Robert Sapolsky and the urge to neuter in Stress: Portrait of a Killer (2008)

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-1

Liberalism wants to remove power. It has two views on power, a public view and a private view. In private, liberals fear power because it requires competence, and competence entails oversight because it allows the powerful to point out where others are acting in illogical or venal ways. The private goal of liberalism is to abolish oversight of the individual, which requires the justification of egalitarianism/altruism to whip groups into a hive-frenzy to implement it. In public, liberals fear power because it results in “oppression,” and their response is to diffuse power through democracy and de-masculinization, replacing it with the Society of Endless Compromise which always defaults to inclusivity, removing oversight and allowing venal and illogical behaviors to be “equal” to intelligent ones.

As part of this myth, liberals enjoy the concept of pacifism. In this mental state, they assume that life would turn out just fine or even better without warfare and conflict. This ignores the fact that most people are unreasonable and that the stronger, by virtue of being more competent, tend to improve conditions by imposing violence on the lesser. In nature, we call this “Natural Selection” and newspapers run the kindly picture of grandfather Darwin. But our human pretense disallows us from realizing the same rule applies to us: evolution occurs when the more competent beat down the less-competent and take their place.

One form of this pacifism myth appears in the interview with primatologist Robert Sapolsky in the National Geographic Society documentary Stress: Portrait of a Killer. Sapolsky talks about his experience with the Keekorok Troop of baboons, and he relates his conclusions as if they were experience, fully aware than an audience of credulous useful idiots will adore him for his precious and passive stand against masculinity, power, violence and anything else that affirms reality over individual human desires, judgments and feelings.

Here is his statement in the documentary:

Sapolsky: The Keekorok Troop is the one I started with 30 years ago.

Narrator: The Keekorok Troop took to foraging for food in the garbage dump of a popular tourist lodge. The trash included meat tainted with tuberculosis. The result was that nearly half the males in the troop died.

Sapolsky: It wasn’t random who died.

Narrator: Every alpha male was gone.

Sapolsky: And what you were left with was twice as many females as males, and the males who were remaining were, you know, just to use scientific jargon they were good guys. It completely transformed the atmosphere in the troop. And this particular troop has a culture of very low levels of aggression and they’re doing that 20 years later. If they’re able to, in one generation, transform what are supposed to be textbook social systems sort of engraved in stone, we don’t have an excuse when we say there’s certain inevitabilities about human social systems.

Let us translate: in this group the alpha males died, and peace reigned. And it has kept going! Why can’t we humans be as enlightened as the baboons?

He does not mention that 20 years is to evolution the blink of an eye, or elaborate whether this troop continues surviving because it is living off the refuse of humans. Then again, that would be a socialist experiment that would make liberals and especially the armchair women pampered with easy jobs or dysfunctional modern family subsidies squeal and shout out in delight how “adorable” it all is.

Pacifism wins the day, and all that scary stuff in life — death, conflict, personal inferiority — is banished. The feeling is religious.

Not surprisingly, the Red The New York Times covered this in pure ecstasy of a passivity-superiority complex:

Remarkably, the Forest Troop has maintained its genial style over two decades, even though the male survivors of the epidemic have since died or disappeared and been replaced by males from the outside. (As is the case for most primates, baboon females spend their lives in their natal home, while the males leave at puberty to seek their fortunes elsewhere.) The persistence of communal comity suggests that the resident baboons must somehow be instructing the immigrants in the unusual customs of the tribe.

That is the Great Liberal Dream in a nutshell: remove the powerful, replace them with foreigners, and have them take care of us in subsidy and happiness forever. The article even states this explicitly:

The new work vividly demonstrates that, Putumayo records notwithstanding, humans hold no patent on multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism = peace, pacifism, love and happiness. Get rid of those blonde meanies who rule over us and we will finally be free!

Like the liberal love affair with the Bonobos, the tribe of monkeys who pacify each other with sex instead of fighting, the Keekorok Troop is a myth elevated to fantasy because it conforms to the liberal agenda.

”We don’t yet understand the mechanism of transmittal,” said Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford, ”but the jerky new guys are obviously learning, ‘We don’t do things like that around here.’ ”

Jerky guys versus good guys, in the rhetoric of a scientist. How is this science? It is as if ideology went looking for meaning, picked it out of a more complex situation and ignored the rest of it, and now is using it to hammer home its zombie viewpoint without regard for the truth of the situation.

What happens to the Keekorok Troop when the human garbage goes away, or a stronger troop moves into the neighborhood? Probably the conditions of whatever is “third world status” in simian troops.

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-2

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-3

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-4

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-5

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-6

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-8

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-7

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-8

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-9

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-9

robert_sapolsky_-_keekorok_troop-10

What could be the driving source behind such a scientist? Again, from nu-Pravda:

Dr. Sapolsky, 43, grew up in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, a place he describes as ”a true tribal enclave.” His career blossomed during boyhood visits to the Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, where he spent hours fantasizing about living in the African dioramas.

By age 12, he was ”your basic misanthropic egghead,” as he put it, and writing fan letters to primatologists (later on, at John Dewey High School in Coney Island, he taught himself Swahili). He dreamed of escaping Brooklyn.

”Bensonhurst was not the place to be a short scholarly Jewish kid with no proclivity toward athletics or gang violence,” he explained.

He was a short nerdy kid who did not like sports and he was of course, oppressed, by the strong. Or at least the violent. Or maybe not the strong or violent, but the criminal. It is unclear what he is saying here, but also clear that if he is reciting this 31 years later, he harbors a life-long resentment of people stronger than him.

Liberal pathology at work is an amazing thing. They wish to neuter the strong and embrace the foreign, if not the outright enemy, and have it take care of them. In my day, we had a simpler term for this: giving up.

Neoreaction in reverse

northern_lights_over_scandinavia

The ongoing Neoreaction drama is bound to take some time to clarify because afflictions do not reveal themselves. Much like only the stupidest evil would appear in an evil-looking form, we inherit our worst confusions from the world around us in a form that is invisible because it is both abstract and broad. This thinking then underscores everything that we do.

Mr. Henry Dampier wrote a quick piece in response to “What is Neoreaction?”. In his piece, he addresses an important point, but not the point I made. His thesis reads as follows:

The part that I do mind is the bit about fame, which is an unavoidable byproduct of actually organizing people to achieve certain goals. Jesus had his apostles, followers, and divine powers, but the rest of us who are less holy than Jesus must use time, money, material, power, and energy to achieve our political ends.

Popularity and admiration are natural byproducts of success. It’s generally good to downplay them and shed the byproducts when it’s feasible, but such behaviors can’t be eliminated entirely.

…some of Brett’s criticism to me seems to be that we ought to have divine powers, like Jesus, which would prevent us from having to get our hands dirty with the whole money and manipulation business, because sheer purity and disinterested practicality would carry the day. This may be my resentful misinterpretation of his criticism, but it’s my instinctive reaction nonetheless.

I think too highly of Mr. Dampier to assume this is resentful, but what makes this situation difficult is that it involves breaking out of the assumptions that are inherent to our time, which makes the truth doubly hard to find. It is both obscure, in that we do not know when we start where to look for it, and hidden, in that the precepts applied to any modern argument will confuse us. This is not an easy task.

The target is not popularity, admiration, or wealth here. “What is Neoreaction?” is not an anti-capitalist screed, although it notes the limits of capitalism.

That essay raises the question of goals. If the goal is to be Neoreactionary, that should be done, in full. When that goal gets supplanted by another goal, like money or power, then the goal of Neoreaction is inescapably lost.

Endure a metaphor, if you will: when an artist writes a book to tell a truth, he creates a story, characters, metaphors and setting to express that truth. However, if the same artist realizes that people look forward to confirmation of their existing ideas, and writes books to that end, the method of making money has replaced the goal.

We are all familiar with this process. It explains why a brand that produced good solid products a decade ago now makes flimsy plastic crap, banking on its good name. It explains why every rock band goes to a terrible place after three albums. It explains why promising political candidates, once they get into office, suddenly turn their backs on their own beliefs.

This is the nature of politics: it reverses our thought from acting toward a goal, to acting toward the reward that normally comes from achieving the goal. This means that instead of acting from cause to effect, we are acting from effect (money) and inventing a cause (the book) to match. It is a form of corruption of will.

This is what has happened to Neoreaction. In the struggle for individuals to differentiate themselves and gain an audience, they have moved from writing about relevant topics to writing about that which they know will cultivate an audience, and for that concern alone. This has distorted their message and created entryism by demotism.

I further disagree with Mr. Dampier here:

It’s also a little odd for ‘traditionalists’ of a certain tradition which claims to be an ur-tradition to speak as if their tradition is universal, and then to berate rival traditions as being false rather than particular to a certain culture and geography.

Evolans see tradition as absolute and the differences between geographical locations as a failure to fully interpret. There is a correct answer, as with all questions, to the question of human civilization. Saying that it varies with continent is a sensible political strategy, but one that ultimate affirms relativism and the kind of “truth is optional” attitude that makes democracy abhorrent. The European and American strains, which we might describe as socialist and libertarian respectively, will resolve themselves for the very failures of socialism that I document in “What is Neoreaction?” and of libertarianism that Mr. Dampier describes in his response.

However, he does conclude the piece in a hopeful and useful way:

For that matter, it’s a good jumping off point for me to reiterate the goal that I made up for this website for this year: to investigate the passing of the grand tradition of higher education and to make some progress towards restoring it in a practical way for the people who read this. It’s also always been my approach to focus on the natural elites, and to disdain the others.

That means that I’m mostly looking to appeal to professionals, doctors, lawyers, and the occasional disaffected right-wing academic, small business person, engineer, and investor. I also especially want to get to know and appeal to parents of large families who are right-wing.

Mr. Dampier says above that he is not writing about Neoreaction; he is writing about academia as a tradition. This is an excellent goal and can be influenced by Neoreaction but would not properly be part of Neoreaction. He is clearly taking his blog in another direction than Neoreaction as theory and focusing instead on a specific task, with Neoreaction as an influence.

The point made by the article still stands, which is that when a message gets bent to please its audience, truth suffers — and so does any hope of winning over the actual audience. Neoreaction has filtered its audience by demanding realism and truth at the same time, which replaces the narrow pragmatism of appeasement. Those who will understand it, like the audience for Nietzsche and Plato, want hard answers to a problem that humanity has never been able to solve: the creation and maintenance of stable but notable civilizations.

Neoreaction stands out from most modern suggestions along these lines because it rejects the liberal assumptions that underly everything we see, hear and read in public. It does so broadly enough that differentiating what areas it attacks becomes impossible. It rejects egalitarianism and the notion that we are obligated to others, which is where it overlaps with anarcho-capitalism/libertarianism.

The path however runs deeper and further into the forest than that. As detailed in “What is Neoreaction?” those who hope to escape the thinking of the dying West must look to the roots of the psychology that created it, and expunge that. Many philosophers have achieved partial answers without distorting their message to sell AdWords. The rest of us can do the same.

What is Neoreaction?

revolt_against_the_modern_world

Neoreaction is in crisis because it does not know what it is.

As formulated by Mencius Moldbug, expanded by Nick Land and others, Neoreaction is what happens when conservatism adopts social engineering. Conservative goals however do not resemble liberal ones, which are ideological. Conservatives are consequentialists who aim for results in reality, not pandering to what is popular which is inevitably illusion.

While some in Neoreaction may doubt its conservative roots, its philosophy is essentially identical to that of conservatism, which is the way things are traditionally done: responsibility for actions based on their results in reality. It cuts ideology out of the equation entirely.

Conservatism exists as a term only to describe what is not-liberal. When the liberals first seized a European state in 1789, the congress in that State separated into left-wing, who supported the new ways, and right-wing, who wanted to retain as many of the old ways as possible. To liberals, conservatives are evil; to conservatives, liberals are misguided and incompetent. They are civilization destroyers. The right wing has been staging a rearguard retreat ever since because conservatism is less popular than liberalism and always will be.

People on an individual level respond more energetically to pleasant visions with an emotion (not factual) basis. Ideas like equality, freedom and pacifism appeal to all of us because they abrogate the struggle of life, which is Darwinism itself: the struggle to adapt. When civilization is founded, adaptation switches from reality to civilization itself, and with that, decay begins.

This does not mean that civilization is bad, but that it must be aware of these problems, much like we still use fire and internal combustion engines despite the possible dangers associated with them.

Liberalism succeeds because it creates fanaticism. The thought of what “should be” swells people with a sense of purpose, which appeals to the vast majority of humans who are — since we are speaking frankly — evolutionarily unfit for anything but subsistence living. Left to their own devices, they ferment the potatoes and eat the seed corn, then exist in perpetual alternation between apathy and starvation. Never forget our glorious simian heritage and the fact that most humans want to return to that state if they can.

The right has no such fanaticism. Its members merely want to adapt to reality and set up the best society they possibly can. This goal does not break down into issues, talking points or ideology. It is a gut-level instinct that incorporates as well the highest function of the brain, which is integrating and synthesizing many issues into a big picture.

Liberalism denies the big picture by replacing it with ideology and attacks the conservative majority on “issues” by looking for exceptions which are presumed to invalidate rules. The ultimate goal of liberalism is to abolish all social standards so that the individual is unconstrained by any accountability, and yet can still enjoy the benefits of civilization. It fails because liberals do not understand time and how over time, society changes with liberal alterations and what is left offers few of the benefits of civilization.

Conservatives create 18th century Europe; liberals create 2015 Brazil.

The left grew exponentially after 1789 despite constantly creating disasters, the two biggest of which are the Napoleonic era and the Bolshevik revolution. Where prosperous societies once stood, third world ruins remained. France went from being a superpower to a nobody and quickly fell into radical social decay, prompting in part the first world war. German intervention in WWII saved much of their society from utter confusion, if nothing else by giving them an enemy.

But as Evola observed, all of us in the post-war period are men among the ruins, because with WWII liberalism achieved its final victory over conservatism. In Europe, states became what we might call 60% liberal, in contrast to the 100% liberal of pure Communism in the Soviet Union. The United States, hovering at 50%, shot upward such that in the present day it hovers in the 90s somewhere.

Neoreaction rejects not only liberalism as politics but its social effects, comprised of the twin dragon-heads of Cultural Marxism and mass culture, as well. Where conservatism has traditionally tried to hold on to power, Neoreaction remains fond of the idea of “exit,” which originates in its post-libertarian theoretical roots.

You might know “exit” of this sort under the names of libertarianism or “freedom of association.” The idea is simple: we remove the obligation to the State for anything more than military, and run the State like a corporation that provides certain services to citizens. Gone is the egalitarian imperative that arose after WWII to not just consider citizens equal, but to subsidize them so that they are equal in surviving at least.

However, Neoreaction keeps the 1789 portion of liberalism. If we divide liberalism into major movements, it splits into its 1789 variant which demands political equality, and its post-WWII socialist variant, which demands subsidized social equality. Neoreaction goes back to political equality but uses it as a weapon, saying that if we are to have freedom, that includes the freedom to associate with people like ourselves.

Let me quickly allow the master to show us all why that is a failure:

And there is another class in democratic States, of respectable, thriving individuals, who can be squeezed when the drones have need of their possessions; there is moreover a third class, who are the labourers and the artisans, and they make up the mass of the people.

When the people meet, they are omnipotent, but they cannot be brought together unless they are attracted by a little honey; and the rich are made to supply the honey, of which the demagogues keep the greater part themselves, giving a taste only to the mob.

Their victims attempt to resist; they are driven mad by the stings of the drones, and so become downright oligarchs in self-defence. – Plato, The Republic, Book VII

In other words, the sheer weight of populism will doom any attempt to both be free from the others and thrive. Mobs take what they want; democracy is mob rule. There is no exit. This must be repeated:

There is no exit.

On a personal level, exit consists of running off to some place where the disaster has not reached and becoming prosperous enough to keep it at bay. That only works until social disorder increases to the point that crime takes wealth from you, and/or political order increases to allow the government to seize such property. If that does not do it, the corruption of late democratic states will do so.

A cynical historian will see “limousine liberals” as an attempt to achieve exit. By endorsing liberal ideas, they think they will be popular with the herd. They then voluntarily dump their money into the impoverished horde as a means of bribing them like mercenaries. However, this creates a feedback loop where people who are receiving money want more money, and simultaneously blame those with the money for the plight of “the poor,” a term used in self-pity by the masses who are by now far from poor. Leftists think they can buy loyalty, forgetting that when the money is insufficient, the crowd sees only a binary: “rich” or “like us,” and they take from anyone richer than subsistence living.

Liberalism has one basic tenet, which is egalitarianism. All of its many theories exist in support of this and for no other reason. A nihilist sees liberalism as advertising, the same way big companies push each other out of the way trying to donate to third world rescue missions, inner city education, peace-in-our-time etc. and other “populist” notions which pander to the emotion need of the herd to escape risk. The crowd wants to avoid conflict because its individuals fear being losers. It forms a warm buzzing hivemind around any idea that argues that conflict is unnecessary and can simply be bought off. Its core is submission in order to avoid losing.

This philosophy gains the epithet of civilization destroyer for a simple reason: liberalism creates a feedback loop where egalitarianism separates intentions from their consequences in real world, causing disaster wherever implemented, but the zombie ideology recognizes only a lack of egalitarianism as its enemy, so it pushes for even more egalitarianism. The solution to the problem is more of the problem. Liberal societies follow the Franco-Russian pattern: glorious revolution, many happy things, then pervasive and unshakeable social and economic problems doom the society to third-world status, at which point it launches wars to mobilize its citizens toward productivity.

Neoreaction like the New Right in Europe tries to counter the liberal expansion by stopping conservative retreat. Instead of solely pointing out problems with liberalism, the New Right illustrates the type of society it wants, which might be described as an identitarian libertarian socialist society. Its libertarian wing consists of what classical liberals accepted, which was that most people fail at life by being mentally disorganized, lazy and self-deceptive (as well as self-pitying, another feedback loop) and that therefore, society must reward citizens only for productive acts. Anarcho-capitalists and libertarians wish to bring this “Social Darwinism” back in the present time instead of the subsidy before productivity that is the hallmark of socialist states.

Unlike the New Right, Neoreaction has both a pure libertarian flair and a social engineering outlook. It attempts to restore freedom of association and Social Darwinism, but adds a method to restrain government: government should work like a corporation, and be accountable for the results of its own programs, instead of justifying those programs with ideology and measuring “results” in terms of achievement of ideology and popularity. As we look at ruinous programs like the War on Poverty, War on Drugs, Civil Rights Struggle (e.g. “war”), Social Justice crusades, and other unaccountable government programs we see something in common: they act on ideology alone and when they fail, they blame the enemies of this ideology, whipping the population into a witch hunt lynch mob which desires to destroy ideological enemies.

This American flavor to Neoreaction separates it from the New Right, but not by much. All of these are conservative philosophies and ultimately will be absorbed and become intellectual threads within conservatism. The broadest distinguishable idea always assimilates related ideas unless they distinguish themselves as entirely distinct. Since liberalism is the interloper in politics that consists of illusion, everything not-illusion is a strain of conservatism. Using the percentage system above, we might say that American Republicans are 60% conservative, the New Right is 90%, and Neoreaction is 85%, where the post-Roman German tribes are 100%.

A perpetual internal conflict in Neoreaction arises from not only the clash between latent leftist elements in libertarianism, but within the personalities themselves. As described by Henry Dampier, one of the other Neoreactionaries worth reading regularly:

The biggest difficulty in working on the cultural fringes is the crab bucket mentality, which is common on the fringes of neoreaction, but is really a sort of basic human behavior that requires a lot of moral instruction to counteract, having its roots in the sin of envy. – Henry Dampier, “Responding to Kantbot’s ‘Rentention’ Criticism,” April 15, 2015

The crab bucket mentality is the same thing as a quest for attention. Whether at the bar with friends, or a product looking to brand itself, or a politician in a democracy trying to make his idea seem unique and emotionally-gratifying enough to rise above the rest, this is populism.

Let that sink in for a moment.

What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.

The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.

Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.

This leads to two suggestions: first, Neoreaction needs a goal, and second, it needs to start making hard decisions about what is relevant. Too many bloggers trying to differentiate themselves will come up with “unique” theories as a means of advertising themselves, and will create a fragmented philosophy that rapidly becomes internally inconsistent. This will attract opportunists, who will use the “radical” image of Neoreaction to pose and self-advertise — think of flowers offering up bright colors to bees, or the sexual display inherent in the plumage of tropical birds — while doing absolutely nothing.

Like a liberal society, Neoreaction will accumulate dependents because they make Neoreactionary writers famous.

To counter this, Neoreactionaries can regain control of their movement by keeping it on topic. This is a cultural rather than governmental approach, which means the best people must begin to take unpopular stances and exclude those who do not understand them. This includes telling many bloggers that their endless theorizing is calcification and decay rather than innovation.

Next, Neoreactionaries need a goal. Much as the New Right in France influenced the shifts in platform between Jean Le Pen and his daughter Marine Le Pen who is currently winnning elections in France, Neoreaction can influence both libertarians and Tea Party style conservatives (70%) into adopting many of the Neoreactionary ideas as part of their own outlook.

Revolutions only occur for the left. Highly energized, the mob supports what is basically a riot given the veneer of military activity, and take revenge on the existing hierarchy by destroying it, then replacing it with their own version. We all know how revolutions end, which is in civilization failure, so there is no point taking this route.

The right, on the other hand, takes over by demonstrating viability and then disenfranchising people to protect them from themselves. It is worth repeating: as individual humans, our worst enemies are ourselves. Our desires, judgments and feelings mislead us where factual reality would help us, but we reject it because it is both emotionally un-fulfilling and scary because it does not attempt to banish risk like ideology does. Our own decisions doom us. We do best with social order that keeps us in line.

As this line of thought advances, it takes us to 100% conservative ideals, which we might describe as our civilization before decay set in. This is the type of civilization which has been adopted throughout all of human civilization by civilizations which rise above the third-world levels of existence under which most humans, at all times in history, labor. A 100% conservative civilization will have a strong identity, caste distinctions, social standards and values imposed by culture, and a thriving aristocracy. It will replace the State and throw it away as the unnecessary relic of a failed time that it is.

Perhaps Nietzsche can elucidate:

We see exactly the opposite with the noble man, who conceives the fundamental idea “good” in advance and spontaneously by himself and from there first creates a picture of “bad” for himself. This “bad” originating from the noble man and that “evil” arising out of the stew pot of insatiable hatred – of these the first is a later creation, an afterthought, a complementary colour; whereas the second is the original, the beginning, the essential act of conception in slave morality.

Although the two words “bad” and “evil” both seem opposite to the same idea of “good”, how different they are. But it is not the same idea of the “good”; it is much rather a question of who the “evil man” really is, in the sense of the morality of resentment. The strict answer to that is this: precisely the “good man” of the other morality, the noble man himself, the powerful, the ruling man, only coloured over, reinterpreted, and seen through the poisonous eyes of resentment.

Here there is one thing we will be the last to deny: the man who knows these “good men” only as enemies, knows them as nothing but evil enemies, and the same men who are so strongly held bound by custom, honour, habit, thankfulness, even more by mutual suspicion and jealousy inter pares [among equals] and who, by contrast, demonstrate in relation to each other such resourceful consideration, self-control, refinement, loyalty, pride, and friendship – these men, once outside where the strange world, the foreign, begins, are not much better than beasts of prey turned loose. There they enjoy freedom from all social constraints. In the wilderness they make up for the tension which a long fenced-in confinement within the peace of the community brings about. They go back to the innocent consciousness of a wild beast of prey, as joyful monsters, who perhaps walk away from a dreadful sequence of murder, arson, rape, and torture with exhilaration and spiritual equilibrium, as if they had merely pulled off a student prank, convinced that the poets now have something more to sing about and praise for a long time.

At the bottom of all these noble races we cannot fail to recognize the beast of prey, the blond beast splendidly roaming around in its lust for loot and victory. This hidden basis from time to time needs to be discharged: the animal must come out again, must go back into the wilderness — Roman, Arab, German, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings — in this need they are all alike.

It was the noble races which left behind the concept of the “barbarian” in all their tracks, wherever they went. A consciousness of and a pride in this fact reveals itself even in their highest culture (for example, when Pericles says to his Athenians, in that famous Funeral Speech, “our audacity has broken a way through to every land and sea, putting up permanent memorials to itself for good and ill.”). This “audacity” of the noble races, mad, absurd, sudden in the way it expresses itself, its unpredictability, even the improbability of its undertakings – Pericles emphatically praises the rayhumia [mental balance, freedom from anxiety] of the Athenians – its indifference to and contempt for safety, body, life, comfort, its fearsome cheerfulness and the depth of its joy in all destruction, in all the physical pleasures of victory and cruelty – everything summed up for those who suffer from such audacity in the image of the “barbarian,” the “evil enemy,” something like the “Goth” or the “Vandal.”

The deep, icy mistrust which the German evokes, as soon as he comes to power – even today – is still an after-effect of that unforgettable terror with which for a century Europe confronted the rage of the blond German beast (although there is hardly any idea linking the old Germanic tribes and we Germans, let alone any blood relationship). — Friedrich Nietzsche, “Good and Evil, Evil and Bad,” On the Genealogy of Morals

The blond beast is what we need to restore. The blond beast is humanity at its best: heedless of danger, asserting what is right that it can see with an inner genius. An aristocracy of blond beasts provides the only sensible leadership for us because it can achieve what the rest of us cannot.

Why did the blond beasts die out? Their plans worked. They made great societies, much like Neoreactionaries, and then all the people who could not do that surged in, made money and took the blond women on that basis. The result is a mixed hodge-podge of genetics like we have now.

Golden ages may be restored, but not solely by typing theory onto the internet, and not by radical and ill-conceived plans of revolution and “action” that consists of wanton violence. The solution is to re-take our institutions and dismantle them, bypassing libertarianism for outright Social Darwinism that disenfranchises those unfit to make leadership decisions, and from that to for the first time in history move a society from decay to health.

The path for Neoreaction and New Right thinkers who wish to achieve this goal is not to make ourselves another demotist community that thrives on the votes (or Google AdWords impressions on blogs) of the masses, but forms a cultural consensus among the natural elites to work toward this end. We do not need more theory and closed-circuit intellectualism. We need to clarify our ideas, simplify them and begin putting them into actuality.

Rape laws hurt men

how_feminists_see_men

Until discipline kicks in, our minds operate as a series of reactions. We see something we do not like and we smash it. This is why human history resembles a pendulum swinging between extremes, gradually approaching a middle ground before a new issue sends us running off and we leave the old half-resolved one in stasis.

Few people realize what a crisis has manifested in the prosecution of rape in the United States. It now requires no evidence — other than that sex occurred, which is rarely in doubt — to convict a man for casual sex that the woman regrets the next day. If she complains, he goes to jail and gets to spend all of his money on the best attorney he can buy.

In any other crime, we demand evidence. Not just of the event, but that the person in question did it. Rape adds another level of complexity in that sex is not illegal, but sex without consent is now treated as the same crime as lying in wait with a club and beating some girl unconscious then having your way with her. The cops, courts and media assume consent was not given if a complaint arises.

This development takes us back to the types of prosecutions American law was carefully designed to avoid. The colonists feared the environment that was currently present in many parts of Europe where a simple accusation was enough to convict. The Constitution and other documents set up a complex legal system which required a full trial for any conviction, with evidence and a chance for defense.

America in 2015 AD has done away with “evidence” and with it the chance for defense. The usual defense, among both guilty and non-guilty, is that the woman consented. And what evidence do we have for that? Why, her word the next morning, of course! Her complaint is both an accusation and proof of its truth to the courts.

Witness this terrifying statement made by a criminal justice official:

“If a woman says, ‘He’s the guy that raped me,’ and you have corroborating evidence to show they were together and she went to the hospital and she can identify him, that guy goes to jail.”

If they can show the two were together, she went to a hospital, and she can identify him… how on earth is this any different than a casual sex encounter that she regrets the next day? It also provides a good chance to shake down a man with money by raising charges, then offering to drop them in exchange for a voluntary donation of some kind.

The criminal justice official points out that what is not needed is any proof that her consent was not given. She can go back to his hotel room, drink with him all night, get naked next to him and even begin sexual activity. If she decides her consent is no longer good, or revokes it the next day, he is guilty of a crime that we inexplicably treat more like murder than error.

Why would a woman lie about consent? Other than the shakedown mentioned above, reasons come into play such as regret, or having been caught cheating. Rape is a crime frequently reported and often found to be falsely reported:

The feminist dogma that “women never lie” goes largely unchallenged. “Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes,” says Craig Silverman, a former Colorado prosecutor known for zealous prosecutions. Purdue University sociologist Eugene Kanin found that “41% of the total disposed rape cases were officially declared false” during a nine-year period, “that is, by the complainant’s admission that no rape had occurred.” Kanin discovered three functions of false accusations: “providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention.” The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) adds that “false rape accusations also have been filed to extort money from celebrities, to gain sole custody of children in divorce cases, and even to escape military deployments to war zones.”

In our desire to smash back against men for being able to rape, feminists and American society have concoted the ultimate crime: punished like the worst of felonies, but with less evidence required than for running a stop sign. (At least when a police officer testifies you have run a stop sign, he must note the date, time and road conditions.)

As always, the pendulum swings backward, which is right now what liberals are fighting. After having campaigned for years to make this issue important, they want you to stop looking and move on to another issue. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Because when rape becomes the power of a woman’s word, women will always have the upper hand — and rule by terror — in sexual relations.

Legalize murder

legalize_murder

Extending the series of unflatteringly anarchic posts on this site, a new concept reveals itself: we should no longer criminalize murder.

This means that there would be no criminal consequences for murder. You kill and… no government SWAT teams descend to arrest you, throw you in a van and haul you off to a holding cell.

However, there could still be other penalties. The Althing, the Nordic method of rule, acknowledged the payment of large sums to the families of the murdered. If you could not show that the killing was in self-defense, you were presumed to owe them money. If you wanted to stay in that community, you paid up and the matter was considered settled.

These were not trivial sums, as victims get today. They enabled families to survive and often expand their holdings.

Of course, to have this kind of system you need to do something to protect yourself against those who would simply claim bankruptcy. This is why these societies put people who ran up debt into servitude.

Where is the wisdom in all of this? our modern minds cry out. There is no safety, no security, no justice!

Those cries are an artifact of our tendency to think entirely linearly. Here we are looking at a mechanism with multiple forces working at the same time. It is not as simple as arrest->trial, but it is more effective.

In our current society, a murderer can look forward to some time in jail where other people pay for him to live. He will become not only the State’s prisoner, but its responsibility. His housing, medical care and upkeep are all taken care of. It is very unlikely he will get the death penalty and even then, it will be years or decades before he is executed.

Under the Nordic system, the murderer must take responsibility. When he kills, and it is not self-defense, he pays. He must have money, or he will be put into servitude, so he also has a responsibility to the community to be contributing to it. He cannot simply choose to do nothing for a living, or he will be seen as useless. At the same time, earning a living takes on a more vital role as contribution to the community and not extraction from it. Modern people view their salaries as something they are paid by society; in the older view, income was the result of the act of participating in maintaining and advancing the civilization.

Now, you say, but what about the unknown murderer? As it turns out, those are relatively rare; most victims know their killers. For the others, the only solution is a lack of anonymity, but not in the psychotic linear thinking that produces a “panopticon” where everyone is on camera all the time.

Instead, we might consider smaller communities. People live in towns of 500 where all are known to each other. If they must commute to a city, it can scarcely be farther than most drive anyway. There will be wilderness surrounding all human communities and so the air will be cleaner and the water purer. Towns tend to cluster such that they are a few miles of wilderness apart but in frequent communication. This is a more mature view of the modern suburb and gated community.

Without anonymity, people know those around them. They cannot say that now because people arrive from far away, do a few symbolic gestures to seem good, and then are accepted. Their histories remain unknown, as do the situations they have overcome and what that reveals about their character. All is public relations and no truth remains.

Our minds are so trained to see only one way of self-regulation that we recoil at the idea of legalizing murder. Criminalizing it however adds many layers of people whose constant struggles for power produce chaos. Perhaps the victims of murder are more than the dead, but include all of us as our society deconstructs itself under the weight of the dangerous assumption that law is the only order.

Neutering

a_modern_tragedy

Have you ever stopped to think about how much the things we assume are “good” are designed to neuter us?

Consider democracy. The votes of the foolish, distracted, drunk and thoughtless outnumber the smart. The result is that nothing will get done that could possibly change direction from keeping the lights on and letting people do whatever they want. It took them seventy years to chip away at social standards but now they do not exist.

Consider checks and balances. Americans brag of how their system of democracy functions because it has internal “checks and balances” that ensure that no part has more power than the others. But then what happens is perpetual internal conflict resolved with the usual compromise, which strikingly resembles the unchanging direction of democracy. Why even have politicians then?

Consider equality. Some are above others in ability; we want to ensure that results are equal. This requires lowering the higher, since the lower cannot be raised. This neuters anyone of exceptional ability by telling them that their abilities are unwanted and, even if they do succeed, what they create will be taken from them. Money is more than wealth. It is the power to continue doing what one has done and expand on it. That is what is neutered.

Consider even our modern form of politeness. Once politeness was a way to disagree without making it personal. Now, politeness means not mentioning anything which anyone present might find controversial, or it is considered a personal attack even if not intended that way. This neuters any conversation about actual issues and defers that to the press (terrible idea).

Our society exists on the assumption that neutering avoids an evil, namely extremism, and that by avoiding evil, we are left with good. In actuality, what remains is indecision and gradual but inevitable decline.

Minimum wage chases bad policy with worse policy

minimum_wage_labor

Put up periscope, see what the hive is buzzing about. The rising trend — which we are all supposed to cash in on because popularity determines profitability — is the chatter over the minimum wage. The most recent salvo has been fired as media realized that they can make a case that public welfare is subsidizing big business:

Here’s a stark number for understanding how low-wage employers are relying on the kindness of taxpayers: $153 billion.

That’s the annual bill that state and federal governments are footing for working families making poverty-level wages at big corporations such as Walmart (WMT) and McDonald’s (MCD), according to a new study from the University of California Berkeley Labor Center. Because these workers are paid so little, they are increasingly turning to government aid programs such as food stamps to keep them from dire poverty, the study found.

Let us for a moment set aside our concerns with studies, which use imprecise data sampling to draw broad conclusions, and assume that this policy is true. It is probably not, since the center that produced the study has an interest in gaining headlines and creating itself an audience. It is the academic equivalent of clickbait, maybe call it “peerbait.”

Liberals — who do not think, at least in the sense of trying to estimate correct answers to real world problems — think that this means we should raise the minimum wage.

In fact, it suggests that we should do away with the minimum wage and public welfare alike. If these are subsidizing the market, then we have created a false economy based on government payouts. Remove both minimum wage and welfare and see what these firms have to pay in order to attract workers.

Wonder what that will be?

My guess is that we will find that this study over-counted the elderly greeters at Wal-mart and the teen employees of these firms and used that data to pop the image into our heads of a starving family, putting food stamps and minimum wage together to get by. As the firms themselves will tell you, these jobs — the minimum-wage jobs — are not intended as permanent positions. They are designed for people to get their initial experience in the labor market or use as temporary labor when bouncing back from a misfortune.

Other employees are there mostly to get out of the house. Wal-mart greeters love the extra money they bring in but also gain a sense of being relevant again. Otherwise, it would be sitting around waiting for Social Security checks while watching daytime television. Lots and lots of television, wondering each time it gets blurry if it is simply a bad signal, fading vision, a nap incoming or — gasp! — the big one.

With public welfare, all sorts of behaviors are subsidized because welfare demands nothing more than being poor. There is no accountability or activity requirement for the person involved. You subsidize criminal activity, gang activity, indolence, small amounts of low-level entrepreneurship, drug use, and alcoholism in addition to these evil dastardly big corporations.

The left seems to be trying to counteract the knowledge that a work requirement reduces food stamp participation by 70%:

Between Dec. 1 and April 1, the percentage of able-bodied adults without dependents has dropped by more than 70 percent.

On Oct. 1, Maine implemented a work or volunteer requirement for these able-bodied adults to continue their participation in the Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program.

I am the last person to endorse work-worship. I think that most of what we spend our time doing is wasted time and make-work, and that government only makes it worse by creating jobs through regulations that then require more bureaucrats doing more work that is too boring to contemplate. Even more, I think work as a goal is a false goal. The goal should be a meaningful, fulfilling life, and that varies with the individual according to ability but probably not preference.

I admire Wal-mart for setting up a situation where workers stew at minimum wage until they demonstrate that they are useful on some level, and think that all jobs should be like this, because the greatest creator of make-work is the need to dumb down jobs so that useless people can do them. Keep the useless out of those jobs and jobs get more interesting. When you need to include ornamental people in a job title, the responsibilities of the job narrow and become more repetitive, because the droolers can do those. Everyone else suffers mass tedium.

Where Republicans go wrong, in my view, is that they often endorse this “put your head down, work hard, mow your lawn and everything will be OK!” These goals are nonsense. It makes sense to say that one should contribute to society, but not if society becomes parasitic as it has. Further, you can never focus only on your own life and hope for the best. Without leadership, civilizations crash like Malaysian Air planes.

But here the left is encouraging us to chase bad policy with worse policy. Public welfare is part of the over half of our budget called “entitlement programs” that consist of direct payments to citizens. It achieves nothing but creation of a parasite slave state, in which the productive are enslaved to support the useless, much as was the case in Soviet Russia. Minimum wage is more bad policy because it regulates by law what the market uses to promote productive workers over unproductive, namely wages. Affirmative action and other well-intentioned government programs also make a mess.

In all of these cases, government sees itself as the enemy of quality control. It wants to guarantee every worker, no matter how useless, a high wage, instead of allowing the market to reward those who rise above mediocrity. This may pacify voters, but it creates a nation of the useless and makes jobs boring for the rest. Let go of that vision, and dispatch both of these horrible programs at once.

The problem is not what you are told it is

pay_attention_to_the_illusion

It’s very hard to recognize the truth when you are bombarded by lies all the time, every minute of the day. Even in sleep, because you dream of the places you have during the day. You are bombarded by commercials and completely senseless information every minute of the day. If you turn on the TV, you are bombarded; if you turn your head in some direction, you see some sign or some commercial. If you read magazines, newspapers… senseless information. The news are themselves products being sold. Everything is meaningless. Sure, the truth is out there — not to sound like some ‘X-files’ but — the truth is of course to be found, but in a sea of lies. It’s just impossible to find it unless you know how to look, where to look and when to look. Of course, it’s not possible to just get up in the morning and just say ‘OK, I’m going to go find the truth this day,’ and go find it. You have to try, and fail, and eventually you will weed out all the lies and you end up with something at least similar to the truth. The truth is hidden, under grass, under some rocks, in a hidden trail, a forgotten trail in a forest. And when you are trying to find these trails, you will stumble, you will get snagged on branches in your face, you will make mistakes before you finally find it. – Varg Vikernes, quoted in Until the Light Takes Us

In a conflict, an enemy can be met with equal force, but a better approach involves using the momentum of the enemy to both deflect his effectiveness and expend his strength on the wrong target. In martial arts, a fighter can sidestep and twist an attacker so that his own inertia carries him into the ground, and in war an army can deceive the enemy into attacking at the wrong place, then savage the depleted forces from an oblique angle.

The modern West is like a man with a monkey on his back, striking out at perceived enemies but never able to diagnose its own illness which corrupts everything that it does.

When things go badly, the human tendency is for each person to find something to blame. They feel that if they find a plausible target, casting the blame in that direction makes them look smarter and stand out from others. It is no different than gorillas in the forest preening; the animal seeks to make itself look good, and difficult truths do not help that aim.

The press and government believe that our problem is a lack of social justice. Others find innumerable details to blame. Few will look at the source of the problem, which is that our civilization is collapsing.

Civilization is not government. It is the combined efforts of people to have permanent settlement in which higher aspects of human life — culture, learning, justice, art — can flourish. That results from people sacrificing some autonomy in exchange for stability and, through economies of scale and specialization, the ability to have more than they could on their own. Civilization includes government, institutions, culture, society, and the people themselves.

As history shows us, civilizations have a life cycle. Most of them die out relatively quickly, and history usually records a final event like an invasion that would have been repulsed easily just a century before. The question arises then what causes the civilization to become weakened such that its failure in battle was a foregone conclusion. The answer is internal decay.

Like ecosystems in nature, civilizations rely on an intricate balance of forces within them. This does not mean “balance” in the modern sense of oppositional sides, but internal stability caused by the interaction of its parts. Farmers must grow, soldiers must fight, and leaders must lead, and somehow they must find a way to work together. Civilization is the process of collaboration.

When a civilization is dying, that internal balance is replaced by division and corruption. Edward Gibbon, author of the monumental The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, knew more than any other thinker of how civilizations collapse. His analysis was as follows:

The five marks of the Roman decaying culture:

  • Concern with displaying affluence instead of building wealth;
  • Obsession with sex and perversions of sex;
  • Art becomes freakish and sensationalistic instead of creative and original;
  • Widening disparity between very rich and very poor;
  • Increased demand to live off the state.

Stop to think: how many of those do you see in the West today? The West consists of the nations formed and peopled by those ethnic groups we consider Western European, and includes Western Europe, The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Our society has become a picture show. Our leaders posture at knowledge, but their solutions are “ideological” or based on what people believe should be true, not focused on what is true. The media is hopelessly corrupted. People have become grotesque, adorning themselves with ironic oddities and spending their time on mindless entertainment and attention whoring. The rich get richer by pandering to this group, our art has become entirely dramatic and theoretical without beauty, and most people believe the solution is to have the state subsidize them. The pattern fits.

Consider Plato’s description of the individual in late democracy:

And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names; insolence they term breeding, and anarchy liberty, and waste magnificence, and impudence courage. And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures.

Yes, he said, the change in him is visible enough.

After this he lives on, spending his money and labour and time on unnecessary pleasures quite as much as on necessary ones; but if he be fortunate, and is not too much disordered in his wits, when years have elapsed, and the heyday of passion is over –supposing that he then re-admits into the city some part of the exiled virtues, and does not wholly give himself up to their successors –in that case he balances his pleasures and lives in a sort of equilibrium, putting the government of himself into the hands of the one which comes first and wins the turn; and when he has had enough of that, then into the hands of another; he despises none of them but encourages them all equally.

A person devoted to triviality, who knows nothing of what is required to achieve what he enjoys, takes it for granted and by losing purpose, becomes entirely trivial. This extends to the whole society, which explains the Gibbonsian factors above: culture trivializes, people turn to the state for support, and the population collapses into many lonely people in apartments trying to be “unique” and a few rich overlords who cater to them.

Look at the companies getting wealthy today. They are selling clicks, not innovations. They are failing to improve life, but they are improving their products, meaning improving their margins. Much as fast food is more profitable than real food, products that make more money are not necessarily more useful or of higher quality. They are more likely to be lower-quality substitutes sold at high prices on the basis of novelty, which fits into the triviality of the average modern person.

As this problem rears its head over the future, the Left serves the role of apologist. They distract, deflect, and make compensatory statements but do not address the problem. They are the equivalent of re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic: “Sure, our society is about to collapse. But we must make sure we equally distribute the corpse, and include minorities, gays and women in the payout!”

Some on the right have figured out just how broken the left is, and advocate warring against them. While their approach is logical, more must be done. We must go to war not against something, but for something: we want civilization back.

This problem parallels the universal reason majorities are at a disadvantage in public. A majority has no issue; it wants life to continue, maybe improve qualitatively. Minorities have specific issues which polarize people because they are details and not a bigger picture view. They can attack the majority by pointing to their specific issue, claiming the exception disproves the rule, and seizing power on the basis of the guilt and shame created.

However, that approach has not done anything but accelerate the decline.

Conservatives need to realize that what we conserve is not the past but an idealized vision of civilization. We strive for “the good, the beautiful and the true” and “the perennial things” (Huxley) or “tradition” (Evola). We look toward what is transcendently beautiful and try to make it appear in our society. Our goal is no longer to resist the left, or even to resist decline. It is to build a new civilization that rises above the ruins of the old.

Legalize Rape, revisited

legalize_rape_revisited

My article “Legalize Rape” met with widespread misinterpretation. Most of its critics did not read past the title, which is typical, but others did not understand its mix of satire and real reasoning.

The point of the article is this: we are applying heavy penalties for rape at a time when rape is no longer as serious of a crime.

In the 1880s, a woman raped had lost her virtue and was seriously damaged as to her prospects for marriage. In the current era, few expect women to be virgins at marriage — although virginity at marriage leads to the happiest and most solid marriages — and women have sex with dozens of men in their lifetimes.

As a result, rape is no longer the capital crime it once was. It is now a variant of assault, like what happens when a man gets beat up in a bar fight. We barely even prosecute those anymore because they come down to he said/she said situations.

Imagine this scenario:

  1. Man and woman go separately to a bar, party or frat house.
  2. Man and woman separately drink, smoke weed and/or take other drugs.
  3. At some point, they meet and shortly afteward, have sex in an isolated area.
  4. The next day, she claims it is rape; he claims it is consensual.

That is what most rape cases look like now. Two people, in a situation where people often have casual sex, and the question of consent rears its ugly head.

Feminists, being the ideological blockheads they are, have been screaming for years to reduce rape from a crime requiring violent submission of the victim to an issue of mere choice. But the violence has a purpose: it provides a trail of evidence.

Evidence, you see, is how civilized societies determine culpability. With the definition of rape as a mere revocation or unclear consent, there is no trail of evidence. Under the feminist rule, a man accused would be a man convicted, every time.

That is an obvious injustice.

The equal injustice however occurs in cases of actual rape. We tell young women not to fight back, and so at the end of the night, we have no more evidence than we would from casual sex. A rape kit reveals if she has had sex, and with whom if DNA is present, and if there is vaginal tearing. But this is common in any vigorous sex which, especially if the partners are drunk, is relatively common. No justice there.

One option is to go to the military standard which says that drunk people cannot consent to sex. If you have sex with a drunk person and they claim rape, the charge will stick, so do not have sex with drunk people. In theory, that is fine, but in reality you usually have two drunk and/or drugged people in the courtroom. Should we convict them both?

This is a sick comedy where 18th century morals are used to justify destroying a man’s life for a crime without evidence.

This is why we should legalize rape, if our citizens are so foolish as to insist that casual sex remain accepted.

Make it a property crime. She has gone to the club to have sex; that fact is undisputed. She either revoked consent or he never achieved it; either way, it is not a case of her virtue and marriageability being destroyed, but that she had sex with the wrong man.

She is thus entitled to some monetary compensation equal to the value of what is lost. But it is no longer virtue being lost, more like a few hours of time. Pay her at the day rate.

Yes, that is cold and many of you are outraged. But your outrage is a sham. It is the outrage of someone who has been living in denial. This is the face of casual sex: sex is cheap and consent is cheap, and so rape should not be an expensive and life-destroying crime.

This outrages feminists who are secret authoritarians who desire any power they can have, believing that having external power will assuage their internal void of soul. Not so, ladies.

An exception can be made for attack rape, you know, the old-fashioned kind where a guy wearing a balaclava waits in the dark and launches himself from a bush at some woman as she walks home, then beats her senseless and takes her with violence. That is what most people think of when they say “rape,” but that crime has been confused with the more modern pitfall of “hazy consent,” which should be a far lesser crime.

I am certain that those who misinterpreted the original article will have trouble with this one as well. After all, I have crossed a major taboo line which is that in a society dedicated to equality, exceptions must be normed and thus one always argues from the perspective of the victim if one wants to win votes or court cases. This however is also the pathway to our doom.

It’s time to be honest about the relationship between casual sex and hazy consent. It is not a life-ending crime. It is a minor one, on the level of a fistfight in a bar or a car crash, and yet we treat it like a sacred crime when the behavior of the victims is anything but sacred.

A society dedicated to victimhood will wage war on those who are strong because it presumes they are victimizers. It is time to turn that illusion around, starting with revocation of the sacred status accorded to hazy consent.