Posts Tagged ‘sex’

Love, Sex and Marriage

Friday, September 1st, 2017

One of the inputs into the Alt Right was the spectrum of movements from Men’s Rights (MRA), Pick Up Artists (PUA) and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). These consisted of young men who realized that the current model of marriage and dating is broken, and that it can be manipulated because it is inherently manipulative.

The primary reason for this manipulation is sexual liberation, which detaches sex from love and family, and therefore makes it into a commodity. This can be traded for favors, including social favors, and is viewed as a hedonistic good in itself, which means that men no longer need to demonstrate that they bring anything to a woman’s life except the sex act itself for a brief period of time.

As MRAs et al. went deeper into this theory, they came to realize that this detachment from consequences in turn makes the sex act for its own sake empty and unfulfilling. As if a light switch had been flipped, the first generation of this post-1970s men’s rights and pick-up artist genre modulated into more of a traditionalist view of women as having complementary roles to male roles, and both sexes as benefiting from chastity, family-orientation and a motion toward love, which requires both affection for and appreciation of another being, and enough of a transcendental outlook to believe in the concept of love as more than a trick of the chemicals in our brains.

In other words, those who explored sex as fully detached — or worthy of a pursuit in itself — came to the opposite view, which is that sex is only useful as a means to an end. This is significant because in the modern time, based on the idea of the human individual having primacy as described in The Enlightenment™ that then morphed into egalitarianism, our view is that all of reality is a means-to-the-end of human sensations, beginning with comfort and safety, and inverting this would have us see sensation as a means to an end of greatness, excellence, beauty or other transcendental values.

With the rise and proliferation of the Alt Right, much theorizing has gone on about the role of women. Some believe they should be oppressed; others see complementary roles as the basis for action in unison toward a transcendental goal of the intersection of love, family and future. Over the past few decades, as casual sex and divorce have permeated our culture, some dissidents have stood up for that goal against the prevailing “if it feels good, do it” cultural wave. One such account shows us the joy of marriage as something more than people using one another; it transcends manipulation and self-interest…

I genuinely believe Chris and I have maintained our “like” for each other throughout infertility, mental illness, trauma and heartbreaks, two children and two career changes because we see each other as partners in every sense of the word. He has never tried to force me into the role of housekeeper, primary carer, on-demand sex toy with a pulse, or support staff.

When my first book came out, I lost count of how many people asked me how Chris was coping with my success. Chris’s ego was not threatened by my moment in the spotlight. Not only was he proud of my success, he was also part of it. It was our success. But I think this question reveals a lot about the power dynamics in many marriages and points to why it is so easy to lose the “like”.

I am not the woman behind the man, nor am I the woman in front of him. I am the woman next to my man.

…and contrasts the shocking soul-crushing experience of divorce, which repudiates the higher goal of marriage, and transfers that to the children, who are left feeling that they are unwanted mistakes:

When they did finally divorce, and I was in my late 20s, it came as a complete shock. I was crushed when my dad told me he had wasted 30
years of his life. Not only did it make my entire childhood a farce: it made me feel responsible for my parents’ unhappiness.

When happiness is measured by individual social power and sensation, then the individual is an end in itself, and the spouse becomes a means to that end, instead of both spouses seeing themselves as means to the end of a happy union, family, love, children and a lifelong bond.

As always, the pursuit of the self defeats us, as one woman found out when she destroyed a loving marriage in search of what was ultimately a phantom of her ego:

Eight years after that wonderful engagement party in 1989, I walked away from dear, devoted, loyal Matthew, convinced that somewhere out there, a better, more exciting, more fulfilling life awaited me.

Only there wasn’t.

Now I am 42 and have all the trappings of success – a high-flying career, financial security and a home in the heart of London’s trendy Notting Hill. But I don’t have the one thing I crave more than anything: a loving husband and family.

You see, I never did find another man who offered everything Matthew did, who understood me and loved me like he did. Someone who was my best friend as well as my lover.

When people think of love, it seems, they are focused on the outward aspects of the relationship, or how it makes them feel. Although it sounds more prosaic, love seems to come from those who are willing to enjoy each other and work together because of a willingness to appreciate the inner traits of the other, and discipline the outer needs to make the relationship work. Sometimes, self-sacrifice is called for.

Interestingly, this article also unleashes a pointed criticism of casual sex and dating:

I have had one other significant relationship since Richard – with Rob – but that recently ended after four years. Rob reminded me a lot of Matthew. He was decent and honourable, the life and soul of the party but with a kind and sensitive side.

But we were each too jaded by previous heartbreak to make it work.

The more experiences one has, the less one is bonded to any particular experience. It is not surprising that the more sexual partners one has, the more likely one is to divorce, which implies a difficulty maintaining bonds as described above.

According to at least one writer, love is not the exciting moments, but the comfortable and mundane ones, giving us a different vision of romantic love:

As the lover you get the edited highlights of a marriage: the laughter, the smiles, the sex. A relationship with none of the boring bits.

But what we lacked was emotional closeness — that lovely sense of wasting time together and the accompanying feeling of certainty.

Much like the children of divorce, what people crave in love is the sense of trust and ability to enjoy one another as people, and not means to an end of the self. When the ego takes over, marriage is destroyed by making it — like dating or casual sex — into an at-will contract where as long as the other person is convenient, they have a place. People want a place that is eternal, and only traditional love and family provide that.

Sex and Civilization

Monday, August 28th, 2017

The recent Goolag Memo invoked an opportunity to discuss its contents in a larger civilizational perspective, which means one where we look at interdependence of humans within an organization, namely a society or civilization.

Organizations require internal and external communications. During the past few decays, entropy ensured that external communications quickly devolved to Public Relations and internal communications were effectively ignored. This were observable in the many “whiste-blower” cases (such as Enron, WorldCom and the FBI) where corporations publicly encouraged employees to speak up, but when they did, they were quickly (privately) fired.

Whistle-blowers revealed issues that were too sensitive to be used in a normal grievance procedure, so management encouraged them to come forward, and the dismissed them while playing off the problems as if they were always personal, when in fact the issues at hand were company-oriented and not personal at all.

The conflict between organizational and personal issues becomes complex when we consider that enabling personalities to mesh is one of the basic duties of a manager. For example, the Biosphere 2 experiment involved more personal circumstances and technical survival skills than organizational proficiency, but what really transpired was a clash of personalities:

More serious management problems during a second human confinement in 1994 heralded the experiment’s early cancellation and this brought the world’s longest closed system human confinement project to an end.

The interdependency between team members were closely selected for, and monitored during the experiment, in line with similar ventures such as Antarctica and space missions. Their loyalty to the “cause” prevented them from an early exit but was “explained” via correlating to low oxygen atmospheres.

An organization, composed of interdependencies, finds that personalities can become incompatible over time or in certain contexts. These contexts occur in the overlap between organizational structure and the individuals expected to rely on each other to carry out those roles.

In the social organization known as civilization, an interdependency that we do not discuss openly is sex. Women play a massive role in society but it seems a bit underappreciated while their equality is widely touted, like praising the Party in the USSR. The Goolag Memo actually pointed this out, but some may have missed it.

With a hat tip to Rolf Degen, I happened on to Angela Saini’s book Inferior wherein she describes how women are being re-discovered. There is more to her thesis than that, but it reveals that if you re-discover women, you will inevitably re-discover men.

The one aspect jumping out at me was how older men preferred having sex with younger women. This applies to any man, anywhere, but because women are “inferior,” the topic is too sensitive for civilization’s “grievance procedure.” In part, this is because women are too vital to the emerging Family World Order.

Investigating women’s productive capacity includes by definition the ability to bear children. This led to the “Grandmother Hypothesis” where menopause focuses women on raising children and grandchildren. However, new thoughts on this blame man and before you complain, read the book The Patriarch Hypothesis with the following abstract:

Menopause is puzzling because life-history theory predicts there should be no selection for outliving one’s reproductive capacity. Adaptive explanations of menopause offered thus far turn on women’s long-term investment in offspring and grandoffspring, all variations on the grandmother hypothesis. Here, I offer a very different explanation. The patriarch hypothesis proposes that once males became capable of maintaining high status and reproductive access beyond their peak physical condition, selection favored the extension of maximum life span in males. Because the relevant genes were not on the Y chromosome, life span increased in females as well. However, the female reproductive span was constrained by the depletion of viable oocytes, which resulted in menopause.

A metaphor for this would be a lion male living longer because he has many lionesses, regardless of whether the original lioness goes into a menopause. She doesn’t mind because the younger lionesses are hunting for her too. This matriarchal thesis places the female in charge of the process, which allows her to select longer-living mates in exchange for tolerating polygyny.

We see how the interdependencies of human society are both personal and organizational. When we rediscover women, and through that learn more about men, we see how sex drives civilization alongside other influences. People depend on one another as individuals, and as roles in relation to one another, and separating the personal from the function becomes difficult.

From that, it becomes clear that humans are not just individuals, or functions, but personalities which need a place where they fit exactly in order to work with the interdependencies inherent to any organization. A person in the wrong place is toxic to the organization; an organization which excludes people from necessary dialogue is like the company with a whistle-blower, engaged in deception.

For this reason, it is possible to accept women as both not-equal and uniquely necessary. We underappreciate them by treating them as tokens of their sex, or using them for sex alone, forgetting that like the lions and lionesses, we are engaged in a strategic process of selecting behaviors that further the species so that our individual efforts endure and prosper.

In a Right future, we will look at reproduction not as a question of the biological act alone, but the context in which the child is raised and how this contributes to stability of the child. Whether we stay on Earth, or jet off to Mars to start again, the union between the personal and the organizational is found in complementary roles where each person has a vital and unique place.

White Sharia Will Make You Dumb

Friday, August 18th, 2017

Out there on the internet, which daily more resembles an asylum designed to keep the patients occupied instead of an actual public space, there is talk of “white sharia,” or the idea that we need strict rules to keep women in line because of the rampant promiscuity, dishonesty and exploitation of men that has occurred in the decades since the 1960s.

This thinking encounters a fundamental problem: it is based in the liberal idea that people are equal, and therefore that we can treat them as categories when in fact there are gradations. For example, women come from different caste groups, and higher caste women do not behave in the ways described by the white sharia advocates, for the most part. Part of this is simply because they have better options, and so are more likely to have advanced education, careers, then exit those and have a full home life raising kids in a family with a successful man.

On the other hand, a woman whose future will be as a sex object in the clubs until she hits her thirties and has to fall back on being a barista, Facebook consultant, paralegal or other relatively menial task. She may achieve a family, but she will find it hard to attract a top-notch man because men inherently recognize market-style values, and estimate the value of a woman by the cross-section of her abilities, beauty, intelligence, and chastity. A woman who behaves like a prostitute will be treated as having lesser value.

There are variations along the way. Most women are in the middle, and men prioritize different attributes. Some men seek intelligence above all else, especially if they feel that the next generation can climb in status if it is more capable, and others are looking more toward character as a way of preserving what they have. None of this matters excessively because most men both seek out women of similar characteristics to themselves, and find it difficult to acquire a woman from higher innate biological ranking, although some gain temporary breeding rights by dint of their wealth, power or celebrity. And yet, nothing is more common than the beautiful wife of a toadish powerful man having trysts with the pool man, who is both more authentic than her husband and closer to her own ethical level. The best women marry for nothing less than an enduring love, which is formed of friendship, itself formed from mutual admiration and complementary abilities, those in turn forming the root of cooperation.

White Sharia seeks to fix all women at once, as if they were equally in error and could be improved to an equal level, when even a small amount of observation shows us this is not true. In a class of thirty girls, five will be headed toward academic stardom, five will be headed toward extreme promiscuity, prostitution and drug use, and everyone else will be in the middle. The young women that you see sleeping around are generally those without other options. Not particularly intelligent, beautiful, moral or with any particular talents, they become “hypergamous” or offer themselves around freely, perhaps acting out a commandment from nature to capture enough genetic material to reproduce despite being unable to attract a husband. Eventually they attract men of a similar level, and have most of their children by that union. However, they are usually always open to offers from something more promising, following the natural urge to breed up as high as they can. This parallels the r/K strategy divide: those with higher ability are more sexually selective, meaning that they invest more in the choice or quality rather than quantity, much like they will have fewer (2-7) offspring and attempt to raise them well. Women who are wealthy are more inclined to hire nannies and tutors to make this process easier, so that they can share their attention among the children, giving them the guidance they need while someone else does the basic instruction.

In this process, we see the same principle that underlies natural selection: sorting. Women sort themselves by their innate characteristics, themselves a product of genetics and reflecting caste and class origins, and the ones who are top-notch rise to the top and demand a top man. This man not be a rich man, only one who will take care of them and has some kind of purpose and joy in life. These are the true alphas, and some of them are plumbers and some are artists; a woman will choose the best she can within her caste, generally. The purpose is the important point. An alpha is one who approaches life and makes from it something that uses his characteristics and talents to their best utility, instead of just schlepping through reacting to whatever comes his way and acting opportunistically. At the low end, the addicts of drugs, prostitutes, opportunistic criminals and irresponsible people find each other and live horrible little lives because they have little loyalty, mainly because neither party is particularly committed to the other. These are your actual betas, and wherever dysfunction and purposelessness are found, these are the people perpetrating them. They tend to have more sex, but end with less to show for it, generally because they are less intelligent, as is shown in their choice of a less fruitful path through life. Sorting separates these groups and matches like to like, so that smart women end up with smart men, and everyone else fitting into their gradient.

The r/K pattern extends to frequency and onset of intercourse as well:

Last December I passed a paper along to Razib showing that high-school age adolescents with higher IQs and extremely low IQs were less likely to have had first intercourse than those with average to below average intelligence. (i.e. for males with IQs under 70, 63.3% were still virgins, for those with IQs between 70-90 only 50.2% were virgin, 58.6% were virgins with IQs between 90-110, and 70.3% with IQs over 110 were virgins)

In fact, a more detailed study from 2000 is devoted strictly to this topic, and finds the same thing: Smart Teens Don’t Have Sex (or Kiss Much Either).

The team looked at 1000s of representative teens grades 7-12 in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and The Biosocial Factors in Adolescent Development datasets, both of which include an IQ test, and include detailed sexual experience questions ranging from hand-holding to intercourse. As with the other study there was a curvilinear relationship: students with IQs above 100 and below 70 were significantly less likely to have had intercourse than those in between. Also like the other study, they found teens with IQs ranging from 75 to 90 had the lowest probability of virginity (the authors note this is also the same IQ range where propensity towards crime peaks).

This means that among the higher castes, there is no need for White Sharia, but that implementing it could hide the defects of lower caste women, and allow them marry up despite lacking the genetics for such a function. Letting some women be sluts is essential to separating the dysfunctional from the functional, much in the same way that natural selection rewards the capable and slowly squeezes the incapable out of the population. We know that some highly visible female behavior is bad, but for the most part, this is reflection of the caste of these women and therefore, their intelligence and moral character. Only with equality have they been able to participate in the rest of society. The solution naturally is to enhance, not degrade as White Sharia proposes to do, the distinction between higher and lower women. This means that those who are naturally somewhat attentive to reality will see what the better women do and emulate it, while the lower-grade varieties will do exactly as they are genetically programmed to do, which means that in a society without socialism and other genetic effects, they wander out of the gene pool by having fewer and less-stable offspring. Modern society has reversed this process both on a social level and on a biological level, resulting in a corresponding drop in average IQ over the past two centuries:

We do not have a standard deviation (measure of scatter) for the Victorian data – so we need to compare (looking at men) a (mean) average modern reaction time of 250 milliseconds (SD 47) with a (median) average Victorian RT of 183.

This implies that average (and being conservative in my interpretation) Victorian reaction times were more than one standard deviation faster than modern RTs; or, that the average Victorian would be placed comfortably in the top 15 percent of the modern population – probably higher.

If we assume that reaction time is a valid measure of general intelligence, in other words that RT has a linear correlation with g – then this would mean that the average Victorian Englishman had a modern IQ of greater than 115.

The biological component of this is lower infant mortality, i.e. more infants surviving:

Through most of evolutionary history, most babies and children (probably a large majority of them) especially those with the worst genetic damage – have died before reproducing. Thus mutation load is filtered by differential child mortality rates with each generation…But since 1800, starting in England then incrementally spreading across the whole world with no exceptions, child mortality rates have got lower, and lower; the mutation filtering effect has got less and less complete – and the mutation load has got greater with each generation.

This shows us the essential role that sorting plays in our post-technological human existence: since more infants survive, it is important to avoid any further subsidies for the dysfunctional. The problem with White Sharia is that it creates such a subsidy. A woman can, by obeying the simple rules that are enforced upon her, not reveal her inner broken character, which will cause her bad genes to proliferate. This means that White Sharia is a form of lessening the quality of white people.

It has been observed in the past that if you love a group, you will be hard on it so that the best only are allowed to become the next generation. Farmers do this with plants and animals, killing off the scrawny or dumb, and leaving only the strongest, so that over time their crop improves at the level of seed, and whatever animals they are breeding resemble the best of previous generations, removing the characteristics they did not want. This is how, without genetic engineering, European farmers converted ordinary plants and wild animals into rich crops and livestock.

To do this with humans, our societies must raise their standards and create a hierarchy so that the best are an example for the rest, and those who fall short of standards are driven out or at least put in circumstances where they cannot breed much if at all. This idea clashes with egalitarianism, which is the idea that all people “should” be equal, and is directly opposed to natural selection and other ways of filtering out the broken and promoting the good. Proles hate the thought that there will be standards which they can fail to uphold. They prefer instead to have rules and laws which are negative standards, so that they can pay a trivial penalty for their violations if they get caught, but they will never be exiled or otherwise stopped from pursuing life in society because they fall short of a positive standard to which everyone is held, with the idea that those who excel at it will rise and others will be demoted. The prole likes the idea of demonizing a few behaviors, methods or procedures and to make everything else legitimate, where the right way to have society evolve is to make every behavior fit within a set of principles that always produce the best results, knowing that most people will not understand the “why” behind those standards.

White Sharia is a meme. It is something for the football stadium mentality of mass politics. This way, the groundlings can shout in support of the rules that will make it harder for them to be caught failing to uphold the values of society, and throw fruit at a scapegoat which they blame for their problems instead of realizing that our behavior, hidden from sorting by equality, is the root of the problem. The more we try to externalize the blame and then control it through rules, the more we include people among us who really need to go elsewhere, like the third world which has traditionally absorbed our castoffs.

If Western Civilization has a future, it is likely it will involve an event every year with the people who have just reached age 17. This will be called The Sorting. The premise of this event comes from the knowledge that in every generation, the lowest 20% are in need of removal. In a class of thirty girls, there will be six who are promiscuous, idiotic, sociopathic, or insane. These will be sent away, with the same done to the boys. The reason they will be identified is that, unlike under White Sharia, their behaviors will be allowed to manifest and then will be judged. This is what the proles fear: someone will take a look at them, peer into their motivations and their soul, and realize what echoing emptiness is within, then remove them from our civilization. Maybe we will drown those who are Sorted to be bad in the swamps, like the ancient Celts, or take the humane path and drop them on the shores of some primitive third-world nation. Either way, the problem will be solved: we will steadily be removing defective genetic combinations, and in their place, promoting those who are stronger. This cannot be done through tests, but by looking for behaviors. People who deserve to stay are those who may have made some mistakes, but also have done some good. Those who have only mistakes, and no attempt to do something unselfish or that contributes to the community, are the ones who are somehow broken and inward-focused instead of aware of their environment. A fieldmouse that behaves this way gets eaten by eagles quickly, and as a result there are few fieldmice who are that oblivious.

Adding to the above criticisms, we should realize that part of our K-strategy existence involves nurturing the good as well as removing the bad. Women are meant to be treated with respect and generosity, not as chattel slaves. They may have a psychological outlook that is between man and child, as historical accounts suggest was once the normal assumption, but they need to be given a role in which they can excel and honored for what they do well. Punishing all women for the acts of our prole women removes the sense of grace and transcendental beauty that can be found by understanding the sexes as complementary forms of intelligence and behavior that make, together, a family that represents both masculine and feminine principles for a complete whole. In addition, it furthers the errors of feminism, which make the sexes oppositional and therefore destroy any chance of sane and non-manipulative family life. Looking at it this way, the Leftist origins of White Sharia are revealed, and we know we need no further exploration of that path.

Uncuck Yourself: On Women

Sunday, July 16th, 2017

Let us set aside outrage culture and look at the question of women with an even footing.

The Alt Right suffers from categorical thinking regarding people. When you think categorically, it means that you assume that all people in a group are roughly the same; this shows the origins of this thinking in egalitarianism, which is the fundamental idea of the Left and therefore best avoided.

Women are many things. First, they are a varied group. Second, they are people too, even if there are differences in abilities. Finally, they are individuals, and individuals make different choices.

We hear a lot these days about how most Western women are broken. In my experience, the problem here is “most,” which is probably not true, and the assumption that all women follow the behavior of this group. In reality, women are varied, with different castes behaving differently, and some individuals having more moral fiber — the ability to defy herd behavior when it is wrong — than others.

You may not find a perfect princess who is waiting for you in virginal splendor just because you are cool and finally got “woke” about a few key issues. More likely, you are going to find a real live human being who has some mistakes and some victories on her report card. She will have fears, baggage and blind spots, but she will also have convictions, strengths and some wisdom.

The most important thing to do is to meet this person. You will probably not meet her at an Alt Right web site. The best advice for young men is to go to places where women are. There sure are a lot of women at Whole Foods, Target and Costco. Many are at your local library, a nearby graduate school, or volunteering on the weekends. They are out there and can be found.

You are going to want to find someone from a similar background as yourself. This is not as simple as “huwhite,” but involves ethnicity — such as German-American — and caste as well. You want someone of roughly your level of intelligence, with a similar values system, and who has had the same essential experiences you have.

If you grew up in a trailer park, find a woman from another trailer park who has the same basic abilities and outlook that you do. If you grew up the son of a doctor or lawyer, then go find a woman like that. Do not worry about political outlook because most people have no idea what they are thinking in this area anyway.

She will have dents, nicks and scratches, just like you do. Probably some romantic failures as well. Avoid the real no-fly zones — one-night stands, hard drug use, sociopathic traits, race-mixing — and find a decent and normal girl. She will want you to have some source of income and prospects for being a recognized contributor to society in the future.

You will know the right person for you when you encounter her. It will just feel different. Before you get to the feeling part, however, you have to find her by using your brain. Look for someone like you who is genetically, socially and morally compatible. She does not need to perfect, but she needs to be attempting to do the right thing.

Are there a lot of white thots out there? Yes, but there always have been. European lords were disgusted by the sexual habits of their serfs, who often had multiple children by multiple men by the time their teens ended. Lower caste behaviors have never changed because they are regulated by low intelligence and moral fiber. These serf women live on in today’s cheesy white bar girls.

There are a lot of lonely white women out there who need white men to accept them as they are, push them to greater heights, and realize that these white men are not perfect themselves, and so they do not need perfection, only basic goodness. No one will emerge from morality unscathed and so we have to forgive each other our failings, find the good in each other, and rebuild this ruined world.

That will not happen if we are thinking in these broad and absolute categories and condemning each other for our mistakes while ignoring the greatness that lies sleeping within us. If you want to be a man of the West, get out there and find a Western woman and make her yours. Maybe it will not be like the movies or fairy tales, but it will be real, and at least you can stop caring about thots.

Bipartisan Racial Bungle

Friday, June 2nd, 2017

You voters asked for — no, demanded — bipartisanship, or for liberals and conservatives to reach across the aisle and join hands to get something done.

Unfortunately, you did not specify what they were supposed to do, and so this bipartisan compromise has gifted you with a new dimension of racial angst:

Where to draw the line on self-identification is an obvious question, and a fundamental one, Ms. Tuvel suggests in her paper. Think transracialism is tricky? It only gets more complicated from there. Her paper briefly considers other exotic forms of self-identification. How do progressives reckon with people who say they’re really “otherkins,” identifying as nonhuman animals? Are we morally required to accept “transabled” people, who are born physically normal but feel one of their limbs transgresses on their identity?

As with gender, Ms. Tuvel writes, “we need an account of race that does not collapse into a position according to which all forms of self-identification are socially recognized, such as one’s self-identification as a wolf.”

The Left insists that race is a golden ticket to permanent grievance politics; this advances the agenda of the Left, which is to break down organic civilization and replace it with artificial government, which defends the individual against the consequences of his actions by dissipating the damage as socialized cost.

The Right, in response, has claimed that noticing race at all is a form of “identity politics,” which is how mainstream conservatives slander identitarianism. The cost of their participation in democratic politics, which always lean Left, is that they deny any form of natural inequality and insist that we can all be made perfect through patriotism, religion and working hard.

In response to that rather silly gambit, the Left has doubled-down on race as Professor Tuvel did in her paper: they are insisting that it is, after all, biological and cannot be ignored. If the game is played as usual, the talking heads will be thankful for this misdirection and spend the next decade haranguing one another about it.

Reality as always hides behind the lies, partially overlapping each of them, which is what gives them believability to their audience. Identity is innate to each person much as sex, family, caste and natural abilities are. Those traits however are not equal, so egalitarians wage war against them in the most smug and passive manner possible.

Until the Right is pushed hard enough by the Alt Right, it will not publicly acknowledge that equality is a lie. Once we start saying that equality is a lie, as loudly and proudly as possible, the Left will be forced into a defensive position, and in so doing, will reveal further its actual agenda.

Sex As Control

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Control is a psychological state, a method of wielding power, and a philosophy. It can be used in any context and most commonly is intangible, meaning that you cannot point to a specific thing and say it is control. There is evidence of it like ripples on the surface indicating fish below or a healed wound hurting before the rain, but no one will ever lay hands on it.

You can recognize control because it manifests as a need to manipulate others directly for self-referential reasons. The person in control is not leading a group to accomplish an objective, but master of closed-circuit power, which means enforcing obedience upon a group by making them embark on actions whose only goal is the perpetuation of control.

A need to manage others directly and to have them do exactly what is told, as opposed to a decentralized or brachiated system of leadership, forms the basis of control. Instead of giving individuals a goal and having them collaborate toward it, control hijacks the goal and makes itself the goal like a parasitic organism would, and so each person must do exactly what it is told.

Without control, people set objectives and then work individually toward them with what they have, and are rewarded unequally for their differing abilities to achieve those objectives. When people panic at this state of inequality, they inexorably demand “equality” instead, or having everyone serve basically the same role. Control always arises from democracy, mob rule, cult behavior or gang mentalities.

People find control comforting: everyone is accepted so long as they do one thing, and they are accountable to control and not to reality, so they do not even need to be successful in their aims, only obedient. Everyone is accepted equally under control except those who defy orders, and those give the mob a reason to unite for a lynch mob witch hunt. Life as a herd is psychologically easier than struggling to survive.

Control requires an equal group doing the same things with any internal status variations being symbolic. With control, all that matters is the uniform obedience by method, not by goal. Everyone must think alike. This is how control maintains its power, and since its real goal is perpetuating itself, all other actions are pretexts.

For example, in a control state, war happens frequently not because the foreign objectives are important, but because wartime terrifies people and motivates them to contribute labor and obey authority. Some actions are made criminal so that anyone can be guilty at any time, causing people to turn on one another to get into the good graces of those in authority.

Most significantly, control regulates appearance. People must be able to look up from their tasks and see others obeying and none dissenting. They must witness, on a regular basis, the human sacrifice of those who failed to uphold the pretexts of control. This keeps them constantly incentivized to obey, and thinking that it is their own idea to do so. This makes them feel free while enslaved.

Control accelerates because it benefits from human failings. When people make small mistakes, they can be destroyed, which means they must either immediately beg for forgiveness in exchange for some other act, such as informing on others, or face oblivion. Control also uses human lusts, desires, emotional reactions, passivity and confusion against them by luring them onward with false promises and real threats.

For example, consider the use of sex in the Soviet Union as a control mechanism:

The official line is that promiscuity is bad, but exceptions are made for whatever advances control. This binds the individual to control both by granting a forbidden pleasure, and making it a shared secret that puts that person at the mercy of control, lest the rules be enforced against him.

Our society has — during its Leftist descent — encouraged open sexuality but also an increase in penalties for rape, as well as a loosening of standards for what is considered rape. It would not be surprising if this violent sexuality were encouraged among those in the inner circles, in whatever breadth of depravity can be summoned.

Collapse: Modern Sexuality

Friday, March 17th, 2017

The democratization of sex — making it available to all on an individualistic basis, or demand-based economy — has led to unexpected consequences, namely that making something universal makes it worthless, and now people are pulling away. Notice the demystification of sexuality caused by sexual liberation:

The debate was ignited on Mumsnet after one poster revealed how she disagrees with the assumption that everyone wants sex, and she was by no means the only one.

Even those who have previously enjoyed an active and even satisfying sex life agreed that they were perfectly happy never to be intimate with a partner again.

She and others pointed out that believing everyone should want sex is akin to thinking everyone must like cake or cats, and there’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t.

Now that sex is everywhere, it has low value, sort of like running water. We are learning that sexual liberation means sexual conformity, and because the herd is all doing the same thing, value flees to those who are outsiders and doing something else, like tying sex to family and existential purpose, which makes it more valuable where “liberation” makes it less valuable.

Like all things Leftist, sexual democratization renders worthless something one prized by destroying the best examples of it so that the other examples can feel “equal.” In other words, no one gets what is beautiful; beauty is destroyed so that the average can rule. This is what the fearful and tyrannical human ego does to any segment of experience.

For example, Americans are having less sex because sex is sort of like running water or wi-fi now, i.e. everywhere and without much significance, which cries out for it to be bonded to something larger and more transcendental than what modernity has reduced to a bodily function:

American adults are having less sex than they did a quarter century ago, with married people showing the most dramatic decline of all.

The paper, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, showed a drop across gender, race, region, education level, and work status. One factor is the higher percentage now of unpartnered people, who tend to have less sex than partnered ones. But a major driver is a steady fall in the rate of sexual activity for people who are married or living with partners, which reduces what had been known as the “marriage advantage.”

…At the same time, Americans overall became less coupled. In 1986, 66 percent of American adults were living with a partner; by 2014 only 59 percent were, according to GSS data. People who are not in couples, including those who have been married in the past, tend to have sex half as frequently as people who are, the study said.

In other words, sex has become a bargaining chip. People trade it for acceptance in a relationship, and once they are in one, there is no need for a further transaction. The liberation of sex has made everyone into slow-motion prostitutes. And as a result, sex has become a chore like any other job, something done in exchange for money or power and therefore, something undesirable.

This is the nature of all things under egalitarianism. Because society is re-oriented toward a minimum, everything which is not mediocre becomes a commodity, and as the herd chases after it, its value falls as it becomes democratized or spread around. In the end, nothing is worth anything, but each prole can claim they are a king… albeit in an entropic wasteland where nothing has value.

Women Are Not Machines

Sunday, January 1st, 2017

On the Right, the temptation is to realize that the all of the assumptions that form the basis of our current society are lies, and therefore to go the exact opposite direction.

This is a strategic error.

The opposite of what we have now is the same mental state with a different starting direction. Because it is the same mental state, whatever direction you take will lead to the same cycle, and opposite extremes will connect. That will re-create the same problems we have now, but also create the ultimate crypto-disaster scenario: we will think we have solved the problem, but in fact, will have made it more entrenched.

What this means is that we cannot avoid the crisis by attempting to be its opposite. We must find a different direction instead, and reach toward that instead of merely pushing away from what we know.

Nowhere is this dilemma clearer than in the Red Pill attitude toward women. Sure, you reject the modern view that women are special snowflakes who are entitled to be whores whenever is convenient, and who in a political sense serve as usual idiots obsessed with womanhood. Your average woman may be that; the smarter ones, obviously, resist it and many break free. But you need another view of women that is not entrenched in the modern illusion.

Arising from the Rightist view that most human behaviors are deterministic, and the introspective without experience nature of the solitary male, the tendency of Red Pilled males — especially those from STEM backgrounds — is to treat women like some kind of alien life form, or even a mysterious machine. Press the right buttons, and you are in control, and can direct the machine as you see fit.

Look at this well-intentioned but unrealistic mating test for potential wife fodder [email author] for the STEM autist Christian Right:

10. Husbands

Explain the roles of a man in a marriage, and tell me some of the things you would do in order to help your man to achieve those roles. What groups would oppose your husband from fulfilling those roles, and what have you done in your life to prepare yourself to help your husband in his roles? What are some of the most important things that a man needs from a woman, and what specific things should a wife do to provide them?

SAMPLE ANSWER: Men are supposed to be protectors, providers and moral/spiritual leaders. In order to help men to be protectors, women have to give them time to study to discern truth from lie, and support their ability to be physically strong, and to own firearms. It is also a good idea for women to have a positive view of good men who use force to restrain evil, as with the American military. Women should support the use of force against radical Islam and terrorists, as well. In order to help men to be providers, women have to advocate for fiscal conservatism in the public square. That would mean advocating for lower taxes, less government spending and smaller government. It would also mean being frugal in the home and helping the man to move ahead at work. If the children are up and out of the house, it could mean going back to work or starting a business to help make ends meet – or monitoring investments. For a man to be a moral and spiritual leader, a woman has to be supporting of him making moral judgments in the home, disciplining the children, holding her accountable for moral errors, and for making exclusive truth claims when it comes to spiritual things. She should not censor him when he gets into debates about spiritual things, even if other people who disagree feel bad – so long as he is not being a jerk. Her goal is not to be popular or liked, but to support her husband in his roles. The most important thing a man needs is respect, and that means treating him as important and significant, being grateful for his contributions, soliciting his opinion on things, being mindful of his male nature, which is more visual and sexual.

These are sample answers he wants from any wife candidate to show that she is oriented in the right direction. It is both test and contract, not just killing the romance, but introducing a misery and tedium that should kill the relationship quickly.

His plan treats women as some kind of coin-operated machine. Put in your coin, select the right button, and take her home like you would any other product. This is not only unrealistic, but entirely contrary to the nature of traditional attitudes toward family. However, it is exactly the type of thinking that one can expect from STEM people who have not reached beyond their comfort zones.

The West understood romantic love once, and you can see it in classics like Pride and Prejudice, but this notion has been washed away under the onslaught of prole notions of sex=love and commercial ideas of how to sell people on perpetual childhood so they can be perfect domesticated product-buyers, fundamentally miserable and thus always in need.

But the scary fact is that people are individuals, and romantic love was not about sexual attraction, but finding someone comparable to oneself with whom one could spend a lifetime. The romantics bonded their ideals intensely to death in order to achieve this time scale, and the vision of love they found was about what everyone hopes for: someone to grow old with and never feel out of place. This is compatible with genetic determinism because people are looking at inner traits of others, which starts with general race, ethnic, caste, class and social compatibility on a genetic level.

In this way, romantic love was utterly opposed to the idea of universalism, or that all people were essentially the same. Instead, it sought the union of individuals matched in ability, inclination and aesthetics. This formed the basis for a lifelong friendship and partnership which could result in family and have that family be content because the parents just made sense together.

STEM-addicts/MRAs and others are caught in the utilitarian idea that all people are the same, and this perverts the ancient knowledge of biological determinism. Under the egalitarian ideal, people are basically the same and can be manipulated by the same incentives and punishments. Under the romantic ideal, in contrast, it is the exceptional and unique nature of people that allows two to match up as a couple and then a family. Biological determinism supports the latter — unique traits — over the former, which emphasizes uniform traits in denial of nature and reality.

In reality, what we can observe matches the romantic notion more than the STEM mechanistic one. People differ widely. Some match up because they are similar in position in the hierarchy of humanity, and matched by temperament. This creates a solid basis for lifetime interaction that brings about the most pleasurable result of all possibilities, including remaining single or a less committed marriage.

This cannot be forced with the industrial-style, control-based and mechanistic view of women that sees them as objects to be manipulated. Relationships and marriage are partnerships based on the moral choices of individuals and their aptitudes, not forcing people into manipulative frameworks which treat them as little more than robots.

Traditional roles exist for a reason, and if we become separated from that reason, we are nothing more than repeaters of the methods of the past without understanding the purpose. Every household needs a leader, or each decision will become a debate, so we choose the person optimized for leadership style decisions, which is the male. Balancing that, women provide a counterpoint: an understanding of detail, depth and sensation that allows for the configuration of a happy home. The two balance one another, and the leadership role of the male does not entail the loss of autonomy and authority by the female. To act otherwise is to defile the traditional institution of marriage, and replace it with a thoroughly modern notion of control.

Under control, each person is seen as a means to an end, and this is fulfilled by having the all use exactly the same methods to agitate for an ideological purpose. Even reality becomes a means to an end under this mentality, which filters what is compatible with the ideology and rejects the rest of the data. Control makes people into idiots, but it is required for egalitarianism to exist as has been creeping into the West for the past thousand years.

In addition, with these extreme doctrinaire STEM-Christian types of thinker, we see that religion serves as a proxy for culture/race:

My purpose in marrying is to make the marriage promote the things that God likes, and oppose the things that God doesn’t like.

In my case that means:

  • impacting the university with apologetics and conservatism
  • impacting the church with apologetics and conservatism
  • impacting the public square to promote policies that enable Christian living
  • producing as many effective, influential children as I can afford to raise

In particular, with this writer, we can see that his adherence to Christianity is in part an attempt to staunch the blatant cultural confusion:

My mother is a Muslim-raised agnostic. My father is a Catholic-raised agnostic. Half of my father’s family is mostly Hindu, and some Catholic. My mother’s family is mostly Muslim and some atheist.

Christianity is a part of the singular healthy civilization design for the West, but it is not the whole of it, nor the core of it. The core of it is a desire to do good and be excellent, to aspire to more than our domesticated livestock lives of jobs, credit cards and shopping. We need to want to be great again. If we do that, we will have Christianity, as part of our sensible society but not attempting to lead it, because we need kings to do that and history shows us it will be disastrous if we let priests compete with kings for power. What that means is that Christian fanaticism is not “the” answer even if it is part of the answer.

Unfortunately, modern people are inculcated in the mentality of a one-size-fits-all solution that can be implemented immediately by either overwhelming force (government) or mass conformity (control). The STEM mentality plays into this because STEM fields specialize in knowing how to do things without ever knowing how to assess the goal and why it is important.

When this mentality is applied to women, it produces a robotic pre-emptive knee-jerk view that guarantees misery. Most of these guys will end up with fetal alcohol syndrome wives or other complacent, somewhat stupid women; this is why the great White Nationalist dream is either to run off to Eastern Europe or Asia for a bride. It is not that they believe these places are better, as they loudly say, but that they want a little robot to apply their robotic thinking to so that they do not need to interrupt their own solipsistic, narcissistic or egotistic narrative.

In this way, they are identical to Leftists.

As with most things in life, the question of relationships is nuanced. Here are a few very general thoughts:

  1. Find someone like you. People are happiest with other people who are like them in terms of not only race and ethnic group, but caste/class and general outlook (extravert/intravert, right/left, outdoor/indoor and others). Not only is communication much easier, but you are headed in the same direction morally and existentially, which means there is less to negotiate over. You want someone from roughly the same background, ability level and moral outlook. This part is genetic determinism: the woman who is most like you will be the one you appreciate the most. This does not mean she will not challenge you.
  2. Roles are not properties. Men and women serve complementary roles; the contemporary church (idiots all) interpret this as equal roles because in the modern time, you never get in trouble for saying that equality is the principle of everything since the dawn of time. However, it actually means entirely different and unequal roles that balance one another, such that each sex has a domain of its own. This principle exists for efficiency: when quick action must be taken, the person in charge of that domain just does it, instead of being boring modern bovines who like to stand around “discussing” every issue until boredom and failure set in. You do not “own” each other or have absolute “rights.” Instead, you are working together by surrendering your identity to the family, and beyond that, God and the nation.
  3. Love is not linear. When you love someone, you may be mad at them but you will never hate them. You are not there to force them to do anything, but to nurture them so that they may rise to their greatest possible heights. It does not resemble a lab experiment nor a right. Instead, you must cooperate, this requires each person to understand the goal and principles and work toward them in their own way. These contributions will not be the same, or necessarily comprehensible to one another. That is fine too.
  4. If you are not finding women, change your life. “All the good girls are gone!” they say, throwing up their hands. This is self-pity and it will ruin your life. Go somewhere else, and think about what women like to do, not what you do. Be prepared to treat this as a long-term project, meaning that you do a little bit every day. Volunteer at your church, go back to school, work at an animal shelter, take cooking classes, spend time jogging or just walking in public parks, and — most importantly — explore the people your people knew back when you were kids. You will find the most likely candidates in people with backgrounds like yours, from neighborhoods like yours, whose genetics are similar to those of their parents, who probably befriended yours because they are similar.
  5. Get rid of the disposable mentality. You will meet many women. You will court a few who are special. Among those, if you stop courting them, it will be for a solid reason: you found something no-fly zone about them, or they did about you. This means fundamental incompatibility, not inconvenience. Knowing the difference between those two is vital. When you find someone compatible, be aware that there will be rough edges. She may have a semi-unfortunate sexual history, have a kid from a failed marriage, or have once been a Democrat. If she has figured her way out of the pitfall, then she is still worth pursuing and not disposable. This means you accept some bad with the good so long as the bad does not overwhelm the good. If you go looking for a Hollywood vision, you will find nothing, because Hollywood has always been illusion in every area.

Humans suffer from one essential evil, and that is self-centeredness. We do what is mentally convenient and ignore what we have an obligation to notice. This, unlike Hollywood evil — where the evil intends to be evil — is the source of all of our downfalls, and is manifested in behaviors like solipsism, individualism, egotism and narcissism. Treating other people like machines, or as categories instead of individuals, is one manifestation of this behavior.

Again, we cannot defeat modernity by attempting its opposite. We can however have a different goal, and if that is tradition and health, we will naturally curve away from the insane behaviors of modernity and find ourselves in a new place. But with women, as with many other areas, this requires a nuanced, detailed and balanced look instead of a robotic STEM-tard rigidity.

Beyond Clueless (2014)

Wednesday, June 17th, 2015


Generally, documentaries are best avoided because they tend to be emotionally manipulative, swing left and wax boring. Beyond Clueless avoids most of that with an in-depth look at the duality of teenage life: public versus private personae, and sexual release versus awareness of the adultness that sex brings into life, perhaps too early.

Narrated by Fairuza Balk (The Craft) the documentary samples from dozens of teen films from the 1980s through the present day, tackling five sub-topics which overlapping generally distill to the two ideas mentioned above. Balk gives a convincing voice-over that is periodically excruciating, but more frequently profound. When it is over-written it ends in disaster but for the most part it stays functional and avoids this.

Where this film excels is in de-mystifying the teenage movie as a means of de-mystifying the teenage experience, and by showing so many Hollywood films in sequence, it reveals the emptiness of the Hollywood vision, which is centered around sex as EnlightenmentTM, and the destructiveness of the teenage tendency to fix on high school as a permanent rather than transient experience, and to expect social role — including sexual power — to substitute for self-development. This occurs through accidental or deliberate juxtaposition of multiple scenes revealing the emptiness of the thinking behind them, and explorations which leave out more than they say, then hit the viewer with so many repeated and similar visions as to reduce the symbol of that visual to a clich&eacuate; in contrast to its presentation as profound, stimulating and important. Beyond Clueless reduces teenage rituals like sex, proms, defiance and clique-jumping to rote animal behaviors. This in turn deprograms viewers by debunking the cinematic mystique.

Balk provides an excellent job of narrating with natural enunciation and a lack of over-acting, which makes her rise above the normal documentary standard of over-emphasizing emotion and making the experience miserable as a result. While Beyond Clueless may not be as exciting as some films, it seems much improved over the horrific dreck that is passed off as coming-of-age movies and from which, unfortunately, many teenagers get their expectations for their own behavior and moral choices. Without being preachy, this documentary reveals the emptiness of the illusion and implies the importance of finding a center within to resist peer pressure, social competition and other nonsense that merely serves to scar these kids on their way into adulthood.

Interview with an internet troll

Saturday, July 19th, 2014


Every society possesses taboos. Healthy societies ban destructive things; dying societies ban dissent. In the distributed totalitarian system of modernity, citizens enforce rules on one another through ostracism and name-calling. In response to this, a community of “trolls” sprung up to bait people with forbidden knowledge and draw them into contradiction when they cannot confront the implications of this knowledge.

To explore this fascinating phenomenon which uses un-popular right wing and realist thought to torment the oblivious among other methods, we interview an internet troll. Identified only as “Iconoclast,” he has trolled the internet for over a decade with a palette of provocations including rightist views of race, sex and society. The language might be a bit rough but you can see why trolls attack — and the reason to their madness — with this interview with an internet troll:

What is the purpose of trolling?

Trolling doesn’t have a singular purpose; rather, it is a set of methods to create spectacle. Take in point the various types of trolling: concern trolling, fake personas, bullshit press releases, devil’s advocacy, social engineering, and etc. Not all of these will be done for the same purposes.

As for spectacle, a (good) troll finds a target to attack, absorbs its mentality, and determines the best way to undermine the opposition’s position. One of my former trolls — and one of my more entertaining ones — was pretending to be the culmination of stereotypes that white supremacists hold for Jews. With that one I was able to troll the entire planet, having both neo-nazis and far-left commies enraged. The goal, of course, was to provide humor while making both those groups look like the asses they are.

Another set of trolls I did was to create fake press releases under the guise of a conservative christian group exposing pedophilia on wikipedia. This troll was pretty interesting because a lot of the content in it was excellent investigative journalism, combined with some smear attempts against ideologically driven abusive wikipedia admins. The motive for this one was to attack wikipedia for its anti-elitist stances, bureaucratic bullshit, and autistic, ideology-driven editing.

I suppose, to summarize, trolling is basically cloak-and-dagger black propaganda in a world where people are incapable of intellectual argument, and if they are, they’re too ideologically stubborn to even accept any arguments whatsoever, blindly attacking thru nitpicking and bullshit. Intelligence is low: we live in a world where the formerly named “The Learning Channel” now broadcasts the Kardashians and Hoarders. I think that concept says something profound, in a very ‘tarded way. This world is not reason-driven, I am not going to reason with the average idiot.

What sort of topics do you introduce with trolls?

Race, sexual perversions, and leftism are my favorite targets. Everybody is so absolutely sensitive about race — I’d say many people are actually self-hating nowadays, regardless of race — it’s a pleasant topic to shove in peoples’ faces like a dog that pissed on the carpet. We live in a world where kids are introduced to pictures of people from, say, India, and are asked if he is black or white while not given the actual, real choice, and when kids of course get it wrong they use it as a “gotcha, race doesn’t exist!!” plate of bullshit. That said, I find the whole race topic to be overblown by both sides… it’s important, but it’s not worthy of being the zenith of political discussion. No, racial-separatist nationalism is not the answer, nor is cultural marxism. If you took the top 10% of people (nebulous defintion of what is “top,” but let’s just keep it that way) and put them on another planet, I really doubt racial issues would arise much if people were sufficiently intelligent and moral.

Sexual perversions are quite funny, and if you look closely a lot of leftists are very big into it as well. Of course, this stuff all ties together in a Gordian knot. Leftists like to use people’s sexual problems as some sort of political statement, of course to excuse weird, deviant behavior as some weird way of attacking majoritarian people, and for having their own failings be swept under the rug. A bit rany, I know, I once had a hilarious troll on where I pretended to be a neo-nazi chick who wanted to enslave blacks and Jews. Oh man, the messages I got on that were beyond wild; I had one Rastafari guy google-stalk me a year later, paranoid as fuck, even though I had no interest in revealing personal info because I’m not a loser like failed troll Jason Fortuny.

That ties into another point: the troll also learns more about the bizarre side of human nature. When you can stretch absurdity as far as possible, and be able to intereact with others in that mode, you learn a lot about what people really are like. It’s quite disturbing and takes away one’s hope in humanity or belief in the viability of human dignity.

When did you become a troll, and why?

Hm. This reaches waaaaaay back to the limits of my memory. I think it involved getting falsely blamed for someone else crapflooding or trolling a “Find Luigi in Mario 64” forum when I wasn’t even yet a teenager. I think that let to jihad on my part against them, and me and my brother were just better than them at it. Really hard to remember details. Not terribly important, training wheels for a troll, though.

More than that, though, was posting on and finding out I just didn’t really respect the average poster there (I’ve come around to not really respecting the average person in general. I’ve matured quite a bit since then). I became a somewhat legendary troll, social engineer, and pest on that site to the point where the site admin, CJayC, called up my ISP once and I was briefly taken offline.

I’ve always found the witty trolls of forums to be more interesting people, being less involved in social posturing and more on merit. When people “win” internet arguments by using big words and trying to seem intelligent, you realize that debating is pointless and verbal insurgency is far more effective. The trolls, I’ve noticed, never needed that posturing.

Who are the most famous trolls and what is their claim to fame?

Good question. Does this mean internet trolling, or in more general, a gadfly of sorts? I’ll take the latter as it’s a better question to answer.

Diogenes of Sinope was quite a good one. Telling Alexander the Great he couldn’t distuinguish the bones of his ancestors with those of slaves was extremely ballsy, if the story was true, though I really doubt it is.

Marquis de Sade I’ve always felt was more of a troll than a pervert (though he was still that).

Of course, Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” is probably one of the more brilliant pre-internet trolls, as well. All the marks of good trolling: false persona, absurdity, horrific satirizing of society’s attitudes.

As for internet trolls:

Sigvatr is one of the best trolls I’ve seen. Totally wild, great sense of humor, pissed enough people where he can’t legally enter Germany. Apparently he spawned a child and left the internet, but was great as was the competitive spree shooter site. His dedication to trolling was so intense he took pictures of him eating his own cum to shock the boards. That’s only a summary off the top of my head. A+ troll.

During the republican primaries of ’08, a bunch of Ron Paul people made fake forums purporting to be the grassroots supporters of rival republican candidates, and the stuff they did was some of the best political trolling I’ve ever seen.

The GNAA did some good stuff, I’d say the best was the JewsDidWTC website that got featured on CNN. GNAA was always a little bit of an underperformer though due to a chaotic IRC channel.

Most recently, I’d say anons from /pol/ have done a lot of good work attacking social justice warriors, a group that I feel doesn’t get enough trollage. SJWs and feminists are dangerous neo-Marxists absorbing weirdos from the internet with a lot of support from academia, and I think they’re going to get more influential in the next decade or so as more broken people band together to angrily attack normal “majoritarian” people.

What led you to become discontented with this society?

The disparity in my intelligence and other people’s. Catholic school was especially harsh because you have a mentally broken baby boomer adult base coupled with kids in an environment that is hostile to childrens’ nature. Not to mention most of the other children were leagues below me morally and intellectually, I even had one teacher bribe other students with candy to hate me.

I remember once in elementary school I managed to get one of those red rubber balls before anyone else did because I never got a chance to play with one. All the “popular” kids began whining like babies and the teacher forced me to give them the ball, because –get this — “that’s democracy.” I shit you not, that’s exactly how it went.

As a child, it always was strange how other children had less of a moral base. So impulsive, willing to lie to adults to get what they want.

As I got older, I realized what mattered was not truth, but perception. The masses of worthless people only really care about social status, novelty, and maybe a little bit of cognitive dissonance here and there so in brief moments of lucidity they can make a half-assed attempt to atone without really putting in much effort.

Saying so, to me, is a bit amusing, because my morals have become less prominent in day-to-day life, nowadays. They’re still there, but I’m much more scummy now than I used to be. I don’t mind it, it is simply an adaption.

What are your aims in life?

Really? Drinking alcohol and passing the time. Hoping for an anarchic peroid of reboot for civilization. Too much noise, not enough signal, few things mainstream really ever catch my eye. There’s not much here, I think it’s way too degenerative and decayed for revitalization. We just have to wait for disaster to occur so things can be corrected. This is outside of our control. We hit the point of no return on leftism and idiocy.

We bred a mass of domesticated, selfish, boring people and gave them the ability to make their own bread and circuses. We just have to wait out for their self-imposed downfall.

As for my personal life:

I could get a career, but I don’t ass-kiss very well, I’m quite abrasive and don’t want to work for a higher-paying job while worrying what my mouth says to get me in trouble in an environment of beta-males and people more deserving of becoming the plaything of a coprophiliac serial killer with a love of the Human Centipede films.

Most immediate aim is getting swole. Would be fascinating to understand the underlying animalistic power differential to other people when one is swole.

If you could create your ideal society, what would it be like?

I don’t know how to answer this. I’m not a fan of top-down solutions when it comes to society and economics. I think we need less people, better people, better art, and whatever else. The fundamental problem of our day and age really is just human nature. I don’t think any design in particular really matters, you just need people who are morally better, intellectually superior, and more focused-yet-relaxed than what we have now.

I’m always entertained by idiots who complain about capitalism. Capitalism, at heart, is the ultimate bottom-up economic model (when corporations aren’t given handouts or favoritism by government). Any flaw with it really, in all actuality, is a flaw in mass-human nature. When your entire population is composed of bitches, don’t be suprised at the stupid shit they elect with their dollar. No controlled economy is going to do any better when the average person is only one standard deviation of being entertained by separating the corn and peanuts within their excrement.

Somewhat disconnected, but I’ll cut the details obtained by experience, and to any younger readers planning on assembling a group to head out onto the wilderness and leave modern society: not gonna happen. Focus elsewhere.

What do you think will happen in the future to the USA?

Not entirely sure. An eventual collapse of some sort, there is no real plan or focus going on and it seems to just be special interests fighting for their own little ego puppet show all nilly-willy, without any real concern for the future. For the immediate, I see the left continuing to score “victories” in both government and culture, resulting in an alienation of the majority (by that I mean, those who generally are conservative and middle class, mostly white but I don’t think race matters much on this), but they’re definitely going to have much more control over academia, politics, and culture. The modern american right isn’t effective nor brave enough to do anything but smile and nod and bargain.

I don’t think it is important to focus too much on how things will unfold in 20-50 years. Maybe something will happen with technology that is a complete game-changer.

What is your outlook on dating, marriage and sex?

For the most part, modern women are only good for sex. Most are attention vampires, completely ego-driven with impulses of sadomasochism, concerned only with men in matters of novelty or social status. It is completely impossible to have adult conversations with the majority of them, they have no knowledge of history, no street smarts, hell, no book smarts even, either. They offer nothing other than their worn-out vaginas, mouths, and buttholes. I’d rather hang out with men, though sadly most men are complete weenies who take shit too personally.

Marriage is a godawful institution for modern men. I’d advise men to avoid it because the left-wing government is hostile to men and it gives men almost no legal advantages, instead it gives women the world to screw a man over. That said, I think good men should find some way of passing their genes on without becoming indentured servants to the government. I’ve not yet figured that one out, so I’m not the one to ask on that.

I think men need sex, and sex doesn’t seem damage a man’s ability to form attachments, so I think it’s fine for a man to have one night stands, and pump and dump. Whores have existed since the dawn of time, let us on the right stop pretending to be “volkisch pure-hearted chaste mega-mormons” because men who don’t get their wick dipped tend to go crazy. As for attachments, I think men have a built-in capacity of brotherhood (that can translate to loyalty in general) that women don’t have, thus, even a manwhore can settle down.

As for women, I don’t even know. Having a lot of sex partners as a woman definitely does seem to make her incapable of being loyal. I don’t know if women are even capable of loving men — they love what a man can do to and for them, but not the man itself. It’s transactional. I’d say that women are only capable of loving their parents, their children, and the small yappy dogs or cats they buy after they’ve hit the wall or the children left the nest.

Feminism is basically built up by failed, ugly, fat women, who have successfully poisoned the well, but not entirely have been able to turn sexuality into a witchhunt against men. If they get political power, that will change, but for the forseeable future women will continue to blow bad boys while taking nice guy’s money.

I think, in the future, as ridiculous as it sounds, once the articial womb is available, and sentient AI alongside realistic robotics, men will opt for their gynoid Stepford wives rather than deal with real women, who provide no intellectual stimulation and come with too much baggage. It does sound ridiculous, but thinking of me settling down with a subpar woman until I get divorced in 5-10 years and lose half my wealth alongside all of my kids sounds even more absurd.

I think the disparity in sexual values between men and women is among the more important problems in our little “equal” society, but men will win in the end, I think, insofar the leftist brainwashing reaches its limits. It’s hard to tell. I’ve known men better looking and in more shape than I who, despite my warnings, ignored my advice on women and yet had not the balls to even tell me what happened when their ignoring me fucked them over, so I cannot say where things are going to lead.

Is there any hope for humanity?

Very little as of now. This place is wacky. So much posturing. Such fake. So wow.

There is some cultural revitalization. Craft beer is booming, so good beer isn’t hard to find. Dubstep is the popular thing right now, and though I don’t listen to it, from what little I have, seems to be leagues better than what kids were listening to in high school when I was that age. Not ideal, but I would’ve expected kids nowadays to listen to Justin Bieber clones singing about how it’s okay to get fucked in the ass by a woman with a strapon.

I know both are unimpressive, but, could be far worse with the way things have headed.

At any rate, the increasing proliferation of the absurd can be a bit amusing at times. I think a human zoo full of autistics on display would be neato. Wait…. I think there is one…. think it’s called “tumblr.”

As bad as things are, the future is opaque. I’d advise people to do constructive things instead of bicker on the ‘net about the what or the why for now. Focusing on the specifics of politics and theorizing about “traditional societies” and all that jazz isn’t going to do much to make you a better man. Ethno-nationalism isn’t gonna fucking save you. Leftism sure as hell won’t, LOL. Collective humanity is far too degraded. Let it collapse.

Where do people read more of your writings?

I don’t write much. So much noise on the internet, I’d just be one man in a room with a megaphone next to a very long human centipede, and if someone had dysentery in that ‘pede, the sounds of bowel movements would drown me out. Something like that. If people have interests in me writing more, I might give actual articles and such a chance,

Recommended Reading