Archive for June, 2015

Current events

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

all kneel and present your assholes

As predicted, moving left faster and faster. All my life, we have been moving left, and the rate of movement left has been accelerating.

Harvard University was founded in 1637 by radical leftists plotting to conquer the world, though it was at the time a very minor part of the left wing conspiracy. The main action took place in England. When Cromwell halted the left singularity in England in 1648, Harvard became the primary center of the conspiracy.

And they have been getting crazier and more powerful ever since.

The latest developments:

1. Baltimore, Ferguson, and the supreme court case on disparate impact in housing amount to a resumption of the 1950s Warren Court program of ethnically cleansing whites out of what they have built. Difference is that due to the mass importation of illegal immigrants to live on crime, welfare, affirmative action jobs and government jobs, they now have the votes to sustain that policy all the way to its logical conclusion. Baltimore was our Kristallnacht.

2. Finishing off marriage, not that there was enough left to be worth preserving.

3. Obamacare case sets the important precedent that the bureaucracy can budget and legislate, rendering the house of representatives and the senate obsolete ritual survivals, like Buckingham palace.

4. Lowering the Confederate battleflag, and raising the butthole sex flag.  Not only is what is left of marriage to be destroyed, but all must enthusiastically applaud its destruction, and you don’t want to be the first one to stop applauding.  So that I am not going to be first to stop applauding, will be leaving this flag on my blog permanently.

Why human hypergamy is dysgenic

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

Normally hypergamy is eugenic.  That is what it is for, that is its telos, that is almost the definition of hypergamy.  Yet it is very noticeable that a successful natural is frequently poor, perhaps usually poor, and often rather stupid. A loser, except he is a big winner with girls.

Consider the peacock.  Glorious tails are so big and heavy that they are bad for the species, bad for the race, would be bad for clan and family if peacocks had clans and families, which they do not.   Females tend to want what other females want.

Suppose females tend to go for X, where X is initially a good indicator of health and fitness, where females selecting males on X is initially eugenic.   If other females select X, it is good to have sons with lots of X, so a female should select X if other females select X, even if X has ceased to be a good indicator of health and fitness. Selection for X tends to become more and more extreme, even if it ceases to be a good indicator of fitness. Sexual selection tends to become driven by unreasonable and rather arbitrary female fashions.

Humans and chimps murder, hunt, eat meat, and, unlike most animals, make war.  The only other mammals I know of that make war are the lemming and the naked mole rat.  I expect there are plenty of others that I have not heard of, but war is, for obvious reasons, a rare characteristic.   We may therefore conclude that the common ancestor of man and chimp was violent, ate meat, and made war.

War requires loyalty and comradeship.  You love your comrades, you will kill for them, and risk death for them.  Humans are killer apes, but our specialty is loyalty, friendship, and cooperation.

Humans are not only smart, thus good at cooperating, but have physical adaptions for cooperation.  Our eyes have whites, which make it harder for us to hide and make us more vulnerable to UV damage, but makes it easier for one human to tell what another human is looking at.  Our throats are modified for a wider range of sounds in ways that make it considerably easier for us to choke.   Humans are more specialized for cooperating than chimps.

The common ancestor of man and chimp lived in the jungle, but being the meanest sons of bitches in the jungle, some of them decided to wander out on the plains.  Since they were the slowest sprinters on the plains, we may conclude that they were dangerous enough to take care of predators.  The theory that the first of our ancestors to go on the plains were timid gentle herbivores was not very plausible even back in the days when we thought that chimps were timid gentle herbivores.  If you cannot climb out of reach of carnivores, and you cannot sprint very well, what are you going to do?.  A child or a female is going to stick with the males, a male is going to stick with his comrades.

Plus out on the plains, there is more meat and less fruit, more hunting, less gathering.  So females are more dependent on males.  So more patriarchy, more specialization for violence, more specialization for cooperative violence, and, with more patriarchy, more war.   We became smarter in the course of thousands of genocides.   Conversely, primitive humans that live in jungles tend to evolve to become more like chimps.  In the jungle, females don’t need male support and can kick their kids out at four to gather for themselves.  Cooperation in large groups of men is less important in the jungles, where the individual male tends to individually predate on women and children, and so humans of that ancestry are not very good at cooperative endeavors – much better than any other animal, but not as good as their plains dwelling relatives.

Large groups of males quickly sort out their status hierarchy, after a bit of status jousting that is usually too subtle for women to understand, and thereafter treat each other with respect.  The private crisply salutes the officer, the officer salutes back slightly less crisply.

Women in contrast never sort out their status hierarchy, and are always plotting against each other and undermining each other, so that it is difficult for large female groups to work together.

To women, this standard smart male cooperation all looks like submissiveness, looks like being low man on the totem pole, because this stuff just goes over their heads.  To her, it looks as if the officer and the private are both kissing each other’s asses, so she wants:

See the way he walks down the street
Watch the way he shuffles his feet
My, he holds his head up high
When he goes walking by, he’s my guy

When he holds my hand, I’m so proud
Cause he’s not just one of the crowd
My baby’s always the one to try the things they’ve never done
And just because of that, they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
But just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why I can’t give him all my love

He’s always good to me, always treats me tenderly
Cause he’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no
He’s not a rebel, oh, no, no, no, to me

If they don’t like him that way
They won’t like me after today
I’ll be standing right by his side when they say

He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
Just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why we can’t share a love

By and large, he really will never ever be any good, for for men to get stuff done, have to work well with other men. By and large, he is a rebel because stupid – if he was a smart rebel he would be rebelling in ways less visible and more subtle than shuffling his feet.

But if all women tend to make the same mistake, then in a woman’s interests to make the same mistake as other women commonly make, for the sake of sexy sons

Because female sexual selection for X tends to go over the top, tends to become unreasonably extreme, because females tend to select for even more of what other females are selecting for, tends to be fashion driven, selecting for men who are at the top of the male hierarchy leads to selecting for men who do not display submissive behaviors, which leads to her selecting for the rebel who shuffles his feet, when she should be selecting for the officer whose reply salute is slightly less crisp than that of the private, which leads to her selecting guys at the bottom of the male hierarchy, rather than the top.

This post inspired by the movie “Zulu”, where all the characters, British, Boer, or Zulu, were ridiculously manly except for the preacher and his daughter, and the preacher’s daughter entirely failed to notice.

The chastity of women

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2015

It has always seemed obvious to me that women are far more keen on sex than men, but from time to time one of my commenters tells me that women are the naturally chaste sex.

Nah.  The reason they are not in bed with you is that they await a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

A terrorized and terrified ruling class

Sunday, June 21st, 2015

Radix observes the panic on the left when Rachel Dolezal was revealed as transracial, wearing chocolate covered makeup over her naturally fair skin, dieing her blond straight hair black and curling it into tiny tight curls.

Melissa Harris-Perry, once called “America’s foremost public intellectual” by one of her fellow affirmative action scholars, had real terror in her eyes as she desperately tried to reconcile “transracial” people with “transgenders” without an inadvertent faux pas

…  none of the brave independent thinkers rebelling against social norms have been told what the “right” side is yet, and so they remain paralyzed with fear and indecision.



Anti slavery people were evil from the beginning

Saturday, June 20th, 2015

Anti slavery people were always evil scum, and the modern left walks in their evil and hateful footsteps.

The Africa Association was founded to explore and economically develop africa. It came completely under the control of anti slavery people, and changed its purpose to opposing slavery and humanizing blacks, showing that the left were entryists back then as they are now.

The Africa Association launched a lawsuit against the Hottentot Venus, to gain control of her and her assets, alleging she was kept in slavery.

The court blew them off, implying that their testimony was perjury.

So then as now, they engaged in perjury to accuse innocent people of grave crimes.

William Wilberforce, the founder of the anti slavery movement, purported to be an Anglican and to subscribe to the 39 articles, that being at the time a requirement to be allowed near the levers of power, but his claim was fraudulent, making him an apostate, for his church claimed that members of his church were saints, and regular Anglicans were not – and again, the left has not changed since then.

He should have been enslaved for apostasy in office, and sent to the West Indies, and if he had been England and the British Empire would still be going fine.

Similarly, John Brown was a terrorist, horse thief, and cold blooded sadistic killer: John Brown: The Making of a Martyr

Libertarians support ethnic cleansing of whites

Thursday, June 18th, 2015

The libertarian position has always been to go with the left on everything except economic leftism.

As the left abandons economic leftism, and at the same time goes lefter and lefter, this leaves libertarians indistinguishable from leftists, and libertarians going lefter and lefter.

And as the left goes frothing at the mouth batshit insane, the libertarians froth with equal enthusiasm.

The highest point of absurdity so far is Reason magazine backing the official narrative on the McKinney pool takeover by black kids

Police responded to a fight that had broken out between a girl and a mother. A video of the encounter establishes that the fight did indeed take place, but it only involved a couple people—not the large swath of teenagers who were later detained by officers. When the officers arrived, they treated all the minority teenagers as suspects and ignored the white kids.

The problem was not that a fight had broken out. The problem was that a fight had broken out because a bunch of black teenagers had invaded someone else’s pool without permission.

So Reason magazine no longer supports your property rights if you are white.

Into Darkness

Sunday, June 14th, 2015

Dalrymple reviews the poor sexual choices of an underclass woman, Tina Nash, who lived a very nice lifestyle on aid to her neglected absolutely fatherless children. She was into horseback riding, possessed disc-jockey equipment costing $3,200 had a car, had a 42-inch plasma television in her living room while her children could watch a second TV in their bedroom.

Two conclusions are obvious from his review: Poverty is not caused by lack of money, you can be poor while having a host of luxuries at taxpayer expense, and that this woman should never have been allowed to make her own sexual choices. She should have been forced to sleep with one man, that man able and willing to support her and her children, forbidden to sleep with any other, and subject to corporal punishment if she failed to sleep with her owner, or slept with some other man.

I know some high IQ high income upperclass women whose emotional maturity is no better than that of Tina Nash, and who made a pile of choices equally bad, but somehow avoided similar consequences – such as pregnancy and violence resulting in lasting injury. Since they demonstrably had the ability to think about the future, I suppose they should have been given a limited choice of men willing and able to support them and their children, and having made their choice once and forever, thereafter forced to sleep with and only with their husbands. And some women, like Tina Nash and her mother, cannot be trusted with even that much choice.

There are a great many people who just are not capable of making the choices needed to navigate the modern world, most of them female or black. They should be under the control of someone else.

I know a high IQ high socioeconomic status woman who from age eleven to age thirty slept with a parade of low lifes, some them as or more dangerous as anyone Tina Nash slept with. Then getting older, when being a total slut starts to look disgusting rather than alluring, cleaned up her act, revirginated, started pursuing nice guys with good careers ahead of them, married a nice high IQ engineer with a good future ahead of him, and proceeded to pump out lots of lovely children. But what she was from preteen to the age when the clicking of her biological clock started to get ominous was disgusting and should not have been permitted. The marriage seems happy enough, but really, should he have to have a wife that has been reamed by a long parade of dicks bigger than his dick, wielded by men who are, as women measure manliness, much more manly than he is?

I see another high IQ high socioeconomic status woman who at age thirty failed to clean up her act, slowly transitioned from alluring slut to disgusting slut, and is now transitioning to cat lady.

I know lots of high IQ career women who, when they see their children growing up, when the years that were most important to spend with their children have passed, then lean back from their jobs to spend time with their children.

Women just do not make good choices, and need to have their choices restrained and controlled by fathers and husbands. Females grow up faster than males, but they stop growing up at age eighteen. Women are never adults and should never be treated like adults or allowed to make adult choices, though when the hormones drop in menopause, they stop acting so crazy.

Interestingly, in mattress girl’s porn video, the male playing the rapist or abusive lover has his face blurred out, but mattress girl’s face is fully visible. Yet the man playing the abusive lover is a well known professional porn actor, who is presumably drawing pay for this role. He is an actor. No one is likely to confuse him with his role, for he has played so many roles, usually undignified roles with fat chicks. He cannot be embarrassed being seen putting his dick into a slut’s asshole. Is he embarrassed to be seen putting his dick into crazy?

On utilitarianism

Saturday, June 13th, 2015

I, you, and a couple of friends discover that a railroad bridge has been crucially weakened, and if a train goes over it, the train will fall. A train with a thousand people in it, a thousand strangers none of us have ever met, is rattling down the line to bridge.

One among us has his dog with him. If he ties his dog to the tracks the dog will be killed, but the train will stop to investigate the incident, thus saving a thousand lives.

I know human nature. If he ties his dog to the tracks to save a thousand strangers whose deaths he will not see, he will tie his dog to the tracks to gain a dollar, and if he ties his dog to the tracks to gain a dollar, he will tie me to the tracks to gain a dime.

The fatal flaw of utilitarianism is not the difficulty in comparing interpersonal utility. It is that there are in fact no utilitarians. Only evil people with overly clever stories justifying evil acts. Thus utilitarians always wind up killing a million innocent people to make an omelet, and wind up with no omelet.


Thursday, June 11th, 2015

Degentrification is ethnic cleansing of whites.

The politically correct account of the inner cities is that white people made them into shitholes in order to hurt black people.

But, if you look at the ruins, there are a bunch of really nice buildings which were obviously once inhabited by the better sort of people, middle class whites, upper class whites.

What happened of course, is that in the 1950s and 1960s, the Warren Court period, whites were dispossessed, ethnically cleansed out of the inner cities, by black racial violence, violence supported by the state, in that whites were denied the right of collective self defense. A few Jewish communities remained, because Jews, in an unprincipled exception, were allowed collective self defense.

After the sixties, the left backed away from ethnically cleansing whites, and we got gentrification. But, after gays and trannies, what is the next big cause? They are casting around for something, and one of the things they are trying on is renewed ethnic cleansing, where once again black people take stuff that whites built away from whites. Hence Baltimore and this poolside party.

The current state of Detroit, and what is happening to Johannesburg, tells us that were it not for whites, blacks would be living in the jungle, carrying pointy sticks, and eating each other. Blacks can be civilized, but only if subject to firm, and substantially white, authority. America lacks the hard hand necessary to keep black people from reverting to their natural condition.

With America close to a nonwhite majority, and single women, as always, voting for the victors, there is no natural stopping point for the latest round of ethnic cleansing short of complete removal of whites from everything they have built that is worth having.

Resistance to this process is fundamentally incompatible with democracy with universal franchise. If it does not happen in this coming round of movement ever leftwards, will happen in the next or the one after that. If you oppose this outcome, you have to reject democracy with universal franchise. If you reject democracy with universal franchise, have to deny that all men were created, and that women are equal to men. The eradication of white people was inherent in the enlightenment, and our continued existence has only been possible by one unprincipled exception to the enlightenment after another. In the end, unprincipled exceptions always yield to superior holiness.

Rohingya terrorist problem

Saturday, June 6th, 2015

You may have heard that there are over a million poor stateless victimized Rohingya that our do gooders want to move into first world countries to vote for more leftism.

And indeed it is true that they are poor stateless and victimized. But a big part of the reason that they are poor, stateless, and victimized, is that they believe that Muslims should live under Muslim rule, and to this end they tried to carve a Muslim state out of Burma. To my surprise, they do not want to go to a first world country, such as America. They want to go to a Muslim ruled state, such as Malaysia. A few days ago, America legally accepted its first batch of Rohingya from a refugee camp in Thailand. Thai military attempted to move them to the US, Rohingya refugees refused and rioted, seeking the opportunity to set sail to a Muslim country.

These guys take their religion seriously. And their religion says that Islam should rule, and they should be ruled by Islam. They are reasonably happy to be ruled by moderate Islam, you cannot get much more moderate than their favorite destination, Malaysia, but Islam it has to be.

If brought to America or Australia, they will be in America very much against their will, and therefore will likely attempt to create a Muslim ruled state inside America as they attempted to create a Muslim ruled state inside Burma.

The Bangladeshi refugees who are intermingled with the Rohingya refugees, who speak the same language as the Rohingya refugees, who look like the Rohingya refugees, are economic refugees, seeking a better life. They want to go to first world states such as America and Australia. Maybe many of the Rohingya refugees are economic refugees also. But they are primarily religious refugees, seeking, not freedom to practice their religion, but freedom to persecute anyone who does not practice their religion. They don’t want to go to the first world. They want to go to Dar al Islam.

If I had my way, we would ship them all to Islamic State.