Archive for the ‘war’ Category

« Older Entries

When the rot set in

Thursday, May 23rd, 2019

The priesthood exists to serve the army, by providing legitimacy, moral guidance, and social cohesion. When the priests undermine army officers, pretty soon you get what we have got.

Priests are supposed to supply asabiyyah. That is their number one job in this world. What we have is priests destroying asabiyyah .

The problem is not so much elite disloyalty to the masses, nor a Jewish plot against members of the elite not of their own race, as elite disloyalty to the elite. When the priesthood seeks to destroy the common man and return flyover country to wilderness, their real target is not lumberjacks and coal miners, but military officers. Lumberjacks and coal miners are just collateral damage.

We are always ruled by priests or warriors. When priests get on top, there is military weakness. When they get on top, there is also an incentive and ability to go into a holiness spiral.

So, when did the rot set in?

This interpretation of events is largely based on Volume 55 of the North American Review, page 45, “The English in Afghanistan” by Summer, who quotes extensively from contemporary primary sources

Before the British intervened in Afghanistan, the most recent news that most people had of it was records of Alexander’s army passing through two millennia ago.

The empire of the East India company was expanding, and the empire of the Russias was expanding, and it was inevitable that the two would meet. And so it came to pass that the Kings of Afghanistan encountered both, and played each against the other.

When the British became aware of Afghanistan, they interpreted its inhabitants as predominantly white or whitish – as descendants of Alexander’s troops and camp followers and/or descendants of Jews converted to Islam.

Afghanistan was, and perhaps still is, a elective monarchy, and the fractious electors tended to fight each other and elect weak kings who could scarcely control their followers, and so it has been ever since Alexander’s troops lost Alexander.

Mister Mountstuart Elphinstone, in his account of is mission to Kabul in 1809, says he once urged upon a very intelligent old man of the tribe of Meankheile, the superiority of a quiet life under a powerful monarch, over the state of chaotic anarchy that so frequently prevailed.

The reply was “We are content with alarms, we are content with discord, we are content with blood, but we will never be content with a master!”

As Machiavelli observed, such places are easy to conquer, but hard to hold, and so it proved.

To conquer and hold such places, one must massacre, castrate, or enslave all of the ruling elite that seems fractious, which is pretty much all of them, and replace them with your own people, speaking your own language, and practicing your own customs, as the Normans did in England, and the French did in Algeria, starting 1830. The British of 1840, however, had no stomach for French methods, and were already starting to fall short of the population growth necessary for such methods.

So what the British could have done is paid the occasional visit to kill any king that they found obnoxious, kill his friends, family, his children, and leading supporters, install a replacement king, and leave. The replacement king would have found his throne shaky, because Afghan Kings have usually found their thrones shaky, but the British did not need to view that as their problem, knowing the solution to that problem to be drastic and extreme. If the throne has been shaky for two thousand years, it is apt to be difficult to stop it from rocking.

After a long period of disorderly violence, where brother savagely tortured brother to death, and all sorts of utterly horrifying crimes were committed, King Dost Mahomed Khan took power in Kabul in 1826, and proceeded to rule well, creating order, peace, and prosperity, and receiving near universal support from fractious and quarreling clans of Afghanistan.

The only tax under his rule was a tariff of one fortieth on goods entering and leaving the country. This and the Jizya poll tax are the only taxes allowed by the Koran, at least as Islamic law is interpreted in this rebellious country which has historically been disinclined to pay taxes, and because this tax was actually paid, it brought him unprecedented revenues. On paying this tax “the merchant may travel without guard or protection from one border to the other, an unheard of circumstance”

However he did not rule Herat, which was controlled by one of his enemies, who been King before and had ambitions to be King again. He therefore offered Herat to the Shah of Persia in return for the Shah’s support against another of his enemies, Runjeet Singh. He was probably scarcely aware that Runjeet Singh was allied to the British, and the Shah was allied to the Tsar of all the Russias.

Notice that this deal was remarkably tight fisted, as was infamously typical of deals made by Dost Mahomed Khan. He would give the Persians that which he did not possess, in return for them taking care of one of his enemies and helping him against another.

The British East India Company, however, saw this as Afghanistan moving into Russian empire, though I am pretty sure that neither the Shah of Persia nor the King of Afghanistan thought they were part of anyone’s empire.

So Russia and the East India Company sent ambassadors to the King of Afghanistan, who held a bidding contest asking which of them could best protect him against Runjeet Singh.  He then proceeded to duplicitously accept both bids from both empires, which was a little too clever by half, though absolutely typical of the deals he made with his neighbors.

Dost Mahomed Khan was a very clever king, but double crossing the East India Company had in the past never been very clever at all. No one ever got ahead double crossing the East India Company. It was like borrowing money from the Mafia and forgetting to pay them back.

Russia and England then agreed to not get overly agitated over the doings of unreliable and duplicitous proxies that they could scarcely control – which agreement the East India Company took as permission to hold a gun to the head of the Shah of Persia. The East India company seized control of the Persian Gulf, an implicit threat to invade if the Shah intervened in Afghanistan to protect Dost Mahomed Khan. It then let Runjeet Singh off the leash, and promised to support his invasion of Afghanistan.

So far, so sane. Someone double crosses you, then you make an horrible example of him, and no one will do it again. Then get out, and whoever rules in Afghanistan, if anyone does manage to rule, will refrain from pissing you off a second time.

The British decided to give a large part of Afghanistan to Runjeet Singh, and install Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk, a Kinglet with somewhat plausible pretensions to the Afghan throne, in place of Dost Mahomet Khan.

Up to this point everything the East India Company is doing is sane, honorable, competent, just, and wonderfully eighteenth century.

Unfortunately, it is the nineteenth century. And the nineteenth century is when the rot set in.

His Majesty Shah Shoudjah-ool-Moolk will enter Afghanistan, surrounded by his own troops, and will be supported against foreign interference, and factious opposition, by the British Army.  The Governor-general confidently hopes, that the Shah will be speedily replaced on his throne by his own subjects and adherents, and that the independence and integrity of Afghanistan established, the British army will be withdrawn. The Governor-general has been led to these acts by the duty which is imposed upon him, of providing for the security of the possessions of the British crown, but he rejoices, that, in the discharge of this duty, he will be enabled to assist in restoring the union and prosperity of the Afghan people.

So: The English tell themselves and each other: We not smacking Afghans against a wall to teach them not to play games with the East India Company. On the contrary. We are doing them a favor. A really big favor. Because we love everyone. We even love total strangers in far away places very different from ourselves. We are defending the independence of Afghanistan by removing the strongest King it has had in centuries and installing our puppet, and defending its integrity by arranging for invasion, conquest, rape and pillage by its ancient enemies the Sikhs, in particular Runjeet Singh. Because we love far away strangers who speak a language different from our own and live in places we cannot find on the map. We just love them to pieces. And when we invade, we will doubtless be greeted by people throwing flowers at us.

You might ask who would believe such guff? Obviously not the Afghans, who are being smacked against the wall. Obviously not the Russians. Obviously not the Persians. Obviously not the British troops who are apt to notice they are not being pelted with flowers.

The answer is: the commanding officer believed this guff. And not long thereafter, he and his troops died of it, the first great defeat of British colonialism. And, of course, the same causes are today leading to our current defeat in Afghanistan.

The commanding officer of the British expedition made a long series of horrifyingly evil and stupid decisions, which decisions only made sense if he was doing the Afghans a big favor, if the Afghans were likely to appreciate the big favor he was doing them, and his troops were being pelted with flowers, or Afghans were likely to start pelting them with flowers real soon now. The East India company was no stranger to evil acts, being in the business of piracy, brigandry, conquest, and extortion, but people tend to forgive evil acts that lead to success, prosperity, good roads, safe roads, and strong government. These evil acts, the evil acts committed by the British expedition to Afghanistan, are long remembered because they led to failure, defeat, lawlessness, disorder, and weak government.

As a result, he, his men, and their camp followers, were all killed.

Progressives tend to judge people by their good intentions, and the intentions of the British Empire in invading Afghanistan were absolutely wonderful, but the man who does evil because insane is a worse problem than the man who does evil because he expects to profit. The rational profit seeking evildoer, you can pay off, or deter. You can surrender on terms that will probably not be too bad. The irrational evildoer just has to be killed. Before 1840, the East India Company was sometimes deterred, frequently paid off, and frequently accepted surrender on reasonable terms. In 1841, just had to be killed.

This illustrates the importance of the rectification of names, of formalism. If you lie to yourself, you are deceived. I have been reading the Clinton emails, and one of the most striking features is that Clinton and company were deluded and deceived by self flattering lies, that despite having vast spy networks in far flung places, were seriously out of contact with reality, as their circle told each other what they want to hear.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Hillary and her advisers, and therefore I suppose the entire state department, know neither the enemy nor themselves. They dream grandiose delusions, in which they are the terribly smart and virtuous people, rather than a drunken old sow surrounded by lying flatterers.

The East India Company did not realize that it was about to be recast, or was recasting itself, from being a for profit company, empowered to make war and engage in acts of piracy and extortion for private profit, to being the British government’s instrument of holy do gooding, benevolently carrying the white man’s burden for the benefit of a bunch of strangely ungrateful foreigners. In place of a ruthless mafia with uniformed soldiers, the East India Company was about to become an NGO with uniformed nursemaids.

Yet strangely, the greater the good intentions, the more they were to be resented. </sarcasm> The East India Company seems to have been more popular when they were pirates and bandits than when they were pious do gooders. No one seemed to appreciate the East India Company doing good to them at gunpoint. The ridiculous part of the white man’s burden was the striking ingratitude of the supposed beneficiaries, resembling the striking ingratitude of Middle Easterner’s towards meddling by presidents Bush and Obama in the Middle East. Those @!^&$ Middle Easterners just somehow do not know what is good for them, unlike far away strangers, who, being terribly clever, know exactly what is good for the Middle East without ever having lived there.

In the Clinton emails there is an awareness that everything is going horribly wrong and a suspicion that things are about to get a great deal worse, but that cannot possibly be caused by any mistakes of the current leadership, who are of course the smartest, wisest, noblest, best, and most beloved leadership ever.

Posted in war | 81 Comments »

Coup

Saturday, May 11th, 2019

Trump has said the coup word.

Of course, it is not really a Democrat coup until they send a bunch of guys dressed in freshly issued police uniforms and equipped with a subpoena from some judge in Hawaii and give him the perp walk without bothering with the old fashioned inconvenience of a senate supermajority impeachment. And if one coup once, chances are there will be another coup, this time without bothering with the freshly issued police uniforms and subpoena.

But it is a creeping coup. In a creeping coup coupists do bad things, get away with it, and, getting away with it, people dare not stop them when they do worse things. And so far, the Democrats have gotten away with it, which inevitably results, and is intended to result, in an escalation of those bad things.

And if he starts arresting Democrats for their numerous illegal acts, they will certainly think it is a Trump self coup – and it will be, regardless of whether Trump intends it to be or not.

The Roman Republic died when the Gracchi defied term limits, and the senate murdered them.

When Augustus attempted to revive the Republic, or pretended to attempt to revive the Republic, he was not attempting to heal a gravely ill patient, but to perform necromancy. He revived the forms of the republic, but those forms were full of imperial content, for the imperium was the only thing that could make them function.

The presidency has grown and swollen the American government, and the only thing that can make it function is if a president swallows it.

The Mueller report was a dud. Not only did it find no Trump collaboration with efforts to influence the US election, nor any obstruction of justice – the allegations of obstruction of justice are just mind reading that Trump thought about killing off the Mueller investigation, but whatever he thought about, he did not in fact obstruct it, and even if he did obstruct it, which he did not, you cannot have obstruction of justice without an underlying crime.

Further, extraordinarily, the Russian government did not attempt to influence the American election – unlike one hell of a lot of other governments, or if they did, Mueller could not find any such attempts, and is lying when he claims that he did. The people being charged are accused in the Mueller report of being Russian agents, but when he actually brought charges which a hostile lawyer might cross examine, he did not charge the offender with being an agent of the Russian government, revealing that he knew that under hostile cross examination, the charge would sink like a stone. Instead the offender is charged with incomprehensible legal technicalities under vague and sweeping laws in an unsuccessful effort to get them to rat out Trump – which they were unable to do, having no connection to Trump, and no connection to the Russian government that Mueller was willing to present in court.

Mueller has been caught lying about two of the supposed Russian agents, one of whom is in fact a Mueller agent. If one lie, all lies.

The behavior of the democrats show that they are not actually interested in the contents of the Mueller report – they failed to read the minimally redacted redacted report issued for limited non public distribution. They know it is a dud. They want the attorney general removed because he is investigating them, and are just trying to link his removal to supposed Russian intervention in US elections. They are working on a coup because the perceive Trump as working on a self coup, and Trump is working on a self coup, or perceived to be working on a self coup, because the Democrats are working on a coup.

Everyone pretending there is some substance in the Mueller report is doing a Point Deer Make Horse – including the numerous republicans going along with the pretense. Point Deer Make Horse is a classic part of a coup: if people go along with the blatant lie, this shows they will go along with the coup. So everyone who talks as if the Mueller Report was not a dud, is signaling he is on board with an anti Trump coup.

So either Trump does a self coup – takes control of the FBI and turns it on his enemies, or will be removed in a coup – which will initially only arrest him, but such arrests lead to escalating drama, which eventually result in the arrested leader and various people close to him being executed.

If Trump does a self coup he will say, and perhaps believe, he is preserving the Republic, but once struggle within the political elite goes violent, it is going to get more violent. If Trump succeeds, the general public will not see a coup, but the Democrats and the left generally will, and even if they quietly submit this time, and everyone gets into line, we will be in the situation of the Roman Republic after the Gracchi: the political elite lacks cohesion, and will no longer play by mutually agreed rules, which inevitably results in political conflicts turning violent.

The Democrats have deleted God from the house of representatives. For a nation to be one nation, people need a big daddy on top. If no longer “One nation under God”, going to need a cult of personality leader to be one nation. The state religion of progressivism cannot provide for the orderly transfer of power, so we are inevitably moving towards disorderly transfer of power.

Augustus had to be deified to make the Roman government work (steel alone did not suffice) but the trouble is that when your state religion is based on flagrant lies, it is fragile so has to be repressive.

Posted in politics, war | 625 Comments »

The reactionary program.

Wednesday, March 6th, 2019

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.

Posted in politics, war | 881 Comments »

Deus Vult

Monday, January 28th, 2019

Gnon wills it.


Trump cannot get stuff done, because he is merely president, and the permanent government is full of people that hate him.

But it is not just the permanent government. His political appointees are in bed with his enemies, and are subverting his agenda. Two years after Hitler was elected, Hitler had a Nazi running ever boy scout troop and every trade union chapter. Trump cannot even get a Trumpist running border security.

The one area where Trump has been successful is putting his people in the judiciary. Trumpist judges, though still massively outnumbered, are coming in at every level. Trump has been effective in appointing judges, because he has a big bench he can draw upon, which bench knows who whom, which bench is self policing, which bench can be relied upon to carry out his program without him needing to be on their back. Personnel is policy, and the Federalist society has a supply.

Reflect on the Federalist society: They have their article of faith – original intent. And they have a network to identify their fellow faithful. Just as Constantine adopted Christianity that provided him with a cohesive group to staff his government, in a Roman Empire disintegrating from elite incohesion.

To govern, you need a synthetic tribe, which Hitler had, which Constantine adopted, and which Trump lacks, except for the federalist society which is narrowly focused on judicial process.

The Federalist article of faith (Original Intent) that provides unity and cohesion is also an effective antibody against enemy outgroups. It is something no leftist can admit is even thinkable – to them, just words with no meaning that they dare conceive of. So when leftist entryists attempt to infiltrate the Federalists, they use their shibboleths incorrectly, like a Marxist purporting to be channeling Adam Smith, and wind up babbling random nonsensical meaningless scripted formulaic NPC gibberish.

We, on the other hand, agree with the leftists, that original intent is not really going to fly, while we agree with the Federalists that judges exercising executive, legislative, budgetary authority is intolerable. One emperor is a stationary bandit. A thousand little emperors is mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. We, however, propose a solution far more radical than that of the federalists – that the final court of appeal should be the Sovereign, should be Moses, the King, or the President, and he should be able to intervene in any case, and fire any judge. We also propose William the Conqueror’s “forms of action”, meaning that judges should be reduced to data entry clerks filling out forms that result in remote procedure calls to a system of central databases, similar to the system used by Australia’s border control force for dealing with “Illegal persons”. (Australian Border Force is Judge Dredd with more typing required than Judge Dredd had to do, but the same refreshing speed, efficiency, and absence of lawyers and priestly robes as with Judge Dredd.) William the Conqueror’s “Forms of action” kept judges in line for seven hundred years, and modern databases and remote procedure calls make William the Conqueror’s solution lightning fast, so that it can be applied by a cop on the beat, after the fashion of Judge Dredd and the Australian Border Force.

We have our mailing lists and forums, like the federalist society. What we don’t have is some articles of faith, a canon, a creed, a catechism. Constantine’s Christians had a creed. Trump’s federalist society has one. By getting agreement on certain principles, we can identify our fellow faithful, we can provide a tribe capable of governing. Our basic plan is that someone grabs power, needs a tribe to actually govern. Ideally, a warrior grabs power at gunpoint, swiftly discovers that guns do not suffice, realizes he needs a priesthood, looks around for a priesthood, finds us, as Constantine found Christendom, and Trump found the Federalist Society. When Trump appoints someone in charge of border security, he does not necessarily get someone who favors border security. When Trump appoints a Federalist Society judge, he reliably gets a Federalist, as Constantine reliably got a Christian, and Hitler reliably got a Nazi.

The political appointees that Trump appoints are frequently disloyal to Trump and hostile to his agenda. The Federalist Judges he appoints are loyal to federalism, thus reasonably loyal to Trump and supportive of his agenda. Indeed the left regularly complains that federalist judges are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than they are to federalism, which is not true, but has a substantial grain of truth in that federalist judges appointed on the basis of their federalism are more supportive of Trump and his agenda than are political appointees appointed on the basis of loyalty to Trump and his agenda. The Federalist society polices itself. Trump is not having much success policing Trump political appointees.

We are the reaction. Our program is to rectify social decay by reviving ancient and lost social technologies, among them Pauline marriage. These ancient social technologies tend, for the most part, to be social technologies preserved by Christianity through the Dark Age following the collapse of the Roman Empire, and by the Children of Israel through the dark age following the collapse of Bronze Age civilization, thus our program is Christian – old type Christian. Modern type Christians tend to assimilate to progressivism and worship demons.

There is a lot of stuff in the New Testament that can plausibly be used to justify gnosticism, communism, and suicidal social policies, stuff that is plausibly interpreted as opposed to family, social cohesion, and civilization “There is neither Jew nor Greek”. But those variants of Christianity that survived have given sane, Gnon compliant, survival consistent, interpretations of these statements, banishing the crazy from this world to the next. After the resurrection there will be neither Jew nor Greek, neither man nor women, but in the here and now, women should obey their husbands. The New and Old Testaments, as generally interpreted by the community of saints in the apostolic succession, is sound social technology. It commands a market economy, durable marriage, and the authority of husbands and fathers over wives and daughters.

Nature’s God is the Gods of the copybook headings. The God of the Old and New Testament keeps getting reinterpreted as the Gods of the marketplace, but the ancient and long lasting Christian tradition is expressed by those copybook headings – Natures God, a God who in the fall instituted evolutionary psychology and a world of conflict accurately described by game theory. The curse of Eve explains the distressing female behavior also explained by evolutionary psychology, but people who are reluctant to believe in On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, for example Vox Day, tend to interpret away the Curse of Eve and become blue pilled, or at best purple pilled, on women. I have often sarcastically remarked how in Vox Day’s books Action Girl is apt to rescue the Lad in Distress. Darwin protects us from that heresy better than overly literal biblical literalism.

So: here are the articles of the Canon:

  1. Throne
  2. Altar
  3. Freehold
  4. Family
  5. Property

Throne

Division of powers, divided sovereignty does not work, more rulers means mobile banditry and anarcho tyranny. A stationary bandit has better incentives than a mobile bandit.

Altar

You cannot separate state and church. The church will undermine the state and take state power for itself, or the state subvert the church, or both at once. Harvard is our high holy Cathedral. A holiness spiral ensues as the priestly classes, the professoriat, the judiciary, and the media, pursue power by each being holier than the other. Obviously we have a state religion a state religion that every day becomes crazier, more dogmatic, and more intrusive, and that state religion needs to be formalized and made official so that the high priest and grand inquisitor can stop holiness spirals.

When Charles the Second was restored, the people of England held pagan celebrations, in the correct expectation that an officially official religion would be less repressive than an unofficially official religion.

The earthly telos of holiness is to promote the broadest possible cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Holiness competition results in people finding grounds to declare other people unholy, thus Starbucks and LucasFilms declare their customers unholy, thus holiness competition destroys the earthly telos of holiness. Therefore we cannot allow excessively holy people to gain power in the state religion. Which requires that the state religion be formally the state religion, and appropriate restraints applied.

Freehold

Freehold necessarily involves and requires rejection of the principle of equality before the law, and property rejection of equality of outcomes. Not all men were created equal, nor are women equal to men, nor is one group or category of men equal to another. Stereotypes are stereotypical, because the stereotype is usually true for most individual members of the group or category.

We have never had equality before the law, and are having it less every day. Cops have a special right to use violence, blacks have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted, similar to that of the traditional aristocracy, Hispanics and illegal immigrants in California have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted.

State building is coalition building to rule. We need a coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, ruling the stupid, the disruptive, and the destructive. The doctrine of equality means you cannot reward the elite with status? What! Of course the ruling elite is going to be rewarded with status, and that is exactly what is happening.

The ruling elite always gets rewarded, the ruling coalition always gets rewarded. Members of the ruling coalition always get a superior right to use violence, and a superior right to not be insulted. That is the way it is, and that is what we saw when white people were ethnically cleansed out of Detroit. The doctrine of equality before the law was always a lie intended to destroy the coalition of the smart, the cooperative, and the productive, to guilt the best people into surrender, so that they could be destroyed by a coalition of the worst.

Freehold means that we acknowledge that some state power is in fact private property, and the sovereign lets his loyal vassals enjoy their privilege, because if he tries to meddle, he will be overwhelmed by detail and complexity, so best to formalize that privilege and make it official. If we don’t have the aristocracy that so offended the founding fathers, we find ourselves with blacks exercising aristocratic privilege over whites. Equality before the law is an unworkable ideal, hypocritically betrayed in actual practice. Some people are going to be unjustly privileged. Let us try to make it the best people rather than the worst people, and try to make it the people that the state draws is wealth and coercive power from, rather than the people who sponge off the state.

Family

The immense biological and reproductive differences between men and women means that they can only cooperate for family formation on asymmetric, unequal terms. The wife has a duty to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish. To ensure cooperation between men and women, the state, the family, society, and religion have to force men and women who sleep together to stick together, to force them to perform their marital duties, to force the man to cherish and the woman to obey, otherwise you get defect/defect, and reproduction and family become difficult for both men and woman.

For hypergamy to be eugenic rather than dysgenic, taxpayers and warriors need to have a special right to use violence and to not be insulted. For marriage to work, pimps, sluts, and whores need to have a substantially less protection against violence, insult, and rape. For marriage to be incentive compatible for women it has to be simply legal for a respectable man to chain a slut up in his basement, and if she does not want to risk that outcome, she needs to sign up in a nunnery or submit to husband. A right to protection should require chastity and/or submission to the authority of a husband or father. Sluts shall have legal authority equal to chaste women? What! This inevitably results in sluts being given legal status higher than that of chaste woman, and that is exactly what is happening. Wives, like whites, are very much second class low status citizens. We have an aristocracy, and black whores are at the top.

Women always wind up heading off the protection of the most alpha male around. If that is the protection of uncle Sam, you get what we have got.

You will notice that the doctrine that all women shall be equal required and led to the doctrine that all women are naturally chaste, enshrined in our current law on rape and sexual harassment, which presupposes that the primary person who is harmed by rape and sexual harassment is the woman, and the primary person who is going to object to it and be distressed by it is the woman, rather than the father, her biological kinfolk, and the husband. The transparent falsity and absurdity of this doctrine leads to the transparent falsity and absurdity of all rape and sexual harassment charges and convictions, as near to all of them as makes no difference. Legal equality necessitates and results in a denial of biological inequality.

Rape and sexual harassment laws that give women equal status to males are a problem, because in practice their resistance to rape and sexual harassment is a fitness test – they are pissed at you if you fail the test, not pissed by being successfully raped. So rape and sexual harassment charges based on the legal theory that these are crimes against the women herself, rather than her husband or family, always originate from failed shit tests – and the overwhelming majority of these failures do not involve rape and sexual harassment. What happens in the vast majority of cases, for all practical purposes all of them, is that a woman is sexually attracted to a man, hits him with a brutal and hard to pass shit test out of the blue, he fails, she feels creeped out, and comes to believe that something must have happened that legally justifies her feeling of being creeped out. In the rare and unusual occasions when they are based on an actual attempt at rape or sexual harassment, they are based not on the rape or the sexual harassment, but on the man failing her fitness test by retreating from her hostile response. They originate from male behavior that is not all that bad – just weak, the male trying something, but then retreating in the face of determined opposition.

We cannot give women the same legal right to protection against violence and insult as men, because they fail to cooperate in that protection. The best we can do is grant state backing for nunneries, husbands, and fathers protecting their wives and daughters, because husbands and fathers are are going to cooperate in that protection, and the male priests supervising the nunnery will cooperate in that protection. Violence and insult against women has to be handled as an offense against the male authority that cares for them, because if handled as an offense against the women themselves, the women are unhelpful, untruthful, deluded, and uncooperative, failing to report the kind of offenses that we want to suppress, and delusively reporting non offenses.

Men and women want families. Men and women want to cooperate to have families. But prisoners dilemma gets in the way. To fix the prisoner dilemma problem, need to hit women with a stick.

Property

Anti discrimination law violates people’s property rights. Google hates us, but the problem is not primarily too much capitalism, but too little. In the James Damore affair, Google’s Human Resources Department (the Human Resources department being a tentacle of the state inserted into every corporation) threatened the board and the management of Google with a lawsuit for not hating us enough, issuing an official opinion that thinking forbidden thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women”. Because stereotypes are usually true, private individuals and corporations should be free to make use of the information expressed by stereotyping. The trouble with libertarians and libertarianism is that they support every socialist intervention that is destroying our lives and our economy.

Family law and anti discrimination law violates the fourth amendment and the seventh, eighth, and final commandments

  1. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
  2. Thou shalt not steal.
  3. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that thy neighbour’s.

Anti discrimination law reaches into a man’s property, and commands it to be applied to the good of the ruling coalition, and moment to moment consent to sex reaches into a man’s marriage and abolishes marriage.

  1. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The state deciding whether James Damore’s thoughts constituted a “hostile environment for women” is an unreasonable search if ever there was, and it is an obvious violation of private property rights that libertarians would get terribly excited by if the government was bothering a black serial murderer.

Technological advance and industrialization comes from Ayn Rand’s heroic engineer CEO, mobilizing other people’s capital and other people’s labor. We first see this archetype appear immediately after the restoration, when Charles the Second made it OK to use the corporate form to get rich. Unfortunately, Ayn Rand’s hero is not heroically on our side, contrary to what Ayn Rand promised. He unheroically endorses the official religion, knowing his property could be attacked if he does not. But we should keep in mind that this makes him merely the instrument of power, not power. When we are in charge he will support our official religion and scarcely notice the change in the slogans posted in the rec room, which formerly endorsed coveting what belonged to others and females adopting male clothing and roles, but will then condemn coveting and endorse males performing male roles and females performing female roles.

Rand’s superman is not on our side. But he is not on the progs side. He is his own side, and this makes him largely irrelevant for political power, which requires cohesion.

The state can facilitate science by being a customer and buying high tech stuff. Indeed, a great deal of advance has come from the state seeking means to hurt people and break their toys, but when the state tries to itself advance technology, it usually turns out badly: Nasa could not build rockets. Kidnapped Wernher von Braun. Asked him how to build rockets. Still could not build rockets.

Nasa puts Wernher von Braun in charge. Now it can build rockets. Puts a man on the moon.

Wernher von Braun retires. New types of rockets don’t work. Old types of rockets gradually stop working no matter how much government money is poured down the toilet.

Where did Nasa find Wernher von Braun?

Nazis kidnapped him from the German rocket club which they shut down.

Seems obvious that we would have wound up with a whole lot better rocket technology if the rocket club became, or spawned, a bunch of startups, one of them led by Wernher von Braun, and governments outsourced rockets. Which is what gave us the reusable booster that lands as a rocket should land.

Before Wernher von Braun, american government rockets did not work. After Wernher von Braun, government rockets gradually stopped working. And the rocket club, not the Nazis, and not NASA, found Wernher von Braun.

Radar and wartime electronics present a similar story. Harvard created a huge radar and counter radar program during the war – which led nowhere, as NASA’s rockets went nowhere after Wernher von Braun retired.

Tags:
Posted in politics, war | 292 Comments »

war approaches faster.

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019

The story of the Covington boys is that the left saw some boys wearing Maga hats, wanted to murder them, and then felt there must be something or other justifying their desire, and therefore confidently announced that something or other had happened justifying murder on every news medium – which announcements continue in spite of the fact that the entire incident is on video showing no such thing.  This is similar to what happens with rape or sexual harassment charges – a woman is sexually attracted to some man, being sexually attracted gives him a brutal and difficult to pass fitness test. He fails his fitness test, so she feels creeped out, so rapidly comes to confidently believe that some socially acceptable reason for her feeling creeped out must surely have happened.  It is a manifestation of an increasingly feminine and female dominated left.

Eventually they are going to start large scale actual killing, and we are going to have to actually start organizing large scale defense.  This will be easier than it sounds, because they are going to start killing each other.  On the other hand, history is that the left usually wins until it self destructs, so maybe we will just have to flee and hide till its over, which may take a while.  On the other hand the left does not always win, Sulla being the most famous counter example.

At almost the same time as Covington Boys incident, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces that climate crisis is “the existential threat of our time … end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”

In actual fact, of course, any warming that has happened, if any warming has happened, is humanly imperceptible, indistinguishable from recent variations in climate for warmer or cooler, and smaller than variations in climate over the past few thousand years.  In the past, sometimes you could sail the Northwest passage, and sometimes you could not, and today sometimes you can sail the Northwest passage, and sometimes you cannot. Past variations in climate are recorded in the ?O18 levels of ice cores, and if you look at any ice core that runs from near the present to the ancient past, there is nothing out of the ordinary about recent variations, nor any clear trend.  If warming is happening, you have to squint sideways at the ice core data to see it, and when you do see it, looks underwhelming compared to the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age.

Global Warming is just an excuse for hating on the civilization, the race, and the sex that created technology and industry, and any plan that purports to be a solution to global warming has nothing to do with Global Warming,  is in fact a plan to end that civilization, end those people, and end science and industry.

The Nancy Pelosi statement on global warming comes from the same roots as the lies about the Covington boys.  They want to do something monstrous, horrifying, terrifying, abhorrent, and enormously destructive, so feel that reasons must exist justifying the actions that they intend to take.

Posted in war | 184 Comments »

It is a wall

Monday, November 26th, 2018

The wall begins by executive order under President Trump’s inherent authority to defend Americans from enemies foreign and domestic:

Invaders flying enemy flags advance on the Great Wall of Trump, chanting “The people united will never be defeated”:

Invaders storm the wall:

Tags:
Posted in war | 277 Comments »

No nation with a gay parade wins wars

Thursday, November 15th, 2018

Israel has just been defeated yet again.

Three days ago they invaded to Gaza to put a stop to intolerable organized acts of war by the government of Gaza. Were militarily defeated.

This was rationalized as a one off bungle. These things happen, but now, rather than trying again with the supposed errors rectified, they are seeking a peace treaty that restores and legitimizes the intolerable status quo ante that they sought to change, indicating not merely one bad mistake, but an incapacity to make war.

Tolerating gays makes it impossible for men to express love and affection for each other. This undermines unit cohesion. Also trannies and women in the military undermine unit cohesion. And putting logistics and nurses in uniform and calling them soldiers rather than camp followers, embeds, and military contractors denies warriors the honor that is their rightful due.

Gaza does not have gay parades. Israel does. So Gaza wins, Israel loses. Israel has not won a war since they started allowing gay parades. Sooner or later, the Arab world is going to realize that Europe is weak, Israel is weak. There is a lot of loot and unowned chicks in Europe and Israel.

Posted in war | 325 Comments »

The Reichstag is burning

Friday, October 26th, 2018

The fake bombs were not sent through the mail, (no postmark on the stamps and insufficient postage) therefore delivered in person by an insider. Recipients did not act as if they feared the bombs were real. Therefore, the insider was recognized by the recipients.

Therefore recipients were complicit in a fake bomb threat – which is as serious a crime as complicity in a real bomb threat. The criminality of fake bomb threats is settled law and practice, and rightly so, for deadly threats are apt to lead to deadly acts.

The interesting thing therefore is whether settled law and practice gets applied to senior Democrats.

If Democrats get away with this, they can get away with similarly criminal acts of real violence.  If they cannot get away with this, it is the Reichstag fire.

If they cannot get away with this, then we are going to see a whole lot more people start hailing Trump as God Emperor Trump.

Although I have been referring to him as God Emperor Trump, this impious as well as optimistically premature. He is still merely a president presiding over a presidency that hates him, ignores him, and routinely defies him. If he does deal with those who set the Reichstag on fire, if the FBI chooses to obey him in and prosecute direct political crime committed by powerful people, then he has successfully brought the presidency to heel, whereupon a more appropriate name is Holy American Emperor Trump the First.

If he deals successfully with those who lit the Reichstag, I will then hail him as Holy American Emperor Trump the First, as is likely to reflect his real status.

If, on the other hand, the FBI ignores criminal acts by senior democrats, we have taken one more step towards Civil War II, but this time a rather large step, which will be in due course followed by even bigger steps.

Posted in war | 196 Comments »

Paternity, war and conquest.

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2018

Competition with no limits and no rules is the war of all against all, is predation, every other creature except for close kin being obstacles or raw materials. Humans organize so that competition is channeled into productive activities, rather than massively negative sum activities. But how do we organize this? This is what we call order, and political order is also order in the thermodynamic sense, in that a functional state of the social system, where competition produces excellence through cooperation is a very special case, and any random change is apt to be for the worse.

Where does this organization come from. Where does order come from?

Partly it comes from a ruler, but for a ruler to actually remake society, he has to have remarkably great power, which is apt to result in competition to be the ruler getting out of hand, as it did in the Roman Empire. In substantial part it comes from natural selection of social orders. A society where people cooperate effectively is apt to conquer and dominate other societies, much as a group of humans can predate upon a herd of cattle. Thus, for example, colonialism, outsiders come in, inject themselves at the top of the colonialized society’s social order, and remake that society in their own image, not necessarily killing all the men and enslaving all the women, quite likely creating greater prosperity and freedom for everyone, but rather more prosperity and freedom for themselves.

The better a society is at creating prosperity through orderly and productive competition, the more likely it is that its dominion is rather more civilized than killing all the men of the conquered society and taking their land and women. But there needs to be some substantial payoff for those imposing order. If no substantial payoff, drift to entropy is inevitable.

The population size estimated from Y chromosome diversity is smaller than the population size estimated from mitochondrial diversity, indicating that far more females than males reproduce – we are de-facto a substantially polygynous species.

About seven thousand years ago, during the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, this ratio went to extremes.

One possible explanation of this is that the local ruler owned all the land and owned all the women, thus only one male in seventeen got to reproduce. Another possible explanation is that women got to choose, and they chose one male in seventeen. But the bottleneck happened during the transition between hunter gathering and farming, hence connected to property rights and property rights enforcement, thus property rights enforcement in land, crops, cattle, and women.

Only the local ruler reproducing is unlikely to be stable. The other males will not fight for him. Thus a patrilineal group cooperating and fighting to enforce its property rights in cattle and women, as depicted in the book of Genesis. Genesis depicts Abraham’s patriarchal group warring with Kings with reasonable success. Books later in the series depict patriarchal groups helpless before Kings and armed religions.

The bottleneck can be explained by competition between patrilineal groups, so that the survival of one man’s Y chromosome is highly correlated with the survival of his kin in the paternal line, where one patrilineal group was apt to wipe out another patrilineal group and take their women. If you were a descendant of Genghis in the male line, you and all the other descendants of Genghis in the male line would work together to take the other men’s women and prevent other men from taking your women – which implies and presupposes that women got no say in this.

During the transition, need property rights in land, crops, and cattle.

Father’s brother’s daughter marriage ensures social cohesion on Y chromosome lines. Abraham’s property rights in cattle are secured by kinship relationships with people who share his Y chromosome.

Later, Kings matter more, patrilineal kin matter less, but if everyone secured property rights the way Abraham did, there would be a high correlation between Y chromosomes and reproductive success. Own stuff, have the same Y chromosome as other people owning stuff. Don’t own stuff, don’t reproduce.

In the book of Genesis, we see a bunch of wars in which patrilineal kinship groups fight kings as roughly equals. This environment could mean a much smaller effective population size for Y chromosome, since the population size would be number of property owning patrilineal groups, not number of individual males.

This does not necessarily manifest as outright conquest and abduction – just that you can feed women, and the guy without property rights cannot, and you can enforce your property right in women, and thus you want to feed your women and their children.

If enforcement comes from patrilineal groups, including enforcement of marriage, then a moderate disparity in willingness and ability to enforce property rights in women and children can result in a very large disparity in effective population size, because we are measuring not the number of successfully reproducing males compared to the number of successfully reproducing women, but the number of successfully reproducing patrilineal property rights enforcement groups compare to the number of successfully reproducing women.

Of course, we are still talking war between patrilineal groups but the war may fall short of killing all the men and taking all the women in one hit. But if a patrilineal group cannot defend its land and women, it is going to eradicated, possibly in a less sudden fashion.

The point is that one gets a reduction in effective male population size if genetic survival is correlated with one’s Y chromosome. Everyone you know is descended in the male line from your great great granddad. And if he is not, no one is stopping you from taking his cattle and his women, and killing any children encumbering those women. But this implies that you know who everyone’s dad is, which implies female sexuality is under male control – as depicted in the old testament in the time of patriarchs, where the penalty for consensual sex was death.

This does not necessarily mean that one night patrilineal clan A attacks, and in the morning the Y chromosome of patrilineal clan B is no more, but that is the net effect over time, meaning still fairly brutal.

For the model to work, a major unit of selection has to be the clan, with the men of clan B being eradicated, all of them, and the women of clan B being taken into clan A, which is what we expect to happen if cooperation is mediated through patrilineal relationships, and not matrilineal relationships, which implies women being hauled away, and males controlling their sexual choices.

For the model to work, your brothers in the male line and your cousins in the male line have to support your capability to reproduce, which requires that they restrain your women from screwing other men. Thus, patriarchy, and patrilocality. Patrilocality means you maintain your connection with your brothers and cousins in the male line, and if your sister is married or stolen outside of your male line, you lose your connection with her, and patriarchy means that the enforcement system for property also enforces marriage – thus your women are your property like your cattle, thus everyone knows who is someone’s father. You stick up for male kin’s property rights.

Exodus happens around the time of the collapse of bronze age civilization, 1200BC to 1150BC, therefore Abraham’s kin group contending successfully with kings have to be around 2000BC or so, which puts them well after the bottleneck, but they could well be a survival, a leftover, of the bottleneck social order. The bottleneck lasted from around 5000 BC to 3000BC. Abraham has to be around a thousand years after the bottleneck, but some remnants of the bottleneck social order are still going strong today, in that we still have societies where patrilineal groups are important in protecting property rights in women and cattle. America’s defeat in Somalia was patrilineal kin groups contending successfully with modern day sovereigns equipped with cruise missiles and attack helicopters five thousand years after the bottleneck, so it is plausible that Abraham and his kin could have successfully contended with Kings a thousand years after the bottleneck.

It looks as if the white race originated ten thousand years ago and four thousand years ago, in waves of near genocidal conquest by early whites. About eleven thousand years ago, neolithic grain growing middle eastern farmers, with light brown skins, dark hair, and brown eyes, who largely ate bread, porridge, and drank beer, conquered Europe, completely genociding the paleolithic brown skinned, but blue eyed, European hunter gatherers, who retreated before them towards Asia into more severe climate of Russia. As the middle easterners penetrated into harsher climates, they entered an environment less favorable for grain growing, and more favorable for cattle herding, and the paleolithic hunter gatherers retreating before them were no longer hunter gatherers, but cattle ranchers, so the conflict became more equal. The two races exchanged hostages, as recorded in the sagas, and interbred. Hybridization and subsequent selection produced higher IQ fair skinned people with mixed eye and hair colors, the ancestors of modern whites, who herded cattle, and lived on milk, meat, butter, and cheese. These people invented bronze and in due course, war chariots drawn by small horses, and conquered the farmers of Europe, killing the men and enslaving the women in another wave of hybridization, producing a race that largely ate bread, butter, and beer, who subsequently produced bronze age civilization.

But about twelve hundred years before Christ something went horribly wrong. Bronze age civilization collapsed and depopulated, and white pastoralists once again conquered, but this time, were conquering lands that had largely been abandoned – a functional society returned, because a dysfunctional society largely failed to reproduce. The switch from bronze to iron seems to have been forced by the collapse of long distance trade. Iron could be produced from local sources, but bronze required that people mine tin in one place, and copper in a very distant place, so that people were forced to find a technological solution to replace long distance cooperation, much as today the corporate form is collapsing, and we seek to replace the corporation with the block chain.

So it is non trivial to produce a society where competition leads to cooperation rather than destruction. Magic dirt does not do it, and high IQ does not in itself do it. A society where competition is productive rather than destructive is highly ordered and that order is the product both of selection and of conscious will.

The last days of bronze age civilization were socialist in the sense that the Egypt described in the bible was socialist, and socialist in the sense that Ithaca described by Homer was socialist. Archaeology indicates trade was centralized in the palace. Internationally traded goods and intertemporally traded goods, like the wheat that Joseph advised the Pharaoh to horde, were managed by kings, and distributed through the palace, as indicated by the archaeology of the Minoan civilization, indicating that private property rights were not secure. Similarly, we record Abraham pretending that his wife was his sister – thus property rights in women were insecure. And then, in the Ithaca recorded by Homer, and the Egypt recorded by Ipuwer, the property rights of the King also became insecure – people failed to reproduce due to the sexual immorality recorded by Ipuwer, and the fields lay unplanted, because he who sowed was unlikely to reap.

The decadent settled people of the bronze age vanished, and were largely replaced by severely patriarchal pastoralists – pastoralists who condemned coveting, and respected private property and marriage – thus prohibiting the most obvious forms of destructive competition.

In the ten commandments we see the conscious design of a social order by a ruler with kingly and theocratic power. The emphasis on prohibiting coveting suggest that Moses perceived the social breakdown and collapse of Egypt as a result of insecurity of marriage and property, but he was building on or reviving the social order of the patriarch Israel, or claimed to be doing so, which reflects the natural selection of social orders, since descendants of Israel had, overall, reproductive and military success – and it was this military capability that preserved their way of life against Egyptian attempts to multicult them, to assimilate their social order to the dysfunctional Egyptian social order.

There are four religious commandments concerning worship, which have the effect of making those obeying the commandments visible to others who obey the commandments, and ensuring that people who obey these commandments tend to associate with people who obey these commandments, since they were all required to take their rest day at the same time, and six commandments concerning how men shall deal with men, which have the effect of ensuring that competition for women and goods does not take destructive forms.

These latter six rules were generally obeyed by successful societies until recent times, but leftist redistribution of goods and emancipation of women now results in competition for women and goods being political, making it difficult to produce wealth or reproduce. Coveting, rather than being forbidden, has become a sacrament, and adultery a human right. Recollect how Starbucks was recently memed into providing black people with a free home and office.

If two men agree to exchange wheat and iron, the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not agree to it, and is unlikely to have significant externalities, but if a woman decides to have sex with a man, the decision is always deeply irrational, an eruption of volcanic forces that she does not comprehend and is scarcely aware of, and the decision is apt to have enormous externalities, harming her actual and potential children, her parents and siblings, and her present or future husband. But we regulate the hell out of two men exchanging wheat and iron, while horrifyingly wicked and self destructive sexual choices are an absolutely inalienable human right.

As is the murder of unborn children. Currently we have a system were the unborn are treated as non people in relation to women, and as people in relation to fathers and taxpayers.

If we suppose that the unborn should be treated as non people, then it makes no sense that the tax payer or the reluctant father should provide child support. Bastards should be killed or enslaved.

If, on the other hand, the unborn should be treated as people, then the mother should be compelled submit to the father, to be always sexually available to him and never to any other, and the father should be compelled to support, protect, supervise, and guide the mother and the child, and to always be sexually available to the mother.

An inalienable right of women, but not men, to murder children is made necessary by the inalienable right of women to have sex or refrain from having sex with whoever they choose, whenever they choose, because their choices are apt to be so disastrous as to produce problem children.

Leftism and female emancipation is coveting and adultery, and leads to destructive competition over goods and women. Adultery is not a code word for sex. It means much the same thing in female pussies as in beer.

Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling, which was, in the England of the restoration, an aristocratic and noble virtue thinly disguised as a Christian virtue, though it was never a Christian virtue. The Gentleman was independent of and resistant to social pressure to go along with the false consensus. The gentleman could be relied on to speak the truth because of his independence. This ideal of gentlemanly independence is the opposite of peer review, which produces truth by consensus behind closed doors. Peer Review has produced the replication crisis, where no one can trust other people’s data, and it was predictable that it would, since the social dynamics of consensus behind closed doors is to produce official truth unrelated to empirical truth, which by imperceptibly small degrees gradually becomes outright fraud, as unwanted data is “corrected” to fit the social consensus.

Peer review is bringing back the demon haunted dark. The demon haunted dark closes in upon us, shutting down nuclear power, forbidding fracking, superstitiously terrified of dangerous compounds at one thousandth their harmful levels. Peer Review needs to be condemned as vile, disgusting, and unclean, akin to adultery, for the social dynamics of peer review inevitably lead to lies being enforced, and truth being demonized. Peer review on empirical questions and empirical data is like wallowing in shit, you get exposed to memetic diseases. It is the memetic equivalent of gays in a bathhouse having sex in a great big pile. As sex in the bathhouse in a great big pile spreads biological diseases, peer review spreads memetic diseases. The lies fester and multiply behind closed doors.

The requirements of a functional social order are well known, narrow, and precise – and installing them means enforcing a moral code, requiring all in positions of status and power to affirm this moral code, and demolishing the status of anyone challenging this moral code by treating them as if they were stray dogs attacking your chickens, which moral code necessarily condemns leftism as inherently sinful.

Everyone should learn about the crimes of the twentieth century, and be taught that they were caused by coveting, as today they are taught that they were caused by racism.

It has been done in the past. It can be done again. That is the planning and conscious will aspect. If one society in one place manages it, and manages to keep to it, it will in due course colonialize all others, or massacre the menfolk of all others and enslave their women, or just eradicate all others completely. That is the natural selection of societies aspect. The social order of the patriarch Israel, with private property rights in cattle and women, was favored by natural selection, and consciously re-created by Moses in a deliberate act of political will, political violence, and divine revelation.

Posted in science, war | 700 Comments »

The reactionary program for the coming civil war

Thursday, August 9th, 2018

The reactionary program is fallen governance for a fallen world: Immanentizing the Eschaton is the progressive program, it is the opposite of the reactionary program. Whosoever claims that the truest and most pure reaction will Immanentize the Eschaton is a progressive entryist, like those telling Muslims that Islam is the religion of peace, therefore the truest Islam is something that is suspiciously progressive sounding, like those telling Christians that single mothers are heroes, and that they should adopt blacks from Saharan Africa.

“hello fellow white male hetero sexual reactionaries. My reaction is purer than your reaction. And yet at the same time we need to be acceptable to moderates in order to obtain the broadest possible outreach.”

Reaction deals with fallen men as they actually are – hence we want our ruling bandit to be a stationary bandit evil overlord, and view the primary problem with government as mobile banditry – that anonymous bureaucrats have, as Taleb says, no stake in the game. We are worried about the evil overlord’s incentives, and not much worried about whether he represents the people, and not much worried whether he is nice and virtuous. We want a good man for Archbishop, but someone mighty like Trump for President, President for Life, King, God King, and Holy American Emperor.

If Trump successfully does a Stalin or a Cromwell, freezes leftism at the current year, that will be great, for the full implementation of the reactionary program is likely to be through all out war, where cities get burned, likely by nuclear fire, women and children get massacred, and the winning side is the side most willing to do the most terrible things.

If he does a Sulla, and rolls leftism back to 1933 that will be even better.

If he rolls leftism back to the leftism of the founders, better still. Best of all if he gets crowned God Emperor of the New Holy American empire, does a Charles the Hammer and a Charles the Second and rolls things back to 1660, in which case we are likely to get one hundred and sixty years of reaction.

The worst case outcome however, and a very likely outcome, is long, bloody, and terrible civil war with our enemies masters of the state. Trump gets impeached, not long after that imprisoned, and not long after that he and his entire family is murdered like the Romanovs as civil war and white genocide begins. In which case we will have to whip up our own state in one hell of a hurry.

  • Everyone who practices with a gun on the gun range is on our side.
  • Most men who lift iron are on our side.
  • Most men who practice the seriously dangerous martial arts on our side.
  • The great majority of young white males are our side.
  • Deus Vult. God is on our side.

But as well as that, if our enemies have a state, we will need a state.

Whites are in line for hot genocide. Whites also have more capability for war than any other race. No other race, no other people, have ever shown anything close to the capacity for organized mass violence. Which means that to re-awaken our capability, we need organization and mass.

To re-awaken the sleeping warrior, reward him for victory personally and individually with land, women and power, as well as with land and power for his platoon, his company, and his regiment. He will be back.

Set the status of women back to what it was in eighteenth century England, or better, back to what it was in the Carolingian empire. He will be back.

If the state remains in the hands of people who wish to destroy us, we will have to build our own state, and the quickest way to whip up a state from nothing much is feudalism and freehold – the full reactionary program. Every company and every regiment needs to be largely responsible for its own logistics, and will need its own pool of camp followers, thus will need its own domain of state power.

It would be better if part of the existing state comes over to us, with its existing institutions, in which case we will get something considerably less than the full reactionary program, very likely will get a Cromwellian program. We are not in this to build utopia. Reaction is impure in its essence, being committed to doing the best we can in a regrettably fallen world. The Cromwellian program would be great. Whosoever signals reactionary purity, signals leftism. We are, however, in this to win. If we cannot win with the existing state, or a breakaway part of it, will have to win without, and the full reactionary program is fully optimized for power, war, and the regrettable necessity of dreadful deeds.

Posted in war | 199 Comments »

« Older Entries