Archive for May, 2016

« Older Entries

Trump for King

Tuesday, May 31st, 2016

This image, and this entire blog is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

This is an outline of how President Trump might well become King Trump the first, if we are sufficiently lucky and virtuous.

The world is sick of anarcho tyranny, and hungers unknowingly for the power and authority of Kings.

The recent election of Duterte, on a platform of his praetorians simply killing the bad guys out of hand without charges or trials, is an example of this hunger.

Now I hear some of you saying (and the progressives thinking but not saying out loud) that apart from being tough on crime, corruption, and governmental indiscipline, Duterte is a leftist and that is just a bunch of rice niggers, low IQ south Asians. White people are more civilized than that – perhaps a little too civilized for our own good.

In Australia, one of the whitest countries remaining, a few elections back, the election was on the issue of illegal immigration. Tony Abbott said he would stop illegal immigration.

The judges, of course, ruled stopping illegal immigration illegal. Tony Abbott ignored the judges. The net effect is that today, if you violate immigration law they send you to jail in Villawood detention center without bothering with charges or trials. From time to time the left whines about due process, and gets absolutely zero traction. Suddenly it was revealed that there is zero support for due process, that there are almost no voters who care about due process any more. And in particular and especially very few white voters who care about due process.

The purpose of due process was supposedly to ensure that the innocent do not go to jail, and the guilty do go to jail. But anarcho tyranny means that with so many laws, the innocent are bound to be guilty of something or other, while actual criminals are deemed the oppressed, and are coddled and protected by the state. Due process lets real criminals loose, mostly dark skinned real criminals who prey on white people, while imposing enormous and impossible legal costs on innocent middle class honest respectable people. For middle class people, due process is just the government’s way of punishing you when it cannot be bothered finding a crime to convict you of, even though with so many laws you have undoubtedly committed more crimes than you can shake a stick at.

White people just don’t like due process any more, for much the same reasons as Filipinos rejected it.

So in our current environment due process and judicial review is discredited, and lacks political support. In Tony Abbot’s Australia as much as in Duterte’s Philippines, it was suddenly and startlingly revealed that judges are simply all out of moral authority. No one cares about due process, because, under anarcho tyranny, there is no reason why they should care. It is not just a tiny handful of reactionary intellectuals thinking like this. It is pretty much everyone.

The point of due process was to prevent the King from treating repectable decent people like criminals. But now that we are all treated like criminals, people just don’t care.

Power divided can be power reduced. If the benevolent party controls all the food, or ninety nine percent of the food, as in communist China, today’s Venezuela, or Allende’s Chile, then you are toast. The result is at best severe oppression as in Venezuela, at worst mass murder on an enormous scale, as in China.

If however ninety nine percent of the food is controlled by ninety nine members of the one percent each of whom controls one percent of the food, then no problem. In this case, power divided is power reduced.

But if you need ninety nine approvals by ninety nine bureaucrats to build a house, you are more than ninety nine times as oppressed than if you need the approval of one bureaucrat, because you face a coordination problem between bureaucrats.

With one bureaucrat, you could hope to pay him off, formally or informally, by giving his bagman/consultant, say, a third of the surplus value you create by building the house. With ninety nine bureaucrats, they each want ten percent, so you just cannot build the house.

In this case, power divided is power increased, enormously increased. This enormous multiplication of oppressive power is another aspect of anarcho tyranny that leads people to hunger for the power of kings, they hunger for one man who could say “give me half the surplus value and build it” and who would tell the other ninety eight bureaucrats to take a long walk off a short pier. They hunger for a Duterte who would shoot the other ninety eight bureacrats behind a shed.

America’s smartest member of the ruling progressive elite tells us:

Investigating the reasons behind the bridge blunders have helped to illuminate an aspect of American sclerosis — a gaggle of regulators and veto players, each with the power to block or to delay, and each with their own parochial concerns. All the actors — the historical commission, the contractor, the environmental agencies, the advocacy groups, the state transportation department — are reasonable in their own terms, but the final result is wildly unreasonable.

Larry the prog worries that regulation, a multiplicity of veto players, makes government inefficient, and therefore unpopular, worries that he cannot get the bridge he needs to go to and from Harvard, and fails to see the glaringly obvious, that regulation makes the private sector inefficient.

I, too, have had to deal with a multiplicity of veto players, each with his bagman collecting his bribe.

And I do not believe that any of them were reasonable. That is just Larry the prog issuing the required pieties. All of them deserve to be shot. All of them were evil, corrupt, and insane.

Larry is pissed because his commute to Harvard is obstructed, blissfully unaware that Americans further from the seat of power suffer from the anarchy of government far more severely than he does.

In America, the presidency has gathered to itself enormous power, intervening in every small business, every household.

Husbands are thrown out of their houses, fathers torn from their children, thanks to the Department of Justice, which is theoretically answerable to the president. Women with husbands tend to vote Republican. Children with fathers tend to vote Republican. If the Depart of Justice has its way no woman will have a husband, nor any child a father.

Similarly the department of Justice arranged for white people to be burned out of Ferguson, forbidding the Ferguson police from protecting people and property, and forbidding collective self defense against collective aggression.

But the presidency is not the president. It is an enormous horde of bureaucrats that are theoretically supposed to obey the president, but which the president cannot fire, which results in anarcho tyranny. If the president could fire them, this would enormously increase the power of the president, but enormously decrease the power of the presidency, because one would be merely subject to one tyrant, instead of ninety nine tyrants.

In practice, the bureaucrats tend to treat the president as their public relations boy, rather than their boss. And if he fails to run good PR for what they have already decided to do they will smack him around the ears in the pages of the New York Times.

The bureaucrats are answerable to the consensus of their fellow bureaucrats, they have to be a square peg in a square hole, but the consensus is controlled by the consensus of the Ivies, and the consensus of the Ivies is controlled by the consensus of Harvard.

And as we have seen Harvard does not much like Trump, and to judge from his list of Supreme Court judicial candidates, Trump does not much like Harvard.

For Trump to rule, for Trump to accomplish any of his goals, the president has to subjugate the presidency, a process that will inevitably require massive firings, and some actual violence against those who decline to be fired. Quite possibly some Duterte style sudden violent deaths that no one is inclined to investigate because everyone knows what an honest investigation would reveal.

Trump will need to get rid of some turbulent priests.

The president’s power is so very great as to diminish the power and effectiveness of democracy thus we see a tendency to dynasties – the attempted Kennedy dynasty, the attempted Clinton dynasty, and the Bush dynasty.

An enormous increase in the power of the president, which will happen if Trump succeeds in firing those bureaucrats who do not obey him, would pretty much guarantee dynastic rule. Trump would govern for eight years, then be succeeded by his sons.

So we would have a system that was nominally democratic, but actually hereditary and monarchic. Such a difference between actual and formal power is necessarily corrupting and destructive, because such government operates by lies. To remedy this corruption, one of Trump’s sons would have to declare himself King Trump the third, and his predecessors King Trump the first and King Trump the second.

So for Trump to become King in substance, and eventually King in name, he has to seize the power to fire the fireproof.

Which, given that he has support from the military, the praetorians, the cops, the rentacops, and the mercenaries, and that judges do not have much support from anyone, is quite doable.

If Trump says “You are fired”, and security frog marches the offending presidency bureaucrat out of the building and does not let him back in, has that bureaucrat not been fired?

If HR attempts to keep paying the bureaucrat, apply the same measure to HR. If judges rule the firing illegal, do like Abbot and Duterte, and tell the judges to take a long walk off a short pier.

Thus could Trump exercise the power of Kings.

And if he wants to build a wall and deport anchor babies, that is what he needs to do, he needs to exercise the power of a King, for otherwise the presidency will not permit the president to act.

And if Trump exercises the power of Kings and does so competently and bravely, if he is worthy to exercise such power, Kings shall in due course ensue. I will then apply for the job of Grand Inquisitor when the time is right.

Tags:
Posted in party politics, politics | 175 Comments »

Keeping up with PC

Monday, May 30th, 2016

Me:

I would not like to be incorrect, so is pedophilia still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever, or is it holy and sacred already?

SJW:

Relax. Still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever.

Me:

What if the pedophilia is part of an anti bullying program teaching pre pubertal children to accept gays.

SJW:

Never happens.

Me:

I seem to recall the anti bullying literature depicting an obviously gay fifty year old man embracing a pre pubertal child of indeterminate sex

SJW:

A totally non sexual embrace intended to demonstrate social acceptance of whatever sexual whatever the child was expressing. Which is therefore totally holy and sacred

Me:

I seem to recall a pre pubertal child born male but said to be identifying as a girl who was …

SJW:

Totally holy and sacred. Obviously someone who knows he is a girl before puberty and can choose sex change treatment before puberty can know and prefer his sexual preference before puberty but … um … ah … er … people like me would never do anything that is not holy and sacred.

SJW:

But I can definitely positively absolutely tell you that pedophilia still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever, and if a twenty four year old hot female teacher should have sex with a handsome high school football star who is big enough and strong enough to pick her up, toss her on the bed, and give her a spanking this is totally shocking, indescribably disgusting, and she needs to go to jail for the terrible terrible terrible harm she has inflicted on the poor victimized high school football star.

SJW:

still an abomination and absolutely the worst thing ever.

Posted in culture | 12 Comments »

Menstrual synchronization and cryptic ovulation

Saturday, May 28th, 2016

The PUA interpretation of cryptic ovulation is that it is an evolutionary adaption to make it easier for women to cuckold their husbands.  Doubtless there is some truth in this, but some untruth also, since when females get their way the result is not polyandry, which is cryptic, but serial monogamy, which female behavior is far from cryptic, whereas when males get their way, the result is polygyny.   Further, females have control of which males can get them pregnant, since their cervix will open for one man’s sperm and not for another man’s sperm, so cryptic ovulation for this purpose is overkill.

Another effect of cryptic ovulation is to promote more sex, for the telos not of reproduction, but for the telos of the unitive bond between man and woman, that the two should be one flesh.

Since ovulation is cryptic in humans it is odd that human females tend to synchronize their menstrual cycles.  It is apparent that a female’s subconscious mind can see what a male’s subconscious mind cannot see.

This implies an evolutionary arms race, in which it is valuable to males to know a female’s fertile period, but valuable to females that a male not know her fertile period.  And it is also valuable for females to know the menstrual cycle of competing females, and valuable for them to let her know their fertile period.

If a females fertile period is transparent to a male’s subconscious mind, this facilitates pump and dump.  By enabling more reproductively efficient sex by the male, undermines the unitive bond and male investment, to the females disadvantage, and facilitates mate guarding, to the female’s disadvantage.  It is easy to see why it should be important to females that their fertile period be cryptic to males, but why should it be transparent to females?

It is well known that females living together tend to synchronize menstruation but this serves no useful evolutionary purpose, so is presumably a side effect of something that does serve useful evolutionary purpose.

Personal observation, not necessarily statistically significant:  Women sleeping with the same man all tend to menstruate simultaneously, or very close together, even if they never meet. It looks to me that when no one is using any form of contraception, one menstruating triggers the other to menstruate.

This, assuming the observation to be valid, serves the evolutionary purpose, useful for women, of making polygyny harder, and making it less likely that a polygynist who may well consciously or subconsciously perceive a woman’s fertile state will get two women pregnant in rapid succession, thus making it more likely he will stick with whoever first gets pregnant.

Posted in culture | 22 Comments »

New Canon on Church and State

Thursday, May 26th, 2016

I hearby declare Citadel’s statement on Church and State to be neoreactionary canon.

A lot of neoreactionaries are Christian adherents of organized religion – or wish they could be Christian – or wish they could be adherents of some organized religion or other.  I suppose all of us wish that.

Trouble is that today’s Roman Catholicism and the rest are heretical, satanic, and are committing institutional suicide as fast as possible.  The pope wants “speaking ex Cathedra” to become yet another letterhead of Acorn, the Vatican to become a museum run by Havard with tour guides giving spiels written by Ivy Leaguers explaining how stupid and wicked things were in the bad old days, and the Church buildings where once Catholics met to receive the Eucharist to become Marxist Lesbian bookstores, as most of the Churches in San Francisco already have.

Speaking as a believer, Citadel argues the same conclusion I have less convincingly argued as an unbeliever, that I argued less convincingly because an unbeliever.  The Church should be subordinate to the good state as a woman should be subordinate to her husband.

The Church inevitably succumbs to the state religion.  See the Pope kiss Harvard’s feet.  And back when the Church arguably had some independence, and real earthly power, when the Holy Roman Empire had lost all power, but the Church had gained far too much earthly power, we got indulgences and Chaucer’s summoner.   Henry the Eighth was doubtless a bad man, but you got no indulgences from his church, and his summoners were subject to discipline.

The worst of the Roman Catholic Church was not the pornocracy, when Popes were succeeded by the sons of their mistresses.  Hereditary priesthood is an excellent system, and normatively celibate priesthood a horrible mistake.  The Church was great, faithful, orthodox, glorious, and virtuous under the pornocrats and under the Holy Roman Emperors.  The worst of the Church was indulgences and corrupt summoners.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 86 Comments »

All slopes are slippery

Friday, May 20th, 2016

Just as overt discrimination against blacks was replaced with overt discrimination against whites with no intervening period of neutrality, when people opposed the double standard and started socially enforcing chastity on men, they abandoned social enforcement of chastity on women.

In the social world, everything is a feedback loop, and all slopes are slippery. The resulting equilibria rarely involve “equality.”

Either men are morally superior to women, and women’s sexuality is restricted, or women are morally superior to men, and male sexuality is restricted. Someone is always in charge, both at the societal level, and at the individual level.

The only time someone is not in charge is when the two sides don’t know each other very well, and don’t know how hard they can push. This is why dating is a process of the woman figuring out what she can get away with. They want to progress to the power shakeup so they know who is in charge.

Once someone wins an initial dispute, and gets defined as the party with the most valid needs (or greatest grievances), then their moral superiority turns into power. Once the first Schelling Point has been crossed, it’s very hard for the losing party to hold other Schelling Points, and will lose as much ground as the culture/subculture allows and the virtue of the winning party (e.g. upper class, lower class, and feminist women will take different amounts of flesh if they win at moral superiority).

Once one Schelling point goes, there can be no natural equilibrium at some new, nearby Schelling point.  The new equilibrium is not a new stationary Schelling point near the old, but rather is unending retreat.   Retreat under fire always turns to total rout.

One possibility would be to give both men and women moral status in different spheres of society. This seems like it could work, but isn’t it what the Victorians tried? Women were given great prestige and moral authority in the home and education, but that moral authority expanded, as Mencken makes clear. Women’s moral sphere got bigger and bigger until eventually it swallowed the male sphere, and we now have Codes of Conduct in tech.

Blacks and whites could separate, and be in some sense equal if apart.  But men and women need to be together, and being different, either men will rule women, or women rule men, and for obvious biological reasons women ruling men does not work very well.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 41 Comments »

Shit tests are designed to be passed

Friday, May 13th, 2016

This is not a PUA blog.  Not going to tell you how to recognize a shit test or how to pass it.  I myself am not all that good at such things.  But I will tell you that you need to know such things.

Mostly the red pill is the rediscovery of stuff that back in the fifties and sixties everyone knew but no one would plainly say.

Shit tests, however, represent a new and clearer understanding.  The Taming of the Shrew is all about passing shit tests, so this is not a completely new discovery, but we understand shit tests better than men in the past.

Girls cannot help shit testing men that they like, any more than a man can help looking at a woman’s breasts.  When acquiring a girlfriend, you will be hit by shit tests.  When trying to keep your wife or girlfriend in line, you will be hit by shit tests.

A shit test is a power struggle.  If the girl wins, for example getting you to apologize, making you hold her bag, making you try to please her in ways that can never please her, she loses.  If you win, you win.  Never apologize, never explain.

I think girls are genuinely unconscious of shit testing men. They think their supposed attitudes are sincerely held, though their attitude evaporates in a puff of smoke when you blow off their shit test.  (Some shit tests, like showing up late, or going home to mother, require a bit of patience before you will see the attitude change.)

And it is hard to tell the difference between a shit test and girl really not liking you, or really not wanting to have sex with you.  Except that shit tests are designed to be passed.

And shit tests are often horrifyingly harsh.  It is often hard to pass a shit test, because they are really meant to be hard to pass.  And if you fail a shit test it is likely to become retroactively true that the girl really did not like you, or really did not want to have sex with you.  Hard to tell the difference between a thermonuclear shit test and a thermonuclear rejection.  Except that one will reliably get you laid and the other one will not.

I am not going to tell you how to detect a shit test.  You just have to intuit it.  After a while you get a reflexive feeling of resentment “Hell, this girl is out of line.  She is behaving improperly”. But you should not react to a shit test by getting hostile and angry since such an attitude assumes in advance you will fail the shit test, rather than pass it and claim your startlingly generous reward. Rather, you should assume she will be happy to be gently but firmly put in her proper place.

Not going to tell you how to pass them.  I am not particularly good at passing them.  They are hard to pass, particularly in a society that gives women nuclear weapons.

Consent does not make sex right, and lack of consent does not make sex wrong.

A porn star is apt to wind up feeling mighty bad about sex and her life, even though she gets formally videotaped giving explicit verbal consent to absolutely everything. Most women married by abduction or by arrangement feel pretty good about their marriage, and all the better if husband firmly insists on sex every night.

Women do not really like needing to consent to sex, let alone consent moment to moment. Which is one of the reasons you will probably strike out if you try to get a woman to give you explicit verbal consent. They much prefer “It just happened”.  Women really don’t want to succeed in getting their own way on sex, because if they get their own way, that kind of implies that the person they are having sex with is weaker, needier, or lower status that they are.  In the environment of evolutionary adaptation, if a woman really does not have much choice in who’s semen gets thrust into her pussy, it is probably better quality semen from the standpoint of Darwin, and more honorable and legitimate sex from the point of view of the God of the old Testament.  They like to be dominated and commanded into sex.  So a girl losing shit tests is her warm up to getting nailed.  Just as every time a man looks at a girls boobs, he is thinking about having sex with her, every time a girl shit tests a man, she is thinking about being overcome, overpowered, dominated, and submitting sexually to that man.

I took a lady friend, and her good friend, to a resort, because I hoped for a threesome.  This was extremely stupid of me, because one is never going to make a threesome with one’s lady  friend’s good friend, because they will fear breaking up their friendship, but, hey, all the blood had as usual rushed from brain to my little man.

Let us call my lady friend girl 1, and her good friend who failed to have sex with me and distracted the attention of girl 1 away from me girl 2.

I met a man at the resort, and he wanted to join my group, and that was fine with me because he, being an outsider trying to join the group, was unavoidably confirming my alpha male status with every move he made, so I asked him to join us.  We will call him beta man.

Eventually he very delicately sort of asked which girl was surplus to my requirements, which girl was the third wheel on the bicycle.  To which I straightforwardly replied that girl number 2 was the extra, but he could not have her.  He should hit on some other girl.

And, predictably, everyone acted as if I was being completely reasonable and had rightful authority over girl 2’s life.  But, of course, girls do not take this kind of treatment lying down. Or rather, standing up.  If you tell a girl she cannot have something, she is going to want to have it.

Predictably, after a while girl number 2 just happened to wander off so that she is as far from me as she can be while still remaining in line of sight.  And I pretend to not look at that line of sight.

And Beta man disappears, takes a circuitous route while out of sight, and just happens to reappear near girl number two.

I pretend to not look, while glancing every now and then out of the corner of my eye

I know he is going get an absolutely brutal shit test, because, he, and she, are literally sneaking behind my back, and thus he is acting beta.  To get enough alpha cred to nail her, he needs to pass a brutal shit test, and she is going to give him the opportunity to gain enough alpha cred to nail her.

So he chats to her, she chats to him.  I cannot hear them and they are too far away to see very clearly, but suddenly he acts has though she has stabbed him with a spear, the spear is sticking all the way through him and out the other side, and he is coughing blood.  He flees in shame and horror.

The poor man was severely traumatized, perhaps for life.  The next day we saw him in town, and my girls called out to him to join us, and he acted like we were opening fire with a machine gun.  He fled again in abject terror.

But I know girl number 2 liked him, and wanted to spend a night in his room at the resort, because she was disappointed when he fled.

Had he joined us again, he would have faced an even more brutal shit test, to give him the opportunity to gain the alpha cred he lost by being beta to my alpha, and failing the first shit test.  But if he had passed – well, it was obvious to me that girl number two had plans, though I don’t know if it was obvious to her.

Maybe like Roger Elliot he spent the rest of his life creepily staring at women from a great distance waiting for them to approach him, then fleeing in terror if approached, and finally broke down, killed a bunch of people and committed suicide.  Maybe he became a hairy hermit in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest.  But it was obvious to me that girl number two had conscious or subconscious plans to spend the night in his room, rather than on the spare bed in mine, and was visibly disappointed when her plans fell through.

The moral of the story is:  Pass your shit tests.  The rewards are great.  The punishment for failure is dire.  And it is easier to pass your shit tests if you believe in the chain of being:  Beasts < blacks < children < women < men < angels.

But the trouble is that society arms women with nuclear weapons against being hit on by upper class males, and in particular white males.  This makes upper class men less sexy than lower class men, and lower class men less sexy than underclass men, and white men less sexy than black men.  It is harder to pass a shit test the higher your social class.

Tags:
Posted in culture | 86 Comments »

Libertarianism

Thursday, May 12th, 2016

Most neo reactionaries are ex libertarians, or ex anarchists.

Indeed, if you are a feudalist you are not even an ex anarchist.  You are an anarcho capitalist who doubts that most people should be allowed authority in the anarcho capitalist system of enforcement and justice, or are likely to receive a substantial voice.

“I pencil” is a famous criticism of socialism, which shows how difficult it is to centrally plan a pencil.

The problem is made much easier by good fences – and the occasional armed rentacop and fierce guard dog keeping an eye on those fences.

The socialist looks at those fences and says “the fences are unproductive, and the guard dogs are not only unproductive but costly and dangerous. They also look unfriendly and uncomradely, they divide us. Let us therefore abolish them”

And then the socialist, attempting to produce a pencil, produces instead many miles of red tape and a severe pencil shortage, frequently followed by a gulag full of “wreckers” that he blames for the pencil shortage.

The fences and the dogs serve a purpose, that purpose being to subdivide big problems into subproblems small enough to be manageable.  Central regulation, on the other hand, bureaucrats claiming the power to meddle in what goes on behind fences, turns many small tractable problems into one gigantic mess.

Libertarianism works provided you have fences, and often enough you also need rentacops and vicious junk yard dogs to make libertarianism work. And it is the only thing that does work to make a modern economy function – apart from terror and mass murder, and terror and mass murder does not work nearly as well as libertarianism and fences.

Libertarianism does not work where you do not have fences. Public transport in America fails because of blacks. To make it work again, you really are going to have to send blacks to the back of the bus. Whites just will not ride buses with significant black ridership, for excellent and glaringly obvious reasons that no one dares mention. You wanted integrated buses, got buses with no white ridership.

Similarly “integration” was in practice black workers in Detroit riding on the backs of white workers in Detroit, shortly followed by the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of whites in the inner city and Detroit.  Detroit’s car industry failed because they were forced to treat productive and unproductive workers alike and were forced to hire unproductive workers.  Ayn Rand depicts this, without, however, mentioning the overwhelmingly predominant race of the unproductive workers.  When Detroit was thriving, she accurately predicted its future as a desolate ruin, abandoned by all civilized people.

If you have blacks and whites in the same classroom, the blacks are very much louder, take up more space, and are dangerous and threatening, disrupting education and forcing the white kids into submissive roles.

Further, the kind of discipline required to make it possible for blacks to learn in a classroom is a lot more severe than the kind of discipline required to make it possible for whites to learn in a classroom. Few blacks are capable of learning without being whipped. Successful black schools are harsh, and the harsher they are the more successful.

And of course, at a certain age, the blacks are into, or have completed puberty, and the black pupils are man sized and able to beat up the teacher, while the whites have not begun puberty, or have scarcely begun it, and are still child sized and still behave like children.

And if you have twelve year old white boys and twelve year old white girls in the same classroom, the twelve year old girls are well and truly into puberty, and the twelve year old boys are not, creating a profoundly disruptive environment, though not as severe as that caused by twelve year old white boys, and twelve year old black adult men in the same classroom.

But the biggest failure of libertarianism, the biggest failure by far, is marriage and the family. Libertarianism is basically incompatible with family formation, children, and grandchildren, with the continued existence of whites and east Asians, for white and east Asian women are psychologically incapable of breeding near replacement in a libertarian environment.

The problem is that for a man and a woman to raise their children together, to provide their children with a mother and a father, they have to form one household, no fences. But if one household, then one captain. The man has to be boss. Further, they have to be stuck with each other for incentive compatibility. Consent to sex has to be once and forever. If consent to sex is moment to moment, then marriage is moment to moment, and you get serial monogamy, which means that husbands have no incentive to care for and nurture their wives, and wives no incentive to please and obey their husbands. Which means that women get their way sexually until they hit a certain age and become cat ladies, and men do not get their way sexually, and means that children have only one parent, and a lengthy succession of violent and abusive step parents.

A libertarian solution to marriage and the family would mean two separate households with visitation rights. A lot of people are trying that today, and it is not working. This stuff just fails. Broken families, empty buses, hellish schools.

If you cannot solve a problem with fences, guards, and guard dogs, the solution is unlikely to be libertarian.

Tags:
Posted in politics | 34 Comments »

Duerte Harry

Monday, May 9th, 2016

If the votes are honestly counted, Duerte Harry will be the next president of the Philippines.

He was previously mayor of Davao, where he solved a crime problem, in substantial part a problem of Muslim criminals predating on Christians, by killing criminals.  A lot of criminals.  Of all religions.

When I was in Davao, some people threatened him with lawfare, and he responded in his newspaper that if they sued him, he would kill them, their wives, and their children.

Motorized tricycles are the major form of public transportation in some parts of Davao and most places near Davao.  My tricycle driver stopped to buy fuel, and told me how a street kid had snatched a fuel payment, equivalent to six US dollars, and subsequently been killed by one of Duerte Harry’s death squads.

I wonder how many other payments that kid snatched before they nailed him. Also, how big was this “kid”?  Had to be strong enough to snatch, and fast enough to get away.

The people who were allegedly death squads were wonderfully disciplined, always perfectly polite and courteous, their uniforms extremely neat, their guns and decorations shiny.  I felt very safe with them, whereas I don’t feel safe with western police, who are conspicuously undisciplined and discourteous.  I always get the feeling that western police may capriciously decide I have done something illegal (after all, there are so many things that are illegal) just to show me who is boss.   I have always been able to talk my way out of trouble with police even when caught red handed, except for traffic offenses, or else my lawyer was able to talk me out of trouble, but why the hell should I need to talk my way out of trouble? I am an honest decent guy.  Anarcho tyranny is that they enforce all sorts of laws against people like me, and not against the kid who snatches six dollars.

When car-burning riots raged in Sweden, police had a policy of deliberately doing nothing about the rioters while cracking down decisively on so-called “vigilantes” who tried to stop immigrant rioters burning cars and neighborhoods. To add insult to injury, authorities issued parking tickets on burned cars.

In America, a four year old boy was groped in a bathroom.  His father slugged the groper.  Father arrested, groper not arrested.

See Will’s anarcho tyranny blog for a long long list of what police do while allowing criminals to run amuck.  He tends to focus on tyranny.  Here is some anarchy. And more anarchy.

Duerte Harry’s death squads don’t do anything like that, any more than they would let the brass on their uniforms get dull, or drink while on duty, or wear uniforms that were less than perfectly neat and pressed.  Their scrupulous neatness and rigid discipline is a symbol that they do not engage in such self indulgent bullying.  Their perfect courtesy and crisply pressed uniforms are a promise that they do not threaten people like me.  They threaten people who would snatch six dollars out of my hand.

There a pattern all over the West of excessive force against the innocent, the weak, the law-abiding, and those defending themselves and others but excessive deference to actual violent criminals.

This reflects a more general problem of the state, and members of the state apparatus, displaying ever less discipline.  Which problem starts at the top with fireproof senior public servants.

 

 

Posted in politics | 47 Comments »

Adulthood by race

Monday, May 9th, 2016

Eyeballing the graphs in the Journal of Endoctrinology, looks like American blacks become physically adult roughly four years earlier than American whites.  Which makes them approximately intermediate between chimps and men.  This is consistent with black females typically experiencing menarche at nine and white females typically experiencing menarche at twelve.  Data on puberty in black males seems curiously hard to find, suggesting that it is horribly politically incorrect.  Just eyeballing American blacks, looks to me that black males experience puberty at about the same age as black females or close to it, while white males experience puberty about two years later than white females, but that is just a wild assed guess.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a study that says the difference is only one year, as measured by the start of testicle growth.  Maybe I am prejudiced, but I find that hard to believe.   The interesting measure that people should care about is not growth of testicles, which no one can see, but growth in bones, which everyone can see, and which can be objectively measured far more accurately.  Maybe there is not much difference in the age and which testicles start to grow, but there is surely a pretty big difference in the age at which bones have substantially grown.  It is also kind of suspicious that there is a only a one year difference in the start of testicle growth, which is hard to define and hard to measure, and a three year difference in menarche, which is entirely unambiguous to define and measure.  Much as indications of climate change are more alarming the less they can be accurately measured, and the less alarming the more they can be accurately measured.

Which makes educating whites and black children in the same classrooms segregated by age, rather than by physical development, pretty much insane.

Similarly, stupid to put girls and boys in the same classroom by age during puberty, though not as stupid as putting whites and blacks in the same classroom by age.  Indeed, it is pretty obvious that during puberty, kids should be sorted by their puberty stage, not by age.

The reason we don’t do what we obviously should do is that what we are doing advantages female children over male, and young black men over white male children.

Posted in culture | 248 Comments »

Formalism

Saturday, May 7th, 2016

Moldbug argued for Formalism – that the official reality of political power should match up with the actual reality.

And I would add to that the rectification of names: That words should cut reality at the joints, rather than lay a comforting layer of snow over what everyone knows but no one can actually say.  We need to bring back words like “bastard” to accurately describe the consequences of fatherlessness.

The advantage of formalism is illustrated by comparing Dubai with North Korea.

If you say your hereditary King is King because he personally owns the right to rule Dubai, which he inherited from his father, works a whole lot better than if you say your King is democratically elected to give effect to the will of the people of North Korea.  Because if you say your King is democratically elected and so forth, you have to shoot anyone who shows signs of noticing reality.

We are increasingly in an informal situation since Harvard exercises informal power – for example making it illegal for white males to have sex with their wives is an immensely unpopular law which is being backdoored in through the endless redefinition of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence, since any politician that openly stood for such a law would be instantly reduced to a smoking grease spot.

The more the actual distribution of power differs from the nominal and formal distribution of power, the more political repression is needed, and the more those that exercise power need to act illegally.

The need for widespread and frequent hypocritically and corrupt acts lead to criminal acts done for profit, as for example the looting of Haiti and the looting of post Soviet Russia.

Because your entire real government is acting illegally and criminally even when it is filling in potholes and managing the water supply, tends to act illegally by stealing and raping.  I am not aware of the guys from Harvard raping – seems that our male ruling elite is increasingly forbidden to have sex at all, and you cannot make it into the elite unless you have abnormally low testosterone, but the high in the high low alliance turn a blind eye to rapes by their low political allies.

However, though the high have not been raping, and high males are increasingly not having sex at all, they have been stealing on a grand scale that gets steadily grander.

Since lies, fraud, and violent repression needed to just do the routine everyday stuff that governments are supposed to do, particular members of the government are apt to use lies, fraud, and violent repression to get ahead and benefit themselves.

Informal government is thus apt to suffer lack of cohesion, thus those that actually own the government are apt to have trouble defending their ownership.

If property rights poorly defined, violence apt to ensue.  Who owns the government is bound to get nasty sooner or later.  Informal government has been fairly peaceful in recent times, but has a potential for apocalyptic violence.

Posted in politics | 101 Comments »

« Older Entries