivational speakers”. Which is just saying that they make money out of telling others how they harness others people’s pity to give then money and attention. They are widely as heroes, the living symbols of the human will. The human will! I wonder what Nietzsche would think about it.