Posts Tagged ‘the red pill’

Trump Shines Spotlight On Bad Female Behavior

Saturday, October 8th, 2016


Democracy is easy. Winning is about demagoguery. Demagoguery is usually used to mean:

A person who appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the people to gain power.

Compare this to manipulation and control. Demagoguery is a sales job, an advertisement, marketing; these are all methods that politicians must use to get elected. That is the nature of democracy itself.

For the Left, victory occurs by energizing their base. One does not flirt with Leftism; some “moderates” and “independents” vote for Leftist candidates when they like the candidate better, or find someone who has made a pact with Mordor in order to have a political career. Those who consistently vote Leftist however usually do so because they agree with the message, which is always a variation on the only idea of the Left, egalitarianism.

With the recent fabricated “leak” of an accidentally captured off-air conversation between Donald Trump and Billy Bush, the Left is attempting to energize their base. They energize their base by presenting fears — Hitler, big evil corporations, KKK lynchings, abusive men, gay-bashing — that allow the individuals on the left to project themselves into the role of victim. This then makes them feel as if their mistakes in life were imposed on them, not self-created; this is a form of scapegoating like Anti-Semitism or witch hunts.

Let us look at two stories. The first contains the comments made by Mr. Trump:

“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”

The second contains what the Left are trying to deflect and distract from with a counterattack, namely the ongoing corruption and racketeering scandal involving Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and (apparently) most of Washington:

Newly disclosed emails show top Obama administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server.

On one hand, we have a symbolic scandal. Someone said something that offended some group of somebodies.

On the other hand, we have a real threat to our nation. People in power lied on national television, then got caught, then spread the lies to the FBI and other agencies, and now have used the power dynamic to enforce the lies.

This is not a screed against candidate Clinton; it is a serious problem with American politics. People are voting for liars and felons in the name of selfish special interests.

We have seen false scandals of this nature before. It is a standard Leftist ploy.

Candidate Trump may be many things. He may be crude, overbearing, and somewhat prone to brag about the deals he has made and the strength of his companies. He is however two vitally important things:

  1. A Truth Teller. No matter how brutal the method of his expression, he is generally correct in both assessment of each issue and in his instincts regarding what is important.

  2. Motivated By Success. His politics are generally moderate, or half-Leftist, but he wants to succeed which for him means achieve results. He is not a candidate based on virtue signaling as a means of hiding his actual agenda. He wants to be able to point to a thriving nation and say, “This is my victory.

Nothing he has said so far has turned out to be not-true. It may seem exaggerated or extreme, but the basics were true. On the other hand, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (as well as a host of others) have lied about her private email server which was clearly designed to evade oversight and confidentiality rules, his knowledge of it, her taking of favors and “pay to play,” and the ensuing cover-up.

But why is this statement of Mr. Trump’s so outrageous that it energizes the Leftist voter base?

It is also true, and it shines a spotlight on bad female behavior. Promiscuity has created women who seek out wealthy and powerful men to be used by them. The news is full of such people. Trump was not speaking of all women, but of certain women who like groupies orbit the fields of power and wealth in a hope of capturing some for themselves.

We see this pattern time and again: The WAGs in sports and entertainment. The women who Bill Clinton seduced. The celebrities who seem to fornicate and marry at random based on whose career can be advanced. This is a consequence of sexual liberation, and no one wants to admit that their sacred cow — the sexual lottery that might see them having epic sexual good times, but most likely will result in them ending up lonely dipsomaniacs in city apartments with apathetic cats — has failed.

Sexual liberation is essential to Leftism, and to flattering the egos of the people who vote Leftist with the pretense that immorality can be morality because all humans are inherently good, per the idea of equality itself.

If the truth is that (some) women act like whores, why are we scapegoating Mr. Trump for noticing?

The Left conducts war against reality every day. This reveals its individualistic bias: a group demanding “equality” is comprised of individuals demanding mandatory inclusion despite their own bad behavior. This individualistic bias is the cornerstone of the Left, which promises to legitimize bad behavior by erasing the differences between high and low, smart and dumb, good and bad.

This war against “noticing” requires that those who observe and accurately report on the bad behavior of Leftists must be designated as ideological enemies. This is done through a begging-the-question fallacy, or making the assumption that bad behavior should be accepted, and then retaliating against any who do not agree. This is the nature of Crowdism: the mob attacks in the name of the individual to preserve the right of the individual to both (a) behave badly and (b) still receive support from civilization. It is a movement to legalize parasitism.

Like a street gang or peasant revolt, this herd-mob has one ace in the hole. It threatens to revolt if its demands are not met. Its goal is to behave badly, and to force others to bear the externalized burden of that behavior, such as having their daughters grow up in a world where every public figure is a whore.

In 2016, women in the West more often than not act like whores. It is not permitted to notice this, nor to say that sexual liberation was a terrible idea because it savages the family and creates lonely, atomized people.

The Left and the controlled opposition mainstream conservatives will respond with, “Would you want someone saying that about your daughter, sister or mother?” This is another begging-the-question fallacy; not all women behave the same way, and if you see the truth in Trump’s statement, it is likely that the women in your family do not behave that way.

This debacle is reminiscent of the “Slutwalk” disaster from 2011, which started when a well-intentioned police officer offered up sane advice:

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”

The connection between “behave like a slut” and “get treated like a slut” is what is offensive here, no matter what the Left says. They want to believe they are equal, which means that any intention of theirs — behaviors, whims, pathologies, obsessions, fetishes, excesses — should be treated exactly the same way as if they were virtuous honor students waiting until marriage in order to have a healthy nuclear family.

Instead of achieving what the officer hoped for, which was a decrease in rapes because women are making themselves look like easy marks for predators, his comments set off a chain of outrage. The theory advanced by the Left was that his comments were sexist because they discriminated against promiscuous women; the reality is that he noticed promiscuity and its link to bad results, which offends the crowd who are in favor of sexual liberation and the lust lottery.

We might ask ourselves: where have all of these angry, revengeful and jubilantly crass women come from? The answer is that they are unhappy because their life decisions have not worked out well, and so they are now enraged at the futility of their lives and looking for a scapegoat.

Cue the pitchforks, fires and dunking stools of witch hunts. Recall the ideological purges of Russia and France. Think of the BLM protestors attacking white motorists, or the attack on Reginald Denny in the Los Angeles riots. All revenge-based thinking is the same: the unsuccessful wants to destroy the successful.

The Leftist lives in a cloud of mental mundungus comprised of victimhood, self-pity, resentment and fantasy. To them, all questions are social, because consequences must be removed from consideration because results in reality are not equal.

Not surprisingly, this approach works badly for them, which only increases their rage. This brings us to the point at which current US politics rest, where a massive corruption scandal is less important than calling a whore a whore.

For Donald Trump, this is his version of Mitt Romney’s “47%” moment. Backing down will lose him supporters where doubling down will increase them. Many people out here have perceived that not only is Leftism corrupt, but our society is dying because it has lost purpose and standards, including cultural and moral values. We want someone to reverse that decline, which starts by naming it, as Mr. Trump has done.

Oh Grow Up, America

Saturday, October 8th, 2016

So here are the “devastating” revelations regarding Donald Trump:

The graphic comments, which Trump made in 2005 on a bus and on the set of a soap opera, feature him bragging about his sexual pursuit of a married woman.

“And when you’re a star they let you do it,” Trump says. “Grab them by the p—y. You can do anything.”

And… that’s it? He stated the obvious about pursuit of women looking for sex. This pales in comparison to, say, the sexual conquest with violence by Bill Clinton, or even Hillary Clinton’s “principled” defense of certain rapists.

Grow up, America. Sexual liberation has made people into whores. If someone is willing to state the truth of this, the embarrassment is ours, not his.

In addition, we must view this as what it was: a comment made for the entertainment of the audience, within the entertainment media. It is not a policy statement.

The hype over this comment — in light of the greater violations of the Clintons — is nothing but hype, lies and the usual drama from the mainstream media, who are desperate to distract from the actual issue: the decline and fall of Western Civilization.

Fear Of A Black Pill

Tuesday, July 26th, 2016


The Black Pill terrifies us all: an admission that there is no innate purpose to the universe, that communication is at best a game of mutual guesswork, and that values are not universal.

It seems like a gateway to the kingdom of darkness from which no beauty, truth or goodness can emerge.

And yet, as will be demonstrated, it is the only way to get to those states, because everything else is human and therefore biased toward the tendency of humans, which is to revert to our simian state of desire, judgment and feelings taking precedence over reality. Some call it hubris, others simply individualism.

The Black Pill represents hard truths that cannot be reduced to simpler ideas that are more pleasant, or deflected into distracting tangents or scapegoats which make us feel better. The Black Pill is a hard confrontation with the emptiness of life and mortality, and people fear it.

Let us distill The Black Pill to its simplest idea: hard realism, based on what we can know rather than what we can opine. The Black Pill as a radical honesty, extremist realism and hard emphasis on the non-human conditions of existence does not negate any beliefs, only speaks to what we can know without doubt.

This is not limited to material reality, but it explicitly rejects human notions which are first presented as desirable, and later justified or explained in terms of selectively-chosen elements of reality. The core of the Black Pill is that the human observes first, and then finds a theory to fit all of the data, not the other way around as most people do.

Without this type of mentality clarity and self-discipline, all of human thinking becomes projection or an extension of the personality imagined as being part of the world. This especially happens in groups when people agree that something should be true, and therefore is true, or at least will seem to be true if they all insist on it.

What follows are some Black Pill truths. Warning: this will most likely offend you and may induce crippling existential doubt.

  • Morality. The herd morality is that you should never hurt anyone. The actual morality of life involves the results of what they were doing. If they were doing bad, hurting them is a good; if they were doing good, hurting them is a bad. It is all about results, and not about methods. You can see the fallacy of method-based reasoning when you contemplate someone trying to hurt your family. Would you harm them any way you could? Yes, but even more, you would act so that your family came to no harm, and the consequences to someone doing something stupid, destructive, pointless, degenerate, or criminal are of no concern to you. In fact, you might desire to destroy the people threatening your family so completely that the threat is forever terminated. The herd views this as bad because all of them are projecting themselves into the position of the person harmed, because that allows them to feel self-pity and therefore excuse their own venal and idiotic deeds through some philosophy of being victims of their world. “Sodomize the weak” is a better morality than “protect the weak” because with the latter, the evil quickly learn to disguise themselves as the weak.

  • Equality. The root of equality is the idea that “I want/see/recognize” is the beginning of an argument in favor of some action. The Black Pill says that it is not: the individual is usually mediocre and even if not, usually wrong, and inevitably driven by impulse and not reasoned action. There is no justification for an action or idea to be found in individual approval, nor in group approval; actions are only worthwhile if they will achieve results that are good, and “good” is both obvious and recorded by history. This does away with the questions of morons which float around “validity” and “who decides?” — unless one is a fool, the best people decide, and there is no validity, only accuracy. People tend toward evil. The best can be redirected with self-discipline but the rest need to be oppressed because their desires are destructive and oppressive toward all good things. More shocking to a herdsman is that people are born with not just their abilities, but their moral inclinations, and these do not change. Some are born bad, and some good. Within the good, a hierarchy exists as in nature of those who are best all the way down to those who are merely OK.

  • Radical evil. The Christian idea of “original sin” shocks people when first encountered. We are all sinners, and bad, and probably stupid and retarded? Emphatically, yes. The human mind prefers what is easy to grasp and rejects anything it cannot understand (the Dunning-Kruger effect). It is not lazy so much as biased toward stability; the human mind alternates between states of order and disorder, and when it can impose order by simplifying its representation of reality, it does so. The problem arising from this situation is that this creates an animal mind which is bigoted in favor of illusion. That in turn means that most of what people do, and think is right, is in fact wrong because they have based their idea of “right” in what is mentally convenient for them. For this reason, people need to deliberately turn away from evil and toward good through self-discipline in order to achieve good at all, and very few will do this. Instead, most wallow in what some call “radical evil”: everyday behaviors and events that are the opposite of good, but are considered good by most people because they have failed to investigate what actual good is. And what is good, asks the crowd? (They always think they are profound for asking non-questions). The obvious: survival, of us and our environment. Increase in or maintenance of quality. Focus on truth, goodness, honor and competence. All the things normal people fear because they have not polarized themselves toward achieving them.

  • Civilization. Your standard Republican idiot clings to a fiction whereby he can observe civilization around him failing, issue some pithy statement about going back to God or traditional value, and then go home and work hard and go to church and somehow come out OK despite his civilization failing around him. This is nonsense and stupidity. Our fortunes are determined by civilization unless we live alone where no one else can reach us, produce all of our own tools and goods, and have no children who need future spouses. No one lives like that because no one has ever lived like that. Human evolution resulted from simians herding together and developing skills. Early humans existed in wandering tribes. With fixed agriculture, we could build a broader base of tools and thus knowledge and from that came what most of us think of as “civilization,” with towns, cities, institutions and hierarchy. The eternal human fiction is that all we need are ourselves and a few of our favorite shops, i.e. “anarchy with grocery stores,” because that way nothing opposes us fulfilling our whims (calls for collective non-oversight like anarchy begin in the desire of the individual to escape judgment and notice). If you do not defend civilization, you will be ruled by non-civilization, even if in the guise of civilization as we currently have. The “individualistic fallacy” — that it is enough to simply act in immediate self-interest through hard work, religion and traditional values — kills societies because all the potentially good people marginalize themselves while the neurotics take over the public sphere and then educate the next generation in their propaganda.

  • Machiavelli. All things act in self-interest. This includes groups, individuals, genes and ideas. If you give them an inch, they will take a mile; this is the result of self-interest, but also explains how one arrives at a “tragedy of the commons” where individuals acting in self-interest over-exploit a resource, as happens with over-fishing and overpopulation. Machiavelli and others suggest we recognize the literality of self-interest, namely that it cannot be disclaimed by language, symbol and virtuous act, but is innate and unchanging in all things. This means that if you have a country, every other country on earth is acting against your interests, even if — especially if — they are your allies. Their goal is to put themselves first. In the same way, other people behave in self-interest and will always prioritize their needs before yours. There is wisdom in self-interest in that it never fails, and it is not ambiguous, unlike altruism which introduces a cloud of ambiguity, doubt, guilt, uncertainty and confusion. In a Machiavellian view, one must view others as destructive unless they are specifically incorporated in an agenda which marries their self-interest to group-interest; generally, only biological kinship does this, at the levels of race, ethnicity and class.

  • God. Despite what most people think, the Black Pill does not reject God and in fact is mute on the issue. We have no physical evidence because there cannot be physical evidence for the metaphysical, and asking for it is silly. Some concepts are also silly, like dualism where two worlds with different rules in each exist. We can reject that which is logically ill-constructed, but we are never going to have certainty of God’s existence or absence in this world, and claiming otherwise in either extreme is illogical and corrupts the thinking process. Most who oppose the Black Pill do so because it rejects their idea of God, which is as innate to existence to the degree that all must recognize him, or be seen as evil. This is a mistake because it reduces faith to conformity and obedience. It makes more sense to say that God is a choice that can only occur when the subject matter is understood, and that by using logical conjecture, some credible arguments can be made for his existence. Note that the same cannot be done for his non-existence, as there is no boundedness to the universe that allows us to claim it excludes certain potentials. Under the Black Pill, those who seek God have made a choice and have done so as a reflection of not just their inner needs, but their inner qualities. Under the Black Pill, no decision is innate or necessary, but all decisions reflect back on us and our place in the hierarchy of intelligence, ability and moral character. That scares people more than the (potential) presence of Hell.

As you can see, in a Black Pill view most of what humans consider to be sacred is based in the illusion created by humans to justify their desires, and what replaces it is a simpler, clearer and less “human” view of the world. This inhumanity allows humans to escape the animal confines of their own impulses, and demystifies the world but also reveals its mystery.

Until a civilization has people who can accept Black Pill reality in its leadership, it is doomed to regress to third world levels. Civilization can only occur where hard-core literalist realism is present. We need people who will open every door, unafraid of what they might find, because they are hard-minded to find excellence and beauty in life despite whatever they find.

To dodge the Black Pill is to permanently corrupt your own thinking. If you reject realism, you become an agent for the idea that human preferences and notions are more important than reality. This in turn makes you into a zombie who is addicted to the pathology that re-affirms that illusion, so you seek out other justifications and those who believe them, forming the basis for a Crowd.

Our civilization thrived when it was able to accept both the Black Pill and a huge degree of mystery. Do the gods exist? — It seems so. No one knows. No one will ever know. What is right? — there is no definitive answer, only good answers, but only good people can understand them. Mystery dominates.

With entry to the realm of the Black Pill through what I call radical realism or nihilism, one can confront reality in a condition as close to accurate as human beings can do. This enforces self-discipline on the individual, which brings the “inner world” of creativity, morality, honor and desire for excellence to the front of the mind.

Without a Black Pill approach, people live through filters imposed by their ideological need to validate a human perspective as more important than reality itself. This in turn causes their mental process to reverse, so that they are ascertaining truth through justifying what they already believe instead of perceiving what is before them.

In that distinction, we can see how societies fail. Those that accept the Black Pill — and the utter mystery of life — are able to think clearly and act in a forward motion. The others blunt themselves to reality, and instead become “Progressive” or increasing hell-bent on replacing reality with human notions, and shortly afterwards decline.

The Black Pill

Sunday, April 17th, 2016


Thirty years ago, William Gibson wrote a series of cyberpunk stories — visual counterparts to the theories of Burroughs and Pynchon — which suggested a reality “underneath” the world of appearance and human “face value” assurances in which most of us live.

A terrible movie was made some years later to translate that simplification into an even simpler version. Called The Matrix, this movie gave the Hollywood treatment to cyberpunk but also gave us a powerful metaphor: the red pill.

In The Matrix, the protagonist was given the choice between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill would make him see reality as it was, underneath the appearance; the blue pill would make him expert at the false reality. (Distracted observers may draw comparisons to the ring of Gyges from Plato and not be wrong).

While this movie was a fantasy, and its vision of actual reality in fact a false reality that scapegoated a centralized force instead of the decentralized decay we are experiencing, the metaphor sticks. Some people embrace the unpopular and unpleasant truths of life, where others just want to become good/successful at the illusion.

Some years later, my esteemed colleague Colin Liddell unleashed “The Black Pill”:

The Black Pill is the least dialectical of the three. It leads from actual inferiority back to actual inferiority. It is nihilism, but nihilism made flesh calls forth absolute egoism, a sense of the self detached from wider contexts and responsibilities—it is this that makes it evil and murderous.

The inferior person can either accept context and therefore inferiority, or fight it. The Blue Piller rejects his future inferiority by retreating backwards into illusion. The Red Piller rejects his present lack of superiority by marching forward through positive consciousness and action to redress the situation. The Black Piller, however, chooses neither the palliatives of illusion nor the challenge of positive action. He stares into the abyss—passively because his actions will never be capable of changing it—and, as Nietzsche so pertinently observed, the abyss stares back.

For almost thirty years, I have written about nihilism as a philosophy. In my view, nihilism is the gateway to all useful thought. It clears aside the human pretense and solipsistic illusion and replaces it with a cold, unflinching, logical and realistic look at our world and our place within it, including the Darwinian need to adapt. More disturbingly, it shows us that the standard of life is not how to explain away our failings, but that each time we observe a better method than our own, we will be dissatisfied and self-hating if we do not adopt it.

Without nihilism, religion becomes obedience out of fear, not a choice to seek out possible metaphysical dimensions to the universe. With nihilism, science becomes applied logic; literature becomes communication; art becomes Jungian symbolism. It is a gateway to a kingdom of darkness in which suddenly, the photonegative of normal human life — invert by social impulses, which are individual fears amplified and then placated by collective illusion — is negatived again, revealing that what we call “light” is darkness and vice-versa. Illusions fall in cold white flame.

In my view, nihilism is the black pill. It is not egoism, because nihilism denies the notion of humanity and the individual being the center of the world. In nihilism, as in the universe, the self is a tiny portion of a great vast space that is mostly emptiness. Nihilism is mostly negation, or destruction of human illusions and plans that turned out to be unrealistic. That process begins by attacking the deception of the mind by itself.

The black pill provides a gateway into an entirely different way of seeing the world. Where most people live in a purely social world, where they assume the goodwill of others, black pilled people see a natural struggle every bit as violent and constant as that experienced by a common mouse. Predators surround us and parasites infest us unless we actively and aggressively remove them without mercy.

In the black pill world, government is nothing more than a parasite. Salesmen are predators, hoping to convince you to pay high prices for something that is easy for them to acquire. Police and taxmen are parasites as well, looking for some way to justify taking money and time from you. Most people are parasites and predators alike who want to use you as a means toward their own aggrandizement. In addition, all but a few people — one in a hundred, maybe — are delusional to the edge of clinical insanity.

This is a new view of reality that has a tendency to snap into place suddenly so that thousands of details make sense at once as if aligned. It is a more realistic view, and statistically more likely true, than the happy world of “love and trust” (dependency and subsidies) erected by democratic society. It points out the obvious: humans are still mostly the same filthy little beasts that crawled out of the primordial ooze, and those who have risen above that state are targets of the rest.

One of the more recent black pill events in the news was philosopher John Gray:

Vice: First of all, could you explain what you mean by the term progress and why you think it’s a myth?

John Gray: I define progress in my new book as any kind of advance that’s cumulative, so that what’s achieved at one period is the basis for later achievement that then, over time, becomes more and more irreversible. In science and technology, progress isn’t a myth. However, the myth is that the progress achieved in science and technology can occur in ethics, politics, or, more simply, civilization. The myth is that the advances made in civilization can be the basis for a continuing, cumulative improvement.

This exchange is classic black pill. “Progress” is a myth told by salesmen to customers. The reality is that absent evolution or eugenics, humans do not change, and in fact have zero incentive to because they have made society parasite-friendly through egalitarianism. The myth exists only to justify the parasitism. “Progress” is like fashion in that it argues for something new you must buy or be inferior socially and (implicitly) evolutionarily.

Another great black pill example, noted by at least one alert reader as such, comes from an earlier article on this blog:

With the impending election, the futility of our lives becomes even clearer with one salient point inescapable: It doesn’t matter who wins. The underlying issues destroying our society will never be dealt with under our current democratic system. Voting is pointless. The only possible utility voting possesses is the potential to vote for the worst possible candidate in order to hasten the demise of this broken society. There is nothing to preserve, conserve or improve. The only way forward is to destroy the corpse so something better can take its place.

As long as civilizations make intelligent or semi-intelligent decisions, they thrive. When people start making stupid decisions, as has happened for the past thousand years, it means both that the future will be bad and that the past was bad, since no society gets to the point of making stupid decisions without somehow putting the stupid in power.

Once a civilization falls into decline, far more decisive action is required than its political, social and economic system allows. It requires the intervention of strong power to remove the rot and send it far away, then rebuild institutions around good people who can make the complex decisions that rules, elections and markets cannot. This means that many dreams will be smashed, and all parasitic people need to be disenfranchised if not outright removed.

These are hard truths. They are also a source of great joy for those who discover them because that revelation lifts the burden of having to uphold illusions and fantasies as reality. It also shows a path forward out of a situation where everything we do is bound to be adulterated and fail, and allows us hope for a better future through our own hands, not government or “We The People” surging in like the cavalry to save the heroine at a movie’s end.

The revolt against blindness

Friday, November 6th, 2015


A question that lingers around all of us on the alt-right is, “So what are you against, exactly? And what are you for, exactly?”

Another way to phrase this is: (1) what’s wrong now and (2) what will replace it and (implicitly) what are its tangible advantages?

From (of all places!) The New York Times, talking about the “dystopian” nature of the new Michel Houellebecq book:

When I say “dystopian,” the casual reader may infer — as many people did when the book first appeared, literally at the same moment as the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre — that the dystopia is the Islamicized France, that Houellebecq is trying to do for Islamism or “Eurabia” what Orwell once did for Stalinism. But if you’ve read the keener reviews (or Houellebecq’s previous novels) you probably understand that no, actually, the dystopia is the contemporary West, and the Islamified future that Houellebecq’s story ushers in is portrayed as a kind of civilizational step forward, or if you prefer a necessary regression back to health.

I sort of knew this going in but even so it was remarkable how — well, I think neo-reactionary is really the only term to use to describe what Houellebecq seems to be doing in his portrait of contemporary France and his mischievous prophecy about its potential trajectory.

If I had to point to a foundation for postmodern reactionaries (“neoreactionaries”) it would be Houellebecq, through his influence in Louis-Ferdinand Céline. They pointed out in simple terms that not only is modern society Hell, but that it is a pointless hell that achieves nothing, and it is not unique in history but a typical decay-stage of a civilization heading downward. They point to a lack of transcendent purpose and common sense realism as the root of our decline.

Most people cannot handle what they write because not only is it biting, funny and satirical, but it also presents a simple equation: we know what we are doing wrong, so stop doing it and go the opposite direction. Turn our wheels from Hell to Heaven, in other words, because these writers believe in goodness, beauty, truth, decency and above all else, human happiness and thriving. But we will not find those through individualistic democracy, diversity, liberalism and consumerism, they say.

It is our individualism — the pursuit of the individual above all else, which requires abolishing social standards, values and heritage which imply a Darwinian ranking to each individual — that leads us into a blindness. This blindness has us avoid seeing how the modern time is Hell and how it is just going to get worse because we are going down the exact same path, just intensified.

Movements, you want movements? The Red Pill focuses on honest talk about the differences between sexes; Neoreactionaries point out the failure of Crowdist (individualists in groups) leadership; the New Right shows how dysgenics, consumerism and multiculturalism are destroying us; the Alternative Right shows the absurdity of a lack of social order and our participation in sacred fictions and virtue signaling. All of these point to the same thing: everything is broken. We are using universal methods — like individualism/equality and signaling/altruism — where we need to look at realistic common sense results, and adjust our behavior accordingly. Democracy hasn’t saved us from tyranny, but transferred it to a new form where it is invisible to us, and this tyranny is tyrannical precisely because it is destroying us by putting our people into existential hell, which makes them hate society and want to destroy not only themselves, but others and nature.

Take a peek at this burst of profundity regarding the gap between what we really want and need, and what we settle for in the sexual/romantic arena:

I was casually scrolling through Twitter one night and came across the most accurate post that I have come across in the four years I’ve been on the site: “Being a hopeless romantic in a hookup culture is a special kind of hell.” If this doesn’t deserve a hundred retweets, favorites, Instagram posts, and Facebook shares, then I don’t know what does.

Everyone wants the fairytale. Whether they want to admit it or not is their choice, but ultimately, everyone wants that one person who they can ride off into the sunset with. I wanted that, but things do not always go as planned.

Fairy tales are not mere fiction; they are aspirational fiction. Every princess wants a prince, and every man wants to be a brave noble warrior. Every kingdom wants to be good, and it wants a good king. Every person wants their life to mean more than trading hours of pushing paper for enough money to live outside the ghetto.

In my view, the neoreactionaries starting with Houellebecq did something unique and powerful: provided a toolbox for the non-liberal to explain why liberal logic leads to Hell. We are inundated in liberal justifications for their actions, and the propaganda toward equality/individualism within them, but few of us have any counter-arguments. This is why majorities are always defenseless: we don’t know why we do what we do because it is non-ideological; it simply works, and it cannot be broken down into the polarizing vectors of ideology like our opposition can. So we hear their arguments, fail to offer resistance that explains around these arguments and invalidates them, and thus by inertia, compromise and herd appeal the nonsense wins out over fully working existing methods.

What is aiding us now is that the Narrative is failing. Not just in one area, but across the board. Take, for example, this vicious insight into why both our news and our modern heroes are fake:

The wonderful heart-warming story of Elizabeth Holmes, founder of the blood-testing startup, is almost as fantastic as Valeant’s accounting. Her fear of needles led her to drop out of Stanford at 19 to commercialize a blood test that relied on a finger prick instead of drawing blood from a vein. She became the youngest person ever to be given the Horatio Alger Award and was appointed to the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School. Time magazine named her to its list of the world’s 100 most-influential people. Her closely held company was recently valued at $9 billion, making her a multibillionaire.

That’s a wonderful story. At least it was until it turned out that the blood test didn’t perform as expected.

…My apologies for once again beating the drum on ignoring the narrative and focusing on the data, but it seems that every six months or so this subject returns with a vengeance. If you feel like catching up with my past tirades on the failures of narratives, see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

It isn’t just stocks. A story can be used to justify almost anything, be it a portfolio position or an ideology. Just ignore the facts and data, and hold on tight for the ride.

This is what we are waking up to in the modern time: everything we have been told is lies, based on the interval between telling a lie and see it turn out to be the opposite. This is true of democracy and liberalism as well, which made promises centuries ago which are only now showing that they were indeed the foulest of lies, used to justify the legitimacy of the oldest of human failings: greed, power-lust, control and an impulse to destroy.

Houellebecq identifies himself as “anti-liberal,” but because liberalism is the newcomer and everything else is based on what has worked in the past, anti-liberal is the same thing as looking at conservatism. That broad umbrella, with its dual planks of common sense realism and transcendental aims, contains the core of what has worked for all successful societies during 6,000 years of human history. It is only in turning away from it that we have guaranteed not only our doom, but our life sentence in Hell while we wait for the end.

Young Adult (2011)

Friday, October 9th, 2015


The one-time-stripper turned pseudo-Catholic Diablo Cody, screenwriter of the surprise hit anti-abortion indie flick Juno, returned to the big screen with Young Adult in 2011. Its lukewarm reception was likely due to the public not being ready for a film that so blatantly plays out the epic failure of feminism and female solipsism.

The film’s unlikable, narcissistic anti-hero, Mavis Gary, is a successful (by small-town standards) Young Adult fiction writer who uses characters and plot lines in her books to re-live her own real life high school prom queen memories. Still quite beautiful, although lacking in the romantic department after a failed marriage and, at 37, visibly aging, she remains defiantly convinced that she is the Queen of All.

At the beginning of the film, Mavis receives an e-mail from her high school flame Buddy Slade announcing that his first daughter has been born. Mavis is completely distraught but plays off to a friend that “she [Mavis] has a life,” “he is trapped with a wife and kids,” and “they are so lucky that they got out.” All of this despite living a loveless “cock carousel” lifestyle in which she lives alone in a filthy apartment wearing sweatpants and satiating herself with whiskey, Wii and trashy reality television. After gazing longingly at the photo of Buddy’s baby, she is determined to prove that she is the success story while all the people who chose to stay in her small town and raise families are suffering. She is a woman on a mission to prove that she is superior and fulfilled.

While on this delusional power trip, she decides she needs to win back the attention of her old flame, despite the fact that he is a clearly devoted new father and husband. Her psychopathic revenge fantasy is laid out for the audience and obvious to the characters around her. Eventually, everyone except for her realizes how unhappy and mentally ill she really is. She, however, remains convinced that they are boring, predictable and unfulfilled. The desperation comes to a climax when she attends the rock concert of Buddy’s new wife’s cover band. He is captivated by the band while Mavis pathetically recalls to him the first time she went down on him, completely oblivious to his lack of interest and perhaps disgust in her desperation to relive their past. When this tactic fails, the shot zooms in on Buddy’s wife’s seeming ecstasy in her musical performance. It becomes obvious that she is totally happy, fulfilled, and in love with her husband and new child. All our protagonist has left is resentment and a “hip” solitary apartment in a “cool” atomized city.

Being “independently successful” and self-reliant while waxing and preening religiously to “stay young” (as our protagonist does periodically throughout the story) may not be all that is necessary for fulfillment. In the end, these things may only be suitable for bragging rights and regret which comes too late. This movie succeeds in expressing an unpopular opinion which could keep most 20- and 30-somethings up at night. Someone who has built their whole life on this individualist “success” ethos and an aimless self-serving existence, foregoing a traditional family unit, encounters the realization of the emptiness of this life too late, and they have no choice but to cling to the failed fantasy as it slowly drives them into insanity.

Why men love sluts (or think they do)

Thursday, September 24th, 2015


The selective woman presents a challenge to the male ego: she will demand that he win her, then lead in sexual activity, and may not be so welcoming that the sex act is easy. He will have to keep his erection through his own stimulus alone and pay more attention to her.

A slut — a promiscuous woman — on the other hand offers little resistance. She takes little to win, whether a night of feminist theory lectures or a few drinks at a bar, and then is an equal participant in the sexual act. As he is lunging for her, she is lunging at him, like an opposite version of male. If his erection fades, she will be an active participant in stroking it to life.

Conventional analysis (which is usually political or at least panders to popular imagination, and is therefore wrong) holds that sluts present more of a challenge to the man because of their greater experience. The opposite is true: their greater experience means they are less likely to notice differences in a series of experiences that blur together in memory. Having committed themselves to the act, they see only their own gratification, and so will help him along instead of wondering at the mediocrity. Their need, like that of an addict, is great and therefore they work around little lapses because their own satiation depends on it, where a more selective woman is considering the broader context of the event and will find failure to signal a larger disconnect.

The economic analysis of sluts flatters no promiscuous woman. The law of supply and demand states that products and services of greater abundance are worth less than those which are rare, and conversely, that those things facing less demand are valued less. The slut values herself little, but she values her pleasure more, so she is willing to move lower on the demand curve both in terms of attraction to her and her own standards. A slut has in effect said, “I have an over-abundance of this commodity, and will give it away for less,” signaling her own need as greater than her self-esteem.

Men love sluts — or think they do — because the challenges of a low cost venture are lesser than those of a higher cost undertaking which carries with it the need to have greater quality of the act. Slut sex is easy, not just to acquire, but to have. It is expected to be low-investment and low-satisfaction, which is why it is valued lower and more of it is demanded. This is easier on the man, so if he is low self-esteem, it presents itself as a less dangerous undertaking than challenging his rare commodity, which is self-image.

Most pick-up artist lore consists of making sluts feel comfortable making slutty decisions by bestowing on them small tokens of self-esteem. If they are challenged, that is a signal of investment in their value, as if they were actually difficult conquests. The man still controls the token of their self-esteem, which induces a cult-like slave mentality. If they are flattered — which works less — this serves also like a cult thought process to convince them temporarily that sluttiness, while less valuable, is an “empowering” choice because they are in control. This control is also in the control of the man, who must continue the stream of complimentary behavior or risk losing his attachment.

None of these things were unknown to our ancestors. They saw that injured or weak animals were less selective in mates, and instinctively made the metaphorical comparison to human beings. Only arrogance and presumption could make humans assume that we are above the rules of nature, economics and the mathematics underlying it. It has taken a century of flattery and false self-esteem to wear this down, but only in the easily swayed. The people who achieve not just “success” but whole, full lives tend to still play by these rules, because in order to succeed at life common sense — and not excuses, compensation and flattery — is required.

Bernie Sanders’ comments on women are not as bad as reported

Friday, May 29th, 2015


As reported by MRC, Socialist candidate for president Bernard “Bernie” Sanders once wrote an article about men and women, and it included three quoted lines that seem questionable out of context.

In the interest of fairness, let us look at the full essay:

Man — and woman, by Bernard Sanders

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Nero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain — waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. On one hand “slavishness,” on the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?

Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — without being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and without getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?

The man is bitter.

“You lied to me,” he said. (She did).

“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are).

“But in reality,” he said, “if you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me — just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person — as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me — and that’s a piggy thing to do.”

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.

And he said, “You’re full of ___________.”

And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.

While some in the media would have us jump all over Sanders for the first two paragraphs, it is clear that he is speaking of a specific man and woman, not all men and not all women, with the figurative characters he conjures. You can see the proof of this later on as he reveals a dialogue between the two. The “a man” and “a woman” from the first two paragraphs become the man and woman, which is a sign that he is referring to a specific pair in those comments.

The contrast he illustrates, between submissive Stepford wives and piggish Lena Dunhams, shows the split that sexual liberation has wrought in men and women. Without trust — a function of chastity — between the two, they are both trying to game each other, each trying to make the other submissive and resisting the demands from the other with piggishness.

From the final two paragraphs, it seems Sanders was heading for Kurt Vonnegut or Franz Kafka territory here. Assessing the quality of his attempt is left as an exercise for the reader, but it is clear that he is not writing a polemic about all men through the example of the man in the first paragraph.

I realize that it is tempting to stoop to the level of mainstream leftist media and become slander machines on the right. However, that leads to nothing but a cheapening of discourse. Wise advice:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you. — Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Aphorism 146, Beyond Good and Evil

Even though what MRC says — “Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate” — is true, the point is not to stoop to that level. Instead, do away with any media that lowers itself to that standard.

In the meantime, an interesting read from Socialist Bernie Sanders. I don’t know about you, but I learn from history, and pushing around stale ideas like Socialism makes me distrust anyone.

Liberalism and The Red Pill

Sunday, April 5th, 2015


The internet possesses a remarkable ability to create immensely faddish movements that disappear just as quickly, but leave behind slight alterations to the group consciousness.

One such movement is The Red Pill, named after a fictional choice between reality and socially-endorsed fantasy in a mediocre movie. In this movement, men recognize the reality hidden underneath social pretense, specifically as regards women and the necessity of taking a strong masculine role in interacting with them, as opposed to doing what the TV says is right which is to be a meek and passive feminist-man.

Whether or not this movement is ultimately found to be “valid” by our nancypants society which can only approve indirect fascism, The Red Pill offers a number of interesting ideas. One of which is that women need a strong masculine presence, and frequently rebel against that presense through something called “shit tests,” or small passive-aggressive incursions where they do something illogical and/or insulting and test to see if their male responds with a strong correction or not.

A frequent shit test is for a woman to announce that she’s going to do something weird or stupid, and to wait for her man to either (a) be masculine and demand something else or (b) meekly accede and appease her in the grim hope of having continuing sexual relations through being “nice.” The man who rolls over is the man whose woman goes searching for a more masculine man.

What makes The Red Pill so offensive to many people is that it pulls aside the curtain and looks at how humanity works. People need leadership and guidance; men and women have different roles. But more importantly, even outside the context of women alone and applied to society at large, it describes rebellion as what it is: a test of power.

Shit tests explain liberalism in a way that liberals would not like. The vast majority of people are passive by virtue of being unable to lead, invent, create or be aware of how to maintain complex things without a checklist. They shit test their leaders to see if the leaders are still in a position of power, because if the leaders are weak, the majority will seize what the leaders have created and take it for themselves.

This was the wisdom of the ancients: social rank is everything. Those who are lower will, unless oppressed, always attempt to subvert the higher, and they will do it cleverly because they invest their intelligence in dissimulation instead of logical future-oriented planning.

Perhaps there was a trigger incident — the Black Plague, the Mongol Invasions, or even simply a population boom — that set off the testing, but once it started, the masses confronted their leaders with a choice: beat us down or be beaten down. Their leaders, too full of heart and sympathy to do what was needed, began a gradual retreat that continues to this day.

At some point, the shit test will get the response that every passive person secretly desires, which is to be dominated. A leader will line the horizons with heads on poles and tell everyone what to do. This will acknowledge the basic tendency of humanity, which is that unless given purpose, the average person becomes a clever agent of destruction and nothing more. Oppression is freedom.

Neoreaction and nihilism

Friday, March 20th, 2015


As the cluster of new movements dedicated to rejecting 1789 using modern reasoning — new right, neoreaction, the dark enlightenment, the red pill and the like — reach their maturity and begin to decay through the inevitable proliferation of divergent internal directions, their fundamental lessons are absorbed into the general idea-space of conservatism.

Conservatism inherits these ideas because it is consequentialist, or based in the judgment of effects to validate its causes, not seeing causes as things worthy in themselves as in a moral or social view. Its morality is presumed and is not expressed in the philosophy itself, but used to assess the results of various actions (“causes”) throughout history, keeping those that not only avoid immediate bad results but work toward the best eternal results, generally summarized as “the good, the beautiful and the true” in unison with each other.

Nihilism seems inimical to conservatives because it rejects the inherency of morality. Under nihilism, moral standards are a choice we elect to have, and function as a kind of technology or learning, much as evolution is a choice without a clear value. It may be more comfortable to remain simple and wild and there is no objective way to disprove that, only to point out that it forecloses certain opportunities, including the good, beautiful and true. Nihilism takes consequentialism to the next level: nothing is innate, and we must choose what consequences we desire not based on ourselves, for that would be granting an inherent value to humanness, but to the whole picture of existence that those consequences silhouette.

Neoreaction and nihilism share a common ground in this area. Removing human emotion and morality from the equation, they treat philosophy and politics as modes of learning. In the neoreactionary view, government and civilization are types of technology that we must master, and we master those not through moral reasoning in which cause is the only consideration, but by looking at causes and the effects they generate, then choosing which effects are most sensible given the parameters of reality. We are limited and judged by what we choose. There is no inherent wrongness in someone choosing to live in a mud hut, but there is also a lack of potential in it, and neoreactionaries abandon both the traditional conservative view of inherent morality above humanity and the traditional liberal view of inherent morality within humanity. Instead, they see only the question of a species adapting to its environment, and the choices before it.

This works around the liberal idea of “one right way” according to a human model. It instead views humanity from outside of humanity itself. The libertarian roots of neoreaction suggested that government be viewed as if it were a business, questioning how effective it is, and comparing what may be purchased with the same money. In this context, modern liberal democracy looks inefficient in that the end result it produces is miserable for its citizens, where an aristocratic monarchy where culture takes the place of day-to-day government provides a more beautiful, realistic and thus ultimately good experience of life. In this view, civilization must be viewed in unison; acts of individual humans do not exist in a separate context from the group. Civilization is a group effort to achieve a specific way of life that constitutes both an adaptation and enhancement of our natural state.

Humans fear this kind of thinking on an individual level. The individual seeks to extend the morality of self-preservative fear to the group, so that it creates a mentality of protecting every individual on the basis of individuality alone. In this context, the individual feels protected from consequences; thought exists at the level of pure cause, where the cause in and of itself constitutes results if it pleases others. The paradox in this is that by creating an ideology to administer this belief, society creates a goal higher than the individual, and as history shows is willing to sacrifice many individuals in order to preserve that dogma. The lesson of the past two centuries is that ideology is a dead-end path, because it is entrenched in cause alone, and that only cause-effect reasoning produces viable results.

What neoreactionaries, conservatives and nihilists have in common is that all three groups are realists. They do not see politics as a question within the human world, but a question of how humans will adapt to their world. This type of thinking frees us from the negative logic of liberalism, where a moral justification must be defended against reality, and lets us see reality adaptation as a technology for achieving any number of ends, forcing upon us the question that defines us: what do we want? It is easy to complain, criticize and lambast existing systems or details, but more difficult to have a vision of the future. That is where the future of realist thought begins.