FORWARD BASE B

"Pay my troops no mind; they're just on a fact-finding mission."

Category Archives: Societies

Career Women and Dysgenics

With the rise of automation and AI, encouraging women to spend more time out of the job market to raise children could serve as another pressure release valve.

They could be incentivized to have more kids while politically correct subsidies on female employment are removed and laws hostile to fathers and blank-check rape and harassment laws are repealed.  As we all know, though, women love careers with a fierceness men have never known because it gives them the illusion of unlimited choice in the sexual market.  So where material incentives might fail to persuade women to be less involved in the labor market and have above replacement fertility we need to look at some cultural roots of the problem.

To begin with, women have always worked outside the home and on the farm, so the whole idea of barefoot and in the kitchen is the other side of a false dichotomy perpetuated by feminists.  Being a purely stay-at-home wife was a privilege of the middle classes and above.  Any history of the industrial revolution tells us of the huge role women played in manufacturing.  Though many women worked, they tended to work fewer hours and stuck to positions that could be plausibly returned to after extended leave of absence, or left behind altogether.

It is not reasonable, though, to leave a competitive career track and expect to easily come back a year later.  This kind of gender welfare is untenable.
The simple truth about women in serious careers is they are trading their fertility for more personal autonomy and mate choice.  Even if they manage to have an only child in their 30s, they’re left far behind in the genetic arms race.

A society that encourages female careerism has to consider the impact of female dysgenics as the brightest and most capable of each generation are wiped out as surely as male soldiers charging a machine gun bunker.  First world civilizations are remarkable in that women are experiencing almost male levels of selective pressure.  Typically, societies with high female attrition disappear.

One possibility is we accept that the human species needs to be more sexually dimorphic in a prosperous, high-information society and simply let all those who take the bait of feminism breed themselves out over the next couple generations.  The problem is everyone gets genes from their mothers so dysgenics for women might be dysgenic for everyone.

Not to mention, it is already hard enough for high IQ men to find compatible partners.  The only way for such a society to stay at modern levels would be to make sure smart men have many babies with concubines he doesn’t have to spend too much time around and perhaps eugenic qualities would get progressively more linked to the y chromosome.

If we look for a more moderate path, maybe some females, especially those plainly of a man-jawed aspect should be encouraged to enter into careers but everyone would understand they are to be regarded as nuns or honorary men.  They would have no special status in the general class of women and thereby be denied a podium to normalize tribally suicidal behaviors.
These cleverest, most socially dominant women would have to be prevented from poisoning the cultural well by making anti-natal behaviors appear high status to the female masses.  Feisty upper middle class Jewesses with chiseled chins who churn out tomes of gender vitriol would have to be either given sufficient outlets to keep them happy or else crushed down and bred out when they get out of line.  

The basic social contract for career women would be that they have to help society with cheerful good will rather than try to destroy it with subversion and activism.  They would have their place in the hierarchy they must respect like men do.  They wouldn’t be allowed to go completely wild in the workplace like they do now.

Those competent women sufficiently attractive and of not completely abrasive character might be encouraged to donate their eggs to wombs belonging to those of low intellect. The surrogates could be given special rewards for volunteering.

Also, there could be subsidized in-home nannies instead of daycare for high IQ women so lady scientists don’t have to spend a couple years changing diapers or nursing.  This would help reduce the basic conflict of female fertility with self-actualizing work.  
A setup like this was actually pretty normal for aristocratic women of past ages, leaving them free to continue participating in high-status social life while still producing heirs.

We need to consider alternatives because until we return to times of subsistence poverty and small farming, traditional marriages won’t be attractive to most people, especially not men.

As bitterly as red pillers complain about female sexual adventuresses, none of them want to go back to bringing home the bacon for a lifetime to a surly wife he’s chained to.  Most men enjoy the load taken off their shoulders by female economic independence.  When it comes to meeting girls nobody really wants to go back to asking the father’s permission to talk to her.

The popular imagination seems only capable of conceiving of either our present feminist dystopia or rigid traditionalism nobody really likes.  A solution might involve the creation of a new type of society that is functional in the modern environment.
A beginning requirement is to re-evaluate the balance of power between the sexes.  Otherwise we have our present dark age of soft harems and millions of incel basement dweller males.
Until we deal with fundamental contradictions in our present society, we will be locked in a dysgenic and social downward spiral until we go the way of Ancient Rome.

Preventing Dysgenics in a Society With Basic Guaranteed Living

A system of guaranteed basic living above all must avoid encouraging dysgenic outcomes.  Otherwise good intentions make a bad situation worse until within a couple generations the lifeboat of society is destroyed and most everyone drowns.
I’ve already proposed that low IQ people who refuse to perform labor on state aid be sterilized and those who are useful enough incentivized to breed below replacement levels.
I’ve figured that could be done in many different ways including:
-anti-natal religion, propaganda, entertainment
-small living spaces given them
-food rations that don’t completely meet the needs of a kid, making it difficult to feed more than 1 without going hungry themselves.
-free contraceptives.
-free abortions

The more difficult question is how to deal with high IQ people receiving a state living.
If they are pursuing their passions but have little access to the mating market because of their lack of money and conventional status all we’ve done is reconstruct monasteries with celibate priests where we systematically kill off many of the brightest and most curious every generation.

On the other hand, we don’t necessarily want a group that contains many smart but lazy stoners to overrun society with their progeny.
So I figure it would be a sufficient goal for society to try to at least preserve its monastic leisure caste at replacement levels.  Perhaps those without kids would have the option to donate their sperm and have up to 2 kids to be raised by parents who volunteer for it.
Perhaps lower proles on BGL would be allowed to have more kids and with full rations and other goodies if the woman agrees to get impregnated with sperm/embryos from the leisure caste.

Of course, the most successful leisured creatives should be assured reproduction well above replacement.
Looking back on history, one of the greatest examples for me of elites’ lack of imagination is they did not seize men like Michelangelo, Newton, or Tesla and set them to stud.  None of the kids could be expected to be like the parent but simply propagating those traits would spread the tendencies that formed them.

J.S. Bach, for example, had something like 18 kids.  As it happens, some of his kids and even grandkids were also notable composers.  We can assume his favorable tendencies then got diffused into the general population.  If that’s the general practice rather than an exception, it perhaps starts to have observable effects.

I have wondered often if Confucian examination systems actually bred people to the test in East Asian countries.  After all, the mandarin classes to this day are well known for keeping multiple mistresses.  Their stereotypical study style of memorizing lots of precise information but not necessarily understanding fundamentals seems to me at first glance to support this hypothesis.
I think certain, though, that long-term social policies and customs must affect the gene pool through incentives.  Every system selects for something.

Naturally, a guiding principle for a system with a basic guaranteed living is having kids cannot be more attractive on state living than it is in the market economy.  Or else, like now, you select against the base of people who actually work hard to keep things running smoothly.

One of the main things this society needs to get straightened out is working cooperators need to be treated by the state kind of how a business treats its customers.  They should feel like they are valued every time they show up and put in effort and care.

When most people are just toiling on pain of starvation while they watch their money feed multiple welfare kids and pick up the slack for parasitic feminist and affirmative action hires, they feel like suckers who are being used.  This breeds resentment and sends them the message they are on the absolute bottom of the hierarchy, undeserving of basic security and unfit to breed.

The higher proles and up feel these pressures especially strongly because they are terrified of falling behind in the rat race and eager to get ahead no matter the odds.
The intense competition makes them insecure in having offspring who they produce in low numbers and instinctually hyper-invest in.  Some of that hyper-investment might be an inherited reproductive strategy amongst striver types but its intensity of expression could be alleviated if stressors were reduced.  Just a couple generations ago we see large families were normal.  Helicopter parenting of only children should be seen as a behavior of shell-shocked troops cowering in foxholes under perpetual machine fire rather than normal behaviors in a healthy society.  The same behaviors in lab rats would be noted as a response to extreme stress.

One of the key stressors is lack of time.  Relatively prosperous career couples often say they can’t afford kids.  What they’re really saying is they can’t afford kids if one of them were to stop working and they don’t have the time and emotional energy to raise a kid as it is.  For that matter, careers are so competitive, you can’t just waltz back into one after taking months off—there’s always a whole assembly line of pod people waiting to replace you.  They’re also saying they doubt their abilities to sufficiently hyper-invest in their offspring.  Most of all, perhaps, the scarcity of time and disconnection from supportive communities means the parents must sacrifice leisure, hobbies, and friends to have just one kid.

This complex problem has to be approached through gradually removing stressors and thereby giving working people a sense of stability, reasonable amounts of free time, and participation in something bigger than themselves.  They have to feel that by simply earning money in the market economy they have unquestionably higher status than proles taking out BGL.  Literal-minded enlightenment shills, never seem to understand that low status alone instigates fight-or-flight adrenaline-pumping crisis in humans.  Until we try to make inviting habitats for productive humans as we would do for the lowliest terrarium pets, we cannot go far.

The Leisure Economy

The market economy acts as a sort of spontaneous recombinant system that rapidly evolves possible solutions to problems.  New mutations arise en masse so for any lock you may encounter, you soon have the perfect key in hand.  With superhuman precision, the market decides on the perfect price for every good, down to the last fraction of a cent.  If there’s something people want, the market figures out a way to provide it as a river finds its way to the low ground no matter how many boulders lie in its path. 

The market is highly efficient because it harnesses the natural force of desire as mills harness wind and water with no further effort needed from man.

But there is a limit to the scope of the market’s power.  It can only work with existing components and cannot deal with excessive uncertainty.  Not to mention, that which deals in desires does not always give people what they really need to solve problems beyond basic material want.  Unpleasant truths and tough-but-necessary solutions tend not to sell well.  Nor can the market provide what desirers can’t imagine.

The religious devotion of modernity to the market obscures the understanding of other recombinant systems designed to solve different sorts of problems.  The biggest weakness of desire recombinance is that its function is linear and incremental.
If we are thirsty we want water.  Then we want a container to hold the water in…and so on.

The core shortcoming of powering a windmill with desire is that it’s as basic and elemental as tangible things, as common to animals as it is to people, lying near the bottom of the hierarchy of needs. 

The natural inquiry then is to ask how our windmill is powered as we move up the hierarchy of needs to its pinnacle of self-actualization that is unique to conscious beings.  We end up with something non-linear and exponential, the market of ideas where the main currency is not solid gold but ingots of free time.

Ancient Greek philosophers were not motivated by making money at jobs, nor were they really entrepeneurs.  Yet our present day society has no concept of a productive social role outside the market.

Plato had a school.  Pythagoras and Epicurus lived with bands of followers.  These groups provided for the philosopher’s material needs but they don’t seem to have been rich as we think of it.  Conspicuous leisure to develop the intellect without having to worry about money was itself the mark of natural aristocracy.
In fact, the philosophers looked down on thinkers and speakers who plied their craft primarily for profit.  These ‘sophists’ were criticized for caring about their clients rather than objective truth.  We can easily identify this same problem in our money economy thousands of years later.

This is why throughout history, societies that are poor in learned leisure fail to produce new ideas however wealthy they may be.
For thousands of years, there have been magnificent empires in China, India, and the Middle East yet it was paradoxically the comparatively barbarian fringe of Europe that reached critical mass and exploded with power and creativity like humanity has never seen.

A common pattern with peoples like the Chinese is they had no lack of ingenuity as can be seen with their inventions of gunpowder and the printing press.  
However, unless it was immediately useful in business or government the uses remained limited to low-hanging fruit.  There simply wasn’t the ripple effect of new, more sophisticated applications that we saw time and again with Europeans.
There was no space in their society for the meandering process of experimentation that has uncertain yields, if any.  In business and farming, no one can afford to consider any plan that doesn’t have consistent profits.

Societies that produce enduring ideas have in common a class of literate, educated, leisured people besides government scribes and bureaucrats.  So we might anticipate a successful future social structure will have a formal leisure economy.  Already, the internet overflows with the information and ideas of millions given to all of us for free.  Theories of capital gain have no way to navigate, or even describe this miraculous, seemingly altruistic terrain yet we’re all still stuck scraping for money.

State Capitalism in the Internet Age

In 21st century societies, we must consider the commanding heights the state must jealously guard also consists of social media, search, and online retail.  The lords of facebook, twitter, google, and amazon are gatekeepers of communication with enormous power over culture.

While anyone would be wary of government control over these services, the obvious approach is to maintain these systems without interfering with their function.
They were developed in private shops just as the telephone was but likewise cannot remain solely private.

Social media in modern society is part of the basic communication grid like landlines are.
Would we rather have government or Zuckerberg with power over the telephone service?

Since we consider telephone a utility, how about we ask the same question about other utilities?  What if Zuckerberg could turn off your water or electricity if you say something he doesn’t like—Total Recall-style?
In real life, facebook is a private business that can refuse service.  The only real deterrant against dictatorial control is the potential for poor service to encourage the rise of competitors.  

However, when there’s an entrenched monopoly it is much harder for a correction to take place through market forces.  This is why, even though governments are flawed, it’s necessary to have firm regulations in securing these vital arteries.
For many, facebook is almost a prerequisite to participate in normal society.  Imagine if the DMV could refuse to issue you a driver’s license because they don’t like you!

The core problem is that some services are natural monopolies.  We refer to many of them collectively as “utilities.”  It makes sense to have an electrical grid, railroads, waterworks, sewage, trash under one organization.  These are domains where the barrier to entry is high and where bottlenecks mean competition can clutter or even cripple the system.  The last thing anyone wants is 20 different companies building competing pipelines or powerlines.

On the internet, no one wants to go back and forth between 20 different search engines. I’m sure plenty of readers here remember switching between webcrawler, altavista, askjeeves, yahoo, and about a dozen others before google got in front of the pack and never looked back.

Who looks back nostalgically to a time when you couldn’t get amazon’s low prices, unequaled variety, and numerous product reviews?  Remember when people got movies and video games hoping they’d picked something decent?  Or back when many people got thick consumer reports magazines in the mail?

Perhaps even more importantly, amazon’s natural monopoly of internet retail has become a platform for countless small merchants and authors.  Why not just make some regulations to prevent abuses and keep this mostly the way it is?  The government could even use amazon as a dial to control incentives for a micro-merchant economy.

It’s good to let a natural monopoly be, but as we can see with water or electricity, we can’t play the market game of price discovery.  The solution is to have the state regulate prices, allowing the monopoly a modest profit.  To some this might sound like some kind of commie plot, but just think for one second what the electrical bill would look like without government price controls.

Beyond prices, we should consider that an area’s water supply can’t be switched off on a whim.  Even when people don’t pay their bills, there must be fair warning.  This strikes no one as being outlandish or communist.  We intuitively understand that basic infrastructure must be protected by special rules.

While the natural monopolies of the internet are mostly free for users, we can see there are still prices in a less tangible way as we depart from an enlightenment-materialist mindset.
If we extend the anti-abuse principle we realize there must be strict anti-manipulation policies for social media and search just like there is for the stock market.

On Twitter, shadowbanning, promoting the tweets of dectractors while burying supportive tweets, or manipulating the list of trending hashtags aren’t that different from insider trading. One party rigs the game for unearned monetary profit, another tries to manipulate a collective culture to serve a private agenda.
Both are means of subverting the entire society.
Some kind of government SEC would watch over natural internet monopolies and punish those who try to cheat.

What cannot be allowed is for these private mass entities to run rampant with no control at all.  Even if we have a perfectly selfish ruler who just wishes to stay in power, ceding control of the commanding heights is dumb and suicidal. 

When was the last time the electric and water companies were a serious threat to the power of the state?
What about social media tycoons, big banks, the insurance industry, or the military industrial complex?
The answer speaks for itself.
The ruler who does not control the commanding heights creates a free market for the control of government.

Reviving Hammurabi’s Code: Different Laws For Different Castes

There was once a king of Ancient Babylon who made a law code and had it written down for perhaps the first time in history.  Fundamental to this code was the assumption that the ranks of humanity are not equal and therefore given different treatment under the law.
In Hammurabi’s time, this meant lighter punishments if the victim of a crime was lower in rank.

It sounds unjust to us now, but if we think about it, one of the great perversities of our present system is that there are still protected castes in our society, it just can’t be written or spoken.
The human experience shows us if we do not explicitly codify rank, parasites implicitly become the most-protected.  Equality is hypocrisy because to espouse it is to defy the timeless lessons of human nature.

Every human society organizes into hierarchies and in a healthy society, people are ranked as they contribute to the society’s survival.  Higher status people, being more valuable, are given greater powers and protections.
The ranks of humanity tend to stratify into breeds based on temperament and ability for abstract thinking.
Therefore, the incentives and deterrants that work for one caste do not work for another.

An underlying problem of our present system is that everyone from professionals to the underclass are subjected to the same laws.
In practice, this means the underclasses are threatened with punishments that deter people with families and careers reasonably well, but give hardened gangsters little pause.

Unable to admit that society can’t deal with its underclass, over 2 million people are locked up in America with millions more on probation or parole.  Rather than being truly punished, society prefers to neutralize them.  Then feeding, clothing, housing these captive consumers, like students or soldiers, becomes an industry of Keynesian broken windows.

Underclass troublemakers tend to have high testosterone, low IQ,  and short life histories. The strategy for their niche is to take big risks with drugs and violence that get them killed young, but also get a few women pregnant.  They don’t really think far ahead.
They’d very much like to stay out of a jail cell, but it doesn’t come with the same stigma it does in polite society.  It might even increase their status and get them more women when they get out again.

For thousands of years the solution for dealing with underclass aggression across the world has been pretty similar.  Either beat the crap out of them with nightsticks or, if they can’t be trusted to contribute to society again, just have them shot.
An egalitarian system is forced to try to harden the laws against its underclass, but as it does so it ends up dumping a steaming load of feces on normal people going about their business.

We end up with nice professionals bewildered by “militarized” police who treat them like dangerous animals at a routine traffic stop and it ends up making even ordinary workers suspicious and frightened of the police.  The quality of life falls dramatically for everyone and the morale of the tribe is damaged.

The irony of making a law for everyone is no one gets dealt with properly or proportionally.  
Unable to simply beat down underclass thugs and unable to admit they require more attention from the law, a phony “war on drugs” gets invented.

At the same time, the cooperative classes do not get the friendly benefit of the doubt their lower risk profile would merit, causing fear and resentment.
Inevitably some get caught and ruined by the indirect dragnets meant to catch the underclass.  To cap it off, those who have jobs and earn a wage by the rules have to feed and house a small country worth of prisoners.  What is a struggling worker to think when they cannot afford to see a doctor and the prisoner gets to see one for free?

A legal system that cannot properly punish low-level dysfunction ends up punishing cooperators instead.  In the long term, this dangerously undermines trust in the legitimacy of the rulers and makes people question the good and worthiness of the society itself.

A society correctly aligned with the Divine Justice punishes low-consciousness defectors with the negative reinforcement of raw force that even animals can understand.

Those who work jobs, and can behave so long as they are given structure can be threatened with humiliation and damage to their reputations.  Just a few hours of being pilloried in the public square being posted to social media would make most hesitate before breaking the law.  
Those who become repeat offenders and no longer care about their public image can be demoted to underclass and treated accordingly when they commit their next transgression.

Those of high agency have greater understanding of their actions in the context of society as a whole so they are mainly punished for crimes they know full well can puncture the lifeboat everyone relies on.
Demotion to the job classes, temporary or permanent, would be one of the simplest penalties.  For people of active awareness, a 9-5 job scraping for money is little different than a prison sentence.

Those who betray high responsibility over wealth and culture must bear the greatest punishments.  An underclass murderer might be quickly dispatched with a bullet.  Reckless speculators and embezzlers who crash the economy are destroyed in every respect with elaborate ceremony as befits fallen angels.

For all classes incarceration ought to be a last resort, where it would potentially do actual good, not indulged in as a net-negative industry.  Already, most other countries imprison a tiny fraction of their people compared to the USA.

Above all, societies are not charities.  Every tribe exists in tough competition with its neighbors.  If it does not run a tight ship, it is conquered and subsumed.  Life is already hard enough for people who faithfully spend their lives helping the group.  It must be relentlessly reinforced: the fruits of society are always for cooperators first. 

There must be severe limits on patience with takers.  A criminal, whatever their class, is put to death or exiled when society can no longer trust them to participate in the mission of the tribe.
Come to think of it, the United States could send thousands of its criminals to Cuba as they once did to the US.  If a tribe finds a neighbor weak and stupid enough to take in their unwanted exiles, why not use it against them?  Then, even the worst become useful as shock troops.
Or just have an actual island or an entire walled-off province where the exiles get a real second chance to build something.

The unprecedented abundance of the industrial revolution has led to such splendid rot that we house and feed people when they go on killing sprees and pat down our worker bees.  
The quick gains of the last two centuries are taken now and societies everywhere are reaching the point of saturation.  Where there is less insulation against reality provided by accumulated wealth, criminals and drug dealers are again being put to death rather than nicely hidden away from the common life.

White Undertow: The Cause of SWPL Hate?

Black societies can’t compete with white society even though there are many thousands of high IQ blacks.  There just aren’t enough of them relative to their population.  The distribution curve also means the smartest blacks aren’t as smart as the smartest whites.  Thus wherever groups of blacks move in, higher IQ groups observe an effect known as “black undertow” as the quality of life plummets in both obvious and subtle ways.

I recently wrote about how Jews get ahead even though there are high IQ whites at their level. Though small in numbers they have better teamwork.  A major reason for this is Jews have higher IQ on average and human affairs tend to be decided by group strategy over individual efforts.

On the individual level, there’s no shortage of failed and neurotic people with high IQ.  This is why no one cares when people say they have high scores.  They rightly look instead for demonstrated abilities, accomplishments, and personality.
IQ is just a rough proxy for someone’s ability to think abstractly and tells us little of how they’re most inclined to use it.

The meaning of this statistic expresses itself more readily in groups.  If you have an individual with 10 more strength points than average, it doesn’t really tell you much.
But if you take a group and give everyone 10 more strength points, you can make predictions about improvements in everything they do that requires strength.
Most importantly, their whole society would be organized on the assumption everyone has a requisite amount of strength.  A 90 lb weakling from another group might find themselves unable to open doors or twist caps on jars no one else has trouble with.

Raise the average IQ of a population by 1 point, it’s almost like heating up the ocean by 1 degree. All kinds of cascading, emergent effects result.
In a human society changing baseline expectations dramatically affects how people can be organized.

Low IQ societies have to be ruled with an iron fist because the average person can’t understand or act on an abstract appreciation of the law or future time orientation.  When a 3 year old child misbehaves, they aren’t going to listen to reason.  They won’t change what they’re doing unless they know they’ll get time-out or a spanking.  And if they ask why, you reply: “Because I said so.”

Middle IQ societies have to be ruled with elaborate rules and laws with strict attention to detail.  This is because people can understand constraints they can neither see nor touch, but they are unable to extrapolate the next step from a premise.  So as with programming a computer, every exigency must be thought of in advance.

High IQ societies trust most people can make judgments about what rules matter most in light of their intended spirit.  This creates high trust, highly efficient group dynamics.  It’s seldom necessary to coerce people with actual force because everyone understands the big-picture need for voluntary cooperation to enjoy the benefits of a healthy society.

White people as a whole fall squarely into the middle IQ bracket.
The most common complaint of even slightly clever whites about white society is all the law suits, regulations, HR departments, ordinances, the bureaucracy, the TPS reports.  These are all the hallmarks of a system that assumes the average person can follow instructions but has very little capacity for reflection or effective independent judgment.

Smart whites fight a constant battle against white undertow.  Everything they try to do is met with resistance and they seethe as they see all the extra steps everyone goes through that could be easily skipped.

The +1 SD revulsion for Christianity and literal interpretation of the bible is just another example of frustration with onerous rulebooks.  They aren’t quite bright enough to understand that for most people, the extra structure is healthy and necessary.

The worst disadvantage for people with above average IQ is fewer people they meet are like them, which means they have a much smaller pool of social capital to work with when trying to function in the general population.

Until they find a community of others near their level, they can’t exercise their full potential.  This, however, often doesn’t take place until young adulthood after the best years for cultural acquisition and learning are already wasted.
The politics, the law, the family, public signage and advertisements are all built for the benefit of the majority.  If you don’t fall in that category, you’re surrounded with reminders everyday: This society isn’t for you.

Jews, on the other hand, have superior social capital to nourish high IQ people from the day they are born.
Every one of them inherits a tradition of smart, literate people dating back thousands of years when most of the world was illiterate still until barely 200 years ago.
I sometimes think of rabbinical commentaries as the original blog comments and many of them date back to ancient to medieval times.  You can’t overstate the importance of having this mindset built into the very foundation of your identity as far back as you can remember.
Jews thereby deal in complex abstractions as naturally as they breathe, it’s their stock in trade as horsemanship and archery was for the Mongols.  We see smart Jews with community support easily outmatch smart whites who may even have more raw mental horsepower but have spent their lives struggling against a culture of lowbrow rigidity.

With just a glance at the high IQ vs. mid IQ society.  We can get an idea where “flyover country” resentment derives from.  Nerdy, clever whites with bean-counter temperaments remember how they were low ranked in childhood outside of their safe havens of marching band, choir, cross country, chess club, and debate club.  They aren’t clever enough, though, to recognize the roots of their problems or how it fits into the story of humanity as a whole.

So once they are urban professionals who hang out at the same wine bars and watercoolers, they share stories and form a culture and narrative.  They collectively remember what it was like to be outnumbered by proles with crass tastes.  For those that were born into urban areas and spent their youths in preppy feeder schools, these stories are all they know of the outside world.

Those that grew up in the suburban and rural culture suffer from class anxiety since the urban yuppie culture is higher status.  This makes signalling disapproval with the white heartlands an easy way to score points.  Say it often enough, finding each time your Dunbar group approves, you start to believe it.

The final deadly ingredient of SWPL resentment is aggressive indoctrination by the gatekeepers to Upper Middle Class America.  No one makes it into salary heaven without at least mouthing the right platitudes about gender and race.
But coercion alone isn’t enough.  Their professors and corporate handlers feed their resentment and jealousy for the middle IQ culture.  Without a seed already planted, white self-loathing among the professional class couldn’t take root.

With these powers combined, we have the right ingredients for a lesser aristocracy with no sense of noblesse oblige to a larger culture or a longer history but defined instead by rankling suspicion and fearful contempt for the lower orders they’re meant to protect.

Yesterday, an antifa rioter who smashed people’s heads with a steel bike lock was identified as a college philosophy professor who taught ethics!
It comes as no surprise he was a small and nerdy man with a reedy voice.  Though he had a nice job and a house, he couldn’t resist the opportunity to finally take out his rage on those he saw as the natural enemies of his tribe.

Now he’s thrown out his life of privilege, status, and ease so he could backstab his own people in the most juvenile way.  He will probably never understand that he was trying to smash the pedestal on which he stood.  His life is a microcosm of the ideologies that twisted his soul.

Feminism was a lobby to change the whole society in the interests of women with above average IQ and testosterone levels. But with most of them at +1 SD, they couldn’t understand society as a whole organism, let alone their place in it. They ended up destroying gender relations for everyone.

The cultural revolution of the 60s suffered from the same disastrous misunderstanding.  They attempted to make the whole society more welcoming for the slightly clever and have thereby nearly destroyed it for everyone.

Clearly white undertow has to be dealt with in a new social structure.  The mildly clever are much harder to control than proles while composing nearly 20% of the white population.
They have to be either given outlets they find rewarding in the caste system or else crushed ruthlessly.
They are the ones the lower orders see as most intelligent, because they are close enough in capability to somewhat relate to them.  A few equations on a white board or quotes from Einstein and the masses are impressed.  If we watch a few hollywood movies, we can see the average person thinks the intellectual is some kind of magician—the more abstruse and esoteric, the smarter.

The ability of the mildly clever to influence those immediately beneath them by putting on airs means they can muster mass movements to overthrow the culture and eventually the state.
This is exactly what happened in the 20th century and the source of much of the damage we must repair.  To live together, the different castes must be governed by rules appropriate to their station.

Syrian Strike, North Korea: A Formative Moment For the Alt-Sphere

For months factions have quarelled about what the alt-right is, who are its leaders, if anybody, and what it believes with only wavering ground of agreement. Then President Trump fired missiles on Syria and the reaction from these disparate groups was overwhelming.

The anti-establishment internet has come out in force against the attack, and especially against any further moves towards intervention.  For the first time, red pill PUAs, white nationalists, alt-lite civic nationalists, neo-reactionaries, alt-left former Bernie supporters find themselves all on the same page.

Meanwhile, a faction of optimate neocons begins to solidify with warhawk republicans and SJW libs alike coming out in favor of new Middle Eastern wars.  Even progressive-leaning politicians like Elizabeth Warren were agreeing something must be done about Syria.

What to think when even the president’s sworn political enemies want to “hold accountable” the leaders of far-away lands over their own domestic policy—and for no clear US gain?  Actually, the clear US gain is to simply allow Assad to finish crushing ISIS!

Even Rand Paul, a republican known for some anti-establishment leanings, seems to disapprove but draws things out and chooses his words very carefully.

While many Trump supporters are disappointed or even disillusioned by the attack, it becomes increasingly clear that no one, whatever their professed beliefs, would have brought significant change to American foreign policy.

The flimsy excuse of “chemical attacks” that’s been recycled for decades now only hammers in the point.  We have established beyond a doubt that the problem is systemic.

The best move is not to panic and run, but to stay firmly in the Trump camp for now making our presence felt.  The Syria attack may have been one of Trump’s trial balloons which may well have just been shot down with all the firepower the anti-establishment can bring to bear.

The alt-right is actually pretty small, but it’s so easy to overestimate its size because that’s where the new growth and the energy is at.  Audacious Epigone aptly describes them as the “trench warriors” who got Trump into office.

Dissidents have made unimaginable progress since the beginning of the 2016 election entering into mainstream visibility as a political force for the first time.  But now the limits of that influence become clear.

The next obvious step is the rise of politicians who don’t just smile and wink at the dissidents from time to time while “disavowing” but profess their beliefs outright.

We’ll know we’re on the right track when there are leaders who unequivocally and unreservedly denounce pointless foreign interventions, sappy globalist claptrap, and traitorous open-border cuckery while saving the majority of their energy for domestic policy.

It’s time to figure out how to make neo-populists a force in their own right if it turns out the present order is impermeable and unchangeable.

At this moment, we are seeing a new standoff over North Korea, this time possibly with Chinese cooperation.  If that’s so, Trump’s maneuvering may actually have paid off impressively.

However cleverly done, though, nuclear brinksmanship isn’t the reason people put Trump in office.  It would be a big accomplishment if North Korea comes out of this confrontation chastened, but America’s real problems right now are internal.

I understand arguments that Trump wants to reassure his allies after Obama showed weakness and that North Korea is trying to develop missiles that can reach the USA.

The problem with this policy is eventually, most nations will have their house atomics.  North Korea’s boss, China, already is a major nuclear power.  What’s next, unilaterally blowing up Iranian reactors?
It’s 1940s technology and most nations that want to will be able to eventually find the materials and expertise.  
If that’s not something humanity can cope with, perhaps we have the answer to Fermi’s paradox(not yet finding signs of other sentient life).

The alt-sphere finds itself facing its first big challenges as a visible political influence. Like all politics there is a delicate line to walk.  Too strident, you lose your place at the bargaining table.  Too docile, you get nothing anyway.  From now on it will be about finding that sweet spot.

A lot of objectives are already meeting with success:
-The TPP was killed almost immediately.
-Illegal immigration is plummeting.
-ICE has been far more active within US borders.
-Originalist Supreme Court Justice confirmed.
-Some encouraging initial reports that corporations may be returning operations to the US.

However, the re-emergence of neocon foreign policy is profoundly worrying and the rustlings and shufflings of power struggles within the administration are ominous to say the least.  

Critics like Hunter Wallace pointed out all along that a cabinet full of establishment generals, Wall Street bankers, corporate open-borders apologists, big party donors was bound to cause problems.

I guess many of us supposed Trump would somehow bend them all to his will but it seems the simple fact is, people are who they associate with the most.  So special attention must be paid to the last alt-right and nationalist figures in the cabinet.

Like elite classes throughout history, the present elite are unwilling to accept their decline.  If they back off, they will still have social status and their mansions in Potomac and Arlington for awhile living an easy life in an Edwardian twilight.  If they put all their chips down on keeping all the power they’ve got, it will start to get interesting.

Though vilified as a Nazi, Trump ran, for the most part, as a center-right moderate as he has been for most of his life.  I’ve said before:  Obama was the establishment’s last chance to fix the system.  Trump is the system’s last chance.  If this round fails to produce satisfactory solutions, it is possible that the door is opened to the spread of more radical sympathies.

Why the Attack on Syria?

I won’t mince words: Trump’s decision to launch missiles into Syria is a disaster.  In reactions across the internet I am seeing justifications but in no way do the advantages come close to outweighing the costs.
I will address a few:

Trump wanted to intimidate China and North Korea
I doubt the Chinese president is easily frightened and making Kim Jong Un too nervous or desperate could turn Seoul and then the whole Korean peninsula into a smoking crater.

Russians and Syrians had time to evacuate/runways weren’t destroyed etc.
It’s still an act of war on another nation’s territory.  You don’t get brownie points or gold star stickers for playing nice at war.  These measures prevented immediate escalation to actual war but has worsened relations that were already pretty bad for no real reason.  If the goal was to get rid of ISIS why is the US attacking the people who were successully getting rid of ISIS?

That’ll Shut Up the Media About Russian Conspiracy Theories!
This didn’t stop Trump in the election when he was far more vulnerable, it certainly wasn’t going to stop his presidency. Wiretapping ploys and Rice unmaskings were already effectively countering the fake hysteria. Nothing about this relatively small problem required a risky foreign policy move.

Trump showed those pansies he’s not another wimpy Obama!
Trump got elected in part because his opponent was openly agitating for war with Russia and Syria that no one wants.   Obama and Hillary’s disastrous Syria policy helped ISIS form in the first place! Now we’re back to square one after spending nearly two years on the election?

The Syrians were gassing their own peoplez! Look at the cute dead kidz!
We all know this was just an excuse.  It’s irrelevant whether it’s fabricated or not. Trump’s whole America First campaign was a reaction to this kind of moralistic world policing.

The most rational possible reason I can think of for this idiocy is Trump has to make some concessions to the neocons or they would have just let the democrats filibuster Gorsuch indefinitely. 

Trump’s administration desperately depends on getting new justices into the supreme court.  For millions of American voters who did not like Trump, that’s the one issue that pushed them over the edge.  Furthermore, he desperately needs to break the impasse that is preventing him from acting decisively on immigration, the single biggest issue that put him in power.

I recognize it’s a tough situation, a sacrifice of some kind may have been necessary to grease the wheels, but I do not think this sacrifice was worth it.
The optics of attacking Syria right as Hillary came out and asked for it, with all the neocons celebrating afterwards is terrible.

It has just been openly demonstrated that no matter who you vote for, you still get pointless bombs and wars in the Middle East while the same old elites pat each other on the back.
Over $100 million dollars worth of cruise missiles just got dumped on a distant land most Americans could care less about for no real gain.
These conspicuous displays of waste while dams are crumbling and highways are burning down at home starts to sound a lot like just another chorus of “let them eat cake.”

So now Gorsuch is in, a key victory for Trump.  But the meta is even more important.
Now that Americans have seen appointed federal judges can block anything they don’t like…
Now that they’ve seen you get war and bombs in the Middle East no matter who you vote for…
The whole democracy really starts to look like a thinly veiled fiction.  And if that last veil gets stripped away, judges are just silly ugly old people in robes playing make-believe and all you have left is force.

From the start of his campaign, Trump shrewdly sought to curry favor with the military.  He understood if he was going to go against the entire political establishment, he would need solid backing to stay in power against contrived coups.

Unfortunately, we might be discovering a hard truth that neo-con politicians are just the political arm of the military top brass.  

Generals tend to be establishment to the core and incestuously in bed with military industrial contractors.  So perhaps we’ve found the limits of what voting can accomplish.  
Some grudging concessions on immigration and jobs perhaps, but the flow of trillions to contractors who pretend to design fighter planes and wars in the interests of the US’ biggest arms customers must continue.

The problem is the country is being bled dry and the farce is becoming obvious to millions.  Generals can’t really seize power directly until their troops are willing to fire on fellow citizens and if they tried that, they’d find their authority doesn’t go as far outside the beltway as they think.

So Trump still has considerable bargaining power even though he’s under a lot of pressure—if he wants to use it.  In retrospect perhaps we can now see the coils tightening.  Flynn replaced with someone more in line with the innermost circles and now possibly Bannon getting edged out of favor?
At this time all we can do is wait and see what happens next.

The Problem of Rent-Seeking

Money is in theory just a liquid means of exchange so every bit of it should represent real world wealth.
The core problem of a society based on financialization is everyone starts to believe money itself is wealth.  Then society rewards the manipulation of money more than it does the creation of real wealth that actually helps people.

Why would anyone of means do anything productive if they can just collect interest and rent?
Rent-seekers use property to extract wealth indefinitely, making their living from a distortion of reality.
In the world of material things, there is no such thing as a gold mine that never runs out.  There is a limit in value to all things.  Yet those who control property can extract rents in perpetuity.

Patent law recognizes a limit in the claim to the rights of an idea or invention.  In time, the patented material becomes the natural inheritance of those who benefit from it.  So by what principle then does rented property stay forever in the hands of an owner who never uses it for themselves and never produces anything?

In Cincinnati, where I currently live, I noticed there are small patches of land used as paid parking in downtown.  Someone bought a small lot, threw down some asphalt on it, installed a ticket machine and voila, they can rake in cash every day.
The person who provides the parking lot, I thought, provides a useful service.  Not to mention most of these lots are cheaper than the parking garages, so they can save people money too.
On the other hand, I noticed these lots were minimally maintained. The asphalt was worn down, cracked, with weeds growing through it.  I supposed other than checking for freeloaders every once in awhile, there was no incentive for the property owner to do anything else while they reaped their dividends forever.

So the problem here is we need people to develop property and provide services but the value they bring to the table must also be recognized as finite.
The property owner must make a reasonable profit if we want them to bother but it is unnatural and improper for them to bring in an indefinite and infinite harvest once they have long since ceased to contribute new value.

So would it not make sense if there were limits to ownership of property that collects rents?  Like patents, you profit for awhile, but eventually it passes on into the public domain.
This could be especially relevant where there is opportunity cost.
Those little flat, run-down parking lots in Cincinnati are surrounded by 10 story buildings.
So while the land is put to a use that creates some value, surely it would create far more value if it re-entered the market and was used for a multiple story building owned and used by a business that actively creates new value every day.

The total gain appropriate to a renter could be determined by a number of factors.

-Absolute quantity of wealth invested in the property.(Did someone spend millions or billions of dollars on it?)
-Percentage of personal wealth invested.(Did someone put a lot of their money into the property?)
-Riskiness of the investment.
-Amount of effort to develop and maintain.
-Value the property gives back to society.(Penalize houses that sit empty just to get flipped later and/or keep rents artifically high.)
-Opportunity cost to society based on the property’s location.
-Is the property a strategic chokepoint that people have to pay for and therefore easy to command unreasonably high prices for?

The point would be to impose especially harsh penalties against large, lazy property holders who try to be dogs in the manger using the state’s monopoly on force— without which they own nothing—to parasitize others.  Without the threat of armed enforcers, they would probably be shot in the head trying to impose their will.  Why do they deserve state backing that not only hurts society, but delegitimizes the state by association?

Money acquired through parasitism is heresy.  Not only is the sacred relationship of money and wealth desecrated and distorted, every penny of false money-as-wealth is real wealth stolen from those who are trying to help the social order.  Once a society rewards clever defectors, while punishing honest cooperators, it is doomed.  Society cannot exist without maintaining the integrity of its wealth.

A worthwhile society understands that money used as counterfeit real-world wealth is nothing but theft and fraud—not just against one person but against the entire social order.  There could be a generous grace period after implementing such rules after which, perpetrators would be regarded as far worse than mere murderers.

See Also: White Collar Criminals Are Worse Than Street Criminals

Searching For the Golden Mean of Government

Direct democracy is mob rule.  It is so unviable and volatile that no polity has ever had a completely direct democracy.  At best, popular referendums are used sparingly and mostly in local government.
The Ancient Athenian democracy was a disaster and it was even limited to an elite class of citizens.

The founders of the United States took note of history and used the Roman Republic as their model instead of Athens.  
Separation of powers and the use of representatives was far more stable because it could moderate the whims of the crowd and favor the power of one faction over another.

There are those who argue that having a King or Emperor is the best and most natural government.  Monarchy after all has been the most common and stable government for thousands of years.
Monarchists have a good argument that monarchs are effective executives able to make quick decisions when it matters most.  Because their entire lives and family are invested in the state  they have a built-in incentive to care about long-term problems whereas elected representatives just care to get re-elected.
In practice, of course, history has countless examples of incompetent monarchs.  A system that depends so heavily on one person can seesaw between being very well run to a complete nightmare.  

When power is more focused, major changes in policy can occur immediately. But those changes might prove to be disastrous and even bring about the collapse of the state.  
Republican government makes sudden changes in policy difficult to safeguard against any single person making fatal decisions.  It also avoids the ancient problem of being just 1 heartbeat away from wars of succession.  
However, problems that need to be boldly addressed tend to fester when there are safety rails everywhere.

So can we find some kind of balance between autocracy and the republic?
The USA in its current form has nearly universal suffrage and slips into the disaster of mob rule.  The early US republic had limited franchise.  Moderners obsess about suffrage being limited to evil white males but the important part was land ownership requirements.  This may not be exactly what we’d want now, but it gives us a useful principle.  

The idea behind this restriction was that voters had to have skin in the game and safeguard them against people with nothing to lose simply using the state to plunder everyone else.

There was a clear idea that some people were more invested in society as shareholders than others, an idea that’s totally alien to modern concepts of democracy where every warm body has a “right” to vote. 

We also ought to go all the way back to the principles of merit from Plato’s Republic.  Like any other job, those best qualified to rule should be the rulers.  In a republic that would mean we dismiss handwringing over “rights” and worry only about what results we get from bestowing the ballot.

We’d refine the electorate like consultants brought in to trim down a company.  Did we end up fighting wars for no reason?  Were there tax breaks for the rich while peasants starved?  Who voted for these things?  Does someone have the civic knowledge, basic literacy, and intelligence to competently wield the power of the vote? Do they have skin in the game and a reason to care about where society is 100 years from now or does it make no difference to them if they plunder the treasury now?

This is of course an imperfect process. Imagine if we had simply made the top 20% most educated people the only ones with the vote in the US.  Out-of-touch SWPL total rule would have been a disaster for everyone.  So clearly a formula for who gets ballots has to be worked out very carefully.

-Those with special knowledge on an issue get a more heavily weighted vote. (The challenge is this might end up benefiting parasitic insiders.  We’ve all seen where rule by “experts” has gotten us.)
-The whole society gets divided into castes based on capabilities and neurological temperament.  The best(with skin in the game) get to vote.

The basic idea is to use a republican or other system for collective decision-making to limit the potential for a single fool to destroy an empire or for one untimely heart attack to plunge the nation into a war of succession.
Yet there are also far fewer voters making decisions.  Enough so that nothing depends on just one person but so that major decisions and changes are possible.

The Roman Republic gradually fell apart as power had to be “temporarily” granted in crisis situations where political gridlock was simply not an option.  This inevitably led to generals who were more powerful than the state.  When a collective decision making system cannot adapt in real time, it is forced to gradually dismantle itself.

So the successful system of government has to walk a tightrope.
The trick is to benefit as much as possible from the acumen of great men while preventing and blunting the depredations of the worst.
And to benefit from the “wisdom of crowds” from the best crowds rather than an indiscriminate mob.
The use of computers and statistics would play a prominent role in figuring out what works best.

Look up strategies for any online game and we see the experiences of thousands of competent people who played countless hours compiled into build orders timed down to the second, or item builds categorized by victory percentage across an entire server.  It would take more than one person’s whole lifetime to figure all that out by themselves!

Surely these kinds of tools would help a republican oligarchy figure out who has the best judgment to run a health system and who is full of bullshit.

Trump Foreign Policy: Post-Unilateralism

Coalition, or no, whether other nations were willing or not, the brand of America has been built on unilateral foreign policy.  The world’s only superpower was also the world’s policeman.
Power, however, is a tool and as with money even great amounts of it are easily squandered without clear objectives and a sensible strategy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as the ultimate legitimation of unilateral diplomacy, an eternal blank check for Wilsonian exceptional interventionism at the “end of history.”

Every president since Reagan doubled down on this nonsense until it reached a climax of absurdity under George W. Bush.  Obama finally toned it down a little bit, because he had to.  Meddling went on unabated, but with most of America’s once abundant international political capital finally frittered away there was only so much he could do.  By the end of his presidency he was a laughingstock openly mocked by the Chinese leadership, insulted by the leader of the Philippines, and regarded with thinly veiled contempt by Russia.

Trump leads a reaction to a political establishment that has been utterly discredited by its decades of relentless ineptitude and failure despite holding every possible strategic advantage.
It has been clear since Trump’s campaign he envisions a US that conducts foreign policy as a nation among nations, not as a bombastic world police that clumsily throws its weight around.

This will mean, thank goodness, far less meddling in the affairs of other nations and a restoration of balances of power.  By wielding power with a lighter hand, it will become possible to accomplish far more.

The US can begin to create a post-exceptionalist, post-unilateral world by simply withdrawing US military interference.
Having US bases while limiting the military power of the host countries has increased the burden on the US while merely infuriating neighboring powers needlessly.

If the US removes most of its troops and involvement in NATO it forces EU nations to spend far more of their wealth on defense.  If Europe insured itself against Russian aggression, Russia would possibly be more amenable to talking about its interests elsewhere…

With a stable balance of power between the EU bloc and Russia, the US could have more constructive conversations with Russia regarding its extremely long border with China.  China is the only world power with potential, besides a real United States of Europe, to be in the same league as the USA.
America and China are presently economic partners joined at the hip, but we must think towards the long game.  Even as the US-Chinese relationship exists now, why not encourage other powers to contain them, giving the US more bargaining leverage?
In light of this, the complete obsession of the USA’s establishment with the Middle East and anti-Russian sentiment is perplexing.  A major foreign policy coup of the 21st century will be to split Russia from China as Nixon once split China away from the Soviet Union.

America could also withdraw from Japan forming a new, more equal relationship and encouraging Japanese re-armament and cooperation with Taiwan to counterbalance Chinese naval ambitions.
Hopefully, a post-exceptional international order would see the US and Europe able to freely operate with the emerging great power of China hampered by its nervous neighbors.  Why meddle when we need only encourage them to do what serves themselves?  The Daoist maxim to “do without doing” will be very appropriate in coming years.

Regarding Korea, it is ironic that if the US renounced its military commitments in the South, it’s possible the Chinese would become suddenly more amenable to discussing phasing out a client state of North Korea they have no special love for, but have kept around as a buffer against a clumsily over-aggressive US.  Add some diplomatic pressure from  neighboring powers, and perhaps an understanding could be arrived at where none is possible now…

Much of the benefits of a post-unilateral foreign policy come from simply undoing the heavy-handed status quo that counter-productively plays at imperialism.  From now on we may see the US doing more with less or in other words, “under budget and ahead of schedule.”

Trump vs. The Courts

They’re making the same mistake they did during the election.  Committing too much of their forces too early instead of picking their fights and keeping their powder dry for the right time.
In two weeks we’ve already seen endless protests, riots against free speech, and now political power plays from  the judiciary.  What unplayed cards will they still have up their sleeves in two months?

They can have media outrage over everything President Trump does or says.  They can try to hold up his confirmation hearings for his cabinet just ’cause.  They can have judges declare it’s unconstitutional for him to tie his own shoelaces.  They can never “normalize” him or examine the possibility that he’s anything other than Hitler or the devil incarnate.
The thing about effective use of power though is it needs to used like a tool, with precision and in the pursuit of decisive objectives.
Using a frantic scattershot approach is bound to lose.  Try winning at chess or go behaving like that!

If the opposition had chosen key times and places to block Trump spaced out over the next couple of years, they may have succeeded in sapping his momentum and the popular support he requires to stay in power when both parties hate his guts.  This indiscriminate shitshow though will backfire.  A hundred million Americans are watching this happen with shock and the quick succession of events is keeping their attention.

If the judiciary shows it is just another political body without any sense of impartiality or fair play then it loses its legitimacy.  Even if they succeeded in stopping Trump cold from now on, no one would take them seriously anymore as keepers of the law.
This corrosion would leave them vulnerable to a new wave of demagogues that would have them begging for the good old days of a center-right moderate like Trump.
Their total inability to keep the long game in mind or even to approach issues right in front of them with a coherent strategy reminds us why they are falling from power in the first place.  Their ineptitude is great enough, if Trump doesn’t clear them out, someone else far worse for them will.

Today, there will be a hearing in the 9th circuit court over a judge’s ruling that prohibits Trump to mandate the exercise of his most basic constitutional duties.  We are about to see how far they want to escalate this right now and whether they have any basic common sense.  If this goes to the Supreme Court we are entering Dredd Scott decision territory.  It wouldn’t be the first time the courts have been openly co-opted as a political weapon and once that is done, the rule of law itself is undermined.

Update 2/9/17: They really did it.  They ruled against the ban and this escalates further…

Strategic Laziness

Our universe tends towards entropy and chaos.  As complexity of organization increases, resistance rises exponentially, like trying to force two opposing magnets together. (It’s always megafauna, T Rex or Mammoths that go extinct, not E. coli)  Looking at the natural world here on earth it’s quickly clear that every living thing expends as little energy as possible to persist.  Lions with full stomachs sleep most of the time, desert toads hibernate for years in between rains, birds with no predators lose the ability to fly over time. Nothing works harder than it must.  The more complex and energy-intensive the solution, the harder it is to sustain.

Trouble arises, though, when you’re a flightless, fearless dodo perfectly well adapted to your environment and suddenly humans show up. Or likewise, you’re a fit dinosaur species but prove unable to cope with a nuclear winter caused by asteroid impact possibly combining with volcanic eruptions to form a perfect disaster.  Evolution alone can’t plan ahead or anticipate rare catastrophic events.  This is why I think some living things have been pushed towards higher levels of awareness despite its massive costs, so they can be strategically lazy spending as little effort as possible while avoiding the dangers of only responding to constant, familiar stressors.

 The peacock’s tail is one of my favorite examples against the infallibility of nature.  It’s a natural pattern we see often in corporate, governmental, civilizational bloat.  All that sacred competition gets you something that maybe looks pretty but is a worse-than-useless burden sucking huge amounts of energy.  It teaches us that the patterns of civilizations and corporations are every bit as natural as the rippling of sand dunes.  Perhaps the most devastating doctrine of the enlightenment was to hubristically treat man and nature, not only as separate, but as opposites.

When I was about 12 years old, I was responsible for weeding the yard.  Trouble was, there were more seeds constantly blowing in from the desert and most of the lot was dirt and gravel that was perfect for them.  I well knew that even going over the whole yard with a hoe a couple times a week wouldn’t accomplish much.  In a few days, new sprouts were coming up everywhere.  In fact, killing everything just favored the worst sort of thorns that hugged the ground in choking vines, and dropped thousands of their sharp barbs that deflated basketballs and stuck in shoe soles by the dozens.
I noticed at the same time that a lot of the desert plants had pretty flowers, lacked thorns or sticky leaves, and had roots that were easy to pull up if I needed to.  I started what I then called “selective weeding” and let the desert weeds I liked flourish while punishing the thorn vines and the russian thistles that turn into tumbleweeds.
Before long, there was a colorful garden of desert flowers outside my bedroom window alive with the buzzing of bees.  The thorn plants were not even 1/10th of the problem they used to be once they had competition.
Of course my parents eventually asked me why I wasn’t doing my job.  I tried to explain what I was doing, but no one listens to a 7th grade kid trying to avoid work and I was told to take care of it.  So knowing full well what would happen next, I went out and uprooted my experiment.  Soon enough, the thorns were back in force despite our best efforts.
This was a formative experience that influenced my world view ever since.  I learned the futility of sustaining a vacuum against equilibrium.
I later saw the same problems I encountered doing childhood yard chores over and over again in 6000 years of failed human governments.  At some point there’s always well-intentioned policies that try to defy the equilibrium, end up favoring the thorns, and the rest is history.

I came to realize as I grew up in a frantically workaholic American society that nature in fact favors laziness.  An animal at leisure is well-fed and prosperous, a creature that must always work is failing at the game of survival.  It helped explain to me the widespread stress and misery of what should be by all rights a prosperous and happy land.  Constant labor tells us on a gut level that we are always on the brink of starvation, however many mansions and cars we may own.  Some of us become adrendaline junkies while others get ground down into burnouts that just go through the motions.  Whatever someone’s station, there’s just an interminable “job” never a tangible task that has a beginning and an end after which one enjoys the fruits of a job well done.  That I realized is the peculiar insanity of industrial civilization—a trap of Sisyphean futility most are stuck in until they’re dead.
As I approached adulthood I came to understand there was no luxury on earth greater than the power to simply do nothing.

The basic problem of modern civilization is that it favors extravagant solutions arrived at through extreme, specialized competition like the peacock’s tail.
A sense of minimalism, strategic laziness, yields simpler, more resilient, more adaptable solutions.  
Even when gatekeepers force peacock competition with a strategic bottleneck, the payoff for finding a low cost workaround or substitute is very high.

No Going Back to the 1950s – And What Lies Ahead

Some who celebrate (or mourn) Trump’s victory seem to think we will return to the 1950s status quo.
That won’t happen as never in history has any other historical period been revived despite the best efforts of thousands of years of reformers.  Erasmus always loses and even a successful Diocletian or Constantine end up creating something new rather than bringing back the old.
What we are left with is to figure out where we’re at and where the forces in play will take us.

To begin with, a majority of marriage age adults are now single and I do not foresee the trend away from matrimony will change anytime soon.  In practice a society of “free love” leaves a majority of males making free love to their hands but everyone dreams of having multiple desirable partners, the fulfillment of which always seems to be just a few clicks away.  Though most people will mathematically end up losers, the lure of being a winner is just too good to pass up.  Besides, the old system just isn’t cool.
Customs of matrimony require centuries, if not millennia of traditional reinforcement to establish and once undone require the right forces to coalesce once more.  Matrimony is reinforced by a pre-industrial world where resources are much scarcer and the long term pooling of resources between males, females, and their families is necessary for survival.  Marriage isn’t fun and it never was for fun.  It’s all about preserving resources in hard times and providing support for offspring whose survival was uncertain even with the best possible care.  So long as most people feel confident they’ll at least be able to eat and that their illegitimate kids will survive, it won’t change.  The combination of a steady basic food supply with low hopes of property acquisition, and social atomization that discourages pooling of family resources is an especially potent combination of disincentives.
Marriage will become much like it used to be, an institution that mostly serves the needs of the propertied classes.

The religion of the 1950s is not coming back either.  Even back then, it had been going steadily downhill in influence for centuries.  Christian religion requires faith in abstractions that is difficult to maintain in a world where information on every subject is abundant.  From now on, Christianity will only be useful as a value system for the prole classes, never again as the ruling ideology of a society with mass modern communications.
From now on, spiritual feeling will revolve around symbols and symbolic people that make abstract social concepts tangible.  We are seeing already a return to idolatry.  As people once imagined earthly human hierarchies in heaven and hell, they will return to a more primitive mindset of regarding earthly human hierarchies as heavenly.  Many only somewhat ironically refer to President Trump as God-Emperor.  They all know he is just a man, but they associate the idea of God-Emperor with the social and political forces he represents, just as Zeus represents lightning storms and leadership of his pantheon, or Hades stands for the land of the dead and riches mined from the earth.  
It may seem absurd at first but for human minds that cannot rightly grasp the magnitude of a million people any more than the size of a galaxy, godhood is the best concept to describe those humans whose barest whims affect the lives of millions.
The primary purpose of spirituality will not be to legitimize a moral philosophy but as in the days of cavemen to usefully describe the ethereal social sphere through concrete metaphor.

The economy of the 1950s is not coming back either.  Trump will be doing the right thing by at least removing policies that make the problem even worse and buy us some time, but no one can change the underlying forces. Human labor will be ever less in demand as world economic growth becomes static.  The seemingly endless easy gains of the industrial revolution are coming to an end and we have been entering a sort of new dark age.
I have a saying “diversity is easy in times of plenty” because once you have a pie that’s either static or actually shrinking the need to survive combined with the extreme competitive pressures in a free sexual market reduces the whole world into two categories.
-People who increase your chances of securing scarce resources and social status.
-Everybody else.

The forces in play are pushing humanity back towards tight tribal associations.  We now see widening fault lines along ethnicity and class and that will continue—but ultimately determining allegiances will be complicated.  Especially as it becomes more permissible to analyze humans by intelligence and temperament just as if they were breeds of dogs, so will humans divide up by neurotype and form the basis of the tribe-state.

The basis of sovereignty will no longer be primarily by geographical territory, but by the existence of a group, the culture it shares, the wealth it controls, the political power it wields.  In any given state or city in the West there are representatives of every type of person we can imagine.  Secession as we once would have imagined it is impossible.  What we will end up with is nation-tribes doing business, making treaties, and when that fails making war, as often by buying up real estate and businesses or setting the doctrine in schools as by outright violence.

Right now, Trump is among the first generation of leaders of the Neo-Tribal dark ages.  He rose to power on class and ethnic loyalties with a persona of stripped of pleasantries appropriate to the norms of our more barbaric times.  He gives us a template of what leaders will look like from now on.  In a dark age, people believe leaders should have the biggest winning rather than the finest principles.  So from now on the people in charge will be aggressive, generous desert sheikhs flaunting the money and harems everyone else admires.  The most honorable man will be he who has many children, has slain many men in battle, and delivered bounties of plunder to his followers.  With the old social contract shredded to pieces the people will have no more patience for staid married family men who are frightened of saying anything mean.

The tears and screaming of Hillary supporters is not irrational.  They sense in their guts, correctly, that their social universe is going through the apocalypse.  The system they have devoted their entire lives to as virtuous cooperator acolytes with all its ritual jumping through credentialist hoops and saying the right things for status is beginning to crumble all around them.  They have massive investment and sunk costs all up in flames.  They do not even know of, cannot even begin to understand anything else.  Learning in one cataclysmic event that history does not always favor “progress” is like a sheltered true believer hearing someone say “God doesn’t exist” for the first time.  It is to face a horrifying void.  Against every doctrine they were ever taught once-invincible civilization is actually regressing.

We return to primitive norms because only the extreme pressures of civilization ever made us otherwise.  This is why civilizations always change overnight the moment people have enough wealth to have any alternative whatsoever.  Civilizations persist by keeping people secure enough but at bare subsistence enough that they cannot dream too far and therein lies its fatal weakness when confronted with the slightest taste of prosperity.  The real change this time, though, is the access individuals have to information—far more agile and orders of magnitude beyond what even the printing press could offer.  Societies both primitive and civilized require most people to be ignorant so they can be indoctrinated into irrational beliefs that hurt the individual while benefiting the whole.  The result of millions empowered to advocate in their own interests is a recipe for upheaval, and so we go forward into uncertain territory.

21st Century Nationalism Is Not The Nation-State

As we witness the rise of populist-nationalist reformers all around the world, there is much confusion about what this nationalism actually means.  I get the impression that many think they are going back to the nationalism of an earlier time, but there is no resurrecting the past.

What we have called nationalism is the philosophy of the nation-state that arose in the 1860s.  Whether in Italy, Japan, or America we saw a vast expansion of state power and centralization enabled by the industrial revolution era technologies like the railroad and the telegraph.  The basic idea was that the country was divided up into departments handled by groups of bureaucrats in the capital city.
Mass public education inculcated all the nation’s children in the same values and eradicated local dialects and languages in favor of the speech of the capital province.  Germany hadn’t been united in any meaningful way for about 1000 years, Italy not since the Roman Empire. Regions had distinct cultures and often spoke tongues that were not even mutually intelligible.

All those differences had to go so humanity itself could be reduced to standardized parts in the machine.  The 20th century with radio, television and its mass mindless herd wars marked the high tide of centralization.  What people like to call “globalism” is just a worldwide version of the 19th century style nation-state.  The present nationalism is actually a reaction to what they see themselves as continuing in some way!  No wonder they are confused about their identity!

The personal computer followed by internet has decentralized networks at a furious pace.  The 21st century is about unraveling the monoculture that has grown ever more uniform and dreary over the last 150 years.
Until modern communications, large clumsy bureaucracies always won.  Maybe 2 million men died because rubber stamps were put on the wrong forms, but the other 18 million would overwhelm the enemy.  In a world of telegraph and then radio there was no real counter to this zerg swarming strategy.

Now though, it is possible for even small, poorly equipped forces to outmaneuver clumsy centralized states indefinitely while inflicting a thousand paper cuts and letting the nation-state waste its energy throwing slow, painfully telegraphed punches at gnats until it gases out.  It’s like a claymation giant monster flailing around in vain to kill the heroes or Captain Kirk vs. the Gorn.  It’s a simple concept often called 4GW(4th generation warfare) to sound hip.
By the early 2000s poor Arabs with home-made road bombs could outmaneuver the richest empire in history.  In the 2010s smartphones lead to the Arab Spring and Occupy followed by the Islamic State.

What we are seeing is an increase in the size of 4G organizations until we are looking at something on the scale of nation state with the flexibility of a small organization.  As it matures, this kind of system obsoletes the 19th century bureaucracy-bound nation-state.
The nationalist vs. globalist struggle we see across the developed world is the clash of established nation-states with 21st century decentralized networks.  As soon as we understand this it’s clear why the establishment is on the wrong side of history and why in spite of their overhwelming power they can only flap about in furious teary rage as their world falls apart.  There is a Tao of the universe and those who try to fight it, no matter how mighty, only exhaust themselves.
The election of Trump is only the beginning of their woes as his momentum carries over and they find themselves under siege in Italy, Austria, the Netherlands, France, and even Germany.

There is a new age upon us but it will not be a peaceful age.  While steadily dwindling wealth remained above a certain line and there was a USSR to scare people, unity went without serious challenge.  Since the year 2000 or so we’ve sunk towards the next dark age with rapidly shrinking wealth, low trust, low innovation, and stringent orthodox persecution of heretical ideas. Furthermore, in a nation-state that treats everyone like replaceable parts from cradle to grave no one feels like they really belong or really matter.  They plug into an economy to crank out production points for most of their waking time alive with no purpose in sight.  This purpose vacuum was waiting for something to fill it and modern communication brought down a Berlin Wall built from bricks of mechanistic nihilism.

It comes as no surprise then that the new organizations arising are very much like tribes.  What others call nationalism I call neo-tribalism.  As always some will benefit from change while others perish.  An age of tribes promises to be a savage one defined by groups fighting over scarce resources in a world where most niches are already over-saturated.

The main discussion between allied emerging tribes right now is what uniting principles will define the new nation-tribe.  Some believe it is about a civic polity, those who can participate at a net benefit for the whole.  Others believe that ethnicity will be the core.
I think both are right about some things but neither grasps the whole truth.  Disembodied communication allows humans to associate by natural predisposition and neurotype.  Some tribes will form coalitions of mutually beneficial types and in those coalitions there will be hierarchies of tribes.  In time, the tribal coalition becomes a caste system.

Above all, this means the end is coming for enlightenment philosophy that reduces all questions of society to the individual.  In the future, society will not be treated as a machine made of atoms, but as an organism made of cells. Societies themselves will finally be seen correctly as competing organisms in the wild rather than lifeless structures that interchangeable atoms happen to occupy.

New Balance Hysteria Shows Us Meaning Beyond Markets

The burning of New Balance shoes in reaction to the culturally charged 2016 election tells us something about human nature that secular society resolutely ignores.  Markets and productivity are not ends unto themselves. In the secular enlightenment paradigm it’s irrational to destroy a perfectly good pair of shoes, or an expensive NFL licensed Kaepernick jersey, avoid a restauarant like Chic Filet, or a store like Target.
But in real life people intuitively understand that the flow of wealth represents the lifeblood of cultures.  We do not pursue commerce just for its own sake.  Without context production and the accumulation of wealth has no meaning.  We are taught to think in terms of just getting rich and selfishness is a strong motivator, but that’s not the whole story.  Getting rich as an individual means nothing if your civilization is about to get sacked and plundered and the culture you rely on subjugated.  Only by living in splendid isolation with our own entire continent to grow into could we ever have grown so naive.  Without your culture of people who believe in the dollar, it’s worth nothing.
So we can see in the right context that the economy isn’t some entity that we serve, it exists to serve us. It’s the mechanism by which a group uses wealth to its advantage.  You may be the richest empire on earth, but if all that wealth does not grow the group’s resources and power it is worth less than nothing at all.  Impoverished Somalis have clans they know will back them up no matter what.  Atomized Americans live every day knowing they are one slip away from falling through the cracks and if anyone cares to even notice, it will be to ridicule them.  In this we see the insanity and irony of the religion of enlightenment trying to treat production and wealth itself as mathematical goody points to be tallied up on a sheet.
With the age of neo-tribalism dawning, we see the supposedly monolithic economy being divided up by tribe just like land and culture.  Wealth too is territory.  

A Season For Gloating

For everything there is a season.  Normally, we are magnanimous in victory knowing that we may be the defeated ones tomorrow.  But this time we are dealing with the vanguards of a decadent movement that spent over 50 years in power and did its absolute best to destroy us.  For the entire duration of the election, they were smugly secure in their imminent victory and spared their opponents no mockery or indignity.  They had no honor, they deserve none.  If any thought of mercy were to creep into our heads now that they are beaten, we need only think for one second about how they would have behaved if the tables were turned.  Since the beginning their strategy has been to guilt trip and play the victim while thinking with snide condescension what idiots we are for actually believing them.  But they’ve wasted their social capital now and no one believes anything they say anymore.  Their tears and tantrums are just a hilarious joke.  No mercy or safe spaces this time.  I don’t normally spend much time on social media.  No facebook and just recently started a twitter, but I’ve been after them on hashtags like #notmypresident slapping them around.  It’s mostly a waste of my time, but it’s been awhile since I’ve been able to spend hours laughing so hard that tears are about to stream down my face, while they are crying for real.  As I tweet, there’s a shit-eating grin pasted on my face.  So this is what it feels like to conquer.  What Conan said about the lamentations of the women, lol.  Now that they are broken and demoralized, the cavalry sweeps in to mop them up.

President Trump’s First Baby Steps (And the Big Picture)

Now that the election is won, there is much to do and the situation remains perilous.

Trump’s 1st and overriding priority at this moment is to have a unified party at his back. Without that, he’s a lame duck from the start.  Trump’s nightmare situation that he absolutely must avoid is establishment types going across the aisle and uniting against him.  At this moment, the GOP says they’re with him, but everyone likes to be associated with a winner.  As soon as he hits the first roadbump all their daggers come out again.  Until the jealous GOPe is gradually phased out,  Trump has to do business with them.  He only has a lead of 2 votes in the senate, so he can’t afford for more than one of them to cross over.  Fortunately he has a commanding lead in the house which should enable him to deal with a few defectors.
Trump’s only real and reliable protection is his overwhelming mandate from his base. There isn’t that much they can do about him directly while their constituents are behind him. But they can work with the democrat side of the establishment behind the scenes to gradually soften him up as a target, stall his momentum, and strike when the time is right.

The best thing Trump can do to advance his cause right now is absolutely to get Paul Ryan deposed as speaker of the house while his victory is fresh.  Ryan needs at least 218 votes to stay, so with 241 republican representatives we’ll get an early test of just how willing they are to back Trump.  Honestly the very idea that after this victory a fool like Ryan could become president if Trump and Pence are somehow both assassinated is horrifying.  The sooner he’s disarmed and slapped down, the better.  It will help Trump solidify his lead if he can make example of the ringleader of those who betrayed him, their own party’s presidential nominee, in the last month of a historic election.  That sort of treachery goes leagues beyond the bounds of forgiveness.

If Trump can get through these initial obstacles, a whole world of opportunity stretches out before him.  If he plays his hand right, he can grow his majority in the 2018 midterms and introduce a 1st wave of populist representatives who will be on his side.  From that point on, GOPe power steadily gets drowned out.
Congressional elections have proven the soft underbelly of democrat power because brown people and young people only vote for president.   If he doesn’t seriously screw up or become a do-nothing politician, Trump should be able to accomplish this.
Trouble is, it’s not as if the GOPe wall street “cuckservatives” are willing to stand idly by while they get co-opted.  Keeping them pinned down by their constituents may be the only way to keep them in line.  Trump’s influence over Breitbart and social media may help him single out the stubborn ones.  Trump can keep religious/social conservatives placated with culture war red meat even if it’s not really part of his own agenda.  So far his instincts on this have been excellent, even coming out against Roe vs. Wade in the election.  He needs the carrot of conservative justices always hanging in front of their noses.  Perhaps they can be persuaded to tolerate the growth of Trump’s power rather than trying to sabotage him if they are salivating over the justices they’ll be able to get confirmed with a stronger senate majority.

If all these steps can be accomplished, we’re looking at the 2020 election.  If Trump gets a second term, starts to max out a feasible lead in representatives and senators, the democrat party as we know it would be effectively dead.  All three branches of government would end up controlled by the republicans.  From that point on, the dominant coalition would inevitably split up on their disagreements and continue the bicameral system, though maybe they could even be looking at constitutional amendments before they part ways.  Minorities, progressives, single women, yuppies forming a defunct democrat coalition would have to join one party or the other.  Perhaps we’d no longer see all minorities voting on the same side!  Progressives and corporate yuppies could well be opposed!
But I’m thinking way, way too far ahead and indulging in fanciful speculation.

Right now huge anti-Trump protests have broken out in cities across the country.  This is excellent news!  Emphasizing the violence and chaos gives a president-elect who ran on law and order an enormous boost.  Even better, I suspect that a petulant Obama will miscalculate as usual and passive-aggressively ignore the commotion as a gesture of spite, or if he really screws up, even encourage them.  Perhaps they could even be baited into continuing until they’ve burnt up all their energy and social capital and the vast majority just wants them beaten and pepper sprayed.  It’s getting cold outside of warm/maritime climate areas of the country, but maybe they’ll come out in force again next summer with the right catalyst.
The agitation of the protesters for secession, burning American flags on veterans day, their resort to graffiti and violence, their refusal to accept the election results couldn’t be more damaging to their cause if Trump had written their script for them.  They are working overtime to discredit themselves as a viable movement in mainstream politics.  They are so delightfully foolish because the decades have made them soft and they take that mainstream status for granted.
Simultaneously, a black muslim is being considered as chair of the democrat party.  If they go through with that they are well on the way to destroying their party for good with 2020 the final nail in their coffin.  Right now though, they are reeling from the shock of the election so they may gather their senses before they do irreparable damage.  A subtle unobtrusive nudge might put them over the edge and get them to bite down on their folly and take it all in hook, line, and sinker.
I predicted months ago that progressive whites will be forced out of their own party by the minorities they thought they controlled and become a wing of the populist coalition, a process which began with Sanders being crushed beneath the monolith of the black vote and may now well continue with a takeover of the party leadership.  This would be the end of democrats as a serious party.  Lower IQ minorities have already terrifically overextended as they tend to do and if they keep overplaying their hand when they have already lost this round, they will eventually lose their say in the process.
As it is we’ll likely see voter ID laws that disproportionately shave off votes from low IQ groups.  Deportations, enforcement of eVerify, taxes on remittances, strategic welfare and public service cuts would all help sour the deal for them and thin the herd.  And if it gets bad enough, I could imagine more split votes like we see with Maine district 2 in Norcal, Southern Illinois, and  upstate New York.  From then on inconsolably disruptive minorities and rioting hipsters would be flailing in vain behind a soundproof plexiglass window while everyone else casually got on with their lives to the betterment of all.

Election 2016: The War In Heaven

Every culture has its leaders and heroes that establish the legitimacy of the social order.  In a society of millions, those at the top of the prestige pyramids are effectively Olympian or Norse Gods of myth.  The human mind is only well designed to handle about 150 relationships at a time, the Dunbar limit.  To conceptualize someone at the top of a pyramid of millions, we need to conceive of a god-like figure with super-human qualities who is the very essence of what they symbolize.  The best person of a thousand is a very unusual person.  Even the lifestyle of the richest person out of every hundred strains our imaginations to the limit.  The highest ranked among millions is as distant from us as a star is from the Earth.  Sure enough, these deities are known as “stars.”

I have pointed out that Hillary Clinton is a high Goddess in the pantheon symbolizing the values of the 60s Cultural Revolution, 3rd wave feminism, civil rights, globalism, equalism, that whole generation of royalty—the boomers.  These values are at the core of everything we are taught to believe in polite homes, at school, in college, and wherever people are paid by salary in the workplace, aka. “real jobs”.  That makes Hillary goddess of our social reality, of the water in which we swim, of the air which we breathe.  Every corporate pamphlet, ad, and webpage with the clean white background, a smug, beaming, plain white woman in her early 30s surrounded by portly brown women in the front row, the non-threatening simpering Asian man to one side.  The middle aged friendly black man with the modest paunch on the other side.  And as always, back in the back row, overlapped by everyone else is one sad looking white man with a weak chin and a watery smile—every one of these images a shrine to the Goddess.  The brochure might as well be one of those portable pocket triptychs from medieval days.

Hillary in her time of need has summoned the lesser Gods to her aid.  Athletes, TV Actors, Movie Actors, Comedians, former officials, ex-presidents, newspapers, TV channels, every person of note in our culture.  They join her in the fight as we’d expect Ares to help out Zeus against the Titans or Thor to battle alongside Odin against the trolls.  Because they are from the same pantheon, they band up without hesitation against forces that challenge the social reality from which they derive their divinity.  We can imagine that even arch-enemies Horus and Set would ally against the Greek or Norse Gods.  Their existence, world view, and vision is intertwined and if they were to be defeated they would together see their power extinguished forever.   What we are witnessing in 2016 is a great war in heaven.  God and all his angels against the usurpers and their teeming legions of demons from the rift.
Against every expectation the fight has reached the gates of the Holy Kingdom itself and laid siege to the battlements of purity.  The chanting demonic legions hold aloft torches smoldering with unholy incense as a burning battering ram, a great steel wolf’s head with flaming nostrils, crashes against the gates.  As every angel, archangel, and saint has thrown themselves into the fray, so every one of them may perish and fade from the starry heavens if they fall.  It is all at stake, tonight and tomorrow.

Some of us speak of policies, the candidates themselves, the political parties, but all of that is secondary to the war that now rages like a Boschian nightmare across the jagged dream terrain of the collective subconscious.
No matter who wins, the damage is done, they will never again rule the heavens unopposed. There has been a great schism across the entire length of the culture.
The NFL, LeBron James, Beyonce, Katy Perry, Jennifer Lopez, West Wing, the Avengers, Saturday Night Live, The Colbert Report, Jay Z, all Hollywood, the pollsters, the authors, the magazines, the newspapers…everything.  For many millions already, these cultural icons are fallen from grace, now merely the chieftains of hostile tribes screaming for war, for eradication of the Other that is us.

See Also:  The Ritual of Unity

Pic Related:

grond_breaks_through_minas_tirith

The 60s Revolutionary Order Has Fallen: Now What?

It’s the point of no return.  They can still win battles but the war is lost.

It looked like a close election according to the tracking polls but the re-opening of the investigation is the final nail.
(Update 11/7:  Comey sending yet another letter about the investigation inflamed this matter still further if that were possible.  What is going on behind the scenes?)

It would never have been re-opened in a million years if their power had not finally broken.  It falls apart from here.  Every time before when the Clintons have been in trouble, they’ve been forewarned.  We know it’s different this time because Hillary was blindsided.  She got Justine Saccoed while up in the air.

At this point, even if Hillary could claim victory it would mean little.  She would enter office with no political capital, a lame duck with no mandate from day 1 hated by the majority.  While flailing impotently and dragged down by scandal, she might get to stay in power long enough to see her party get wiped out in the 2018 midterms leaving her as the final rock in a stormy sea.  Consider that’s now pretty much the best possible scenario for them.  We’re witnessing the closing moments of an era.  We have seen one overarching mentality in American politics since Kennedy took over from Eisenhower and the cultural revolution of the 1960s.  From debauched Kennedy, there was LBJ with entitlements and race laws, Carter with his weepy idealism, Reagan who thought of nations as good and evil.  And as I’ve pointed out, pretty much every president since Reagan has been a shade of Reagan.  Nixon came closest to a return to American pragmatism, but was of course sunk by scandal which made blind idealists double down even harder ever since.  A Trump victory would make him the first post-Watergate president.

More than any other person, Hillary Clinton is the Goddess of the social order born from 60s cultural revolution.  Her sickness and downward spiral of corruption tell a bigger story through metaphor.  The great social experiment has ignobly failed and is now near death.  To the extent the revolution was a byproduct of extreme forms of enlightenment thought, there is now potential for a break in continuity that echoes back to the 18th century.
Like most idealists they accomplished the opposite of their aims.  Rather than a great leap forward into eternal progress, instead they have caused a return to the pagan, tribal dark ages, conditions where they and their wishful ideas will be swept aside with a dismissive handwave from reality.

Deluded elites will be disappointed by one cold fact — It will never go back like it was no matter what happens in a mere political election.  And it looks at this point like Trump will win anyway and accelerate the path of change.  This entire cycle I have been astonished at the desperate kicking and tantrums of every established institution against Trump.  After Hillary’s 9/11 collapse and deplorables gaffe, I prematurely predicted the election was about to wind down.  I watched in amazement from that day on as politicians, officials, the media, celebrities strained with all their might to keep their goddess aloft.  I did not predict this behavior would be so extreme because it is utterly irrational.  Many of them could have pivoted into the new order if they were smart.  The election is important but not so important that it’s worth risking everything for.  The elites have proven once and for all how foolish and stupid they are by doing just that.  Because they committed fully to battle, they have made themselves vulnerable to being bottled up together and destroyed all at once like the Romans at Cannae.  Trump now has a huge mandate backed overwhelmingly by his base to clear them all out, he has only to follow up on it and he becomes a living legend and securely installed as the new top God of society’s heaven.

So what comes next then?
Firstly, restoring a workable national balance of power will be pursued by preventing outsider tribes ever again threatening to overwhelm the electorate.  This will:
-reinforce the mandate to deport illegal immigrants in large numbers.
-stop allowing anchor baby loophole.
-more limits on legal immigration (don’t take in from compromised 3rd world areas, just let in the best and most likely to be positive contributors)
-policies that favor affordable family formation for the white working and middle classes
-policies that discourage underclass reproduction or at least reduce the policies that incentivize it.
-freedom of association for the majority tribe.
The incursion of foreign groups has finally forced disparate US whites who are odd mixes of every European ethnicity to band together as a political force.  This means there will now be a clear hierarchy of tribes with the minorities made to understand quite clearly they are here as guests never to be threats to power as condition of the new social contract, and if they don’t like it can go back to their ancestral homelands.  The alternative would have eventually been outright tribal warfare.
There may be a gradual transition out of a democracy with full adult suffrage back to a republic with limited franchise, a policy direction that could end up with sufficient support if there are minority upheavals in reaction to the establishment’s downfall.
In any case, from this point on the internal politics of the USA more closely resemble those of the Austro-Hungarian empire or Yugoslavia as each ethnicity approaches the bargaining table as separate entities with a ruling ethnic group installed as arbitrator.

Secondly, with a Trump victory, clearing out the defeated losers in the establishment will do more than make him popular it gives him excuse to replace them all with his own people.  There will be a new ruling class and they will be far more pragmatic and authoritarian than before.
The discredited present elites have been far too slow to understand how the internet and smartphones have changed the game.  From now on, there will be redditors figuring out what the lobbyists are up to and letting everyone know on twitter.  The old blatant tactics requiring buddies, employees, and interns to keep their mouths shut will not work.  The new rulers will have to be smarter in order to be successful and that’s a good thing.  The biggest revelation of this entire cycle has been the consistent and astonishing stupidity at the top.  Left looking like fools they’ve lost all the credibility needed to rule.
The Trumpian elites will be smarter about horse-trading behind the scenes and will generally be acting in the broader national interest since being smarter, they’ll understand they need to pass up short term benefits to stay in power and then pass it on to their kids.

Thirdly, we’ll necessarily see a deflation of feminist power in society.  There’s an entire lost generation of millennial/GenX women on the brink of childless spinsterhood having the Wile E Coyote moment.  As the economy declines, they generally keep comfy office jobs, but the whole society is falling apart around them and becoming less safe.  Gen Z girls coming of age are starting to understand intuitively that feminism hurts the prospects of young, pretty women to give a boost to drab career women about to hit the wall.
Feminism will decrease in power, but female power won’t, at least until neo-tribal social structures emerge and strengthen.  The USA is already a de facto polygynous society with a majority of reproductive age adults unmarried.  Many of the changes wrought by the 60s revolution are irreversible.  The old traditions took centuries or even thousands of years to firmly establish, now they are gone.  The dreamers who expect a return to the 50s status quo ante will be sadly disappointed.  As ever there is environmental change, some will adapt and some will perish.

I will end here for now.  These are some social-political currents I see playing a major role as we transition into the post 1960’s Revolution period of history.

See also:  Why Nepotism Is Necessary

How To Turn The Educated Against Political Correctness

I grew up with standard politically correct beliefs regarding ethnicity and the sexes and I believed without reservation until I got into college and got my first glimpse inside the workings of the high temple and had my first experience in a wider world as an apprentice adult.  Back then, in the early 00’s, widespread high speed internet had just taken off and the alt-internet was not even an embryo compared to what it has become.
Having held most of the standard beliefs at some point, I can understand their appeal.  Reality cares nothing for our wishes and nature is harsh.  The world is superficially a much more sunny place when you believe that all people have equal capabilities and temperament and that everyone could live in a Swedish utopia but for the barriers of culture and lack of opportunity.
The state religion is not only optimistic, it is aspirational with a clear goal to improve life for everyone.  What’s not to like?  Until you encounter real life, there’s no reason not to believe in it.     Even better, the story comes with a clear villain, people with outdated beliefs on the “wrong side of history” who actually believe stupid superstition like skin color making any difference.  What could be more ridiculous?  Science proves that all our DNA is 99%+ the same.  So anyone that denies that is anti-science.  QED.  Growing up, I’d hear a lot about benighted Christians in Kansas trying to foist intelligent design on the school system while making crazy claims that the fossil record had been placed there by the devil.  There was no contest in the realm of ideas.  It was embarrassing and frightening that there were millions of crazy fundy Christians in the USA in contrast to the seemingly much more rational people just about anywhere else.  The unbelievable stupidity of lowbrow white America was undeniable proof that no race was actually better or different than any other.  It was always knuckledraggers that made such claims.  I can actually understand educated contempt for middle America from the other side.  Anything I heard growing up was slanted in a relentlessly negative light.  Most everything about other points of view was distorted by the straw man treatment, only the craziest crazies and dimwits gleefully given airtime.  Looking back, I can understand how they can adore humble Nicaraguan coffee growers harvesting “free trade” coffee yet despise the working class in their own country who keep their cozy offices lit and air conditioned.
I grew up and learned there was more to the story but we must remember most educated professionals never have to deal with real life beyond office politics, so they never have reason to question what they were taught.  Their whole life is a progression from one sheltered safe zone to the next: grade school(in a “good” district) => college => job echo chamber full of others like them while living in an isolated suburb with people at the same income they make.  They can easily live their whole lives without having to interact with anyone from another caste so that’s what they assume the whole world is like even if it’s actually a very narrow slice.  They can never depart from their group consensus or they get exiled by the only group they’ve ever known.  In their own way, they are as ignorant as the uneducated Latin American villagers they adore.

The most obvious solution is to simply make people deal with the real world.  In the republican primaries, it was the states with significant minority populations that voted overwhelmingly for Trump.  Almost invariably, those who are most in favor of ethnic minority interests are those who interact with them least.  Or at best, if they are activist/charity types they visit the ghettoes as virtue tourists, not as residents just trying to live.  They meet token minorities at work and at school and they model what other races are like based on these outliers.  More importantly, they never interact with other races when they are in the majority.  You don’t know anything about race until you’re the only white guy in the room.  It should be a civic requirement, actually, that everyone have that experience at least once to be in the ethnic minority in a situation like a job, where power matters and you’re not in charge.   The moment whites are in the minority, all the rules instantly change.  The token ethnic coworkers you thought were buddies change their personality like the flick of a switch once they can smell they rule the roost and only ever promote their own kind.  It’s one of the most eye-opening innocence-destroying experiences a sheltered educated person can have.  Once you’re along for the ride in an environment controlled by another people, all the fundamental differences between peoples are revealed.  As it happens, a deep sense of fair play, altruism, and sympathy for outgroups are almost uniquely Western European traits that more insular tribes can easily take advantage of.  4 years of college opened my eyes to the incredible entitlement of women and the evils of feminism but it wasn’t until I was out in the world on my own that I learned what race and ethnicity means in real life.  What any man who has worked jobs in mixed neighborhoods or been to prison knows well, those supposedly the best and brightest of us who make the big decisions are totally clueless about.

It should perhaps also be a requirement that educated people at least once in their lives have to live and work alongside the working classes and unskilled laborers.  The upper middle classes don’t understand how society works because they only interact with others like themselves who read books and are able to handle delayed gratification.  If you live just a little while at crappy hourly wages, you quickly learn most people live in their instinct most of the time thinking or reading very little.  You learn the truth that rational humans as the Enlightenment conceives of them are but a tiny handful of the species.  Once someone grasps this lesson, they can never again see problems of governance the same.
What’s more, that sense of studied contempt sheltered people indulge in dissolves quickly when forced to live with normal people.  They quickly learn the hard way that those who live in touch with their inner beast with a minimum of extraneous fluff are extremely effective at the actual business of survival, that main focus of most living things .  It’s tough to compete with proles in their own element, they are hardened survivors comfortable with being only slightly removed from disaster or deprivation.  Their lack of intellect and foresight limits their scope but within their natural habitat most educated types struggle to survive.

Most upper middle class types have never been truly low in rank.  They were often coddled as children or smothered by helicopter parents, then as overgrown children in college, still indulged.   I’ve met many successful people who earn well but are still spoiled brats.  Just once, everyone needs that ubiquitous prole experience where you hit that hard barrier and find out the fundamental truth that no one cares about you.  That you’re the only one that will ever really care about your own dreams.  Just once, to go up and try to talk to that supervisor and have him turn away and ignore you if your query goes beyond 5 or 6 syllables.  Running up against the hard bounds of reality teaches us how to separate high-minded pablum from what works.  Educated people often believe sentimental ideology like it’s holy gospel because in middling ranks and above of the social hierarchy people will actually listen to your principled bullshit.  People who get an education are generally smarter but their advantage in processing information only leads them further astray if they are given bad information.  Even a great Empire like China becomes easy prey for a handful of toughened no-nonsense Mongols when the state is run by over-educated children and populated by downtrodden peasants who have no reason to care about who’s in charge.
History shows us those Mongols didn’t need college degrees or Confucian exams with 1% pass rates to run an empire.  The downfall of untempered education is you can get caught up in credentials and then reel in shock when someone without a certificate in face punching walks up and simply punches you out.
A more constructive mentality for someone with a decent brain is to understand first that there are objective laws of reality as immutable as laws of physics and to use this baseline to interpret the lessons of education into useful forms rather than let theoretical knowledge distort earth-bound truths into airy figments of fancy.  Riding aloft on feelgood ideas feels great until there’s an enemy at the gates and a crisis that has to be solved right away.

If the educated classes were no longer removed from reality, we would see a re-emergence of noblesse oblige, a sense of duty to society as a whole.  They would be aware of their superior intellect in a world defined by inequality but also understand how this entails their responsibility to guide the rest rather than throw all the biggest decisions to the ravening crowds.  They would understand themselves as the elites of a people rather than worker cog individuals.  Armed with this core concept, they would no longer form unholy alliances with foreign tribes against their own kin as they do now.  Their false pride and smug virtue posing would evaporate if only they had to test their beliefs against the world.

Why Wars Are Becoming More Likely

The underlying force behind most developments we now see is very simple: overpopulation.  But there’s something more to it.  In a world that has had lowered levels of violence and modern medicine for awhile, there’s simply too many men.  Normally men die off at a higher rate than women which frees up some extra space.   Under these circumstances it’s easier to have a functional social contract where men cooperate instead of compete.  Without the usual forces of attrition, we end up with a massive sausage fest.   Add to that a declining economy, rampant elite overproduction, hostile state ideologies and it’s now hard for all but apex males to make it.  As the struggle for scarce success slots grows more intense, it drives coalitions of millions of men into direct competition for women and treasure.  As such conflicts grow in intensity, they eventually flare into open violence.  And of course, part of the deal is the violence clears out some of the dead wood freeing up some breathing room for the rest.  Anyone who doubts this principle has only to learn how the black plague ushered in a golden age in Renaissance Europe and Ming China.  When there’s just too many people, even randomly killing 1 out of every 3 improves life for the rest and allows people the space and leisure they need for innovation and achievement.  An environment always saturated to carrying capacity wallows in perpetual stagnation.  When there’s no more frontiers and empty continents to fill up, humans resort to other timeless safety valves, and when all others fail, war tends to erupt sooner or later.  The justifications people make up for history books come after the fact.

War is a gentleman’s agreement.  Two men who stand little chance of securing a pretty woman or property within their clan sometimes agree to risk their lives against a neighboring tribe to take control of scarce resources by conquest.  If both succeed, they both get a payoff, but chances are in war there will be casualties.  So in effect they wager that if they succeed one man will perish in the endeavor and the other reaps all the dividends.  They may fail and both perish of course, but they agree to take the risk because if they try to play it safe at home, they pass the rest of their miserable lives struggling for mere survival, trod on by the successful as unwanted surplus population.  Since the dawn of time, when the incentives are right, groups of men have made the gentleman’s agreement with the tacit understanding they are betting the other guy gets shot while they survive to profit from his efforts.  And of course those most closely related might behave altruistically with less reservation as worker ants devote their being to the genetic code of their queen.  Nature is harsh and living things must often undergo desperate measures against overwhelming obstacles to succeed and continue the species.  So until a transhuman era, humans will be thrust into the Darwinian melee by the necessities of competition for mates and scarce resources whether they will it or no.  Until then, only intelligent stewardship of human societies and the establishment of workable balances of power both internationally and internally makes peaceful times possible.  The foolish elites of Western nations have spent decades undermining a once stable system out of devotion to blind ideology and now act surprised when finally the inertia shifts and the system begins to tip towards entropy.

After Trump, Clinton 2nd Debate: Non-Partisan Good Will Is Gone

I saw Trump absolutely destroy Hillary on October 9th airing out her myriad hypocrisies for all the world to see and dragging her through the mud.  But I am just one person.  Across the internet I see Hillary supporters all think Hillary won, Trump backers like me all think he demolished her.  I can find only scant patches of somewhat neutral ground(all of it slanted one way or the other).   Trump supporters like me focused on his dominant presence, the threat to jail her, her visibly rattled and frightened appearance, his unapologetic crushing of her pathetic Lincoln excuses.
But Hillary supporters weren’t seeing the same thing the same way at all.  They saw a creepy, sniffling, hulking, stalking orange man trying to intimidate Hillary while she was trying to make intelligent points about policy.
Someone from another planet would never believe that both parties had seen the same event!

Even with the first debate, I can remember Trump supporters readily admitting he went in unprepared and having good-natured discussion with the other side over what he could have done better.
The second debate is the moment that any sense magnanimity and shared purpose between factions is lost.  A new age of tribes comes into being.
As of October 9th, the last pretense of cooperation within the American republic has been cast aside.  There is now only war.  No one will ever admit their candidate lost at anything out of a sense of fair play, they will relentlessly push for whichever functionary pushes their interests best so they get their piece of a steady dwindling pie and the other guy gets left out in the rain.  The civic life becomes like those two soldiers in Saving Private Ryan fighting over that combat knife.
It’s easy for everyone to get along in times of plenty, but when the good times dry up, humans play the primal monkey game of musical chairs.  Every round someone gets left out and “voted off the island.”
After years of economic stagnation only kept under control by easy money with low interest rates, the established system steadily falls apart nonetheless.

With the polls lately, I no longer know what to think.  It’s a cliche for supporters of a losing candidate to suppose polls are rigged but when you see swings of nearly 10 points with the same polls within a few days, I’m inclined to stop paying much attention.  At that point it’s just noise.  If the overall trend they indicate is true, though, Trump likely loses this election after all.  But let’s be clear, at this point nearly every established institution has now burnt its political capital and sacrificed its credibility to try to get Hillary into the oval office.  It’s so far gone at this point that it’s not completely out of the question that even the pollsters have done the same.  Even with Real Clear Politics average I’ve noticed that with the exception of LA Times tracking poll, they may have ceased including some more favorable results for Trump such as a recent Rasmussen poll.  Everyone has a dog in this fight like I’ve never seen before.  I no longer know who to believe.  The most important thing right now may be whether Trump can assume full control of his party and keep the coalition together in the midst of GOPe defections.

Establishment supporters suppose their golden world will roll on blissfully as it was once they’ve won the election.  No, the dynamics in play have irrevocably changed.  From this point the divide only grows more wide and more bitter no matter who wins or loses.
Just as supporters of either side now back the party line completely to the hilt unwilling to make any concessions whatsoever, millions of Americans will cease to see the ruling order as legitimate.
There is now a huge demand to provide services for a completely separate new culture.  After political purges on social media, there’s now attempts to start a new twitter, a new wikipedia,  a new reddit.  While geographic secession is difficult in a nation where all groups overlap, cultural secession and fracture is well under way.

Discrimination Is Just

In a just world, a group that commits more crime ends up in jail more often and everyone’s ok with that.  The group that is best at engineering and enjoys it most is the majority of the engineers.  The group that is smarter makes more inventions.  The more charismatic gets better mates, the more athletic is over-represented in professional sports.
The trouble is that everyone says they like fairness until it doesn’t benefit them. The reason that the gospel of equalism has failed is that “anti-discrimination” has nothing to do with being just.  It’s really a question of which group is able to gain advantages over another.  It’s just another form of war and conquest.
If the group that commits the most street crime can make a rule against others noticing that they commit more crime, this is not just.  The rationale of course is the “good ones” are hurt by being lumped in with those that make trouble but that doesn’t change the reality that group does in fact commit more crime.  So it’s up to that group to commit less crime and individuals to find ways of disassociating themselves convincingly from the criminal elements.  They have to market themselves, just like everybody else.  In such a fair society everyone is free to make judgments and associate as they will even if you and your own don’t like how it turns out.

From this premise, it is more or less just to have different codes, like Hammurabi did, to address different segments of a population with markedly different characteristics. The underlying problem is that modern enlightenment-derived thought denies the existence of groups and acknowledges only a doctrine of the sacred individual who must invariably be treated as a solitary atom, no matter what.  If you have a group that regularly harbors terrorist suicide bombers, you must still treat them exactly the same as those who rarely harbor terrorists.  Everyone has to watch grandmas get frisked at the airport and somehow endure the overwhelming cognitive dissonance gnawing at their souls.  When a community regularly turns out these suicide bombers, they suffer no consequence because in the delusional enlightened paradigm, groups don’t exist.
A blessedly uneducated 10 year old like the one honest child in The Emperor’s New Clothes could probably figure out common sense solutions to these problems in a few minutes.  Solutions that elude thousands of the “best and brightest” decade after decade.

Even if we studiously ignore distinctions between groups, it’s still pretty easy to tailor laws for different groups, precisely because they are distinct.
One of my favorite ideas is to have a Singaporean style law against “behaving like an animal in public.”  I spent 4 years getting around on the DC metro and encountered every imaginable sort of miscreant.  Addicts shouting at random people, homeless who smelled like weeks of sleeping on top of sewer vents, assholes playing videos or games on their phone at ear piercing volume, dipshits spontaneously busting into impromptu shitty pseudo-rap ditties, shitheads incapable of having conversations with indoor voices.  To stay sane I had to either use earphones or earplugs.  Every once in awhile I’d see someone run up to the window of a departing train and start pounding on the windows to be let in while screaming.  My vision would go red and my blood pressure go through the roof.  I would have a vision in my mind of the petulant fool turning around and seeing a squad of pristinely dressed Officers of the Discipline standing behind them led by Clancy Brown the Kurgan from Shawshank.  You could see your reflection in their boots and they’d wear leather armbands with their perfectly pressed Hugo Boss uniforms.  Clancy Brown the warden would raise the ceremonial stick of punishment, a replica of thousands of others like it across the Empire and pronounce the righteous prayer of justice.  The miscreant would get just a few seconds to scream again, this time in despair before he was set upon.  And after an astonishingly short time, he’d be left there in his own blood and before the Officers left, they’d leave him with a ticket “For Behaving Like A Monkey In Public.”  If he was lucky he’d have a few weeks painful recovery.  If not, “spend the rest of his life drinking his food through a straw.”  This would be a system of divine justice.  Once such a policy was administered, infractions would become very, very seldom and the principle of deterrence would work its magic to create a polite and orderly society.
Of course, this policy, I hardly need say, without any specification whatsoever would punish 80%+ black people.  I encountered a decent slice of white college students, drunk assholes coming from nats and caps games, and self important hipster professionals talking in loud nasal feminine uptalk that met the criteria but there were fewer of them.  It would be completely just though and “blind” to the color of anyone’s skin.  Truly only content of character would count as the activists always dreamed of.  Never does it occur to anyone educated in enlightened ideas, that blind justice might punish any group disproportionately and that true justice might in fact “discriminate” by its very true and uncompromising nature.

See Also: The Masses Crave Discipline

Related Video:

 

Excuses for Losing: r vs. K Selection

A common theme of the alt-sphere since I first encountered it has been the idea of “r vs. K” survival strategies.  This means that some people and peoples are born to pursue low vs. high investment reproductive strategies.   Rabbits(r) have low parental investment and low/no mate-bonding, no ability for delayed gratification but have lots of offspring to overcome high attrition rates.  Wolves(K) are pretty much the opposite and represent everything good and positive.
It’s a pretty transparent metaphor used to compare conservative whites vs. liberals/minorities.  There’s some truth to these observations, but in practice it’s mostly about allowing the beautiful losers feel good about themselves.
Proponents often try to back this concept with science when in reality they’re trying to construct a cosmology.  The K are the elect who work hard on earth to be pure and virtuous while the hordes of r selected are the slothful and sinful destined for eternal damnation.  It’s pretty much a rehash of Calvinism.  r/K theology is the core doctrine of Darwinian Calvinism.

Nature, however, only cares what works.  It makes no moral judgments.  Every successful living thing practices a strategy appropriate to its niche.  That’s all there is.  When someone laments that their faction is dwindling because of those nasty r selected people or rationalizes how everything would be great “if not for those meddling kids” like some Scooby Doo villain of the week, they’re just making excuses.  There’s only one fact that matters:  They’re losing.  They can soothe their bruised feelings by saying they are superior K selected elect all they like but they’ll keep losing until they change what they’re doing.
The world changes and the species that stay in business are those that change their strategies.  Humans, rats, and cockroaches are examples of species well adapted to thrive in changing conditions.  To adopt the idea of being a lone noble virtuous creature in the snow and the mists holding out against the passage of the age until the inevitable end is just resigning oneself to extinction.

How the “K selected” see themselves:

Noble loser wolf, k selected

How they are:

K selected go extinct, archaeopteryx

The movie, The Last Samurai is the perfect example of this kind of beautiful loser cuck porn.  We know the stubbornly medieval samurai are going to lose but they’re noble losers, dammit.  I know it was supposed to be sad in the end when they ride straight into gatling guns and get mowed down but I was chuckling at the bathos of seeing the “dance” they do in slow motion to sad epic orchestral music as they get riddled with bullets.  I thought maybe they should’ve made the soundtrack that “Do the dance, make a little love, get down tonight” disco song instead.  Also: “Gomen nasai (beat) for your husband.” is one of the most cringeworthy lines in movie history.
Anyway, the main idea is if you’re more focused on defeat instead of trying to figure out how to win, you’re doing it wrong.

See Also:  Civilization Is Natural

Related Video:

 

%d bloggers like this: