Leftism, suicide, autogenocide, and cosmocide.

February 13th, 2016

If all men are created equal then it logically follows that all white males must die, because they keep emitting evil thought rays that cause blacks and women to underperform, blacks to commit crimes, and render women incapable of agency.  If you believe all men are created equal, you are going to pursue the goal of the death of all white males regardless of whether you are Jewish or not. This was obvious in the French response to the Haitian slave revolt.

Working class Trump voters must be bitter clingers who are worse than Hitler simply by existing.

The left has always been autogenocidal. When the Populares allied with the Samnites that showed they wanted to kill all free Roman males.

Indeed, cosmocidal. They want to immanentize the Eschaton, and the only way to do that is to kill everyone and destroy everything.

Your ordinary leftist, for example Scott Alexander is undeniably a nice guy.  But he has no enemies to the left, and no friends to the right, which means that all his friends are his enemies, and all his enemies are his friends.  He is incapable of seriously criticizing those to the left of him, and does not dare allow himself to comprehend those to the right of him. Thus Scott will completely and accurately identify some problem with leftism “but still, quite sincerely, ritually abase himself to it.  He writes long sincere thoughtful screeds pointing out that baby sacrifice is lowering the birth rate and causing family trauma, though of course he fully understands and endorses that Lord Moloch must be sated with the only food acceptable unto him.”

Leftism is holiness, and in any discussion, any consensus, the holiest leftist or cuckservative always wins, so nice leftists always lose to evil crazies, and piously agree that they deserve to lose, since the holiest, being holier, should get their way.

And if you want to immanentize the Eschaton, you are holier than anyone like Scott, who might be suspected of thinking that immanentizing the Eschaton might be difficult.  Only a total asshole like myself could possibly oppose immanentizing the Eschaton altogether. And if one wants to immanentize the Eschaton soon, one is holier than anyone who merely wants to immanentize some time in the distant and indefinite future.  And if one wants to immanentize the Eschaton right away, one is the holiest of all, and every leftist and cuckservative wants to be one’s friend, and none of them dare offend one, even though one will undoubtedly take offense anyway.

And thus the Khmer Rouge.  And thus Chang Hsien-chong

Angela Merkel hates Germans and Germany – is viscerally repulsed by them, clearly wishes all Germans and all memory of Germany and all German culture to end with her. Remember her revealing reaction to the German flag. She reacted to the German flag like a vampire doused with holy water, or exposed to the rising sun.

Leftism is inherently cosmocidal. This suicidal, destructive, and self destructive tendency is as common as dirt even among the non Jewish left. Granted, the Jewish left is worse, but the difference is nothing to get excited about. They all want to kill you and everyone like you.  And if, like Scott, they are not completely 110% on board with killing you and everyone like you, they are nonetheless trying to avoid falling overboard for fear that those who are completely 110% on board with killing you and everyone like you might take offense – or rather might take even more offense than they do already.

Posted in politics, war | 86 Comments »

Fall of Aleppo reveals that asymmetric warfare is bunkum

February 4th, 2016

In war, the stronger party prevails.

Asymmetric warfare only works when the weaker party has political protection.  Perhaps like the Taliban, the weaker party is fighting soldiers required to operate as heavily armed nursemaids.  Perhaps like Mao after the long march or the communists in Greece, the weaker party is launching raids from across a border that the stronger party is reluctant to cross.

The usual scenario where asymmetric warfare works is that the State Department fears the Pentagon more than it fears America’s enemies, and requires US troops to operate by police rules, while those the Pentagon is fighting operate by the laws of war.

When Russia intervened in Syria to rescue their ally and preserve their Mediterranean base, the usual suspects, in particular President Obama announced Russia was getting into a quagmire.  Instead Russia has, as I predicted, been decisively and thoroughly winning, largely through shelling, bombing, blockade, and siege – slow but thorough tactics that deny the weaker party any opportunity to do even a small amount of damage to the stronger.  Less sweat that way than taking strong places by storm.

The Turkish controlled parts of Aleppo and west of Aleppo have now been cut off from Turkey, and are now already conserving food and ammunition.  Short of an open land and air intervention by Turkey, short of open non proxy war between Russia and Turkey, will wither on the vine and fall in a few months.

Russia is also bombing the hell out of Islamic State’s Turkish supply lines, but has as yet made no attempt to cut them off on the ground.  Once Aleppo falls to siege, will probably turn its attention to laying siege to Islamic State.

The current peace talks illustrates asymmetric warfare in a nutshell:  The weaker losing side rather than the stronger winning side is laying down preconditions and making demands, the primary demand being that Russia stop advancing.   In other words, they are asking the State Department to stop the Russians from winning in the same way the State Department has so regularly stopped the Pentagon from winning. The State Department indignantly blames Russia for the failure of the peace talks, which supposedly failed because the weaker side is getting hammered so hard and is suffering so badly.

Posted in war | 88 Comments »

Women like rapists

February 3rd, 2016

In the current Muslim invasion of Europe, the invaders continually commit acts that would get a white male a long time in jail and permanent registration as a sex offender, but for the invaders, minor consequences or no consequences.   And you are seeing few if any complaints from women,unlike the extreme hypervigilance against imperceptibly slight micro aggressions by nerds.

A bunch of Swedish males protest about sexual assaults by the invaders against their women.  And Swedish feminists counter protest “We are not your women”

Decoding:  “You are insufficiently manly to grope us, unlike the invaders, we don’t want to be owned by men like you.”

In the manosphere, I see a whole lot of posts hopefully and optimistically proclaiming that all these assaults will show women that they need manly white men to protect them.

we are approaching a social tipping point where the physical necessity of conventional masculinity will outweigh the liability to women in ceding the power that feminine social primacy represents.

But women are not reacting that way.  Their reactions shows that to them, all these assaults reveal white men as insufficiently manly, not invaders as dangerously aggressive.  They rather like the invasion, and don’t really want anything effective done to stop the assaults.

Efforts to protect women from sexual assault by the invaders are unappreciated and unwanted.   Such efforts would only be appreciated and wanted if white men claimed and successfully enforced ownership over women, if individual white men claimed and enforced such ownership, with their individual enforcement backed by collective enforcement.

Women love it when a firm and confident claim of ownership leads to successful defense – and rather too much love testing claims of ownership by creating situations where the claim needs defending.  Absent confident and firm ownership claims, do not really like defense very much.

Recall that in the legend of Perseus and Andromeda, after Perseus rescues Andromeda from the dragon, he kills her fiancee, abducts her from her family and marries her.   He rescues her and firmly takes possession.

Posted in culture, war | 40 Comments »

Can’t stump the Trump

February 1st, 2016

I try not to follow electoral politics, because it is a spectacle, designed to give you the illusion of a microslice of political power.  And ninety nine percent of the time, it is as fake as professional wrestling, as when the Republican party recently passed a federal budget funding every single thing on the left wing wish list, including welfare for illegals, late term abortions and the sale of baby meat, completely, outrageously, and flagrantly betraying those who voted for them, and revealing that everything they had said on the campaign trail was a total barefaced utterly cynical lie.

But Trump … well at worst, it is truly great professional wresting, and the people I hate are getting pounded good and hard, and are not liking it very much.

Trump has the outstanding knack of getting a complex idea across in a gesture, a smile, a tone of voice.

A girl challenges Trump on “women’s issues”.   At least that is what her question verbally is, but her body language is “You are uncool because fertile age chicks don’t like you”.  And all us white knights know that fertile chicks are the arbiters of male social status.

Trump gives a rambling non answer to this rambling non question that logically makes no sense at all, and has no particular relevance, but in fact makes the point that he has numerous hot wives, great sex life, handsome sons and beautiful daughters.   So this attack having been deflected, she asks an actual question.  “When you are president will I get equal pay”

Trump replies “If you earn it” – making the unthinkable and unspeakable implication that what women do in the workplace just is seldom very valuable.

Trump was challenged on his reluctance to put boots on the ground in various trouble spots where the US is currently being routinely humiliated.  To which he replied “Do you want to rule Syria?”

We have of course been losing wars because we have been occupying countries while refusing to rule them.  Chaos predictably ensues.  Progressive imperialism believes we can put good guys (meaning democratically elected progressives) in power around the world, as was supposed to happen in Arab Spring.  Trump’s question implies that if you put boots on the ground the victory condition and the method by which victory is achieved is that your general rules as US proconsul.   This gives progressives the horrors, because the progressives want priests, not warriors, to rule.   But priestly rule in an Islamic country is at best Islamic Brotherhood, as in Egypt, at worst the Taliban, which is why we have been losing.  Events in Afghanistan have repeatedly demonstrated that faced with a choice between Taliban rule, and rule by US soldiers, the US State Department will choose the Taliban every single time.

Posted in party politics | 21 Comments »

The Road of our people’s democracy

February 1st, 2016

In Hungary, and various other soon to be iron curtain countries, free and fair elections were held, which elections the communists completely and totally lost.

Untroubled, they applied pressure to purge the very rightmost people from government. And the very rightmost were purged. And they continued to apply pressure, and the very rightmost remaining were purged. And pretty soon there was no one left except communists. They called this “The Salami Slicer“. The process did not go all the way to infinite leftism and the execution of absolutely everyone, because Stalin had it under top down control, and turned it off once total communist domination had been achieved.

Which is OK, provided that Stalin has sufficient control to prevent those under him from using it against him.

Now lately, social justice warriors have been pushing open source software projects to adopt the following set of rules:

… People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people.…
…

Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants include:

The use of sexualized language or imagery and unwelcome sexual attention or advances
Trolling, insulting/derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
Public or private harassment
Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Our Responsibilities

Project maintainers are responsible for clarifying the standards of acceptable behavior and are expected to take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any instances of unacceptable behavior.

Project maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful. …
…

tl;dr The project agrees to purge the politically incorrect.

Doubting that the politically incorrect need to be purged is, of course compelling evidence that your views are so shockingly right wing that you need to be purged.  Indeed, debates on this issue tend to reveal that practically all of the key contributors are so ultra extreme far right wing that they need to be purged.

Further, although supposedly it is everyone’s responsibility to purge the politically incorrect, obviously ordinary contributors, being mere coders and guilty of white privilege lack the required exquisite sensitivity to subtle slights, so people with the right race, sex, and sexual preferences need to be added to the project to take charge of purging people.

Note that the people pushing this proposal are so excruciatingly sensitive that they consider that the use of terms such as “forking” constitute sexualized imagery.  They find misogyny and racism absolutely everywhere.  Everyone (except themselves) is guilty, and must be punished.

Posted in war | 58 Comments »

Trump is the man

January 29th, 2016

Among the red pill community there is a debate as to whether Trump is an exemplar of manliness, and his latest move in blowing off the presidential debate is an example of manliness, or whether it is the opposite.

Obviously, if someone treats you with disrespect, as Kelly disrespected Trump, the manly thing to do is to blow them off and ignore them. And critics of Trump say that by throwing a tantrum over Kelly, he is not ignoring her.

Well, perhaps. But if he showed up at the debate and accepted her as moderator and responded to her hostile interrogation, he would even less be ignoring her.

Posted in culture, party politics, politics | 30 Comments »

In support of Roosh

January 26th, 2016

Roosh is a great and valuable ideologue of the alt-right

A lot of white nationalists want to purge Roosh because he is a non white degenerate who sleeps with lots of white women.

If a virgin sleeps with Roosh, she slept with a man who made it perfectly clear he was only in town for a week, and was in town to sleep with as many women as possible.

If a non virgin sleeps with Roosh, where is the problem?

White knighting is a first step to cuckservatism.

Come the revolution, those sluts will get a caning, and Roosh will get a shotgun marriage, and will probably be much improved by it.

The red pill is the alt right’s killer app. If you know what women are like, you will conclude that emancipation was a really bad idea. If female emancipation was a bad idea, you are well and truly off the reservation.

Posted in politics | 393 Comments »

Hillary

January 25th, 2016

Observing Hillary’s performances, it is kind of obvious that she is a drunk or druggie who cannot be trusted to be sober for a public appearance, or else she is suffering from some premature brain disease, or very likely both.

The email scandal is a storm in a tea cup. She committed umpteen felony offenses that could in theory send her to jail for zillions of years, but so does everyone. Everyone runs their own email server away from their employers and subordinates, and keeps data that could be potentially used against them on a thumbdrive. Everyone keeps a few spare identities here and there. It is like her husband smoking dope and raping women who had agreed to come to his hotel room in the middle of the night. I have never purchased dope, nor smoked it in private, and I notice that those who do tend to be losers, but once in a while I have been with a bunch of guys who are passing some grass around, and one needs to be sociable, and her husband is famously sociable. Nobody cares about his dope smoking, and feminists care even less about his rapes. The only people who ever worried about his rapes are Democrats-are-the-real-racists cuckservatives. Rape, like dope smoking or concealing or destroying information, is a crime that tends to be selectively prosecuted, and receives highly selective indignation. Consider for example Polanski. That was not statutory rape of a thirteen year old, that was actual rape, in the sense that Samantha continually said no and made some resistance. Does anyone care? Feminists don’t. Chances are that the top secret data was lot more secure on Clinton’s private thumbdrive than on the government official top secret system, because Clinton had real motive to secure it.

Hillary’s “health” problem – that she cannot be trusted to be sane and sober – is rather more serious. How did the democrats wind up anointing this drunken carpet muncher to be president?

Answer: Quid pro quo for sticking to her husband in spite of his innumerable infidelities. It is reminiscent of the harem politics of decadent empires.

Filed under culture. Not filed under politics, or even party politics.

Posted in culture | 25 Comments »

The goal is soft genocide. Unless stopped, the outcome will be hard genocide.

January 21st, 2016

You saw that look of absolutely visceral disgust on Angela Merkel’s face when someone handed her the German flag.

I am pretty sure that if an AIDS infested tranny projectile vomited all over her, she would lick it up and think it was chocolate.

That look of visceral disgust tells me that she wants everything that flag stands for destroyed – the German people, the German race, classical music. In her gut she absolutely wants to see German cities destroyed like Detroit was. She wants every German and everything German to die with her when she dies, to be physically erased and absolutely forgotten. She wants the death of every German and the utter destruction of anything memorable that any German ever made.

Why so?

Well, one way of answering this is that a long time back, students campaigning for the supposed achievements of NAMs to be given more attention in universities, sung “Western Civ has got to go” – meaning, or thinking they meant, the course “Western Civilization”

And similarly those calling for “the liquidation of the kulaks as a class” did not at first think they were calling for the liquidation of kulaks as individual human beings.

But in holiness competition, we get the phenomenon that neoreactionaries call “not getting the joke”. If you are going to be selected for loyalty to progressive memes, best take those memes absolutely literally and seriously, since only the truest believers get into the best universities and get the plum jobs. So the next generation of progressives takes the most ridiculous things as holy writ, the more ridiculous the better, since precisely the most stupid, ridiculous and outrageous things will differentiate you from the other applicant to Harvard.

Thus students sing “western civ has got to go” (meaning the course) and not long thereafter, you are not going to make it into the elite unless you believe in your very heart and soul, believe absolutely and utterly, that “western civ has got to go”, meaning the buildings, the books, the art, the science, the technology, and the people.

Another more or less equivalent explanation of this odd henomenon is the laws of majority minority relations

The logical extrapolation of these laws is that if equality, all whites must somehow be made to not be around any more, by some means that no one wants to think too much about, since their continued existence produces inequality. White males keep emitting these evil thoughts that somehow cause dindus and vibrants to underperform.

The methods for making whites somehow not be around any more will inexorably become more vigorous with the passage of time as the white male and married white female voting block gets smaller. (Single white females vote for rape, of course. What did you think they would vote for?)

Posted in culture, war | 139 Comments »

Believing in male supremacy will make you more attractive to women.

January 19th, 2016

If you believe that you are entitled, that women should obey, submit, serve, that unless you are buying sex by the hour, women should be sacrificing their own good to serve you, then red pill behavior comes naturally.

If, on the other hand, you believe that women are equals, then it seems obvious that you should treat them “fairly” – which is to say, as if buying sex by the hour. Even if you know the red pill intellectually, it seems horribly unfair that women should respond to you doing good to them by doing bad to you, and equally unfair that the more you demand from women, the more you get.

If you don’t know the red pill, but believe that women should submit and obey, you will naturally act red pill. If you do know the red pill, but believe women are equals, then doing what gets you laid will seem artificial, unnatural, repugnant, and immoral, and women will seem bad when such behavior works.

If you think of woman as equals, you cannot judge yourself to be a good man when you do what gets you laid, and you cannot judge a woman to be a good woman when you do what gets you laid, and then she obeys you, has sex with you, and serves you.

But such a woman is a good woman. Women are content to serve, and should be content. Only whores are equals, and equal women are whores.

Posted in culture | 32 Comments »

« Older Entries