Another day… another race riot!


The voices on your television set tell you that this is about police brutality. That is a lie: the Baltimore riots, like those before them in Ferguson, are about racial tension exploding after a plausible trigger event.

What is implied by that casting of blame is that diversity is actually working, and that our only problem are a few brutal racist white cops. Never mind the vast amounts of minority crime of which minorities are mostly the victims.

On the television, politicians tell us that our approach is good. In the political underground, people rage on and mostly blame black people or Jewish people.

I have consistently taken a clearer position: diversity simply does not work.

This is not a question of black versus white. It is a question of whether our social order is put together correctly. Diversity creates a paradoxical social order. Only one group can be on top, whether in actuality or by perception, and the others will feel like captured populations in an occupied city. That is a horrible feeling.

Even if the two groups completely merge and we get the pacifistic tan person of all races that liberals think will end racial conflict, inequalities will persist and new groups will form which will fight the same battle. Except that they will not have culture to guide them, and the type of vicious and self-serving predation that occurs throughout much of the world will be the norm.

The groups involved are irrelevant. Even two populations of high IQ and low crime will feel this stress. Worse, they will lose a sense of identity and with it the cultural values and methods that form social order. What fills the void is individual desires and emotions, creating instability and paranoia as people learn they cannot trust each other.

Mixed-race people are one of the most common groups on the planet. Many nations are mixed-race and most of them experience constant strife because of it. Even in European populations diversity of groups increases distrust and reduces social order. Diversity is a bad policy like Prohibition or Jim Crow laws. It is thoroughly broken.

Currently we have riots in Baltimore. As usual, it will turn out that the “innocent victim” was not innocent, and the cops were exhausted from years of working in a war zone and struggling with a local population that wants them dead and commits endless, pointless, violent and parasitic crime.

Thousands of protesters took to the streets Saturday in the largest Freddie Gray rally yet, and after hours of peaceful demonstrations, pockets of protesters smashed out police car windows and storefronts. – WBAL

This story is as old as time. American Indians rioted on the reservations. Rodney King riots swept Los Angeles after over a century of similar riots in other cities. Ferguson burned. All of this represents the continuing failure of diversity, despite its popularity among our gated-community limousine elites, which pits racial groups against one another.

The “proposition nation” — where we agree to be part of the same country based on political and economic systems alone — does not work. It denies the need for culture, which has evolved independently in every human population, and for genetic differentiation, which is the basis of evolution itself. It denies the need for stability, clear identity and a social standard of values and behaviors. It leaves ruins in its wake, as it has done in formerly thriving but now third-world mixed-race nations across the globe.

You can listen to the voices on your TV tell you that these latest riots are an exception to the norm caused by police violence, or you can face the fact that diversity is paradoxical and there is no way we can ever make it work. The experiment has failed. It is time to tear down the ruins and replace them and move on from this bad policy that threatens to destroy us all, black and white alike.

Open war on the majority as the USA crumbles


When we — those of us who break away from decay — look back on this time, we will be amazed at how little it took. Hippies in the 1960s. Panicked neurosis and wage slavery in the 80s. Leftist takeover in the 1990s, and then everything became fake.

And then it collapsed inward, both lacking anything to hold it together and having been stolen to pay for diversity, feminism, entitlements (socialism) and other liberal favorites.

The United States is like a cow floating in a tropical river. When you pull it out, you find that piranha have gotten inside and hollowed it out, taken away everything good and left bones and skin.

With our media at full power, bones and skin get a coat of polish and Photoshop treatment and look pretty good. Keep believing the promises, going to that job, staying so busy and distracted that you do not Notice. Noticing is bad; Noticing will give up the whole game.

Your fellow citizens, most of them ruled by their emotions and desires more than any sense of logic, will become enraged if you Notice, because that makes them look like idiots for thinking everything is fine and might endanger their own exit plan, which involves saving up enough cash for some fond dream that will not work out and turn into lots of TV and beer.

At this point, the liberal left have made promises that they cannot keep. They have falsified history, granted entitlements, and assured greatness, none of which will persist. They have created an angry entitled mob which sees the majority as the one thing between the mob and Utopia.

Witness what happens when students opposed the actions of liberals. They did not oppose the ideas of liberals, only their methods. They did so in a humorous but civil way. The response of the dying regime? Go after them.

Student government leaders were quick to condemn the posters on “free speech” grounds.

“We have to be careful with the whole free speech issue. But then if you actually read through it, it seemed like it went way further than a free speech issue. There were swear words and took it a little further than the average free speech should go,” Student Government President Michael Slavens tells WKBN.

“When you are talking about minority activism, it is very easy that if you are in the majority to say ‘well, this sort of activism is not necessary. This sort of zeal in your activism is over the top.’ For minorities who experience discrimination, that is not the case,” Student Government Vice President Jacob Schriner-Biggs adds.

The school is looking to see if it can find student code infractions in order to bring “disciplinary action” against the still-anonymous students.


The poster reads:

Straight Pride
We’re taking back the rainbow

Celebrate Straight Pride Week at YSU!
May 1st-8th

What better way to kick off finals week?

Join us in celebrating straight pride week at YSU by not annoying the shit out of everyone about your sexual orientation.

It’s easy to join too! Just come to YSU, then go about your day without telling everyone about how “different” you are.

Brought to you by the students that are sick of hearing about your LGBT pride. Nobody cares about what you think you are, or what you want to have sex with. We have nothing against your sexual orientation. We just don’t give a fuck.

We are in the days of the final Soviet in the USA. You are either on the side of government and the ideology that justifies its power, or you are a presumed aggressor who will be persecuted if you raise a fuss.

If liberals follow the archetype set up by the fake rape cases at UVA and Columbia, the school will investigate and find nothing, but allow the accuser to reveal the names of the accused and then do nothing to protect them. The mob will close in, use Google to ruin their names, and ensure they never have job prospects again.

Message delivered: get on board with the State Ideology or you will die in poverty despite your college degree. We will destroy you.

The grim fact is that they are doing this on the dime of the people they are persecuting. Western Europeans arrived at this land when it was peopled by savages and covered with wilderness. Through blood, sweat and tears they forged a great nation out of that raw material. Without the Western European heterosexual and often conservative/reverent male, none of this would have happened. No other group can make such a claim, especially not the type of people who now inhabit our colleges.

Every civilization on earth so far has gone out by becoming internally decadent and disorganized. Western civilization has a choice to reverse course, cut off the parasites and exile them to somewhere in the third world, and fix itself the same way it built itself: by focusing on reality, bravery, and solid conservative values. Until that time, this mass witch hunt will only get worse.

The girl behind the counter


This summer, she’ll be 23. She’s working hard, much harder than I am. I’m not quite sure how she manages to put up with my lazy ass. You might say she deserves better. Not an investment banker perhaps, because the ones who haven’t been replaced by computer algorithms are in their 60s now, about the same age as the last journalists, computer programmers and taxi drivers. Nonetheless, I’d imagine she’d like me to spend my time more productively.

Growing up as a teenager, I didn’t expect there would be any taxi drivers left in the country by the year 2027, but an entire generation of tourists who grew up watching American movies expects to have the privilege of commandeering these old men when they visit New York city. This is what these Indian tourists associate with American culture, the privilege of getting to yell at men who have less prestigious jobs. I blame the outsourcing of help desk jobs. Most taxi drivers in practice just press a few buttons on their dashboard and pretend to operate the steering wheel, while the tourists repeat some lines they remember from movies.

Admittedly, I didn’t expect there to be cashiers anymore either by now, so when my sweetheart told me she was going to pursue a master’s degree in retail, I advised her against it. It led to a big argument. “What do you want me to do then, work at Hooters?” She yelled at me. I wasn’t impressed by her empty threat, because Hooters wouldn’t hire anyone who hadn’t graduated with a four year degree in consumer psychology, after an incident caught on video a few years ago where a man, later revealed to be suffering Huntington’s disease, squeezed a waitress in her bum and she responded with punching his teeth out.

Back as an 18-year-old, faced with the difficult decision of whether to go to college or not, she decided to pursue a double-major, one in retail, the other in history. Neither degree is extraordinarily challenging and the college classes barely overlap. When they do overlap she would watch the recordings at home. She could have saved a lot of money by signing up for a digital college instead, but employers seem to prefer graduates who actually had to go to classes and do group projects the old fashioned way.

Officially the master’s degree is called “retail management,” just as a cleaning lady is now called a “sanitary hygiene specialist.” In practice however, rather than “managing” anything, she will stock shelves, pretend to check the storage room for people who desire products they stopped selling but forgot to remove from the website, or explain to them why they’re not allowed to combine their coupon with a bonus card.

That is, if she ever gets a job with the degree. It’s quite likely that she will apply for a volunteer position or another unpaid internship after finishing her degree. If this were to happen we won’t die of hunger, rather; she will receive gift cards that can be redeemed for food at a number of fast food restaurants that suffer from a loss of customers.

Her biggest dream is to operate the counter. There’s a dying demographic, of old people in their 80s and 90s, who are too senile by now to learn how to operate the self-checkout machine or order food from the internet, but by virtue of the mercy of their neighbours haven’t been deported to a nursing home yet.

It’s obviously a highly competitive career track to try to enter. I remember how I begged her to be realistic and look for something with more opportunity. One out of every 15,000 pistachio nuts contains a little worm, but as a result of some sort of subconscious human intuition, humans are still better at recognizing the nuts that might contain a worm than computers are. You have to do a series of reflex and hand-eye coordination tests to become a worm-picker, pardon me, a “product quality control specialist,” tests that 95% of people never get through. Had I read the fine print on their website I would have seen that.

After what we now refer to as the “pistachio incident” she stopped listening to my advice and I must admit I can’t blame her. She had wasted 150 dollars purchasing training material from a website that claimed it could “guarantee you’ll pass the test” and 250 dollars on attending a “worm pick specialist training weekend.” She then had to spent a total of 360 dollars for the privilege of participating in the first three tests, after which she failed and was left with nothing.

I did everything I could to help her after that incident. When she had to write her progress reports on her unpaid internship at Costco, I helped her think of skills she could still improve and things she had learned. “I should remove wine stains on the floor with ammonia instead of bleach, when the floor is made of linoleum.” “I should be more patient with customers.” You can never be too patient with customers.

Now she’s finishing her master’s thesis. I’ve never been more proud of her. Her working title is “systematic discrimination of African American citizens by retail specialists in coupon acceptance rates.” We downloaded 75.3 gigabytes of leaked video camera footage from some of the nation’s largest supermarket chain stores. We carefully went through every video to check for instances where people paid using coupons.

So far we have found that after adjusting for confounding variables, African Americans are 22% more likely to have their attempt at using multiple coupons rejected than white Americans. A shocking conclusion, in a country where people like to think that racism is just a thing of the past. When I close my eyes at night, I still dream about the obese lady who argued with the cashier about whether or not pickled cucumbers still qualify as a vegetable. I fear that I will one day die in my sleep and this is what eternity will be.

Comparing Neoreaction, New Right and Tradition


When the historical background to a time changes, the beliefs held up by those within it adjust, and usually for the worse as they confuse what was with what is and adjust their idea of what should be accordingly. 226 years after the French Revolution, world liberalism has run into a brick wall, and rightists are re-adjusting orientation as a result.

Although it will not be reported in the media, or discussed by politicians, liberalism has reached a point of failure. Accelerating since the French Revolution, it has achieved all of its aims, and society remains in the grip of the problems the left identifies. “The rich” still have power, the people are still apathetic, the environment is still being ecocided and majorities in every indigenous nation are being genocided. “Equality” has not occurred in our lifetimes, social strife is getting worse as is animosity over “race relations” a.k.a. diversity failing. People are miserable because jobs are pointless, the opposite sex are dismal sluts with no ability to bond through love for anything approximating life, the air is polluted and the water unclean. And the kicker: every Western government is dead broke and spending itself into debt so huge it constitutes a punchline more than policy.

Right now, everything is OK, thanks to the technology, learning, wealth and power built up by pre-liberal Western civilization. We have rule by law, social order and the like. But these things are all in fatal decline because the force that maintains them is fading, and what replaces them will clearly be a third world style society with none of what made the West great. Immigrants will get ripped off by having emigrated to find the same mess they left back home, and the indigenous will be assimilated genetically and neutered culturally, leaving another mixed-race state with third world levels of social disorder, corruption, filth and disorganization. Liberalism is the tombstone of empires.

The mainstream right has avoided tackling this problem head-on mainly because it is composed of two elements, “mainstream” and “right.” Mainstream means that it cannot offend the dominant paradigm of this time, egalitarianism, and for that reason cannot be critical of this civilization as an outsider would, attacking obviously non-functional institutions like democracy, diversity, and equality. It is supported in this by fear of the underground far-right, which tends to be so extreme that it alienates normal people and drives them toward the imperfect but “safe” mainstream variety. As the far right harbors both genuine believers in National Socialism and volkisch philosophy as well as outright sociopaths, it creates what is effectively a border driving the audience back toward liberalism.

The New Right came about as an attempt to revitalize conservatism, both mainstream and underground, with a dose of realism. New Righters predict a collapse of industrial society from many factors both external and internal, and posit instead a strong identitarian community. In deference to the success of the left in the postwar period, the New Right avoids obvious fascist iconography and instead talks about existential issues like mass misery in the face of a society of drudgery, obedience and dysfunction. Unfortunately, however, the New Right also chooses to base itself in a derivation of leftist Social Democrat policies, and in doing so, alienates the anti-socialist right.

Neoreaction came about through the libertarian invention of freedom of association through economics. This idea attacks the liberal moral imperative to create a subsidy state by demanding instead freedom for the individual from the obligation to subsidize others. Once the ideological state is removed, however, there is no reason to avoid corporatism, or treating government like a public service instead of handling it with a quasi-religious reverence and identifying a national population with its government. Neoreaction consists of a number of thought experiments in the form of Socratic dialogues inverted from question to discussion as models, and serves as an introduction for the idea that there may be logical, engineering-style and real-world reasons for rightist policies. Neoreaction struggles however with being at the center of a number of divisive forces because its leftist origins in libertarianism result in an individualism that has its adherents choosing divergent paths, and incorporating outside influences, on the basis of personal desire. This creates the same problem as in mainstream conservatism and leftism which is fragmentation disrupting the idea of any coordinated action.

As the New Right developed, many began looking for a solution outside politics and turned to the writings of Rene Guenon and Julius Evola, who advocated a way of life based on “Tradition.” Although this is not an explicitly political system, it has consequences for all political decisions. The dominant idea of Tradition is that an ineffable truth exists to life itself which societies throughout history have discovered that allows them to rise. This “perennial” or recurring idea rejects the notion that history is linear or that there can be “new” ideas in governance. The truth is known, and we implement it to degrees rather than find new forms. For example, we might say that the present day government is 20% of the way to a traditional outlook, where in healthier times the percentage has been higher. This clashes with the modern idea that history has been a steady progression from a primitive past to a Utopian future, and that our ideas are untried and revolutionary. In fact, Tradition says, they are simply lesser versions of known ideas and will succeed proportionately. Traditionalists do not demand a specific political system but tend to favor pre-1789 ideas like nationalism (ethnic nationalism), monarchism and a union between government, religion and learning.

As Neoreaction obliterates itself by becoming a philosophy of a many interpretations but no centrality, people on the right look toward the next revolution. The issues in content remain how to choose government, which economic system to use, whether to be nationalist or not, and the role of religion. New Righters tend to favor a religious ethnostate, Traditionalists see religion as having to fall into line with an eternal truth descending through the line of kings, and Neoreactionaries favor a version of the modern state which removes the ideological in loco parentis of leftist government. Somewhere in the future a hybrid or compromise must be found if the alternative right is to mobilize itself and, as history suggests will work, influence the mainstream right to the point that it can actually effect change.

This goal in itself is not popular. Among Neoreactionaries, it is common to disclaim the possibility of fixing civilization and to look instead for personal “exit” or co-existence without being corrupted or obligated by the herd. History shows us how this will end, as it always does, in show trials and asset confiscation if not outright theft. New Righters tend to be the most politically-inclined, advocating the creation of separate political parties like Marine Le Pen’s Front National but more fundamentally changing society through a cultural revolution that prepares it for them. Traditionalists are the most far removed, believing in a cultural revolution originating in a type of spiritual awakening among the exceptional, but they are short on methods of achieving their ends.

What crushes these movements is that they are more similar than different. Each new movement struggles to differentiate itself, then runs into internal confusion, and then lapses and the cycle repeats itself. Often they are afraid to admit their fundamentally non-leftist outlook and hope for an appeal to leftists. So far this has created groups of dissident intellectuals and social critics who are influencing the mainstream, but never enough to do more than slowly shift its frame of reference to the right.

I propose a simple method of avoiding pitfalls and a new idea, Futurist Traditionalism, which combines the best of these systems with a new outlook that is both Nietzschean and of the oldest religious and philosophical traditions.

To avoid pitfalls, we must focus on a single word: “the.” The right is currently divided by these, with some seeing the solution as ethno-nationalism, making the basis of our society the church, strictly political methods, and strictly economic methods. None of these are “the” singular solution, but part of a solution, and if the right must purge itself of something it is the strong categorical reliance on one tool to fit all tasks. More likely our response will be a single tool comprised of others. It is also necessary to avoid team players, or those who view politics as a kind of sports event where one side must best the other. The point is to reach a certain design of civilization, and to implement that, regardless of what banner it is done under or what it is called. Politics itself disunites us by the need for teams, categories, issues and other symbols for what actually must be done. It is time to cut out the middleman, and look toward what we seek instead.

Futurist Traditionalism proposes a simple union of all that has worked: mercantile economics, or capitalism without usury, a focus on leadership and goals instead of the methods used to select leaders, a removal of criminal law and its replacement with an economic system of justice, and the creation of an aristocracy of wise elders who will represent the nation in religion, leadership and science/philosophy. In the Futurist Traditionalist view what is essential is balancing the different impulses with the goals of past and future, so that instead of compromise we enforce consistency on all parts of the system. Instead of letting “the system” run by itself, the institution of Futurist Traditionalism is the goals itself, enforced by culture and administered by aristocratic leaders, with otherwise a total lack of formal institutions. By de-formalizing, society would reduce red tape and frustration, but also shifts the burden of choice back onto the citizen. A law enable a citizen to say “I did not violate the law” but under Futurist Traditionalism, the only standard is the results that occurred. Thus if a citizen has no law to hide behind, and must compensate others or society as a whole for any ill effects brought about by his actions.

The “futurist” part of this belief system consists of a desire to use technology for positive ends, even when these are the same methods that make people recoil now. Mass production, gene splicing, giant grocery stores, the internet and other “modern” advances must not only be kept, but advanced using the principle of balance to goals. A Futurist Traditionalist moves forward into the future by advancing the quality of knowledge, and sees technology not as a system or institution in itself, but a series of tools for achieving the goals of the civilization.

To moderns, the primary difference in this society is that it has a military-style purpose at all times. The overall goal is to protect and nurture its people so the civilization as a whole continues rising in quality. This means that criminals, retards, shysters, etc. can be exiled and the community is healthier, and also that every action taken by a citizen can be looked at with the question, “Does this move us closer toward our goals or not?” Nothing exists in a vacuum. Toward that end, Futurist Traditionalism embraces power. Where moderns considered themselves witty to have said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Futurist Traditionalism recognizes that most people are corrupt because evolution is in effect and we all fit somewhere on a bell curve not just in intelligence but in integrity. Power goes to those who can wield it and to no others. The ideas of democracy and managerial society are both rejected by this act.

A Futurist Traditionalist society might look a bit odd to us at first. For example, in our current society we have speed limits, police to enforce them and courts to judge them. None of these are necessary. A future society might simply make it a cultural standard to throw rotten vegetables at any vehicle that is traveling too fast for the road on which it is going. Liberals will scream, “But what about abuse?” to which future humans will affirm that yes, it sometimes happens, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Most of the time, drivers slow down because they want to avoid the spectacle of being pelted with rotten vegetables, because in a sane/future society, honor and integrity matter more than police fines. The rent-seeking police with their tickets, courts and endless laws could all go away and the problem would be solved at least as well as that extensive system has, without any of the overhead.

This thinking takes us past the conundrum not just of modernity but of the right trapped within modernity, liberating us to think truly “outside of the box.” That box, more than The CathedralTM, is what confines us in modernity because assumptions outside of its control are not tolerated. With the rise of future rightist movements, the nexus of attack will focus on this idea of settled science, known truths, and other fake history created by leftists in order to expand our scope not just to “exit” or participation in a political system, but reforming society and disenfranchising or exiling those who are incompatible so that they can go to the third-world societies that their leftist outlook inevitably produces, and we can not restore a past civilization but rise to new standards of excellence. That is futurism, and it is the basis of Futurist Traditionalism.

Jackal Hour 14: Thracian Sacrifice


A podconference of note for Neoreaction, New Right and other sacralist and realist citizens, Jackal Hour is now in its 14th episode. The next event will occur Tomorrow, April 23, 2015, from 7:30 PM – 11:30 PM EST at the following Google Hangout. Topics planned include Red Heads,, Godspeed you! Black Emperor, Eucivic Engineering, Cell Organization, The Center for Crabs, A 6th-century B.C. burial of children sacrificed by Thracians, and the proper way to vape while wearing formal attire in wartime.

Career destroyed for doing what is right, not what appears right


It is not a common enough trope to point out that in democracy, as in advertising, the valuable quanta consists of appearance. Reality is measured by results; appearance is measured by a view from one angle in one moment and the desires, judgments and feelings it stimulates. Desires trigger from mouth-watering pictures of food or naked babes, judgments from threats to patriotism or importance of all individuals, and feelings can be both positive or negative, so long as the person feeling the feelings feels more alive for having done so.

Another career has been shredded as a sacrifice to the altar of human pretense. First, the part that offends appearance:

A Nashville prosecutor has been fired after reports surfaced that he made sterilization of women part of plea negotiations in some cases.

On the surface, this sounds terrible. As liberals always ask, how would it feel if this happened to you? We have our teachers indoctrinate kids starting in preschool with this logic, which assumes that all people are the same and therefore what happens to one is for the same reasons and has the same effect as when it happens to another.

They also hit us with the pity, which makes us feel good because we are doing something nice for those who are less fortunate than we are:

“The history of sterilization in this country is that it is applied to the most despised people — criminals and the people we’re most afraid of, the mentally ill — and the one thing that that these two groups usually share is that they are the most poor. That is what we’ve done in the past, and that’s a good reason not to do it now,” Paul Lombardo, a law professor and historian who teaches at Georgia State University, told the AP.

It’s terrible. These people are bullied. They are poor, so they are blameless. In fact, they are angels dancing on the head of a pin. And yet, no one is pointing out what these people have actually lost. Do they need to breed?

But peeling back the rhetoric and feelings, we find a prosecutor who wanted insane people to stop breeding:

In the most recent case, first reported by The Tennessean, a woman with a 20-year history of mental illness had been charged with neglect after her five-day-old baby mysteriously died. Her defense attorney says the prosecutor assigned to the case wouldn’t go forward with a plea deal to keep the woman out of prison unless she had the surgery.

Defense attorneys say there have been at least three similar cases in the past five years, suggesting the practice may not be as rare as people think and may happen more often outside the public view and without the blessing of a court.

People whose babies mysteriously die can be problematic. They may even be insane. That would mean that they will keep having crazy babies and possibly killing them, where sterilizing them would free them of the burden to have and kill the baby.

Reading further into the article, it seems that this woman was in homeless shelters but fled with her baby to a hotel, where it died, some months after she had tried to kill it by stabbing herself with a knife.

Nothing about her story suggests this woman should be able to reproduce.

At least we have a happy ending:

The prosecutor agreed Randers was mentally ill, and she was institutionalized after being found not guilty by reason of insanity.

Now when she breeds, the fetus becomes the property of the state and they can raise it — likely with attendant mental problems — and subsidize it for the rest of its days.

Another case of this same pattern:

Pregnant restaurant worker fired after armed robbery

A fast food restaurant is robbed and the shift manager says she got fired for refusing to pay the money back.

A small factual error there: the woman says that the shift manager said that she was fired for refusing to pay the money back. No comment from the shift manager was included.

Farther down the article, we see the truth:

However, a spokesperson in their human resources department explained that Marissa was fired because she broke policy by leaving too much money in the register and this wasn’t her first offense.

Not her first offense. This makes it less likely that she was fired for a single incident, more like a pattern of behavior.

Fast food restaurants use time-lock safes to avoid being attractive to robbers. These safes operate by allowing employees to dump money into them, but they only unlock at certain hours of the day and days of the week when money is being collected. This protects the lives of the employees by making it clear to criminals that they will not get a big score. Marissa endangered her fellow employees by not doing that, and it may be related to why they were robbed.

But then at the end, the mainstream media makes a last stab at pity — a type of feeling:

That’s little comfort for Marissa who is not only unemployed but pregnant with her fourth child.

Working fast food, on her fourth child, and unable to follow the rules. This woman is a disaster. If the press were honest the headline would read: Woman with disaster of life bungles automatic deposit and contributes to store robbery.

But no, all of us out here must show how enlightened and altruistic we are by pitying Marissa for her own poor life decisions. As a result, more fools enter the world, subsidized by the pity of those who should know better.

And those who might stop the problem by insisting that disaster people stop reproducing — which is kinder but less effective than what I would do to them, which is exile them to Mexico or Canada — are fired and smeared.

An upside-down world indeed.



Politicians, advertisers and celebrities make their living by motivating great numbers of people. This happens through trends, which encourage participation so that individuals may inherit the cachet bestowed by the novelty of the event, and through panics, in which crowds focus on a great evil and spin into a circle pit called a “hive mind” in order to destroy it.

But what about the excluded middles, or things that are both not good and not evil, but are nonetheless not part of a sensible vision for what society should be?

The vast majority of people consider evils to be that which is extreme. They draw a distinction between a little sin and big sin because, if viewed as a threat, the big sin is more disturbing. What they do not see is that all evils are disruptions of an order and have consequences. The person treated unjustly treats others unjustly, and the bad idea unchallenged spreads among the credulous.

Our perspective does not include ourselves. That is, we see the world outside of ourselves but even more importantly, we assume that anything which is not ourselves will not change. We also assume it is good as it is. We do this because we are familiar with it and we must justify it as good, or be in constant stress over the fact that we are surrounded by bad.

Because of that, we think of our civilization as being in a state of “doing just fine” that needs to defend itself against extreme threats. This allows us to blow off the slow decay and the small evils which are part of it. Neoconservatives talked a big game about boiling a frog, a metaphor for how slow change goes unnoticed, in politics, but none have applied this to society at large.

The net result of small evils is blight. Blight occurs from acts that are not outright evil, and can be viewed as minor infractions, vandalism, stupidity or crassness, but they have a multiplier effect: they create more of themselves. As in all things, what we tolerate, we get more of. Blight produces more blight by lowering the standard of accepted behavior and giving people a path to “success” to conform to.

Our laws trip us up because laws effectively do one thing: they legalize activities below a certain threshold. If cocaine is illegal, but prosecutors cannot get a conviction for under three grams, guess how much cocaine everyone will carry around on an everyday basis?

Blight thrives on this quasi-tolerance. It loves when we go off on huge crusades against big non-problems and ignore many small evils. That allows blight to grow, because it has a secret: blights of different types support one another. They are forces of decay, not evil, but in the end they lead to the death of a civilization. Is that not evil?

We should abolish any law or social attitude that forces us to tolerate:

  • Traffic
  • Advertising everywhere
  • Graffiti/Vandalism/”Street art”
  • Television in public
  • Obesity
  • Promiscuity
  • Public drug use.
  • Businesses for idiots (nails, hair, pawn, tattoo).
  • Ugly tract housing.
  • Boxy corporate architecture.
  • Prostitutes on the street.
  • Homeless/bums/winos.

All of these things increase ugliness and make our minds conditioned to justify and accept ugliness because otherwise, we must criticize the system and our own participation in it. These blights create an exponential process of the introduction of more blight. These are just examples; more types surely exist.

Blight is not morally bad, but it does not form part of the vision of a sane person about where they want to live. It is moral decay, and social decay, but it does not register on our threat meters. Perhaps if that changes, and small evils become scarce, bigger evils will feel less emboldened and immune.

Right brain, left brain and the spectrum of respectability


Occasionally, social scientists — one of the upper levels of the clerisy — wax too esoteric in discussing the nature of angels on the heads of pins (of oppression) that they forget their primary job of preaching the gospel of the Cathedral.

Jonathan David Haidt is a Jewish social science professor at New York University. If the Clerisy had formal ranks, Haidt would have to figure somewhere between bishop and archbishop. Nevertheless, the man is bucking the current Cathedral trend of labeling conservatives as bad people and bigots. Instead, he asserts that brain structures vary with political beliefs. In other words, your political outlook is hard-wired into your brain and not a conscious choice.

This used to be a claim that leftists loved to make about criminality (while ignoring its troubling logical conclusion); the idea of ascribing political belief to biology is relatively new. Haidt’s book centers around the latter conclusion, although strands of this kind of thought have circulated for a few years now. For example, around the 2012 election a similar summary of studies was released by, which laid out essential behavioral differences between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, sets out the major differences between liberals and “conservatives.” “Conservatives” apparently value the following concepts about equally: avoidance of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Liberals, by contrast, care only about the first two.

Anyone who has ever personally encountered a far-left individual will recognize that this psychological profile has some merit — they tend to be psychotically obsessed with fairness and are physically cowardly. But what does it tell us about the conservative? The five qualities listed all seem like concepts that normal people would value, well, roughly equally.

It is accepted wisdom in the alt-right that the Republican Party in the United States is not a real right wing; instead, it is analogous to the Right-Opposition in the Soviet Union, simply a slightly less-left party. It is the place for people who are normal and are (justifiably) uncomfortable with what is going on in their nation. The Republican Party, the only “right” that people like Dr. Haidt will ever interact with, is simply the safest space for the American with normal social instincts to politically gather, unless they want to risk social ostracism.

What Haidt’s study has inadvertently revealed is not a profound neurological difference between right and left, but the neurological difference between normal white Americans and leftists. The proof is plain in the questions he asks. For example, a question on “racism”:

A group of politicians proposed a law that would add modest new restrictions on getting a driver’s license. The new law put in place a rating system for driver’s education courses to decide if they meet basic requirements. The politicians attempted to evaluate every driving school fairly, but it was found that classes attended mostly by non-white students were evaluated lower than those attended by white students. The politicians have no outward preference for one race. However, they were found to have an unconscious bias against non-white candidates that was affecting their rating decisions unintentionally.

The test taker is asked to identify whether the politicians are racist or not racist. The rest of the questions have a similar bent; they basically divide the test taker into those on the left, or in the center of the Republican Party.

The intent of the test was for Haidt to figure out why there is such stubborn resistance to the minor aspects of Cthulhu’s progress. What he exposed, instead, is the full extent of how mentally unbalanced leftists are. An overdeveloped sense of fairness is one of the signs of borderline personality disorder. As for pain avoidance, we need no psychology to place that failing firmly in the category of cowardice.
As of today, true right wing tendencies must either be sublimated, or expressed non-politically, in fora like entertainment or videogames. If Haidt ever did want to test members of the authentic right, I’d be interested in the results of his data. Until that day, any attempt to measure the differences between right and left will boil down to the testing the far left against the center-left.

But perhaps, in a way, it makes sense to reduce the fake-conservative opposition down to a biological phenomenon. As the ultimate cuckservative William Buckley Jr observed “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” A broken clock is right twice a day, and Buckley was correct in his observation. It helps The Narrative to explain that, despite fifty years or more of browbeating, why “those people” come along ever so slowly, and capitulate only after putting on at least a symbolic fight.

The deterministic “science-y” position on the psychology of “conservatism” has to become dominant for The Narrative to remain coherent. After all, “conservatives” have been hearing the Good News of the Cathedral and they still whine and complain. What gives, bro? Haven’t you heard the message of True Equality?

Micro-Reactions (1)


Inspired by micro-aggressions, the following are short observations on the nature of the modern world.

1. Infantilization

The method the Baby Boomers used against their children was to infantilize them. This consisted of having them look at life on the level of effects along, ignoring cause. As every cause has an effect, this creates people who know what they want but not how to get it, which keeps them perpetually dependent on the parents (or in loco parentis government) to find out how to do anything. That in turn forces each action they want to take to survive the approval process of the parent. This gives the parents or government more power, but also creates a resentment cycle where people hide anything they actually want and find another way to get it, like teenagers scoring drugs or henpecked husbands cruising for porn or even citizens cheating on taxes with a black market economy.

2. Rand versus Nietzsche

Ayn Rand, while possibly the most cardboard writer, continues to like the movie Idiocracy gain followers because she accurately described the near-term future. Her philosophy of “objectivism” is nonsense, but understandable nonsense; she means “realism” because she realizes that nothing is subjective: interpretation can be disciplined, and lack of discipline or ability is no excuse; choice is not even subjective, because our choice signals to others the quality of our ability to perceive reality. Rand could be seen as an early anarcho-capitalist for her basic solution, which is to get rid of government except for the military and let everything else be private contracts between consenting groups and individuals. She does make a good point, as do the libertarians, which is simply that no person should be obligated to support another — ever. Charity is entirely voluntary or it is theft. On a psychological level, this is important because it signals to the citizen that they are responsible for their own future, which drives away parasites. A society that offers welfare and jail instead of exile says to the parasite that they will be able to survive just fine, because the society is afraid to kill or eject them. Once attached, their fortunes may change, but they are always there. Capitalism however has a great challenger in Nietzsche, who like his predecessor Schopenhauer sees it as an intermediary technique elevated to the level of goal in itself. Why not cut out the middleman, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer ask, and simply select our best to rule us, and obliterate the economy by replacing it with non-usurious ownership, in which case speculation goes away and land ownership again becomes important and thus can be regulated by a monarch.

3. Recapitulation is Capitulation

Rebellions, revolutions and new (although none are) ideas are like seeds falling from a tree: 99.99% of them will die before or soon after germination, and with human ideas the cause is recapitulation. An idea that thought it was distinct turns out to be close enough to another idea that it is assimilated. As a result, it becomes a footnote or is rejected for not offering anything different enough from what already is. To recapitulate what you are rebelling against is to fail. However, because ideas are not linear things but complex networks of concepts, most people recapitulate their enemies by attempting to linearize an idea, which forces its expression in terms of the strongest methods of the time. For this reason, most reactionaries choose a model of government that replicates either Adam Smith or the managerial state, and in doing so, give others no reason to follow their quest.

Cannibal racists stalk American streets


An epidemic of missing black men has descended across America. The New York Times first discovered the crisis when it recognized that of 1.5 million black men who otherwise would have survived, only 600,000 were in prison. This means that 900,000 black men have gone missing.

Last year, sixteen thousand Americans died by homicide. The rest of those 900,000 missing black men disappeared for unexplained reasons. Even taking into account normal mortality and social blight that affects all races like drug addiction and smoking in bed, the vast majority of these missing black men must have fallen prey to shadowy forces.

Although The New York Times was afraid to say it, I am not: an Iron Curtain of cannibal racists stalks American streets.

These racists are crafty and educated. They have abandoned the Ku Klux Klan garb of the past and do not have “white power” tattoos and piercings. They look normal and act normal. They walk among us. But when darkness falls, they take to the streets, prowling for black men to attack — and consume.

Cannibal racists leave behind no evidence. Unlike the Archie Bunker types of the past, they do not tell racist jokes at work. They do not scatter flyers with copious misspellings in mixed-race neighborhoods. Undetectable, they rove the streets at night, striking quickly and rendering their prey unconscious, then dragging them out of sight …to feed.

Almost 900,000 black men have been consumed by these cannibal racists, and yet government takes no action. Neither does the church. Where is the outrage? No one will step forward and identify the problem because they are afraid. The bones go to the lonely places of the earth and the cannibal racists withdraw, assuming their disguises as normal people, at the same stores, bars and high colonic clinics as the rest of us.

Do we need any proof other than these shockingly high numbers? The only possible explanation is carloads of violent cannibal racists, riding through the night looking for a chance to feed. Silently they descend, leaving only scuffed bloodstreaks and the echoes of screams behind them. Either that, or The New York Times is cooking statistics again to give limousine liberals a pity trip.