Posts Tagged ‘women’

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.

Roles For Traditional Women

Thursday, July 6th, 2017

We are archaeologists, trying to uncover the past so we know how society was when it was functional, before the present era descended and obliterated everything good and replaced it with what people wish were good.

As a result, we suffer mass confusion trying to understand what we actually want and what it might look like. A rising form of confusion is the role of women.

On one side, some who claim to be traditionalists attack female video presenters like Tara McCarthy for choosing to make Right-wing propaganda instead of staying home and popping out babies. Some, such as “Wintery Knight,” believe women should be limited to such roles.

Others want to perpetuate the idea of equality, and insist that women and men can have the same roles, which are then decided by “meritocracy” which is “equal.” You see this mostly on the Alt Lite.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle.

Let us look at a recent confusion about the role of a traditionalist woman:

Rather than that being the end of that, my friend and a blue pill male volunteer jumped right on it — “That’s a red flag! He’s trying to control you! Who is he to say who can and can’t be here?” they howled.

…I followed up on the conversation with both and explained my other half wasn’t trying to be controlling, he was trying to help me avoid a common weakness of mine, which is to feel bad for people and to try to save them when really they need to save themselves, just the same as I do, or any adult does.

…His were not the words of an oppressive, abusive brute who is just trying to isolate me. They are the wise words and reasoning of someone who is trying to look out for me and my kids, someone who wants to help guide and protect us from needless suffering and mistakes.

Men and women have complementary roles, which means that they are unequal partners toward the same purpose, contributing as they can in domains of authority granted to both. Generally, the woman rules home and family; the man handles income and defense. At the same time, these roles overlap somewhat, in that the man is the leader of the household and defends against invisible enemies like illogical thoughts, emotional responses and common human failings.

To divide these up in enumerated lists would be too many, but the most abstract roles for men and women will have men covering direction, and women handling the finding of balance in whatever direction they find themselves embarked upon.

In this light, a traditionalist woman does not have categorical restrictions on her. She can for example wield a video blog against the insanity of the world, and even defend the home as needed. She can read, think, write, play music, and do many other things of a creative nature. Her mind is not restricted, but she is under the guidance of her father or husband against threats which could subvert her, the family or the nation.

At the same time, men require reining in periodically or they will turn just about anything into a war. Women have a mediating role, which is not the same as constantly moderating male response, only knowing when to throw a towel over your raging beast of a male and haul it back inside because it is tired, manic or upset.

We help each other, men and women, which means covering each other’s blind spots and weaknesses. In tradition, the importance of role is that it is cooperative toward a purpose, which is to honor the order of nature with our willing adaptation to its structure, and this cannot be sketched out in the kind of stuffy rules that many who should know better want us to adopt.

Women Are Driving The Education Bubble

Thursday, June 22nd, 2017

It turns out that women carry two-thirds of the student loan debt that will eventually blow up in our faces like the other bubbles:

Women carry roughly two thirds of the country’s $1.3tn student debt load – altogether that’s about $833bn for women, compared to $477bn for men. The reasons for higher debt are varied, but the trends of financial hardship reveal how the new sexism problem on campus might not be so much outright discrimination but a slow-burning crisis of eroding economic opportunity once they enter the workforce.

…On paper, the gap may seem fairly small; the average cumulative debt owed by women with bachelor’s degrees was about $20,900 in 2012 versus nearly $19,500 for men. But across all degree levels, the year-to-year financial burden is crushing: women face an estimated 14% higher debt burden in a given year than comparably educated men. So within about four years of graduating, women generally lag farther behind men on their college debt repayments.

This one is easily decoded: women work, then have babies, and then come back to work and are behind. Even more, promoting women who are going to be leaving is a bad idea, as it creates power gaps. This is why traditional societies preferred that most women focus on the family instead. Like our other debt bubbles, this one has gotten so big that even government cannot bail it out.

Where To Find Good Women: The Rust Belt

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

On the MRA/Alt Right front, complaints about being unable to find women are frequent. Most commentators take the moralistic view, telling men to hit the gym and quit social media, as if being personally good forced the world to reward you, as in the fallacy of most religious morality which focuses on the personal and ignores the consequential.

Another approach would be simply to get out of the big cities and suburbs and go looking for where the women are, which seems to be in areas where there are few men, such as a shortage of men in the rust belt:

“It’s very hard to find a good man here,” Catherine Ratliff, 43, said. “We have to fend for ourselves.” Ratliff, a trim blond with a long braid, told me she was trying to raise her children to be “strong and independent” and not depend on men for anything. “You just have to be single and strong,” she said. Another Jerry’s server, Pamela Moore, 41, moved to town recently from Florida, and said she had noticed the difference in the competency of men between the two locations. “They’re all on dope or they’re dying up here,” she said.

Instead of becoming disgruntled and seeking the easier and more compliant brides from Asia, Eastern Europe and Mexico that does nothing but further our problems, young men in America and Europe should instead look to the places where normal, healthy and sane women are living.

Affirmative Action Reveals Its Extortionate Nature

Monday, May 1st, 2017

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, diversity hiring has run into a snag: women and minorities leave jobs more frequently than others, and tend to blame the workplace for creating a hostile environment:

Women, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to quit jobs in tech than white or Asian men, according to a new report by the Kapor Center for Social Impact. The Oakland nonprofit commissioned an online survey by the Harris Poll, which asked 2,006 people who voluntarily left tech jobs in the past three years about why they quit. It found women were twice as likely to leave as men (alternative link), while black and Latino tech workers were 3.5 times likelier to quit than white or Asian colleagues. The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.

Either all of these businesses are allowing “workplace mistreatment,” or as is more likely with human beings, people have figured out how to work the system. Affirmative Action means that competition for women and minorities enables them to get much higher salaries and be promoted beyond their actual qualifications. At that point, the winning move is to change jobs for more money and a new title.

In addition, these workers have a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is that if they claim mistreatment, companies will not criticize them because lawsuit dynamite has been created. This means that for them to make amazing money, all they need to do is get hired, and after a short time, claim mistreatment and move on to the next job, from which they can effectively not be fired.

Diversity has wrecked the West because by assuming that companies and individuals are in the wrong when something does not work out for a woman or minority person, our government and courts have created permanent entitlement positions which are being exploited because it is economically sensible for workers to do so. This raises costs, which are passed on to the consumer, and penalizes productive workers.

International Women’s Day

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

International Women’s Day strikes many of us as a stupid idea, but it is hard to articulate why. Like most minority-against-majority politics, it creates a false “identity” based not on membership to a larger group, but on the parts of the individual that give power by differentiating it from the group. This leads to criticism on a practical, not political, level.

Minority-against-majority politics are a form of individualism, or assertion of the intent of the individual against the known working social, natural and logical order of nature. In other words, the individual wants to escape their rightful context as part of the whole, and become the perspective of the whole, like God or a movie camera. They want life to be about them, at the very center.

This is an unconscious desire and like most of those, will almost never be articulated as such because it is unknown to the person holding it and to speak of it that way would be to give up the game. Individualists are thus the perfect carriers of this mental infection, which expresses itself as self-pity and victimhood coupled with the resulting sense of revenge and competition.

That in turn emerges as a simple formula: I want. The primal form of individualism is a separation from what is needed, in the broader sense of fitting into the world and having a meaningful place, with the desire of the individual to be the most important. That translates “need” into a sense of whim, consumption and desire known as wants that are external affirmations of the individual.

In this way, individualism abolishes the individual. The person as they are — traits, ability, place in hierarchy, moral character, intelligence — is replaced by wants and the type of weird competition that results whereby people attempt to be demonstrate greater importance to themselves than others.

Feminism is one form of this broken pathology. Women attempt to be like men, and in doing so, lose what it is to be women. This is no different than black men who want to sit at the white man’s table, and in doing so, abolish the notion of a black man’s table and program their brains to deny its possibility. Competition is often the opposite of creativity.

Minority-against-majority politics fail for this reason: they are essentially assimilationism by the minority group into the majority, mainly because by demanding a place in what someone else has done, it destroys what is unique about the minority group. Women become the androgynous detail-obsessive authoritarians that stalk American workplaces; blacks become Oreos; Jews become Official Victims.

In the same way, Leftists should not aspire to sit at the conservative table because Leftists want an entirely different type of society, probably one from the third world. When you desire to sit at the table of another group, they define you. This is one of the many reasons white people should stop yapping about The Rich™ and The Jew™ and instead just fix our own problems.

International Women’s Day is in that sense a type of scapegoating. Women, instead of finding a way to be happy at being women, are blaming men for the fact that men and women are different, and by looking toward what men have, are ignoring what women are and therefore, what they need instead of what they want.

Women abolishing themselves is nothing new. Where many of us grew up in the South, women had most of the power because they ran the homes and all of the informal cultural and social networks that kept society running in the everyday. Men handled war, producing wealth and budgeting, basically, but women did everything else.

These ladies did not suffer from a lack of power. They just did not have the same power as men. And so, the two genders complemented each other without “equality” — in politics, a simplistic concept derived from human intention contrary to reality — but also without unbalance. They could both have power, and be women.

A young girl growing up today has none of this expectation. She will be an equal citizen, a robot serf who goes through the gristmill like anyone else and spends her life on her career as if she were a family of one for eternity. The smarter she is and the more seriously she takes it, the more likely she will be to never have a family and to never find actual (“true”) love.

Modernity has destroyed everything good through its insistence on equality, which is the political form of individualism, and is applied through collectivism like democracy, unions, socialism and entitlements. We are a herd of cattle who give in to our weakness, which we call evil, and let our self-importance surpass our place in the order of nature, man and gods.

As a result, we make ourselves miserable. International Women’s Day is just one part of this. The ego rages, and demands what it intends and not what it needs, and then finds itself having “power” which was always illusory, and so ends up isolated, alienated, atomized and meaningless. This is a rush headlong into a moribund state, which is why the West is collapsing.

In addition, International Women’s Day this year includes a protest called “A Day Without A Woman” where all the women stay home from work. Like related protests “A Day Without An Immigrant” and the government shutdown of several years ago, this will most likely backfire when the rest of us realize that women outside the workforce makes work and home better in parallel, refuting Modernity for just a moment.

The War Of Women

Sunday, November 6th, 2016


The science fiction story of War of the Worlds fascinated many people around the world. Given that the aliens came from Mars may even have been inspirational for the book; Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. However, the actual motivation for the book was to improve communication between the sexes.

Following the logic that Martian (men) and Earth men like war, it may (not) come as a surprise that women also engage in war. They fight amongst each other on Venus and they will fight with women on earth (who also fight amongst each other).  According to the book, preventing all this fighting against each other, or with each other, requires changes in communication.

The deduction is that fighting women would not only communicate differently than men, but also that they would use different approaches. Military specifications provide for ergonomic differences between men and women where prior specifications in most cases limit who does what. For example, changing truck wheels is specified as a man’s job. The outcome is therefore that since trucks remain in service for twenty years, that changing wheels on those trucks will remain a man’s job for the same time.

Over time women became more and more available for various military jobs and were even taking highly specialized jobs such as fighter pilots. The communication adjustments made within the Army is unknown but in general sexual intercourse between officers and non-commissioned officers are frowned upon (perhaps even prohibited).

The point is that each job in a military organization is defined, even if it is allocated to a specified sex. Keep in mind that it is not just the sex that is specified but an enormous range of characteristics. Going up the command ladder require specifications to change in the same way it would for a normal company (more or less).

The interesting point is when the top military commander, having worked his entire life to get to that position is supervised by a civilian, in most cases with only eight years political experience. The Commander is qualified for the job, but there are no specifications for the politician other than to be a “favorite.”

However, since men are more naturally prepared for (physical) war than women, the question of “specifications” for male political oversight of trained and tested Commanders could be seen as a less pressing matter, than for a woman politician. In European politics, having a female political leader also appears to be a lesser problem vis-à-vis Margaret Thatcher, as was witnessed by her contribution to the short Falklands War.

An alternative solution as exemplified by Angela Merkel, who appears to be using the typical female “balancing act,, is to push migrant diplomacy “warfare” as a means to enforce an economic union (Turkish threats). At this stage it appears to be less successful on the non-economic home front. What is interesting at this point is that women leaders are inclined to move away from physical warfare in favor of “economics” and carroty “pressure.”

In the United States, having untrained, untested, unspecified direct female oversight of physical military objectives including oversight of the execution towards those objectives means that America is cruising on unchartered waters. This is dangerous in the sense that the situation is entirely unpredictable. If the European example is to be the accepted role model, then one should prepare for less physical war and more “economic” war “by any means necessary.”

The Pentagon has in fact been pushing for a “less war” narrative when they published the Mr Y article in 2011. Based on this and the unchartered waters female leaders cruise upon, one can expect a lot of hair grabbing and face-spitting, but no real physical conventional war. The war however, is now at home and inside each home. Just like intelligence gathering is now done via social media (which the public pays for), so will the cost of war also decrease (where the public will pay for security).

This necessitates further examination of female leaders in war (conventional and/or in-home). History provides examples from various parts of the world, as well as from different periods. Searching on Google provided various references, but a popular website was “The Mary Sue” publishing a piece on “10 Hardcore Female Military Leaders from History”. One famous example is the illiterate Joan of Arc where France has her to thank for not becoming part of England.   Another less known female pilot during WW2 was the Russian Major Marina Raskova. (The Russians used female soldiers widely.).

One thing that appears to be common amongst historic women leaders is a selfless passion combined with an unmistakably physical confrontational effort to overcome the enemy. But one female leader not mentioned in this reference was Cleopatra, the Queen of Egypt.

She was actually from Greek descent ruling Egypt after the death of Alexander the Great. She was quite wealthy and smart but could not compete militarily with Rome.  In summary, she effectively turned the Roman Army into her own Army by sleeping with the much older Julius Caesar. The story ended with her suicide by snake because she knew that a follow-up Caesar (Octavian) would not fall for her charms.

It is common cause that women fight differently to men. For example, they scream a lot and pull each other’s hair, but will stop to go and plot somewhere else, meaning no resolution was found and might never be found actually. Men on the other hand, will for the most part “sort things out.”

As if all this is not enough, the cultural world add to this complexity with different approaches to management of the sexes, on the inside and outside. The book Culture’s Consequences indicates the following incomplete sentences on “leadership”:

  • It ranges from consensual to authoritative
  • Only exist as a complement to subordinateship (required for hierarchy)
  • A trait generally acquire-able by anybody (fantasy in authoritative societies)
  • Express modern leadership but desires authority
  • Females are better transformation leaders
  • Leader in one country not always a leader in another country.

There appear to be a paradox in that the “masses” have a fantasy towards leadership (which might be based on their own fantasy of having inherent leadership), while actually depending on authoritative leaders to “enable” the environment in which they operate, where even that is country specific.

This paradox may be demonstrated by West German men voting for an East-German Merkel, while also burning migrant housing. They are willing to be subordinates in exchange for Merkel enabling their environment (which she is not doing). In fact Merkel said “you must do what you always do” which is similar to something de Klerk said to Afrikaner conservatives before giving his “country” away to Mandela (who was in fact a leader –- but from a different nation). The new “leadership” in both these countries (dis)-abled those countries instead of (en)abling it.

Regarding transformation it is probably true that women are better than men simply because of their inherent ability to balance things out. This could be a technique to stop corrupt men from becoming leaders, but the term transformation is more appropriate in a managerial situation, meaning that men have to set up the “system” such as liberal-democracy, before women can be appointed as leaders/managers. However, balance in our actions is not the same as achieving balance in external reality.

Finally the factor of religion: Christianity allows each man to have one wife, while Muslims allow each man to have many wives.  African tribes also support the multiple wives principle and this affects the way they live, how they raise kids and what examples leaders set for society. Religion therefore has enormous effect on those societies including culture and how those societies would view leaders. Compare for example the leader of Iran with Merkel. Even though Merkel is a woman, it is doubtful that she would be able to “transform” herself to an Islam leader.

The dark side of religion is multiple women involved in sexual relations with a single man. Because Muslim women constantly hide themselves and are prohibited from speaking out, their contribution is to society is highly underrated. After all, they literally raise the next generation leader. According to the Podesta leaks, Muslim women see German women as “whores” and suitable for their husbands to be used as “slaves”.  It is clear that “covered” women would not like “uncovered” women to engage their husbands, or even their own sons, unless they were designated as “slaves” and “whores.”

Many people exclaimed that migrants are mostly (about 70%) young men, which in that culture would simply mean that their mothers authorized them to go on a “conquest” of western society. Muslim women know from experience that if you control women you control their men too. This was also demonstrated in the 1901 “scorched earth” military campaign Britain executed against the Boers, where they put an entire ethnic group’s women into concentration camps.

It may have taken a hundred years, but women are again at the forefront of war. However, this time it’s the Muslim women against Western women. They follow intuitively the Cleopatra model, where they “use” the vices of men against other men, towards their own objectives. In my opinion the reason this is happening now, is because the system men set up i.e. liberal-democracy, has failed, just like the British Empire has failed hundred years ago.

The question Americans and indeed the West should ask today: Is a woman leader, at this time in Western history, a suitable choice? For example, Hillary Clinton. Let us consider:

  • Her communication is not better
  • She has virtually no passion
  • She has not been trained in physical warfare techniques
  • She is moving the Military-Industrial Complex towards a Media-Politics Complex
  • She ignores culture’s consequences, even that of her own electorate
  • She does not understand her role in the system and that it has failed, just like the British Empire has failed
  • Her idea of consensus is a bribe.

Thus we see someone who is inclined to balance her own responses according to social factors, a.k.a. appearance to others, but not achieve balance in actuality. This is the most dangerous situation: someone who protects herself by adhering to tradition, but as a result, cannot think beyond it, dooming us to more of the mistakes of the past created by relying on those assumptions.

Unnecessary Work Blights Modernity

Saturday, November 5th, 2016


A friend of mine once observed that most of his cell phone bandwidth was caused by automatic downloads of updates to applications he never used. He cannot get rid of them because they are part of the default installation, and so removing them leads to them re-installing themselves.

Why, one might ask, do we have constant updates to just about everything? The suits have an answer: for security, or better performance. And yet, these applications are rarely used, and with each update, they grow bigger and lose focus on whatever it was they did originally.

The companies force us to have them. The applications force updates. And then, the cycle begins again. At each iteration, the phone works more slowly and has less space because of the increasing bloat.

This process resembles most of the work in the West now, which is unnecessary, pro-forma “make-work” created by the management structure.

A company decides it needs an application. Its business managers make the right deals to get it included with an operating system. Then, a manager is appointed to develop the application. She hires programmers, and because the higher-ups have imposed unrealistic requirements and limited the budget, cuts corners.

The resulting application is bad, but that is good. Otherwise, the manager could not get more money approved. More money comes in, but she must demonstrate it is necessary, so she hires more people. Now these people need reasons to stay employed, so she begins introducing feature creep.

At first, the changes are to improve obvious non-functional parts of the app. However, the really big fixes have to wait, because those are hard and could go wrong. Instead, the team focuses on window-dressing and adding unnecessary function to cover the buzzwords of the day. This is why all apps connect to the dying Twitter platform.

The incentive is on the manager to invent nonsense “needs” that will keep her team employed, and break the app so that future updates are needed. They add Twitter function, but now email does not work. They fix email, but now Twitter does not work. On and on, to keep the project alive long enough.

Long enough for… what? For the manager to declare victory and get hired elsewhere. The project now passes to a new manager. In the eyes of upper management, the app is a success, so his job is to do essentially nothing. This means that he can add new features, as long as they are not used, because that way, he cannot be wrong.

The higherups look down and approve.

Five years later, the app — say, a weather update or address book — is the size of an operating system in the late 1990s. Huge parts of it either do not work or work so badly that no one uses them, which means that no error reports come in and these parts are on that basis judged to be a success.

At this point, The Peter Principle kicks in. Any manager who is good enough to fix this app will cause conflict by pointing out that it has major problems, needs an overhaul, and by implication, that past shining progress reports were nonsense and bloviation.

Management cannot have that. Instead, they appoint people who are easy to control, so that higher management jobs are not at risk. This means that the person overseeing the app now is incompetent, or of such limited options that he will never rise above this point. His goal then is to never touch the important stuff, and focus on the unimportant.

At every level of our society this process repeats. The idea of “accountability,” which is the notion of responsibility reduced to appearance to others who do not understand the process, ensures that any action with risk will result in a firing, but the usual incompetence and mental laziness will make a thriving career.

If you wonder why every aspect of our society seems to be simultaneously glitching, this is why: people are risk-averse due to accountability, and simultaneously motivated to address trends and buzzwords, which means that the essential task of any product is just about forgotten.

People tolerate it until another option becomes available because complaining is like screaming at a wall. The complaint form does not have the right options, or it goes to fifteenth-tier technical support, which can only make a note in the complainer’s personal file which no one else ever sees.

On top of this, our society has piled burdens. Regulations consist mostly of paperwork requirements, so the team spends most of its time on that. Fear of lawsuits means that rigorous processes exist for every change to anything, so most changes are never attempted because they are both risky and mind-numbingly tedious.

Add to this unions whose goal is to ensure collective reward, which means that the incompetents get rewarded and cannot be fired, right along with the competent ones. This drives the competent away because they cannot exercise their skill, which is fixing things, because fixing things endangers management and unions.

Then we throw in affirmative action. A company can be sued for not hiring a woman or minority, so when the choice involves one of those, they always hire. This pads the rolls with people who, it is discovered after they are hired, have only one competence, which is being from a protected group. They now cannot be fired.

Further, women in the workforce tend to focus on details at the expense of the whole. They will ensure that every single aspect of the non-working function to the non-working app is precisely as demanded, and spend all of their time on that, while ignoring the basic fact of its dysfunction.

In the meantime, workers are bored out of their minds because their tasks are incremental. Management and regulations love this because it separates everything out into little boxes which can then be managed directly, instead of through a chain of command or organically, like by seeing what works and keeping only that.

This fosters a Soviet-style bureaucracy onto the free market. Our fear of job instability leads to something worse, which is useless jobs, which are then more unstable because when the time comes to cut, who cares if the app gets lost — they can farm it out to India for the useless updates, save money and duck unions, lawsuits and regulators.

The workers, like panicked monkeys hearing a leopard cry in the night, demand more unions and regulations. Management approves because these make business more expensive for the little guy, which makes blatant incompetence less likely to get displaced.

It all goes on like this, a sick circus of people wasting their irreplaceable time with useless activity, until the economy collapses. Then everyone gets fired, things get reshuffled, and they can start the process all over again.

Recommended Reading