What I Believe

Update March 2017:(additions/edits ongoing)
I am:
-Pro Redpill/Manosphere
-Pro Dark Enlightenment
-Anti-Establishment
-Anti-Feminist and Anti-SJW
-Anti-Equalist
-Pro HBD(Human Biodiversity)
-Pro Eugenics and Transhumanist
-Sympathetic to Alt-Right, Alt-Left(red-pilled Bernie bros, not antifas), Neo-Reactionaries
-Favor Authoritarianism over Libertarianism
-Pro Trump

-Against communism, laissez faire capitalism, and technocratic socialism.  All are diseased fruit of Marxist Materialism and Utilitarianism, the culmination of faulty worship of “reason” that goes back to the Enlightenment.
-I favor the carefully managed market economies of Pacific Rim republics.  I could see the strict rule of law in Singapore and the taxes and financial system of Japan as major inspirations for elements of a new, successful system.

-Pro-White and for free association, but the shrillness of hard core White Nationalists and their worship of white women is annoying and stupid.  I am friendly towards other peoples so long as there are no overriding conflicts of interest.  If territory is at stake, I know what side I’m on.

JQ: Jews have disproportionate influence but not to blame for all the world’s evils. Just a group that is smart and has good teamwork.  They follow a pattern common to many other peoples that have been hereditary priests or merchants.
They make disproportionate positive contributions to sciences and the arts. In any high IQ endeavor, they are sure to be over-represented.  There are many of them among both rebels and the establishment.  Nevertheless, in light of modern excesses, I consider it necessary to exclude them from the public service and finance.
As a group, they have a disquieting tendency to favor destructive policies in nations where they are minorities yet do a complete 180 turn when it comes to how Israel is run.

Written May 2015:
It takes awhile to get the big picture of what a blog writer is trying to say.   No one has time for that.
I will try to list some points I’ve discussed here or would like to discuss.  It’s not a summary, but perhaps it may give you a sense of flavor.

-There are differences on average in human populations and distinct breeds within populations.  Understanding how they interact is key to understanding everything that happens in human societies.
One has only to look at maps color coded by ethnicity or income of any city to see at once that mass societies naturally divide into rigid caste hierarchies.  The only difference is some societies are more honest and open about these castes than others.
I believe there is a certain justice to these castes, if they truly represent the preferences and aptitudes of the population.  I have no sympathy, for instance, for a system that simply stays in power by crushing talent.  The population, however, must have the wherewithal to remove an abusive system.  It’s the duty of the cream to raise itself to the top.  If a population cannot challenge abuse, they rightfully become prey in that social ecosystem.

-Because nukes have put a halt to most conventional warfare,  worldwide commerce, improvements in communication technology states are becoming less important in the affairs of humankind.  The greatest motivator of statehood is the fear of other states.  The forms of organization that matter most now are both larger and smaller than states.  A good example is the rise of the E.U.  Because the structure of the EU provides some of the security that a state once did, there are lots of separation movements on a regional level.  These regions used to bear the costs of participation in the state because they feared the rule of their foreign neighbors more.
On every level of human society we can expect to see an age of fracture with the re-emergence of tribe and faction.

-Religions in the traditional mainline sense are  necessary as a “slave morality” for the masses.  Ordinary people who are busy working a job trying to feed their kids don’t have time or inclination to worry about acting on principle.  They find absolute rules backed up by threats more persuasive.
If we suppose there is God, the divine, the sacred, we are left with only one meaningful question:  is the universe a faithful reflection of the creator?  The old religions say “no”, it’s all a facade meant to test us and to deceive us.  I say “yes”, I just believe it is what it is or else I can hold no reasonable belief about anything at all.   Whether it’s WWII or a liver fluke, I suppose it’s a part of what the universe is supposed to be, not a distortion or an illusion.
If there’s a sacred goal, I’d suppose it would be the attainment of consciousness and knowledge, by so doing to become the organ by which the universe knows itself, or in a sense, a neuron in the mind of God.

–Self-elimination of ideas.

Mormonism is a superior belief system to strong atheism because it has winning results.  Dawkins followers for all their whining have losing results.  One question matters: “What works?”
This principle was important in answering: “Why not be a nihilist determinist and suppose nothing matters?”  It’s a problem every inquisitive person must confront, that yawning abyss.

-I don’t care that much about the specifics of governing bodies, at least not yet.(3/24/17: Since the rise of Trump I have taken tremendous interest in politics and theory of government.)  I am very happy to let others deal with those questions.  My observations tell me readily that composition of a population determines the nature of a society.  A dictatorship may be pleasant and effective enough if most people are smart and conscientious.  A democracy is sure to be disastrous if most people are short-sighted and stupid.
People can subvert or find loopholes in any system you care to devise.  So someone who is interested in change focuses on the people, not on systems they create, which emerge after the fact.

-Eugenics in some form are necessary for improvements in quality of life for a population.  You must breed the genes you wish to see.  Everyone around me who sires a child is contributing to the world my offspring must deal with.  I ought to ask myself: if this person has a child, will it help or hurt my offspring?
I don’t suppose compulsion ought to be necessary.  It really ought to be more poetic than that.  Rulers need only make non-reproduction attractive for those they do not want to breed.  We’ve already discovered people happily render themselves sterile at their own expense if the incentives are right.
Likewise give incentives to those who you want to see more of in the next generation.  Hand them money, give them tax breaks, free houses, whatever it takes.  When children are a source of wealth rather than an expense, they magically begin to appear.  So it goes in all human affairs.

So what am I? (Ideologically)

I can’t say I fit easily in any established category and consider myself to be my own thing.

On the internet, it seems I share many views with those who call themselves Neo-Reactionaries, but I cannot consider myself one of them.
I do not consider myself conservative or liberal.  Nor do I care much to classify by the political spectrum.
I love to analyze the differences between race and ethnicity and I acknowledge harsh realities but have little appetite for racial tirades.
I recognize the value of traditional religions as social structures from an engineering perspective but have no desire to revive them or to participate in them.
I don’t care to push theism or atheism.  I merely observe the universe.
I cannot call myself a reactionary.  I might better be called a Neo-Progressive, though I dislike that name.
(3/24/17: An Alt-Centrist?  Neo-Tribalist?  My vision still does not fit easily with any existing platform.  I adopt elements that would be considered both “left” and “right” as functionally makes sense to me.) 

There is one big problem that matters.
Since the industrial revolution, humanity has gone through accelerating, unprecedented changes.
This is why the old social systems won’t work and why we have to plot a way forward.  There’s no going back.
Societies are struggling to cope with these changes and failing at it.
A huge vacuum yawns.
We need to determine what sort of social order is appropriate for this new world borrowing the most effective components from modern and ancient times to create a new system.
The unclaimed prize is great.
The first society to come up with an effective new formula will dominate the world effortlessly as Europeans, Muslims, Romans, or Greeks did in turn.
If the prize remains unclaimed, maybe the world simply sinks into a great dark age, societies that can’t adapt to modern stressors simply subsumed by more traditional rivals.