Archive for the ‘culture’ Category

Marriage

Sunday, July 28th, 2019

The core of the reactionary program is to make marriage legal again. Without marriage, the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, and reproduction is dysgenic.

Leftist marriage, modern marriage, is gay. Marriage has been gay since 1928.

Obviously reactionaries must reintroduce marriage that is suitable for heterogamous organisms, and we will have to introduce it as a matter of faith and morals before we can introduce it as a matter of law.

The left offers your wife cash and prizes for destroying the family assets, destroying you and destroying your children. The lawyer and the marriage counselor will tell her she is oppressed, and she can get a court order that gives her cash and prizes, raises her status, and will result in her marrying a six foot six billionaire athlete with a dong the size of a salami.

Modern marriage is gay. Everyone who gets married gets gay married. If your wedding vows are symmetric and interchangeable, the same of the man as for the woman, your marriage is gay and you are being gay married.

If your wedding has a master of ceremonies or a priest who acts like he, rather than the groom, is the big important man at the wedding, that he is the alpha male, your wedding is gay, and you are being gay married. (And the master of ceremonies is usually gay, and if he is not gay, he thinks that two males pretending to marry each other with the intention of cruising for nine year old boys to transexualize is smart and fashionable.)

The wedding organizer appoints a gay master of ceremonies whose main job is to define the groom as Homer Simpson, to emasculate him in the eyes of the bride. The minister conducts a gay wedding ceremony that treats the bride and groom as equal and interchangeable, even though experience has demonstrated that wives will not tolerate househusbands, and will invariably leave a domesticated man for a wild man who beats her, rapes her, and rapes and beats her husband’s children.

The worst thing progs did ever was remove “Honor and obey”, “submit and reverence” from the marriage ceremony.

The book of common prayer purged the wife’s vow to honor and obey and purged Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33 in 1928. That, not female suffrage, was the worst thing ever, effectively abolishing marriage.

One household necessarily has one captain. If the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, so no point in the ceremony, and, surprise surprise, people stopped holding the ceremony, just as they stopped turning up to Church when the pastor started telling them their husbands were Homer Simpson and if you showed up at Church you were likely homophobic.

We have to restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before first wave feminism.

The marriage ceremony needs to include “honor and obey”, and it needs to once again include Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 5:22-33

  1. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
  2. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
  3. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
  4. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
  5. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
  6. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
  7. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
  8. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
  9. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
  10. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
  11. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
  12. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

And once again include the first epistle of Peter 3:1-7

  1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
  2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
  3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
  4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
  5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
  6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
  7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered

And we also need to have 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, though the book of common prayer does the same thing in a different way:

  1. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
  2. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
  3. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Because without the obligation each to sexually gratify the other, no marriage.

The need to bring marriage back implies a familist movement will look awfully like a religion.

Another important aspect of family is eating together at the same time. Everyone, kids, wife, and guests, holds off from eating until the patriarch says “Amen” then they all eat together. Grace is a ritual that ensures that everyone eats together and that presents the alpha male as backed by the ultimate alpha male, God. Women inherently like their alpha male to be backed by a bigger alpha male, and they are astonishingly comfortable with being assigned to another man by a higher alpha.

So any effective familist movement necessarily has religious rituals that are going to qualify it as a religion. But, like the Masons and progressivism, will probably have to pretend that it is not a religion.

On the other hand, to inculcate the appropriate attitude in women, to make the rituals work, have to tell them “God says do it this way”, which kind of gives the game away.

OK, if God is three and God is one, familism can be a religion and not a religion. If AA can be not a religion, familism can be not a religion.

The Anglican Church died, as the Congregational Church died as a Christian movement long before them, and the Roman Catholic Church is dying in the west. The Pope defends priests having gay sex in a great big pile by saying “consenting adults” and “Global Warming”. Well, if Global Warming is the great moral crisis of our times, why should anyone show up at Church. And they don’t. And if the Church abolishes marriage, why should anyone get married. And they don’t.

The Christian and biblical position is that Christians are kin by adoption and by marriage, that Christians are adoptively the children of God, and the Church is the bride of Christ. So when the pastor abolishes marriage and attacks the authority of the father and the husband, he saws of the branch on which he sits, and it looks to me that every Church dies after it abolishes marriage, though its death takes a bit over a century. The longer ago they abolished marriage and the family, the longer ago they died. Congregationalism was the first to abolish marriage and the family, and the first to go.

We want a synthetic tribe, because we are detribalized. God backing dad comes in mighty handy for making the family a family, particularly for making people eat meals at mealtime. And God comes in mighty handy for promoting ingroup cooperate/cooperate equilibrium by making people kin. These two functions of God seem to be connected in practice.

It is recorded that Christianity spread in the early Roman empire in large part through conversion of women. It is also recorded that marriage had collapsed in the early Roman empire. I suspect these two facts are connected, that Christian marriage may have been a familist movement in the early Roman empire. Similarly we notice that today white female Christian converts to Islam are overwhelming fertile age single women. Roman women converting from dead paganism to live Christianity in the Roman Empire may well have been similar to white Christian women converting to Islam today. They are joining a synthetic tribe where the ultimate alpha male will assign them a husband and ensure that they have a family. While the ultimate alpha male of today’s Christianity is going to give them a “season of singleness”.

If we look at the marriages depicted in the bible, they are all marriages in which the top alpha male assigns the woman. Which is what women want, even if they don’t know they want it.

In Genesis, God, the ultimate alpha male, marries Eve to Adam.

Abraham, a powerful alpha male who successfully made war with kings, marries Rebecca to Isaac. Rebecca is not consulted until afterwards, and Isaac is not consulted at all.

In the book of Ruth, Boaz is a powerful male who is the top alpha in the environment where Ruth is working. Ruth sneaks into Boaz’s bed while he is drunk and sleeping, asks Boaz to marry her, and appears to believe he has authority to perform marriage on the spot. He declines to do so, saying he has to resolve some legalities first but they spend the night together anyway. In the morning he goes off and successfully resolves those legalities, and later assembles witnesses and marries Ruth. Ruth’s mother in law (Ruth is a widow and the adoptive daughter of her mother in law) gives the bride away. Boaz, a powerful alpha male, is the one who presides over this ritual, not a judge or a priest. The elders witness, but they don’t emcee. If Ruth is present at this ritual she does not speak, but before the ritual she had plenty to say to her mother in law and to Boaz in private.

Chicks like the man who is throwing a party, because he is top alpha at the party. As “Setting the Record Straight” tells us, game boils down to three simple things.

  • Pass her shit tests
  • Don’t show weakness
  • Dominate other men

It is obviously optimal for marital harmony if the wife always sees her husband in social contexts where he is top alpha. When you throw a party, other alpha males act at the party as if you are the top alpha, even if in other social contexts you are not. So having someone else preside over the marriage is not a good idea. Marriages should resemble the marriage of Boaz and Ruth – unless the bride actually is being assigned to someone else by a powerful human alpha, as tended to happen during the early days of Australian settlement. If we look at first millennium Christian doctrine on marriage, it appears that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband with the priest being wedding organizer, rather than presiding over the wedding. Existing Catholic doctrine is that marriage is a sacrament performed by the husband (which was very recently re-interpreted as the husband and the wife), but the priest presides over the ceremony, with the husband not being the alpha male in that context. Anglican doctrine back in the days when it was actually functioning as a religion is that marriage is and is not a sacrament. The articles say it is not a sacrament, but the preamble given by the priest in the book of common prayer treats it as a sacrament, and in the ritual the husband performs that sacrament.

He takes the brides hand, and

With this ring I thee wed

And then the priest tells the congregation what just happened, describing it terms that make it sound mighty like a sacrament performed by the husband. So, marriage is a sacrament or something very similar performed by the husband. And we know from evolutionary theory, PUA theory, and PUA empirical observation that this is in fact what women want – which suggests that the husband, rather than the priest should preside over the marriage, with the priest acting as wedding organizer and second in command at the party.

To get women to collectively behave better, women have to be informed as to what behavior is good.

Depict wives and children interacting with husbands and fathers the way they were depicted on television and movies after 1933 and before 1963. That will inform them. We cannot do that till we are in power. But while out of power, can restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before 1928: Wife promises to honor and obey, husband promises to love and cherish.

And let us go back a bit further, nine hundred years further. Husband administers the sacrament of marriage. Technically he still does: Takes wife hand. “With this ring I thee wed.” Places ring on finger. But that has been heavily played down for many centuries. It was a big power struggle in the Church of England after Henry the Eighth. They keep trying to make the marriage contractual (“I do”), when it should be sacramental (“with this ring I thee wed”). Women really hate contractual marriage. Contractual marriage is failing a shit test right at the starter’s gun.

We also need to restore the tradition that is implied in the story of the wise and foolish virgins, where the husband mock abducts the wife to a big party which he emcees, and everyone at the party treats him as top alpha male. Abduction, or else someone with family authority over the bride gives this woman to this man, leading her to the man. “Who giveth this woman to this man?” Women do not really like consensual and contractual marriage, hence the need for the bride to be given away or abducted.

The Faith

Friday, June 28th, 2019

Holy war is coming, as the poz gets ever more extreme, ever faster, and our ruling elite increasingly uses state coercion and the FBI to accomplish political outcomes, coercing fellow members of the political elite for political reasons.

Have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a faith to a holy war.

Deus Vult.

Whites are detribalized, and contrary to the white nationalists, “white” is not a tribal identifier. Whites are wolf to whites. A religion, defining religion broadly to include things like communism and poz, is a synthetic tribe. To win, we need a faith.

With our enemies going further and further into delusion, we have to form a faith on the Truth of Gnon, the Will of God as manifested in the natural order, the Logos manifested in the order of the world, natural law as the will of God. We will, in accordance with the Christianity of about a thousand years ago, interpret Christ as, among other things, the incarnation of the Logos, and thus interpret his words as in accordance with game theory and evolutionary psychology, and divine prophecies as the predictable outcome of cause and effect.

One can deduce ought from is, which is exactly what the Book of Solomon and the copybook headings do, what every reasonable person does in practice.  If one is a strict atheist materialist, then “good” is what game theory and evolutionary psychology tells us that we should desire in our  kin, our friends, and the character of those that we should ally with.  If God created the world then “is” was created by God, and cause and effect a manifestation of the Logos.  And if a Christian, then cause and effect manifested as  wholly man, and that man ended Talmudic legalism, ended the practice of deducing “ought” from some other “ought” taken as given and absolute and then deducing ever sillier and ever more repugnant conclusions from the first “ought”, whether one takes that given “ought” as the “greatest good for the greatest number”, or takes as that given “ought” that one should not boil a goat in its mother’s milk.

The expulsion of the Jews by the Romans illustrates the Divine Logos telling us “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life” The divine will manifested through entirely natural causes, because the natural order of the universe reflects the will of God. And the spirit of the law, being manifest in cause and effect and manifest in the natural order, needs to be understood with reference to natural law, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. When the Jews obeyed the letter of the law while massively violating the spirit of the law, they were, in accordance with prophecy, expelled from Israel – which reflects the will of God and divine prophecy, but also reflects the fact that if you violate the spirit of the law, you will get into stupid wars with your neighbors, and eventually war with one of your neighbors that happens to be a six hundred pound gorilla. The Jews got into war with Rome not because of corrupt Roman tax collectors, oppressive taxation, harsh Roman law enforcement, and all that, but because they were so scrupulous about avoiding contamination by blood that they wound up getting covered in the wrongfully spilled blood of a Roman cop whom they murdered in the performance of his duty while he was attempting to impartially enforce a just, reasonable, and necessary law that applied to everyone. Which would not have led to war had they not felt so very righteous about it because they were being so faithful to rule about avoiding blood – so faithful to it that they spectacularly disregarded the commandments on coveting, theft, and murder. Attending synagogue while avoiding walking on ground contaminated by chicken blood was so terribly important that they could do anything they liked to accomplish these holy goals, including theft and murder, and their great determination to accomplish these holy goals demonstrated their superior holiness.  And their stubborn self righteousness over this incident eventually and predictably led to the Romans going Roman on them.

In Christianity, the rot set in on women about a thousand years ago, with romance and contractual marriage, with natural law increasingly being tortured to fit church doctrines that were increasingly arbitrary, unreasonable, and out of contact with reality, and with contractual marriage quietly and subtly replacing sacramental marriage, though Christianity only went really progressive on women during the twentieth century. We endorse old style contractual and old style sacramental marriage right now, at least as a moral standard and ritual solemnization, even though we are in no position to enforce it collectively, and after we gain power, start by rolling contractual marriage back to the late eighteenth century, while celebrating sacramental marriage at least symbolically, and eventually go all the way back to sacramental marriage.  We approve of and support husbands and fathers unilaterally enforcing it, even though such enforcement is highly illegal and subject to social disapproval, and we will have our marriage ceremonies proclaim it.

Evolutionary psychology and game theory implies that the family law of the Old Temple Hebrews and the first Millenium Christian Church was entirely correct, and the eighteenth century Christian position on family, war, identity, and the establishment of religion was quite good.

Pozzed Christianity, which dumps on fathers on father’s day and tells us we are Homer Simpson, and which thinks that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is far more important that a bunch of priests having gay sex in a great big pile, because the priests were all consenting adults, is not Christian.

Chaos is coming.  Chaos is already here, and will get a lot worse.  Eventually order will be restored through Caesarism, that being the cycle of history.  I hope this happens soon, with Holy American Emperor Trump, but if it does not happen soon, it will happen eventually, possibly after a century of blood and ruin.

When it starts happening, and I hope it is beginning now, we should catch that tide and sail it to victory.

Revolutionary movements never get anywhere without backing from a substantial faction of the elite. So what section of the elite is going to back us?

Warriors need priests, and priests need warriors. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, so they tend to struggle for power, priests destroying the military, instead of sustaining it and giving it cohesion. The recent stupid wars where the military fought for no sane, useful, or achievable purpose, with one hand tied behind its back, were attacks by the priesthood on the military, as was insourcing logistics, putting camp followers in military uniforms.

To explain these stupid wars, people say they were fought for Israel, but if fought for Israel, would have been fought to win, rather than lose. If fought for Israel, we would not have women in the military, Israel would not have women in the military, we would not have kicked Israel out of Gaza, and logistic workers would not be wearing warrior uniforms.

We are priests who believe warriors should rule (using the term “priesthood” to mean any knowledge faction that internally coordinates its story in order to give the story more effect and in order to gain power, analogously to using the term “religion” to include communism and poz.)  We are therefore in a good position to catch the coming tide.

The time of Ceasarism approaches. Caesar, Napoleon, or Augustus will need priests who say and believe his rule under God is right, because God said so, because one stationary bandit is better than mobile banditry, and because one King three thousand miles away is better than a thousand kings three miles away.

Trump’s state visit to England

Tuesday, June 4th, 2019

Ideas are more powerful than guns, and fashion is more powerful than ideas.

The main weapon and instrument of successful rulers is their role as the fount of all honors, mortal and divine. Because of the problems of scaling, their bureaucracy, rather than being the instrument of their rule, tends to become the main threat to their rule.

Trump’s visit to England is primarily a status parade.  Trump bestows status on the queen (which is useless, but required, because one should always give one’s host top status, even though it is only useful to bestow status on one’s host if the host is a man), and the Queen bestows status on him.

They also bestowed status on the other people assembled.  And guess who is not there?

Hollywood, the media, and for the most part, woke capital is not there.  Capital is there, but the media and such are mere onlookers  The Queen and Trump bestow status on the military and on merchants, but somehow merchants whose activities overlap with the priesthood generally seem to have been neglected.

Depressingly, the Queen’s speech was about universalism, framing World War II as a holy war to establish the rule by the “international community” over the entire world – and that this was a good thing intended to thereby end war forever.  Of course, in fact, World War II was so horribly bloody precisely because it was a holy war by universalists seeking to rule the world, and universalist rule has been terribly bad, destroying men’s families, ending science, suppressing the scientific method, and causing technological progress to stagnate. As promised universalism has so far avoided large scale horrifying wars, but war is a bursty phenomenon, and the recent period of relative peace has so far lasted no longer than previous periods of relative peace that follow a terrible war in which one hegemon gains overwhelming dominance. China now has radar coverage of the South China sea, and is building a fleet of artificial islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers – a strategy that suggests that they believe that aircraft carriers are eminently sinkable, that in a war between technologically advanced wealthy powers, each side will be able to deny the other side the air and the sea, a vision of conflict that if accurate makes it hard for one hegemon to dominate the entire world. We have already seen how Russian anti air capabilities limit US reach.

But then, to my considerable relief, she segued onto Anglosphere nationalism “Our strong cultural links” … “British descent“.

And then “Economic ties”, a hat tip to Trump boosting brexit with a promise of a US-UK trade deal. Trump nods.

And then a toast to Trump and the prosperity of the United States (not universal peace, nor universal prosperity). The start spangled banner plays. Trump and his wife stand with their hands over their hearts. Behind the queen stands a British warrior, a member of the Coldstream Guards, costumed in seventeenth century dress uniform. The Coldstream guards were General Monck’s Praetorians when he secured parliament and ensured the restoration of Charles the second, a coup well dressed in the costume of legality and constitutionality, steel on the inside, legality on the outside.

The guards are recruited from those parts of England and Scotland where General Monck recruited his praetorians, so they tend to have family ties to each other and to ancestors who were part of the Coldstream guards.

The guards behind Trump, the Queen, and Melanie salute the playing of the star spangled banner.

Hollywood and the media will call this all silly low status obsolete rigmarole, but it is hard to say “low status” to someone with warriors behind him and powerful and wealthy men assembled before him.

Then Trump speaks, remembering World War II. Trump, however, frames world war two as as a war for our civilization, where “our” is, in context the Anglosphere, and tells us that the British fought to hold their destiny in their own hands, another nod to brexit. Then he gives a nod to universalism – liberty in all lands – which looks remarkably like all lands having the culture of Harvard imposed upon them. Then it is back to the Anglosphere winning World War II for the Anglosphere. “Shared Victory”.

And then, after piously giving the nod to universalism he starts redefining universalism to not be universalism, much as the progressives have redefined Christianity to be exemplified by the right of women to freedom from husbands, moment to moment consent to marriage, unilateral abortion on demand to birth and immediately afterwards without the consent of their husbands, and the right of men to have gay sex in a great big pile.

This is the reverse of Pope Francis defending gay priests having gay sex in a great big pile by pointing out that they were all consenting adults, and look, Global Warming.

Nah, supposedly this great crusade was not about the international community making everyone into clones of Harvard. It was supposedly about “Freedom, Sovereignty, self determination, the rule of law, and reverence for the rights given to us by Almighty God”. (Which is pretty much the opposite of what the great crusade accomplished). So, if brexit fails to go through, you are falling short of the noble goals of this great crusade. And just in case you failed to notice, he said the bad word “crusade” again – and then that other bad word “God” – the ultimate patriarchal alpha male that stands behind the authority of each patriarch when he summons his family and guests to eat and says grace, the patriarchal alpha male that stands behind the ruler making his people one nation under God.

And then another bad word “patriotism”: “The patriotism that beats proudly in every British heart”. Yet another nod to brexit. So if you are against brexit, you are against God, country, and the goals of the great crusade, not to mention against a man who has a warrior standing behind him, a warrior of a group of warriors who put the current royal line back on the throne.

And then a toast to the Queen. Being an alpha male, he gives her a little pat, which she much enjoys.

The polls were wrong about the brexit referendum, indicating that our priestly elite had successfully made support for brexit wicked and low status.  Trump proceeds to make it virtuous and high status.

Fat is a reactionary issue

Sunday, May 26th, 2019

Facebook recently purged a facebook group for advocating healthy eating habits – right wing healthy eating habits – adequate protein, plenty of animal fats and less or no snacking, especially snacking of overly processed foods made from unknown ingredients, which tends to be what snacks are made of.

Leftism being the party of defection, infanticide, sodomy, adultery, effeminacy, and treason, is also the party of vice.  And the most common vices of today are gluttony, sloth, and adultery.

Gluttony, as well as being the most common vice, is a highly visible vice.  And usually indicative of other vices.

A leftist chick in a “long term relationship” is far more likely to be cruising for an upgrade, and apt to go right on cruising long after the wall has made an upgrade improbable, and a leftist, male or female, is far more likely to be fat and weak. Adultery is primarily a female sin, since female sexual misconduct is far more likely to obfuscate paternity and obstruct fatherhood.

Obesity is epidemic in the modern world.  How do you fix it?  The solution to obesity is now well known – well, well known in some circles, but oddly unknown in left wing circles, in the mainstream media (but I repeat myself).  And now unknown on Facebook.

The primary cause of obesity in the modern world is the cafeteria diet, snacking, especially snacking on foods that contain a lot of carbs, vegetable oil, and not much protein.  (And what protein there is tends to be soy.)

The formula for losing weight is fewer meals, approximately one hundred grams of protein per day for a male, which is approximately a pound of meat, and plenty of animal fat, as for example bacon, eggs, cheese, and butter.  You should go about seventeen hours, if socially possible, before breaking fast.  And since dinner is usually socially required, that likely means skipping breakfast.

Too little animal protein makes you weak, less muscled, and impairs healing and body regeneration, but too much protein stresses your kidneys and liver, and if you are eating too much protein, you probably will find you don’t like it. People on very high protein diets get sick, and find it hard to keep meat down.  For most men, one hundred grams of protein per day is about the right amount.

Some white people, and most Asians and middle easterners can handle carbs just fine, but a lot of white people cannot. Cut the carbs. You will find it far easier to control your eating on a very low carb diet, one where you mostly eat low carb vegetables like broccoli roasted with butter, or mushrooms fried in lots of butter, rather than high carb vegetables.  And most fruit is a bit on the high carb side, if you need a very low carb diet to control your appetite.

Don’t eat vegetable oils, except for olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, and palm oil.  Nuts are generally OK, even peanuts, but peanut oil not so much.

Our metabolisms are primarily designed to handle saturated fats – the short chain fats generated by our bowels, and our own fat stores.  Animal fat is what we are designed to metabolize as our primary energy source.  Apes consume a lot of fibre which gets metabolized into short chain fats in their large intestine, and our ancestors lived on their own body fat between kills.

Avoid soft drinks, especially zero calorie soft drinks.  It is a mystery to me why zero calorie soft drinks are fattening, but just looking around, you can see that they are.  Maybe they stimulate insulin secretion.  Notice that people who is insulin secretion is defective (as in type one diabetes) don’t get fat even if they eat a lot, and are apt to lose alarming amounts of weight unless they inject themselves with insulin.  That, however, is just a wild assed guess.

Or maybe it is that sweet drinks cause you to overeat. I drink Mountain Dew with moonshine on social occasions, and Mountain Dew always makes me eat and drink too much.  Likely Coke Zero would have similar effect.  Maybe that is the problem.  That is just another wild assed guess, but looking at fat people’s eating habits, you can see that substituting zero calorie soft drinks for sugary soft drinks is not a solution.  Get your caffeine fix from black coffee or unsweetened tea.

These specific prohibitions don’t matter that much, and do not necessarily apply to everyone, provided you follow the general rule which does apply to everyone:  The main thing that makes people fat in the modern world is continual snacking – the cafeteria diet.  It is snacks, and, for white people carbs, that make you fat.  Don’t do that.  Go for long periods, at least seventeen hours every day, and every now and then forty two hours, where you eat nothing and drink nothing but water and zero calorie tea and coffee. On a forty hour fast, you will lose about two pounds, and a seventy hour fast about five pounds but doing it too often can stress you, resulting in diverse non specific illness.  You should not lose weight too fast over the long term.

If you are trying to lose weight, you need to weigh yourself every morning.  What you do not measure, you will not control.  Scales are cheap.  I have three of them, two of which I use – the two that usually give very similar results.  They lean against the wall facing the sunrise, and I weigh myself at about the time that I watch the sun rise, and record my weight every day.  (I have big problem with lust, gluttony, and wrath, and have managed, with some difficulty, to control gluttony.  My current weight, as of this morning, is four pounds over my ideal weight.)

 

Analysis of a Chinese video

Monday, March 25th, 2019

You will never see courtship realistically portrayed in videos made for the west in anything made since the sixties, but they are still allowed to do romance realistically in China.

Episode seven: Hat tip Spandrell.

At 1:12 the pre fertile age chick is trying to attract his attention while simultaneously directing an expression of disdain and boredom at him. Obvious fitness test, which means she is after him. If a chick does this to you, you have to pass her test, which he does by commanding her to see him after class.

At 2:13, her boredom and lack of enthusiasm suddenly vanishes while his back is turned, only to instantly reappear when she positions herself in front of him. When the girl moves to the direction that you are facing, moves into your field of view, you know its on – and you also know that she is going to hit you with something unpleasant.

At 2:44 she references the previous episode six failed fitness test with an expression of maximum possible disdain and boredom, retesting him. He fails again. He apologizes, even though she is and was obviously in the wrong. Needless to say, at 3:03 apology not accepted. She doubles down on the fitness test, giving him another chance to pass. At 3:09 he changes direction, and starts a counter attack. At 3:13, seeing what is coming, she perks up.

At 3:52, she launches a new shit test, but she is simultaneously flirting, which takes the sting out of it.

At 4:17, she launches a physical attack, which cannot possibly succeed, hoping to provoke him into physically overwhelming her, but he allows it to succeed, failing the shit test, and she wanders off with entirely genuine boredom and disdain. End of the pre fertile age romance for this episode.

At 4:35 we get a boring promotion for Deng’s new China and new market economic order. But you are not going to see the American market order promoted on American television, only denigrated and condemned.

Then at 7:39, a different romance thread involving a different couple: beta male (beta with her, alpha with everyone else) approaches the fertile age chick, who of course hits him with a blocking fitness test at 8:11, then gives him the lets be friends pushoff. He plows on, and she walks away at 8:39 with him chasing after like a lost puppy. If hit with an unpassable fitness test, do not plow on.

He keeps on plowing on, making a bad situation worse. And plow, and plow. Boring. More plugs for the new economic order. Then at 12:57, the video proceeds to denigrate the old economic order – its enforcers are the bad guys, who are mucking up the economy by restraining the pursuit of the self interest. Again, you are never going to see socialism portrayed realistically on a video made in the west. At 18:15 Dongbao courageously announces he will fight politically for the market order and the pursuit of self interest. You are not going to see that on American video.

At 18:39 romance thread with the fertile age chick resumes. Watch her perk up as she imagines, that he is going to pass her shit test, that his mission is more important than she is. Now she chases after him, entertains him, and serves him. He brushes her off, because his mission really is more important than she is, and she chases after him.

At 22:44, encouraged by this, he resumes plowing. Watch her enthusiasm instantly fade. She shrinks away from him. He resumes his mission, and she switches back to wanting to follow him.

Then it is another tedious propaganda pitch for the new economic order. Yes, yes, we know already. Instead of thanking the party planning committee for assigning you a new tractor, you thank the party for creating a political and economic order that enables you to buy your own damned tractor. Yeah yeah, it was mildly interesting the first time because we see the opposite of that on US television. On US television the videos condemn the evil old white males for avariciously maintaining a social order that enables someone else to buy themselves a new car, but thanking the party for an order that rewards hard work and wise decisions gets old really fast.

At 31:31, the party praises raising capital and individual economic initiative. Probably not news to most readers of this blog, but you are not going to see that praised on US television. Excruciatingly dull lecture of economic activity follows. “It is totally within reason for your brigade to be be rich”. Yeah, yeah, not news to us reactionaries, but you are not going to see such a statement on US television. More thanks to the party. What you get on US television is “You did not build that”. And then they thank the party some more. And thank the party some more. Well, better than having a transexual on every show and in every comic strip. Then more thanking the party. And did I mention they give thanks to the party?

38:07 Switches back to the romance with the fertile age female. Now everything is fine – once he stopped plowing and focused on his mission.

Sound economics, sound romance stories. Far too much praising the party.

Episode 8
3:28 Pre fertile age chick “accidentally” runs into her love interest. He brushes her off, and she sticks like glue. Then she menaces him with another fitness test, which he passes by being amused, rather than menaced. Things then go smoothly.

Skipping forward over more cheering the party for its market oriented economic order, and more cheering the party, and nothing terribly interesting happening with romance of the fertile age love interest to 14:54, where the pre fertile age love interest is lurking to intercept teacher. This time, runs gleefully up to intercept him. No more boredom and feigned disinterest. She follows him around like a lost puppy, while he focuses on his mission. 19:58, hits on him. 22:24, asks him for a date. It is implied that they date.

Main romance, fertile age couple, proceeds to married happily ever after – boring. More boring, then at 41:44 we see the lead up to missionary position sex between happily married people which is, by wildly inflated US standards of consent, not very consensual. She shields herself with bedcovers and multiple layers of clothing, and he pounces on top her and starts forcefully removing them ignoring her protests and her demands to take things more slowly. She is, of course, entirely delighted with this, video fades to black, before she loses much clothing.

In the US video, she would, of course, be horrified by this. You will see full frontal full penetration on US videos, but even when they show a porn of sexual exploitation of illegal border crossers, it is explicit consent every step of the way. You will not see female submission to the conquering male realistically portrayed.

Episode nine
Boring happy marriage of fertile age couple. Then at 7:09, second date of the pre fertile age chick.

And, what do you know: A product placement for Coca Cola. Pre fertile chick tells her love interest:”Taste of a smile”. “Tastes really good”.

It really is the new economic order. I wonder how much Coca Cola paid for that one. Not quite as boring as praising the party for the new economic order. Love interest poses holding the can with the logo directly facing the camera. The people making this video are not just preaching the new economic order. They are putting it into practice.

11:36 During the second date, love interest tells pre fertile age chick, with the coca cola can placed prominently on the table, “We can stand on the shoulders of giants like Copernicus and Newton”

You are not going to see that on US videos, or hear that in US university. What you hear is that Western civilization is a shame and a disgusting rape of the earth that needs to be smashed as soon as possible, and we are way superior to those ignorant prejudiced bigots.

Further dates to be postponed till she reaches a slightly less inappropriate age. And then it is all the new economic order, educating the viewer in capitalism 101.

Episode 12

1:09 Bad old socialists causing trouble. At 1:20 They beat up a peddler for capitalism and confiscate his stuff, much as Trotskyites killed the cows of the peasant with two cows, and Carlylean Restorationist wants to shut down your local Domino’s pizza franchise. Socialist rabble rouser declaims, as the cops arrest the poor peddler and the mob make off with his pile of goodies:

“Strike a severe blow to speculation and profiteering!”
“Be determined to amputate the tail of capitalism!”

Are we ever going to see a rabble rouser on USA television who is not a heroic good guy fighting power, or a mob that are not heroic good guys fighting power, but are just there to knock over the liquor store and set fire to the supermarket?

Having framed the socialists as rabble rousers and a mob who will burn down the supermarket to grab a case of beer, or rather beat up a peddler to grab his hot buns, rest of episode 12 is politics and economics.

Natural Selection is reactionary

Monday, February 4th, 2019

Vox Day has been campaigning against evolution, arguing that like Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, it is fake science, demon worshiping religion dressed in the sacerdotal lab coats of science.

Vox is a great man, and I am a huge admirer of his. He had the courage, doubtless strengthened by his faith in God, to take on the enemy and show that the enemy can bleed. He should be an inspiration to all of us, and you would be wise to buy SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police (The Laws of Social Justice Book 1) I can report from personal experience that this is how you survive attack by social justice warriors. Long before this book was written, I dealt with weaponized sexual harassment complaints (directed against other men, not against me, even though I am the only male in any workplace I have ever been who actually does sexually harass women) in a fashion similar to that advised by this book, with the result that the complainant “resigned”, and I did not get fired.

But on evolution, Vox Day is full of crap, and it is getting in the way of his understanding of women, with the result that he is purple pilled, and his novels feature kick ass action girl who rescues lad in distress.

Yes, the evolutionism of Gould, Jerry Coyne, and Richard Lewontin is demon worship wearing lab coats as sacerdotal robes. But Darwinism is true. Species originate by natural selection. We became human through a thousand genocides. We are risen killer apes. Jerry Coyne theoretically does not go full Gould, but rejects the obvious implication of Darwinism that subsaharan Africans are substantially less distant from chimps than whites are distant from chimps. He kind of knows its true, but favors silencing anyone who mentions it, having his cake and eating it too.

It is impossible to understand the nature of women except from the point of view that humans and races of humans were formed by natural selection over an immensity of time. Believing in the curse of Eve gets you half way there, but one can theoretically believe in the curse of Eve and still be blue pilled. Natural selection explains the desire of women for invasion, conquest, and rape, while the Curse of Eve merely tells us that husbands should rule wives.

The origin of species by Natural selection, Darwinism, is true science.

“Evolution” is indeed fake science: – the doctrine that humans arose from non human forms without the inconveniently racist and sexist conclusions that flow from the idea that humans arose from lower forms by natural selection.

Hence my koan: A creationist, an evolutionist, and a Darwinist were walking in the woods

You will notice that in this koan the evolutionist is depicted as, like Global Warmers, unscientific, indeed hostile to science, and, like a gnostic, hostile to reality and the world.

Gnosticism is an anti human, and anti this world Christian heresy. Reaction worships Nature’s God, and to understand the will of Gnon, have to see men and women as they truly are, and one can only see them as they truly are if one accepts Darwinism. The red pill on woman only makes sense from the point of view of natural selection – that for women abduction and enslavement is an escape from prisoner’s dilemma, and that their resistance to rape, enslavement, and the authority of their husband is merely a fitness test.

Reaction 101: The reactionary red pill on women.

Friday, December 7th, 2018

The basics of Reaction need to be stated, and they need to be stated in a way that excludes our enemies, because we are seeing a whole lot of people saying “Hail fellow reactionary”, who are clearly hostile to us, and not hostile the media/academic/judicial elite that we seek to overthrow, blaming various groups that tend to be allied or sympathetic to reaction for the problems caused by our holier than thou elite, urging reactionaries that the real enemy is group X, where X is anyone who is plausibly an ally or likely to become one.  They want us to ingroup our enemies, ingroup those that outgroup us, and outgroup each other.

So, starting with the concepts most likely to offend: The reactionary red pill on women. Which are also concepts that have practical application even while our enemies rule. Next articles in the Reaction 101 series will be more directly political and have less individual application in daily life.

Emancipation was a bad idea. Feral women behave badly and are psychologically disturbed. They need to be redeemed by becoming the property of some man. Women are psychologically maladapted to independence and equality

In any marriage or long term relationship, the woman will endlessly launch physical, emotional, and legal power struggles against her husband or boyfriend, shit tests, which power struggles she wants to lose.

If she wins, she will break up, looking for someone who can conquer her. You just have to win. If the only way to win without going to jail is to send her away, send her away and go dark. But she would rather you beat her. You have to wear the pants. This is the PUA analysis of negs and shit tests, applied to long term relationships.

Women are maladapted to equality. That women find male apes sexually attractive and men do not find female apes sexually attractive indicates that among those humans that whites and east Asians are descended from, females have not been allowed to make sexual choices since the days we looked rather like apes. Since female sexual choice is quite common, we should conclude that groups that allowed women sexual choice failed to reproduce or suffered dysgenesis, and perished.

In order to reproduce, and particularly in order to reproduce in the white and east Asian ancestral environment, in a cold climate with severe winters that require food and shelter over winter, husbands and wives need cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, and if you have free women, you get defect/defect equilibrium. To impose cooperate/cooperate requires external coercion, in particular that women have to be stuck with the first guy that they have sex with, and are not permitted to be permanently on the prowl to trade up throughout their fertile years.

When allowed to be permanently on the prowl, they tend to practice serial monogamy until around thirty or so when their eggs start running out.

All businesses with women in power are destroyed, unless they are the beneficiaries of some state favor that artificially keeps them in business. Female executives are only useful if under the authority of a sexy alpha male, otherwise they turn on the shareholders, the employees, and the customers, perceiving them as betas.

Subjective personal observation: All sexual harassment complaints result from horny women shit testing terrified men, and then getting frustrated because the terrified men fail their shit tests. This personal observation is statistically confirmed by the fact that a far larger proportion of women complain about sexual harassment in workplaces where the women substantially outnumber the men. There has never been one complaint of sexual harassment against me, and if sexual harassment complaints resulted from what social justice warriors tell us constitutes sexual harassment, there would have been a pile of them.

Subjective personal observation: All rape complaints are false and all rape convictions are false, not because real rapes do not happen, but because women do not really mind real rapes and fail to complain. This personal observation is confirmed by the University of Virginia complaints process: The university of Virginia dealt with a big pile of rape and sex complaints, and dismissed every single one without disciplinary action. So Rolling Stone investigated them looking for poster girls and trouble, came up empty.

Men and women very much want to form families and want those families to last into their old age. My wife was eighteen in my eyes all her years, except near to the very end.

If you look at any successful family, no one is equal. Dad is in charge, mum picks up the socks. In principle, it is possible to form families in a society where men and women are equal, by freely contracting out of equality, but in practice, it is hard, and I see how hard it is for my sons. We have prisoners dilemma with few iterations, so the natural equilibrium between men and women is defect/defect. To prevent defect/defect, to ensure cooperate/cooperate, requires heavy handed coercive intervention by state, family, and society, and this heavy handed coercion necessarily bears far more heavily on women than on men. If you want a society where men and women know sexual love, or if you want a society which has above replacement total fertility rate, women just cannot be allowed to follow their pussies. And this requires a lot of supervision and coercion, primarily keeping women under control, rather than keeping men under control. For most women this requires that they be subject to the potential threat of physical discipline by the men in their lives. For a great many women, this requires that they be subject to the actuality of physical discipline by the men in their lives. So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate. Women, like children and dogs, need discipline and supervision and are never happy if they do not get them. A spoiled child, or a spoiled woman, or a spoiled dog, is never happy. The dog and the woman bark all the time.

Further, sexual impulses set in in girls at a disturbingly early age, usually well before puberty though there is a great deal of variance, while male sexual impulses set in at puberty, as reliable as clockwork.

Ever greater vigilance against “pedophiles” is like telling a chicken farmer he should not fence or cage his chickens, but instead should make the world safe for his chickens to wander wherever they please. When nine year old girls go to an Ariana Grande concert without being accompanied and supervised by male kin, they are going there to get nailed. Restraints on female sexuality have to restrain females, have to be oppressive to women, because being oppressive to men is not likely to work, and is conspicuously and spectacularly failing to work.

The family law of the Old Testament got it right, and modernity is surrealistically deluded, and flat in my face insane. I see in front of my nose stuff that no one else sees, so either I am insane or the world is, and the statistics are strangely consistent with me being sane, and difficult to reconcile with the world being sane. If you are using words for human things and human conduct that the people of the Old Testament had no words for, chances are you are using words for things that have no real existence, anticoncepts, words that are lies, that you are speaking madness and delusion.

The family law and family institutions dictated in Deuteronomy and depicted in the Book of Proverbs lasted for thousands of years. Our current social order is extremely recent. Within living memory, within my memory, it has changed radically in ways that are horrifying, tragic, and terrifying, and everyone is acting like this is normal and nothing is wrong.

Modernity is for me like one of those horror movies where one character sees monsters and another character does not, and you wonder if the monsters are real or just delusion, until you see someone get eaten by a monster. And I see people getting eaten by monsters, in the sense of transparently false rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual harassment et cetera charges, and I also see people who tell me men have nothing to fear, because women never lie, while women have much to fear because they so very very much dislike rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But I also see these men acting terrified, while I am bolder than any of those men who supposedly believe that men have nothing to fear. In part of their minds they must see what I see, because I see their fear, and in part of their minds, the part that speaks and constructs a narrative, they do not see what I see, even though it is right in front of them.

This repression, repression of awareness of what is in front of everyone’s face, and repression of male sexuality, is depressing every male’s testosterone levels and sperm production, though if you consciously recognize it and consciously reject it, this reduces the impact on your testosterone levels a bit.  Men go overboard on repressing each other, as a displacement activity because they are denied their deep desire to control women.

Women get angry because they do not get the supervision, command, and guidance that they crave. Sometimes this anger turns inward, as with cutting and other self destructive acts, and sometimes it turns outward. She feels really badly treated, because she has in fact been really badly treated, but because the real causes of her discontent are unthinkable, she concludes she must have been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted, when in fact her mistreatment was lack of sexual assault, lack of a strong hand to discipline her.

“Hail Fellow ComicsGate Fan”

Friday, November 23rd, 2018

ComicsGate died. It died because it allowed a leadership that hates ComicsGate and hates the fans to take charge.

Hate is defined as wanting tropes that are now forbidden, like the Han Solo of the first Star Wars movie who rescued Princess Leia and the original very manly Thor. Thus either ComicsGate is hate movement or it hates the fans. And the leadership of ComicsGate hates the fans.

> “Go write it and find your audience”

But when Vox Day went half way towards writing what the fans want, the leadership of ComicsGate denounced, deplatformed, and demonetized him.

According to the leadership ComicsGate is against “politics” in comics – where “politics” is any trope or archetype that has been forbidden. And Vox Day’s stuff is indeed political, very political, not because it flagrantly defies the Zeitgeist by using tropes and archetypes forbidden in 1979, shortly after Han Solo rescues princess Leia, but merely because it uses tropes and archetypes forbidden in 2010.

For this horrid crime (cool character wearing a confederate flag) Vox Day was denounced, deplatformed and demonetized. But 2010 is not what the fans want. The fans don’t even really want the rogue Han Solo rescues princess Leia. Princess Leia is a subversion of the trope, because she is “feisty” They want the the rogue rescues princess Andromeda.

Perseus rescues princess Andromeda, returns her to her family, who turns out to be tight fisted about giving him his rightful reward. He then kills Princess Andromeda’s fiancée (after Princess Andromeda passive aggressively manipulates him and her fiancée into a fight by acting like a cat toy), abducts her, and bangs her like a drum, and she enthusiastically gives him his reward.

Similarly the Sea Wolf, a pirate king played by Errol Flynn, abducts the princess not once but twice. The first time she is rather feisty, but the second time he bangs her like a drum. Her feistyness the first time was just a shit test. The second time he abducts her, he has passed the shit test with flying colors, and her feistyness vanishes.

Similarly McComb, played by Errol Flynn in “Silver City” deliberately causes the death of Georgia’s beloved husband after amogging him, and Georgia (who, despite being not in the least feisty, passive aggressively set up their conflict by acting like a cat toy) forgives him with indecent swiftness.

The fans want the original Han Solo rescues princess Leia, and no one dares give it to them. They want the original Thor, and no one dares give it to them. And I am pretty sure that they would want Errol Flynn as the Sea Wolf rescues, then abducts princess Andromeda in the style of Perseus, cheerfully leaving a river of blood behind him, and no one has dared give them that for two centuries. Indeed the Pirate King “Captain Blood” played by Errol Flynn was itself a subversion of the trope, because of a disappointing lack of the promised blood. The fans who had watched Errol Flynn as the pirate King in “the Sea Wolf” were disappointed with insufficient wolving, wanted to see the pirate King “Captain Blood” earn his name, but he failed to do so.

The female fans want to see two extremely alpha males in conflict over a woman, and the male fans want to see two extremely alpha males in conflict. When I set up a party I always try to arrange for females to heavily outnumber males, so that amog is not a problem, but amog makes for good stories even though it makes for terrible parties. When I am host at a party I milk the host role to the max to amog, and when I am a guest I try to support the host in the role of amog, but I am apt to carelessly amog him anyway.

No one dares write for the masses. The masses want Han Solo to rescue Princess Andromeda, and instead they get action girl rescues lad in distress, even from Vox Day.

Cap’n Jack Sparrow is gay and respects women. He is a subversion of the Han Solo trope, not a modern example of Han Solo trope. And even the original Han Solo is a subversion of the trope, in that he rescues Princess Leia, not princess Andromeda.

The only comics producer who goes half way towards producing what the fans want claims to speak for ComicsGate, and the self appointed leadership of ComicsGate, who fail to produce what the fans want, denounce him: Only those who hate ComicsGate may speak for it.

The fans are not getting what they want, and the self appointed leadership of ComicsGate denounced, demonetized, and deplatformed Vox Day as ultra right because he weakly went half way in the direction of giving the fans what they want.

Ariana Grande can do rock concerts that promote prostitution to unaccompanied eight year old girls, but no one dares realistically depict the male and female courtship roles, Han Solo has not rescued Princess Andromeda for 196 years.

Rock music videos can do sadomasochistic rape on screen, but they are not allowed to do Rhett Butler and Scarlet O’Hara on screen.

> “I want well written characters of all types”

Supposedly the leadership of ComicsGate wants well written stories of all types, but instead gives the fans action girl rescues lad in distress.

No one has been able to write the Perseus and Andromeda story for two centuries. They were writing in the corners, and the corners have become ever smaller, so that now they cannot write anything entertaining at all, just as Chris Rock can no longer be funny.

If ComicsGate got what it wanted, Han Solo would fly again and rescue Andromeda the way Perseus did. The leadership of ComicsGate melted down over Alt Hero comics and called it politicized fiction that goes against everything ComicsGate stands for. Imagine how they would react if the original Thor rescued Princess Andromeda after the fashion of Perseus.

When Perseus rescued Andromeda he did not ask her permission to touch her, just as Han Solo did not ask permission to touch Princess Leia. Perseus killed her fiancee, abducted her from her family, and banged her. She liked it, but it would have made no difference had she disliked it. No one has been able to publish such fiction for two centuries.

Vox Day’s fiction is political right, but the heroine always rescues the lad in distress, the rogue is not lovable, let alone rescues the lady in distress. What does he have to do to be sufficiently left wing to meet the standards for “non political” comics?

Vox Day is an ultra extreme far right winger because he makes the heroines of his books a hot archer or spell caster rather than a fat frumpy lesbian who punches out a dozen mooks in one blow and rescues the lad in distress by punching through prison walls. If Vox Day were to do the original Han Solo in comics or books the leadership of ComicsGate would scream “Hitler” until their heads exploded.

And similarly, you cannot depict romance in movies and rock videos any more, because the male and female roles now have to be interchangeable, as for example the role inversion in “The Wedding Date” and the role symmetry in the Lord of the Rings movie.

You cannot do the pirate trope successfully if the pirates are required to be respectful towards women.

Romance in the the “Lord of the Rings” movie trilogy was sickening and boring, because they could not depict the mating dance as having fundamentally different roles for men and women, could not depict men conquering and women surrendering, nor men performing and women choosing, after the fashion of Errol Flynn and Rhett Butler.

Social Justice Warriors have declared tropes and archetypes that are an essential part of the fan mythos to be unacceptable and out of bounds. To write stories containing necessary and important elements is “extreme right wing”. And no one is transgressive enough restore them. The bounds have become so restrictive that it is no longer possible to write good stories or tell funny jokes.

ComicsGate was a reaction to hostile acts by social justice warriors against the fan’s myths and culture. To call for a “politically neutral” ComicsGate is like calling on the Warsaw uprising to even handed between Poles and German soldiers. It is preemptive surrender.

A “politically neutral” ComicsGate is a suffocatingly left wing ComicsGate that hates and despises its fans.

Han Soyboy’s identity in the latest Star Wars was a pussy whipped beta loving from afar. Turned out that a lot of people preferred the identity of the bold alpha rogue who laid hands on women without asking them for permission. But not even Vox Day dares to be such an “extreme right wing misogynist”.

When the leadership of ComicsGate tells us Vox Day comics are “Right Wing” and “don’t appeal to everyone” they are telling us that there is a vast untapped audience that wants to see frumpy fat lesbians acting counter stereotypically.

If the movement had been glad to associate with the only substantial publisher who does not shove social justice down their throats, it would still be a movement.

There is no ComicsGate community any more. Once you punch right and purge rightists, everyone knows they will be next. Purgers need to be preemptively purged, because purges go ever leftwards until the purgers are themselves purged.

We are all comicsgate

Tuesday, September 4th, 2018

Ethan Van Sciver sues Vox Day for personal ownership of the comicsgate brand.

This is pissing inside the tent, and is likely to result in social justice warriors taking over comicsgate, since judges will rule in favor of social justice without regard for merit.

Whosoever pisses inside the tent is my enemy, for if he sues Vox Day, likely will sue me.

As the Comicsgate Wiki rightly tell us:

ComicsGate (or #ComicsGate) is an online movement that believes the comic book industry (especially publishers Marvel and DC) is oversaturated by political messaging that appeals explicitly to only one demographic that is not interested in the medium, to the detriment of the existing consumer base and the industry as a whole. It also addresses a lack of professionalism, inclusivity, objectivity and accountability of the publishers and their employees (i.e. management, editors, writers, artists, etc.) when dealing directly with the customers.

Ethan Van Sciver is attempting to appropriate value that a multitude of other people have created, Vox Day among them, which attempt, if successful, will inevitably wind up with the brand being used to educate us in the horrors of white supremacism, male supremacism, cishet normatism (or whatever they are calling it now), islamophobia, and so on and so forth.

Ethan Van Sciver is not comicsgate.  He is pissing inside the comicsgate tent.

Inevitably, should the case go to court, the lawyers are going to depict the other side as nazis, white supremacists, islamophobes, antisemites, and whatnot, which puts the heat on everyone to hire social justice warriors and to issue comics where the main story is about a racial and sexual minority struggling with oppression.

The net effect of such a lawsuit is not just spending money on lawyers rather than artists.  The net effect is that money raised to produce content of interest to people who don’t want to be preached at and told that they are sinners will be used to hire people, to pay people, to preach at them and tell them that they are sinners.

The winner of this lawsuit will be the man most willing to use your money to tell you that you are a horrible person who should never get laid and deserves to die in a fire.

The optics of noticing

Sunday, August 12th, 2018

There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.

People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.

I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.

People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.

I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.

People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.

These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.

Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is

“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”

But instead I hear

“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”

Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.

Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.

I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and need to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.

When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.

Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.

Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.

There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.

Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.

The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.

This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him.

Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don’t like having betas around, just as they don’t like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.

Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.

Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts are resolved by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.

To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.

White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.

Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.

Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all his days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.

Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power and status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.

I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.

It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.

You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.

in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.

That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.

And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.

So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?

At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.

What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.

The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.

So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.

The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.

I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.

For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.

Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.

Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles.  So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.

Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.

These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.