Inequality is great

We should love what we are, rather than conceding that the left is morally superior for wishing reality away.

It is great that women are what they are and men are what they are, otherwise I would have an absolutely terrible sex life. Vive la différence. It is good that men should lead, and women should follow.

It is great that whites are superior to all brown and black races in intelligence and prosocial conduct.

The east Asians are on average a bit smarter, though I think this is more that east Asian women are considerably smarter than white women than that east Asian men are smarter than white men. East Asian men are not all that overrepresented among competent engineers relative to white men, whereas east Asian women are way overrepresented among competent engineers relative to white women.

However, white men are more naturally manly than east Asians, and in some important ways more prosocial, hence better able to engage in large scale cooperation, hence white men are the most successful race at large scale war by far.

It is great that white males are better warriors than east Asian males, regardless of whether east Asian males might be slightly smarter.

East Asian men should build a great Chinese civilization, or maybe several east Asian civilizations, White men should build a multitude of great white civilizations (since whites will never form one nation) and the rest of mankind needs to be conquered and subdued.

I am not unduly worried about whether Japan gets absorbed into the greater Chinese co-prosperity sphere or vice versa, but it is a really bad thing that America rules the white world, this being contrary to our nature. We really need at least one white civilization west of the Hajnal line, and at least one white civilization east of the Hajnal line. One white civilization is far too few. (Hurrah Putin.)


128 Responses to “Inequality is great”

  1. Frank says:

    Hi Jim,
    I always find it interesting when you get on the topic of men and women relationships because no one says publicly what you say on your blog.
    I have been trying to tell my wife that we are not equal and I have been talking to my pastor about authority and equality within marriage. It has not been going well, they both think I am crazy. I want to get this figured out so I can teach it to my kids; I don’t trust the culture and church on this subject.
    I have read a few of your posts that touch on equality, but I want more, specifically on men and women. Would you be willing to write a post about how men and women are not equal and how they are?
    The framework I grew up with was that husbands and wives have different roles and responsibilities, but are of equal worth/value in the eyes of God and that they are a team (I also told my pastor that the husband and wife are not a team because the husband has considerably more responsibility than the wife, he said that that concerned him). Are they of equal worth and value in Gods eyes?
    An common example is 1 Peter 3:7, they will say that when Peter talks about the wife being a “weaker vessel” it is referring to her only being physically weaker. When I say it means she is weaker in more ways than just physically weaker, they say that I am “reading that into the text” and “why do I hate women so much”. What do you understand “weaker vessel” to mean and why?
    Most people will acknowledge that women are physically weaker, but will not agree when you start saying that women are weaker in other categories, like intelligence, emotion, spiritual, reason, logic etc.
    Can you give me evidence that women are weaker, or not equal, in these categories? It is easy to demonstrate that women are physically not equal to men, you can just go to any sporting event and compare the statistics. How can I clearly show the inequalities in the other categories?

    • jim says:

      > Can you give me evidence that women are weaker, or not equal, in these categories?

      Reflect on the outcomes of affirmative action. There is no physical reason why women should be bad at landing planes on an aircraft carrier, but obviously they are.

      IQ tests are rigged in a variety of ways to conceal the differences between men and women. Atavisionary in his book smart and sexy has a pile of data on the rigging. The rigging reveals that there is something to be concealed.

      Its a poorly kept secret of banking that loans made to women are considerably less likely to be paid back than loans made to men in similar financial circumstances.

      Divorce regularly results in the wife blowing the family assets.

      And a similarly poorly kept secret of venture capitalism that if you invest in companies that have women in leadership roles, you will lose your money every single time.

      • The Cominator says:

        Women in general can’t think against peer group consensus. I’ve known ONE real exception to this in my life and although she genuinely did have a brilliant mind she was about as close to stark raving mad as you can find outside of a mental hospital and a BPD case who got into hard drugs and ended up killing herself. This makes them ill suited to run businesses beyond small shops (women CAN run small shops competently).

        As far as blowing assets unowned women seem to like to act foolishly and self destructively hoping an alpha will see it and take control of them. It doesn’t really work well with finances.

  2. Jack says:

    East Asians haven’t been, historically, that sympathetic to White civilization and the White race, have they?

    “Asia is one. The Himalayas divide, only to accentuate, two mighty civilisations, the Chinese with its communism of Confucius, and the Indian with its individualism of the Vedas. But not even the snowy barriers can interrupt for one moment that broad expanse of love for the Ultimate and Universal, which is the common thought-inheritance of every Asiatic race, enabling them to produce all the great religions of the world, and distinguishing them from those maritime peoples of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, who love to dwell on the Particular, and to search out the means, not the end, of life.” – Okakura Kakuzo, 1903

    “Around World War I phrases like “Asia for Asians,” “Asian Monroe Doctrine,” and “White Peril” appeared in newspapers and popular periodicals… Ōkawa Shūmei (1886–1957) believed that Japan had a mission to replace white men’s imperialism with a federation of all nations and to create a new world blending the civilizations of the East and the West.”

    “One American scholar [1] has written a book to discuss the rise of the colored peoples, where he maintains that Japan’s defeat of Russia amounts to a victory of the Yellow race over the White race, and that such a tendency, if unchecked, will result in the unification of the entire Yellow race, which will be a calamity for the White peoples, and ways and means should therefore be devised to prevent it. Subsequently, he wrote another book in which he described all emancipation movements as Revolts against Civilization. In his view, emancipation movements in Europe should be regarded as revolts against civilization; even more so should such emancipation movements in Asia be regarded. Such views are common among the privileged classes of -people in both Europe and America. A minority, they oppress the majority in their own continent or country… An American scholar considers all emancipation movements as revolts against civilization. Therefore now we advocate the avenging of the wrong done to those in revolt against the civilization of the rule of Might, with the aim of seeking a civilization of peace and equality and the emancipation of all races.” – Sun Yat-sen, 1924

    “Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi [half Japanese] in 1925 in Practical Idealism predicted: “The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.””

    East Asians needn’t any Jew to tell them that Whites are their racial enemy.

  3. longtimeReader says:

    On one hand, it’s great that women are what they are (wet holes), but on the other hand they’ve gotten way out of line, especially the 9-12 year olds as Jim’s pointed out previously. The savage cultures infibulate young girls to prevent them from behaving like slutty nympho predators, yet even even with their external genitalia mutilated and fused into scar tissue the girls in these cultures routinely provoke rape. It thus appears there is no solution. So, maybe the answer is complacency, as Jim now proposes — i.e., celebrate inequality including the sexually voracious behavior of female children. But I just can’t bring myself to celebrate, knowing I live in a society where I could literally go to jail for giving my niece what she deserves.

  4. Jack says:

    HBD has to disassociate itself from IQ fetishism.

    Individualism is entirely foreign to Asia because Asians are not creative or mentally flexible, despite all their purported high IQ. Asians actually are allergic to individualism, as I phrased it above. Meanwhile the Africans, regardless of their being mentally retarded, mindlessly aggressive, and incapable of planning 3 minutes ahead, are very creative and consequently exhibit a high degree of individualism.

    Average IQ predicts some, but by no means all, aspects of a given society. The proliferation of other core personality traits (always hereditary) is equally, or even more, crucial to the manner according to which a collective of hominids[1] organizes itself and to the quality and quantity of its various achievements, let alone to the development of its myriad quirks.

    My “just so” theory is that individualism, creative ambition, and artistic faculties all stem from a certain interconnectedness of the brain, which is generally independent of IQ, and it is because this brain-interconnectedness varies in extent & manifests divergently across different races not unlike IQ that, to focus on a specific form of artistic giftedness, White music is genius, Black music is characterized by disorganization albeit it is listenable, Arab music is Luciferan crap, and East Asian music is either imitative or plain weird.

    Which is why, speaking for myself now, the overwhelming majority (95%+) of the music I consume is White, whatever the genre, though occasionally I’ll open my ear to nignog noises – hey, everyone has their own sins and degeneracies, bigot! As for everything else, it could as well not exist, and actually it’d be better if only Whites (real Whites, that is) and the very rare Magical Negro would be legally entitled to produce music, and everyone else punished “with efficiency” until all the noises cease eternally.

    Of course my larger point regarding specific brain-interconnectedness —> artistic talent extends far beyond the realm of music, into basically any manner of creative or innovative endeavor, with political ramifications, e.g Whites are curious seekers of novelty, whereas the broadly-categorized Asians are conservative (chinks) or even reactionary (sandniggers), forever skeptical if not outright dismissive of “change”, and content with their own parochialism.

    And now a few clue-containing questions to the reader: who could it be that is (((constantly pushing))) this whole “IQ is the only important human biological difference” line within the domains of the rationally-minded, hmmm? Who has the obvious self-interest to deceive, as they are genetically predisposed to do, anyone who ponders the issue of diverging behavioral proclivities among the assorted hominid dwellers of Earth by narrowing-down the discussion to IQ test scores? (To give some perspective: the average IQ in the Philippines is 86 while in Iraq it is 87… are the societies there similar? If not, why not? Does the 1 IQ point in favor of Iraq explain the incredible dissimilarity? Hmmmmmm… perhaps that shadowy fellow over there, who forcefully rubs his hands together while smiling gracelessly, has an explanation)

    [1]That’s my BEEP BOOP AUTISM INTENSIFIES way of saying “society”.

  5. Xavier says:

    “and the rest of mankind needs to be conquered and subdued.”

    Such liberty.

    • jim says:

      Were blacks more free in Rhodesia or in Zimbabwe?

      • thinkingabout it says:

        We should ask Jim Bob in Alabama why he thinks high IQ whites in NY and Washington shouldn’t have conquered and subdued his people. And why conservative Americans resist being told what to do by their social, intellectual and moral betters in the Cathedral.

        • peppermint says:

          » believing that leftists are intellectually superior

          why, because they say so?

          • thinkingabout it says:

            Every single thing that HBDers claim makes whites superior to blacks, is also true of white leftist urbanites in relation to rural conservative whites. They’re wealthier, less criminal, have more stable families, better educated, higher IQs (this is a proven fact, don’t whine and argue, look it up for yourself).
            This is not to say that I don’t believe in HBD. I do. I align myself with rednecks against effete urban liberals. But I don’t think being better at civilization means you ought to rule those who aren’t quite as domesticated.

      • Xavier says:

        Is “conquering and subduing” a people for the cause of liberty is a greater moral good than leaving them alone to sort their shit out themselves?

        If yes, then how can you rationalize that subjugating people would effectively lead to liberty for anyone?

  6. Anglican says:

    Creativity and overall Intellegence aren’t completely linked together. Thus, even if East Asian men are slightly more intellegent then White men it doesn’t matter if they can’t actually invent a lot of shit.

    The other thing white men have going for them is that they have more variance, more geniuses and more idiots.

  7. Nie says:

    This whole lazy piece of writing can be refuted with “no, white people are not.”

    • jim says:

      A refutation should reference evidence.

      And one item of evidence is that you pay a hell of a lot of money to stay far from an area that has been overrun by African plains apes.

      Another item of evidence is that African plains apes do not live in housing that they built or paid for, but live in housing built by white people for white people, where they drove the white people out by violence and took the housing over.

      • Alrenous says:

        Is it great that some white people drove other white people out of those houses using plains apes as a proxy?

        • peppermint says:

          no, it is not great that some ((white people)) drove other white people out of those houses

        • jim says:

          White people have always been the enemies of white people. Apex predator. No one else capable of threatening them. No one can seriously harm whites, except they are a tool of other whites.

          It comes with being the most dangerous animal around.

          • Lalit says:

            You’re forgetting the Mongols, Jim! If not for a lucky break as in the great Khan ogodei dying after the Mongols achieved their huge victory at mohi, the story might have been very different. Whites may be the apex predator now. Wasn’t always this way. May not always be this way.

            Then there were the Huns. Remember Attila? Claudius aetius, thorismund? That was a damned close run thing, as Wellington used to say referring to Waterloo

            • jim says:

              Mongol cooperation and coordination is inferior to that of whites. Which is why losing the great Kahn cut them off at the knees.

              Even if the Great Kahn had lived, mohi would not have given them Europe. Hungary did not fall, just took a lot of damage. The Hungarian strong places mostly stood the Mongol army off. The Mongols wandered around inflicting devastation on the countryside and wiping out poorly defended towns, but strong towns with strong defenses held them off.

              Wikipedia summarizes “The Mongol invasion had bogged down into a series of costly and frustrating sieges, where they gained little loot and ran into stiff resistance. They had lost a large amount of men despite their victories”

              Note that the more or less successful defense of Hungary was conducted with the Hungarian King absent due to internal quarrels, but the unified Mongol leadership present. When both were absent, Mongols stood no chance. Only the leadership had to go home to vote for the next great Kahn, and the leadership left their troops behind, but the temporarily abandoned troops were useless.

              Bottom line, Mongols easily conquered everyone, until they hit the eastern most parts of Europe, whereupon they hit some tough going.

              When the Mongols hit Europe, they had gunpowder and Europeans did not. It was gunpowder that gave them their victory at Mohi – and still the Mongols could not conquer Hungary.

              And, of course, once Europeans encountered gunpowder, they swiftly fixed that omission.

              Hungary and Europe without gunpowder. Hungary and Europe disunited. And still Hungary stopped the Mongols, whom no one else could stop.

          • Lalit says:

            You don’t consider Russians to be whites? Mongols conquered large swathes of Russia. They conquered Ukraine.

            • jim says:

              Slavs have, famously, been conquered a lot by lots of peoples. Europeans not so much.

              Mongols conquered whites roughly up to Hajnal line. Whites east of the Hajnal line were such a famous source of slaves for various empires that the word slave and slav are related.

              Whites west of the Hajnal line are the tough guys.

          • Lalit says:

            Perhaps the whites east of the Hajnal line are the ones who bore the brunt of all the invasions so much so that by the times the asiatics got to Western Europe, they were exhausted? Perhaps it really is geography that favors the western whites? Perhaps, it is exactly those invasions and frequent fighting the asiatics, be they Huns or Mongols, that prevented the full flowering of free enquiry, science, technology east of the Hajnal line? Perhaps western whites owe thanks to their eastern brothers?

          • Mackus says:

            Hajnal line has nothing to do with it. Poles, Magyars, Lithuanians, and Novgorod were to the east of it, yet fought back the Mongols.
            Its geography. Rus was close to the steppes.
            Mongols beaten Rus princes on the steppes, terrain favoring nomads, burned some of their cities, but did not annex them outright, settling on tributary system.
            Eastern Slavs simply had misfortune of living close enough to be profitable to raid and sell into slavery.

          • Mackus says:

            Eastern Europeans were raided and enslaved by Mongols horsemen.
            Western Europeans were raided and enslaved by Berber pirates.

  8. […] is hard. Contradictions of right-wing activism (relevant). Inequality. Tribal competition. Civilization is brittle. Recent attention on the Alt-Right (viz 1, 2, 3), plus […]

  9. […] is hard. Contradictions of right-wing activism (relevant). Inequality. Tribal competition. Civilization is brittle. Recent attention on the Alt-Right (viz 1, 2, 3), plus […]

  10. spandrell says:

    The Chinese are plenty creative too; it just happens that their country is set up so that you can’t profit from individual creativity, so they don’t bother.

    Japan is an atomized society where people can go years without visiting family even if they live in the province next door. It has patents and copyright and it actually enforces it. China is a lawless Big Man society, the clan can’t afford a boy taking the risk of a creative career; and if for some stroke of luck he made it big, he’d have to sustain the whole clan for 200 years.

    When the US and EU converge into enforcing continental communism, that great white innovation, you’ll see where all that white virility and creativity goes. China invented centralized government long ago, and it looked eerily similar to what we’re getting into now.

    • Jack says:

      Chinese living in Western countries are not exactly the epitome of ingenuity; can’t blame this one on the Commies.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Maybe not in English literature, but how many have been here that long? Plenty of original contributions to mathematics and science.

        • peppermint says:

          cheating and affirmative action. There are more tech CEO positions than there are qualified niggers, but there are less tech CEO positions than there are qualified chinamen.

          Don’t forget, the cuckstains chose to in addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 give special tax breaks and contract work to minority-owned businesses, which is why every single 7-11 and gas station is owned by some Arab or Indian.

          You dig into the record of a woman or a minority scientist, engineer, or CEO, with rare exceptions you find affirmative action.

          Clarence Thomas said that he resents how everyone assumes he’s where he is due to affirmative action and not, say, due to him being a brilliant legal scholar. The CEOs of nVidia, AMD, and Microsoft are brilliant engineers and managers.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I am not talking about some pedestrian achievement like getting a degree or becoming a CEO.

            I am talking about Nobel prizes and Fields medals. Or do you think they faked that?

          • peppermint says:

            To get the Nobel prize, need to run the lab that produces Nobel-worthy results. Thus Obama’s Secretary of Energy. Remember: there are less positions of prestige than qualified people. That’s kind of why backstabbing social climber SJWs exist.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Wikipedia states that Chu carried out the prize-winning work while a post doc, not a group leader.

        • Jack says:

          >Plenty of original contributions to mathematics and science.

          This is accounted for more by their slightly higher IQs than by any fine-tuned creative streak. Plus, these — the Chinese living in the West — are the very smartest of 1.3 billion Chinese inhabiting Earth. Also, I don’t claim that there’s absolutely zero creativity among them, obviously they have their own culture which they have invented, but their creativity as measured by actual contributions to world art, philosophy, and science is rather low.

          Not gonna argue that they’re all bad. The average slant-eyed Gook doesn’t consume fetuses roasted in their mothers’ menstrual blood* for dinner every day, and in fact many of them are very civilized, have a highly-developed attention to small details and a keen sense of precision, also abstract abilities, low time preference, etc. But overall they don’t measure up, in terms of aesthetic or technical mastery, to most Whites.

          Look at it from the perspective of the average person: how far goes the cultural enrichment from the Chinese that he experiences in his everyday life? I’d wager that not very far. Yes, the cuisine is wonderful – and no grave moral taboos are violated by going to your local Chinese restaurant, presumably. But the Asians listen to music produced by Whites, not vice versa. Remember that auditorily-enticing Chinese band you occasionally listen to on your way from work? No, you don’t, because you — the putative normie — never listen to Chinese music, it ain’t no fun. (Do they even produce any music?**) What ever happened to that Chinese painter whose works always moved your heart and dropped your jaw to the floor? He doesn’t exist and never has existed, that’s what happened to him. See where this is going? 1.3 billion people yet what concrete value have they bestowed on Western civilization? It’s miniscule, like their dicks. Sad!

          I mean, really. Even niggers do, seldom, make some okay-sounding tunes that aren’t creepy. Asian music is creepy if authentic, or a plain unoriginal imitation of White music, and never a remarkable imitation at that – when it’s over, you don’t wish to hear it again (ever). This is the objective reality here – not propaganda by someone Hell-bent on “drowning the chink in the kitchen sink”. Just activated common-sense. You can go youtubing for a few minutes to verify this claim.

          And let’s talk about humor. The comparison to niggers is apt here as well: niggers can be very funny, that is, not merely unintentionally funny, but funny on purpose. Does anyone laugh, non-ironically and not self-consciously, at the output of Chinese “comedians”? Don’t think so – like female comedians, they just sound boring and angry, probably an accurate and honest reflection of what goes inside their minds. For all their “potential” talent, their brains (thought-patterns) are too damn rigid to make good use of it.

          Again, this screed full of hate is not meant to persuade anyone to gas the Gooks, rice war now. But the HBD spergs have convinced themselves, based on wishful thinking and on unrepresentative IQ test scores, that Asians are generally-vaguely-somehow better at civilization than Whites. Let’s dispel with this fiction that Asian culture is superior to White culture: Asian culture is exactly not superior to White culture, hence Asians move to the West to indulge on Western culture much moreso than the other way around.

          *”Capsule pills filled with human baby flesh in the form of powder were seized by South Koreans from ethnic Koreans living in China, who had tried to smuggle them into South Korea and consume the capsules themselves or distribute them to other ethnic Korean citizens of China living in South Korea.” – From Wikipedia article about child cannibalism; Google confirms its veracity.

          **Plz don’t respond autisticly to this rhetorical tongue-in-cheek question by citing all Chinese musicians you found by typing “famous Chinese musicians” into the Google, k tnx bye.

          • Jack says:

            Btw, I went googling for Chinese comedians, apparently out of a population of 1.3 billion there are only approximately 10 or at most 20 comedians, some of whom aren’t even Han. Furthermore, I found this list of the best (relatively) “Asian” comedians in America of all time – none is Chinese.


            If that’s not enough, the wiki list of Chinese musicians has, like, 64 musicians overall. It’s ridiculous. Even considering it’s not the most comprehensive list, compared to the population size it’s a meager amount, a microscopic amount.


            And the thing is, when the Chinese are sending their people, they actually are sending their best. Meaning, if there was some tremendous talent among these folks, it would already have been unleashed in the West. There just isn’t.

          • Ansible says:

            Jim’s rule of posterboys. Ai Weiwei can’t art, therefore Chinese can’t art.

          • Jack says:

            >Jim’s rule of posterboys. Ai Weiwei can’t art, therefore Chinese can’t art.

            Was written while sleep-deprived and under vodka-induced inebriation; obviously there are more than 64 Chinese musicians. But are there any great ones?

          • Ansible says:

            The best Chinese musicians play within the Western art idiom: Lang Lang, Yo-Yo Ma, even Liu Qi-Chao (though he does take some inspiration from Chinese Folk music.) Sure, there are great Chinese musicians in the sense that they play great music well, that they compose in the style of great music well. No, they are not making great music on their own, in their own Chinese art idiom. No, not aany great Chinese musicians. But this line of thinking can be extended to virtually all art traditions as the music traditions are dead and dying. We will not see another Beethoven in our lifetime, we will not see a Stravinsky in our lifetime, we’ll be lucky to see a Steve Reich in our lifetime. And Steve Reich is terrible!

      • vxxc2014 says:

        “China invented centralized government long ago,”

        Jack –China invented stifling centralized govt before the birth of Christ.
        Never mind Marx.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      spandrell says:
      April 9, 2016 at 6:07 pm

      “The Chinese are plenty creative too; it just happens that their country is set up so that you can’t profit from individual creativity, so they don’t bother.

      China is a lawless Big Man society, the clan can’t afford a boy taking the risk of a creative career; and if for some stroke of luck he made it big, he’d have to sustain the whole clan for 200 years.”

      How long has this been the case?

      Evolution of mental traits is stunningly fast.

      • spandrell says:

        It ain’t innate. Chinese raised in Japan are indistinguishable from the natives, who have never enjoyed the Chinese system of government.

  11. […] list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc. Here is another good example, and so is here, and […]

  12. Jack says:

    >whereas east Asian women are way overrepresented among competent engineers relative to white women.

    East Asian females have a less motherly nature than White females, so are naturally less reluctant to function as striver drones. The poetry, paintings, and (to a lesser extent) music created by White females over a century ago, whilst decidedly inferior to those produced by White males, are vastly superior to whatever unremarkable fits of artistry are currently exhibited by Asian females. Recall that the Asian strategy is “imitate + slightly improve” whereas Whites have creativity in spades, thus Whites are shifting whole paradigms in science, technology, and art while Asians adapt conservatively, forever lagging a few steps behind.

    Asians aren’t reproducing, that’s what you get for being cold and callous verging on autism. They lack the spontaneous, inherent virility that the White race used to cultivate before Total Pozz has taken over. They’re doomed to sterility despite being relatively immune to Progressivism, since their hearts aren’t in the right place. Who knows, maybe in the future their governments will adopt cloning to overcome lack of natural reproduction. [Insert joke about all Asians being the same]

    Glorious Leader (East), meaning Putin, should enact policies much more radical than he currently does to increase the White birthrate. Instead of erecting Mosques, he should double-down on promoting Pravoslavic Christianity as official state religion. A certain degree of multi-racialism is sustainable as long as it persists under one state religion, be it Communism or Christianity. But not total multi-racialism, especially when lower races are involved. Empires are by nature multi-racial, but the lower elements must be constantly suppressed. Otherwise you’ve got a dysgenic melting pot. Unfortunately the White and Asian empires suppress the highest elements and promote the lowest. A good religion is required to reverse this policy, but a good religion is lacking.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      “East Asian females have a less motherly nature than White females, so are naturally less reluctant to function as striver drones. The poetry, paintings, and (to a lesser extent) music created by White females over a century ago, whilst decidedly inferior to those produced by White males, are vastly superior to whatever unremarkable fits of artistry are currently exhibited by Asian females. Recall that the Asian strategy is “imitate + slightly improve” whereas Whites have creativity in spades, thus Whites are shifting whole paradigms in science, technology, and art while Asians adapt conservatively, forever lagging a few steps behind.”

      This is widely believed, but do we have good reason to believe it? Hard to see how to objectively measure creativity. Looking at outcomes helps, but not so much, as good traits can easily be thrown away by bad government. If “whites” meant Greece, Russia and Portugal we might not be talking about their wonderful creativity to much.

      • pdimov says:

        I wonder what definition of creativity would classify Russians as not particularly creative. It could obviously not involve painters, composers, writers, scientists and engineers.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          If white culture were purely Russian I would not regard it as obviously more creative than Japanese culture, which also produced all those things.

          • pdimov says:

            Tell us then what are your criteria for creativity.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I made a post expressing skepticism that creativity could be objectively quantified and compared between different nations and races.

            You are now asking me to objectively quantify and compare creativity between different nations and races.

          • pdimov says:

            It doesn’t have to be objective or quantified. My question is about your subjective criteria that make you consider Russians less creative than other whites. What is it that they, or their achievements, lack?

            The Japanese are also pretty creative IMO. I’m not sure that they deserve to be put into the generic “East Asian” group.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Large population, relatively little of value produced.

            A few novels, a handful of composers, but Russia is no Italy, even though it should be three or four Italys.

          • pdimov says:

            That depends on the time period. Russia didn’t always have a large population.


            It achieved the three Italy mark at around 1850.

      • Jack says:

        What Pdimov said. The iconography and design of Orthodox Churches are truly breathtaking, and the “hwhytes” hailing from the Iberian peninsula and Greece have made some impressive contributions to the arts of sculpture and architecture, haven’t they?

  13. Lalit says:

    Brown races to be subdued includes Indians?

    • jim says:

      There are some smart and prosocial Indian races, or castes, or ethnicities, or whatever you might call them. And a lot not so smart.

      By and large, there are not very many really good Indian engineers, whereas there are quite a lot of very good East Asian engineers. American companies that import large numbers of Indian engineers to save money tend to suffer mysteriously from poor results.

      • peppermint says:

        American companies need people with IQs around 100 who can follow simple instructions.

        But if they try to hire American high school graduates, Griggs v. Duke Power Co. means they can’t test applicants for intelligence, and the more recent FDNY case means they can’t test applicants for specific competence.

        East Asians probably aren’t diverse enough and probably wouldn’t want to go halfway around the world to do menial office work.

        The reason companies like H1B’s is that they get

      • Lalit says:

        Then how do you account for Indians being the highest earning ethnicities in the U.S.?

        • pdimov says:

          Not a representative sample.

        • peppermint says:

          because Indians who aren’t going to take at least middle class wages don’t come to the US, and Indians getting affirmative actioned into Anil Dash and Bobby Jindal are very common due to their relative docility and competence compared to the other NAMs

        • jim says:

          1. Indians who come to America are unrepresentative of Indians in India.

          2. The smartest Indians who come to America are the engineers, and by and large, not quite as smart as white and east Asian engineers. Firms that went overboard bringing in (much cheaper) Indian programmers tended to have problems.

          • Lalit says:

            Personal experience with Indian Engineers? Experience of others in various engineering fields also similar? Let’s say IC design

          • peppermint says:

            Remember Superman 3, which Power Ranger was the computer geek, all the way up to the hacker in the Transformers live action movie?

            Tinfoil hat time. They did better than they would have if they had hired niggers, which, presumably, they were being ordered to do.

            Today’s Hollywood computer geeks are all empowered wymyn and brown people, especially Indians.

    • Irving says:

      India’s PISA scores suggest they’ve a national iq in the low 70s

      • Lalit says:

        This does not look right, I’m afraid. I’ve seen students under performing in Indian schools come to the U.S. And they start getting much better grades. Indians coming to the U.S. now come from all castes. So it can’t be a caste thing. It’s probably more the Flynn effect as child malnutrition in India is worse than in sub Saharan Africa.

        • Irving says:

          India’s PISA scores were taken from two relatively developed regions in the country, which is what makes them so remarkable. Malnutrition, etc., are all undoubtedly factors that contribute to india’s low IQs, but less so for those regions. And actually it is unlikely that those problems will ever be fixed, given that india is an overpopulated, dysgenically reproducing hellhole, with no ability of internally reforming itself to more civilized modes of living.

          • Lalit says:

            I don’t think so mate. I think those tests don’t mean much as all these have some agenda. They basically try to get the results that will justify their funding. It’s like Climategate. If you took test results from kids in cities like chennai or bangslore, they’d eat western kids for breakfast. I really need to look into the methodology behind those tests. I need to look at where the samples are selected from etc

            If you look how much Indian culture values and respects scholarship, how quiz contests get high Ratings on prime time television, you’d know how much intellectual ability is valued. A culture like that can’t be producing inferior intelligence to the west where quarterbacks are far higher status than mathletes.

            Where Indians are inferior is that they may not be able to cooperate in large groups like whites do. They lack organisational ability. Indians may not be as brave as whites are. But they don’t concede anything to whites when it comes to intelligence.

          • pdimov says:

            “A culture like that can’t be producing inferior intelligence…”

            Culture doesn’t produce intelligence. It’s genetic and heritable.

          • lalit says:

            Both Culture and Genetics play a role in intelligence. Cultures that value intellectual achievements and intellectual ability will always produce smarter people than those that don’t all things being the same.

            If white people continue their idolization of the likes of Bill Clinton and Paris Hilton over the likes of Richard Feynman, then the result will be a general fall in intelligence of white people over generations.

            Say what you will, but the respect for intellectual attainment and intellectual ability is higher in India than any country in the west and equalled perhaps only by China/Japan.

            Even in Apartheid South Africa around 1991, the number of Indian people below the poverty line was 1.5% while the corresponding figure for whites was 2%. Indians were brought to South Africa by the British to work the fields. These were hardly the cream of intellectual society of India. These were landless, dispossessed peasants. These were bonded labor. Yet, these same people had a poverty rate less than whites.

            It is true that Indians tend to do better in White Ruled countries than in Indian ruled places. But this indicates that Indians do not know how to organize, cooperate, administrate or rule as efficiently as whites do. It does NOT indicate that the individual Indian on the average is somehow less intelligent than a white person on the average. Indeed, the evidence points to near equality, equality or better.

          • pdimov says:

            “Both Culture and Genetics play a role in intelligence.”

            No, they do not. Only genetics matter.

            “Cultures that value intellectual achievements and intellectual ability will always produce smarter people than those that don’t all things being the same.”

            Eugenic cultures (those that promote intelligent people having more surviving children) will produce smarter people by means of improving the gene pool WRT intelligence.

          • peppermint says:

            I wonder what a culture that gives hormone blockers to children does to their intelligence.

            Up until 10 years ago, swipples could reasonably be argued to be the most careful parents. Don’t forget that swipples were right on top of the antivax thing, free range children, every nutrition fad from quiche to almond milk. Now they’re taking their own sons and cutting off their dicks.

          • Lalit says:

            Culture plays no role in intelligence? So dear @ pdimov, you do not believe that a person who strives to become more intelligent by performing challenging cognitive tasks Will actually succeed in becoming more intelligent ? Does effort have no value ? Understand that you are basically saying that there is no such thing as Evolution? It seems you believe only in natural selection

          • pdimov says:

            No, I don’t believe that. There is no evidence for this claim, and not for the lack of trying. Intelligence is ~100% genetic and 80+% heritable. You can lower it (brain trauma, malnutrition, drugs, alcohol), but never raise it. As traits go, it’s pretty similar to height.

          • lalit says:

            @pdimov. You cannot raise IQ? This is patently untrue from personal experience itself. I have raised mine 9 points over the last 15 years by the desire to do so and putting in effort for this front every single day by performing more and more challenging cognitive tasks part of which involves solving problems from math and physics olympiads and also seeking more challenging technical projects at work. If I can do it, I’m sure anyone else can. Over generations, the effect can be massive. I understand that you need not believe what I said and there is indeed no reason for you to believe my own example, but think about it this way, “if one can build one’s body by performing more and more challenging physical tasks, why cannot one build one’s mind?” The Brain after all is very malleable.

            Second, your attitude is called fatalism. This philosophy is believed to be the chief factor attributed to India’s decay from being on the forefront of civilization at one time to an economic, technological and cultural backwater today. S

            Since you used the analogy of height, do you realize that the Japanese average height has gone up from 5’2″ in 1900 to 5’7″ today? Sure, it takes generations, but a culture that values intellectual ability will eventually surpass a culture that does not value it.

          • pdimov says:

            “I have raised mine 9 points over the last 15 years by the desire to do so and putting in effort for this front every single day by performing more and more challenging cognitive tasks part of which involves solving problems from math and physics olympiads and also seeking more challenging technical projects at work.”

            This is known as the Flynn effect, raising your IQ test score without a corresponding raise in actual intelligence, by teaching yourself abstract thinking as a skill.

            “Since you used the analogy of height, do you realize that the Japanese average height has gone up from 5’2″ in 1900 to 5’7″ today?”

            That’s not the same as a specific person raising his height 5 inches. As I said, over generations, it’s possible to select for genes that cause height, or intelligence, to rise. But Lamarckian evolution, raising your own intelligence or height and then passing this improved trait on to your children, doesn’t work.

            Taking a step back, we were discussing whether a culture that values intelligence presupposes high intelligence, and the answer is not necessarily. A culture that values intelligence in a manner which causes the more intelligent to have more (surviving) (grand)children will produce intelligence. Otherwise, not. This is a direct consequence of the high heritability of intelligence.

            “Second, your attitude is called fatalism.”

            No, it’s called realism. Things are what they are. Different people are dealt different cards from the genetic deck. This doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t strive to play them in the best way possible. In the past, people understood that. Hence the title of the post.

            Intelligence is overrated to the point of a fetish in the modern society; were high intelligence unquestionably superior, we’d all have an IQ of 220.

          • Lalit says:

            @pdimov say What? Look, whites evolved to have a higher Iq because the environment demanded it. So certainly, learned traits do get passed on.

            And we can’t all have an IQ of 220 because it is a normalized number. Normalized to the mean. It is same as saying that no matter how wealthy we get as a society, half the people will always be poorer than average (median if you wish). The mean has been rising over the last century. A person of IQ 100 is today smarter thsn a person of IQ 100 in 1916. This is due to the greater cognitive tasks we have been performing. Search on youtube for this video.

        • Dave says:

          Or they’re getting better grades because they went from intensely competitive Indian schools to American day care centers where A’s are given just for sitting still and seeming to pay attention. Illiterate 70-IQ Africans have no trouble getting diplomas here.

        • jim says:

          Indian Engineers in America are only coming from certain Indian castes. And Indian engineers that are any good are only coming from rather fewer castes. And the best Indian engineers are good, but they are not great.

          Accreditation statistics and test results are increasingly meaningless these days due to pressure to produce equalist outcomes.

          • Lalit says:

            This I can’t agree with. Indian Engineers in America come from all castes. It is true that they come mainly from the Indian middle class. Most Indian engineers come from the Shudra caste. Just because an Indian may not eat meat does not make him a Brahmin. Vaishyas and some shudras do not eat meat either.

            I agree that the best Indian engineers are not as good as the best white or Asian engineers. But I can’t agree that this leads to the mean also being lower. Perhaps the std deviation is lower?

          • pdimov says:

            I remember reading somewhere that the average IQ of Indian immigrants to the US used to be something like 115. This is of course no longer true today.

          • Art says:

            I have been doing consulting work for a long tgime and have a sample of several hundred Indian engineers that I have worked with closely enough.
            I estimate that slightly more than 10% of them are in the top 10% of all engineers, and Indians are significantly overrepresented in the 99th percentile. Many of their best engineers happen to be Tamils.
            The rest of them are way below average and are about evenly split between two groups. Half of them are not smart at all and as engineers have negative value unless you find a way to place them on repetitive assembly line type tasks.
            The other half are pretty smart but believe it is not their job to think. They would perfer being whipped by the boss to thinking for themselves and accepting any responsibility. In my experience these people can be reformed. If you motivate them to use their brains, they will do good work.

          • lalit says:

            @Art, part of the issue is that Indian Engineers themselves have an inferiority complex and are not confident when it comes to dealing with White Engineers. This might be partly a hangover from British Rule. In my own company, I find Indian Engineers being hesitant to challenge American Engineers on some technical issues where being more confident in their own abilities might have helped. This entire reluctance to think for themselves is a function of their reluctance to challenge white Engineers. The Belief seems to be, “If a white guy graduate from MIT came to this conclusion, perhaps it is I who is mistaken.”

            Yes a couple beatings including waterboardings and keelhauling might inspire them to do some good work.

            • jim says:

              I find Indian Engineers being hesitant to challenge American Engineers on some technical issues where being more confident in their own abilities might have helped.

              I find Indian engineers are frequently wrong on technical issues, and being more willing to accept correction would improve performance.

              You have a point that Indian engineers tend to be shy of firmly pushing their point of view and tend to defer to white engineers – but a lot Indian engineers have a lot to be shy about. Further, they will get something wrong, and I tell them it is wrong, and they don’t disagree, but they don’t necessarily fix it either.

  14. spandrell says:

    You’re funny when you’re drunk, Jim.

  15. CamelCaseRob says:

    Have you considered doing a post on sexbots (for both men and women)? It looks like we might be only 5 years away from very realistic ones going on sale. It will be the cause of the biggest change in the relationship of the sexes, ever. Women have no utility to men aside from their pussies and sexbots will break this monopoly. Women will then have it rubbed in their faces just how useless they are. Of course, women are in huge denial about that, especially feminists, although feminists see the danger and are already working to get sexbots outlawed.

    • jim says:

      Realistic sex dolls are inherently not very durable. Material that is realistically flesh like wears out rapidly. I suppose one could have a robot with replaceable fleshlike covering.

      Artificial intelligence is a long way off. I think the best that a sex bot could do is display appropriate eye contact and facial expressions and thrash around during sex. Which is something, but not really an adequate substitute. Worst of all, sex bots cannot produce children. The power of women has always come from the fact that all men can do is merely kill. Only women can create life. Sex bots don’t do anything about this problem. If men cannot control female reproductive choices, men are powerless.

      Besides which, real women can be produced by unskilled labor. It seems to me that it would be a lot easier, a lot cheaper, a lot more satisfactory, and a lot simpler to just lower women’s legal status and re-institute monogamy.

      • Alrenous says:

        Flesh wears out quickly, that’s what being sore is about. Unlike simple materials, flesh repairs itself.

        >If men cannot control female reproductive choices, men are powerless.

        Well, women certainly don’t control them. By process of elimination, men always control them. The question is which men, and what they do with this control. Your argument is essentially that laissez-faire doesn’t work here, and women don’t like it.

        This is worryingly likely to be true, though I expect it’s down to evolution using a non-Nash-equilibrium strategy. It iterates through the strategies slowly, and humans have recently evolved quickly.

      • CamelCaseRob says:

        Just because flesh-like materials wear out rapidly NOW doesn’t mean they always will. Or a system could be developed where your android would drive itself to a maintenance center on a regular basis to receive flesh replacements.

        The problem with women is that they have rights that bots won’t (although I’m sure the SJW types will try to get them rights). They also don’t have programming that subordinates their own self-interest to yours.

        Many men have no desire to be parents, or don’t desire to father a child with a low attractiveness woman. Half of men only rate a below-average woman. And then there is the financial penalty if divorce happens.

        Lowering women’s legal status is going to be a non-starter unless the world suffers some sort of catastrophe.

        • Filthy Liar says:

          Dudes who don’t want children are worthless genetic dead ends and no man gives two shits about them.

    • peppermint says:

      » Women have no utility to men aside from their pussies


      • CamelCaseRob says:

        Care to explain? I enjoy sharing a meal with women and watching a movie with them, but most of the things I enjoy, sports, hunting, fishing, intellectual discussions, etc. women don’t enjoy and the things they enjoy I don’t want to be dragged into.

        Women *are* very enjoyable to vacation with, but that’s only a couple weeks out of the year.

        • peppermint says:

          okay? Your woman isn’t supposed to be your best friend. If you’re rich enough, she’s just supposed to bear your children, and until a sexbot gets a uterus, women aren’t going away. If you’re not as rich as Donald Trump, your woman is also supposed to make you tasty sandwiches.

          • CamelCaseRob says:

            Sexbots will have vaginas in 5 years, I predict. Will they be able to have children, no, but you could always use a surrogate mother, or soon, a lab-raised child, if children are so important to you. My wife is, indeed, always willing to make me a sandwich, but so could a sexbot.

            As for the AI side, people like Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking think we are very close. But sexbots don’t even require a whole lot of AI. People very readily attribute human qualities to robot mental processes. Or rather, they attribute mental processes to be behind what robots say.

          • peppermint says:

            If you know a nigger, try asking it whether it would accept a sexbot as a substitute for the real thing. This belief in sexbots comes from a fundamentally cuckstain worldview that the other races simply don’t share.

            It is perhaps ironic that the people who talk the most about White privilege are the only people who experience White privilege. It is also ironic that shitskins would be more likely to accept sexbots even though Whites are the ones who talk about wanting sexbots. But the answer to both questions is escapist, shirking cuckold fetishism, backed by the little girl morality that everyone should have infinity ice cream, and perhaps that God loves everyone and will give them infinity ice cream after they die if they share.

          • CamelCaseRob says:

            I actually *did* suggest a sexbot to a black woman, just yesterday, on youtube. She just responded with SMH.

            I am not seeing the cuckstain thing. Are you a Christian? It is usually Christians who suggest that there is virtue in not enjoying the pleasures of this life.

          • peppermint says:

            in France, it’s illegal to get “your” child paternity tested without a court order. In addition, the government bans anyone from keeping statistics on race.

            Sexbots go along literal cuckold fetishism and the rest of the autistic cuckstain worldview. Cuckstains believe that the state of an individual’s soul is the most important thing, so it’s worse for you if you think the word nigger than if your family members are raped by niggers.

            The whole idea of cuckold fetishism is fundamentally bargaining, that a guy has a respectable career and a hot wife, but in exchange he has to get cucked, and maybe gets the ultimate fashion accessory, a niglet to raise.

            A normal person would reject that kind of deal on the grounds that the whole point of having a career and a wife is to raise your own children. A cuckstain would accept it on the grounds that

            (1) your own children are not intrinsically different from anyone else, since souls
            (2) the purpose is not to raise your children to the best of your ability, but to wish infinity ice cream on everyone; having the wife and career are intrinsically good regardless of whether you get anything out of it Everyone should have a 100% commitment to doing the right thing, where doing the right thing means doing the right thing.
            (3) ever thinking differently is shameful
            (4) in case Jehovah doesn’t exist and utility is stupid, that just means all values are baseless, in which case doing the easy thing and mindless hedonism is the only thing to do

            That’s why they are cuckstains. It’s right there in their ‘souls’ theology.

          • peppermint says:

            (somehow i accidentally copypasted “Everyone should have a 100% commitment to doing the right thing, where doing the right thing means doing the right thing.” into that, sorry)

          • peppermint says:

            (I get so angry at these people for selling our birthright for a mess of feels that I click submit without proofreading)

  16. CamelCaseRob says:

    The Left, at least the social justice segment, IS more moral. They place no limits on a universalist, self-annihilating morality. You can’t compete against that and it is hard to come up with convincing arguments as to why 100% commitment to morality isn’t a good thing. The best I can do is to point out that we have morality in our genes for a reason, it has some survivability benefit for the species as a whole, but when taken too far it works against survival.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) utilitarianism evolved from cuckstainty when ‘because Jewhovah said so’ was no longer a satisfactory answer and was replaced with ‘because Jewhovah says so, and Jewhovah loves us and wants us to be happy’. The principle of maximal felicity is utterly childish and should only be found in tv shows for little girls.

      (2) utilitarianism is wrong because the global utility function and the effects of individual actions on it are impossible to calculate

      (3) multiculturalism is stupid when it says to be nice to people who do not share your values and will only take your assistance and destroy you with it

      (4) a moral system that doesn’t take into account the fact that people should and will care about their own children before they care about the children of others is dumb and will either be ignored or the children will

      (5) social justice warriors recognize a large number of unprincipled exceptions to social justice, only some of which they recognize as problematic. They are committed to viewing every exception as problematic, but continue to e.g. irrationally love their own children in certain circumstances

      (6) the only sane morality is that of national socialism. All else is a pale echo of national socialist morality, the cuckstains understand the principle of obedience but fetishize the Führer into a supernatural figure with all answers for all time, the utilitarians understand that the good of the nation is the ultimate good, and of course national socialists understand that most moral choices will be guided by Aryan virtues that parents should try to inculcate into their children

      (7) finally, it must be noted that Aryan virtues have as little to do with Jewish virtues as lion virtues have to do with the virtues of mangy hyenas.

      • CamelCaseRob says:

        Yes, whenever a discussion about the super-morality of the social justice Left develops, it usually gets side-tracked by their hypocrisy, their unprincipled exceptions, their being raised in a class where they are the last to suffer consequences. I, myself, have fallen into that trap many times, as it is so tempting, but finally trained myself to just ignore those things and keep my eye fixed on the main issue which is how to define altruistic morality as “not moral” in some sense.

        Your last point of substituting Virtues for morality, or rather making morality (Jewish virtue) just one type of virtue is promising.

        • peppermint says:

          Their idea of morality would have them take care of other people’s children first. That means they are constantly faced with moral dilemmas where their heart says one thing is right and their head says something else is right, and constantly grappling with moral questions makes them appear engaged in morality a lot.

          But my first point was that utilitarianism is for little girls. The only reason no one disputes that is that they can’t argue for national socialism. Happiness isn’t what men and women need and leftists know it too, though the Boomers, since they had jobs and wives and children, could start to wonder if, well, gosh, they really always wanted to be transsexual, or wouldn’t their life be more fulfilled if there were more Somalis hanging around rescued from that horrid war zone we abandoned them to selling them Somali food…

          • CamelCaseRob says:

            But why are you arguing about utilitarianism in reference to social justice morality? Moralitarians (a term I just made up) are about the furthest thing from utilitarians. They would do the right (moral) thing even though it would result in the destruction of the world.

            And, little girls would be about the last people to adopt utilitarianism. A belief in it requires high IQ and low emotionality.

            What do you believe the relationship between national socialism and utilitarianism to be. I admit I have never thought about them as being either alike, or different.

          • peppermint says:

            (1) Try asking an SJW what kind of ethical system xe subscribes to

            (2) Do you personally know anyone who has a little girl hanging around? If not, you can look at what people say in their TV shows on Youtube. There’s a disturbing subculture of adult men who don’t know what they’re doing with their lives who turn to little girl cartoons and Star Trek.

            (3) national socialist morality recognizes that humans come in many kinds, and mostly concerns itself with two kinds, Aryan men and Aryan women. It is good for Aryan men to have productive work, a wife, and children. It is good for Aryan women to have a husband and children.

            Boomers grew up in the greatest accumulation of material wealth the world had ever seen, and at the beginning of political correctness, and began to wonder what else they could do to make themselves even happier while disrupting their marriages in order to be cool, like even our host talks about.

            They also came up with bizarre Star Trek fantasies in which a crew of White men who somehow came into existence with the skills and willingness to do great things explored the universe, but were led by a kike, a sheboon, and a nip, and constantly talked about multiculturalism, broken homes, and bastard children.

            One generation of Star Trek would have destroyed Earth and let the Vulcans take total control over the Federation, just as, one generation of Boomers destroyed the White world and let Jews take over Earth.

          • pdimov says:

            “Try asking an SJW what kind of ethical system xe subscribes to”

            The typical answer I’ve received from leftists has basically been “consensus morality.” Whatever we agree is moral, is. Objective morality, in their opinion, implies God and is therefore reich wing and evil.

      • Ron says:

        National socialism was tried in several countries. Spain, Japan, Italy and Germany. The Axis version proceded to make war on the rest of the planet, until it self purged. The lighter, Spanish version could not hold the interest of the popultion after Franco died.

        Thus its a failure.

        • jim says:

          Why did national socialism fail?

          A: It is socialism. Socialism sucks. Franco’s regime eventually recognized that socialism sucks, and the ensuing long slow messy retreat discredited it.

          B: Failure to retain intellectual sovereignty. Academia was subverted by incentives from outside. If you make trouble, at worst you go into exile, and get richly rewarded and loudly praised. Internal opposition was high status, and quite comfortable. Franco was unable to make Francoism high status, and opposition to Francoism low status.

          Compare and contrast with Charles the second, who was able to do vastly worse that cut off the heads of his opponents. He was able to make them ridiculous.

          Maybe this was Charles the second genuinely believing himself appointed King by the Grace of God, while Franco was discovering that socialism sucked. So Charles could hold frame, and Franco failed to hold frame.

          To be legitimate, Franco had to be successful in making Spain great, but instead, Spain sucked because socialism sucks. Whereas for Charles the Second to be legitimate, he merely had to be Charles the Second.

        • pdimov says:

          Fascism is the only political ideology that has a track record of defeating communism. Leftists don’t have a good answer for it because it’s progressive and operates within the same framework, which is why they are afraid of it.

          “So what is this fascism we hear about? “Fascism” is just anything the left is currently opposing; its raison d’etre is suppress anyone or anything that suggests equality is a myth and our world should be organized around the assumption that this is so. Fascism is the enemy they can most zealously mobilize against, because historically it was the most effective at suppressing them.”

          Trump is successful because of the fascist overtones of his message. “Make {country} great again” and “{Country} first” are fascist.

          The more a country becomes communist, the more fascism becomes viable (often the only way forward). Greece would already be natsoc were it not for the Cathedral.

          • Xavier says:

            Fascism is a leftist ideology.
            The current Marxist and progressive left completely reject this fact and it seems that a number of “alt-right” chucklefucks reject it.
            Nationalist and quasi-nativist rhetoric are hardly exclusive to fascism.

    • AureliusMoner says:

      And what is moral about universalist self-annihilation?

      100% commitment to morality is a good thing; Prudence is one of the cardinal, moral virtues, and precludes universalist self-annihilation. The same goes for Justice, chief of the cardinal virtues.

      The problem is not the level of the commitment; it is the rectitude, authenticity and integrity of the morality to which one commits. SJWs are not more moral; they are more sloppy in their indiscriminate expenditure of moral energy – or, as St. Paul said of men in the latter days, who would “hold indeed to a specious appearance of piety, but reject its authentic and proper efficacy.” Or, as he said of the Jewish animus, which s Modernist “morality’s” dominant animus: “they have a zeal for God, but not a very discriminating or perceptive one.”

      • CamelCaseRob says:

        My belief is that 100% commitment to morality is NOT a good thing. People who say they are 100% committed to it have to make frequent unprincipled exceptions. Loving your child more than other children half-way around the world is an example of an unprincipled exception. But morality, defined as Jewish virtue, is a bad thing when carried too far. Anyone with mathematical ability can see that dedicating yourself to everyone equally would mean that you must lower goods to yourself to something approaching zero. Imagine a drop of water being placed onto a friction-less surface. The drop would thin to virtually zero, and spread to an infinite size.

        • peppermint says:

          don’t give progressives the word morality. They don’t deserve it and exclusively progressive values isn’t generally accepted as the definition of morality. Also Jewish virtue is not the same as progressivism, by observations of Jewish behavior they are incredibly ethnocentric for starters, and there are several Jews who hang around here to push one line or another on what Jewish virtue is.

  17. jim says:

    When I say white men are naturally more manly, manliness reflects both environment and racial nature. Prewar Japanese were the most manly of men, postwar Japanese among the least manly of men. A great civilization must demand manliness of its men and femininity of its women. This will have the effect that elite men, who are selected for conformity, and high IQ men, who are best able to appear to conform, will be manly, and will be the most manly of men within the civilization.

    Which will make it lot easier to get women to make eugenic and prosocial sexual choices, which otherwise is likely to require quite disturbing levels of coercion.

    • Ron says:

      A civilization can only manage that, if by its nature it seeks to promote health and strength.

      A civilization whose intention is destructive, can put off this destructive urge by turning outwards. As long as that beast is fed it can promote health among its members, however, once it can no longer turn its negative energy outward it will devoir its own men.

      This can explain empire collapse. As long as the frontier existed, freedom was possible, as long as she had enemies worth plundering, Rome was strong. As long as the Japanese could turn their mikitary aspirations outward, bushido was taught.

      At so,e point in time we will achieve a level of technokogical knowledge and information distribution, that the average man will have access to the abikity to wipe oit the rest of humanity. War will be inevitable. And humanity will self select for destruction. This will continues until all unbalanced people and cuktires finish self-purging.

    • Corvinus says:

      I would surmise that Jim is not manly man, for manly men actually take action on such matters. Demanding manliness of its men and femininity of its women requires manly men and womanly women to actively and publicly become integrally involved through physical and verbal means–modeling live before an audience on what is and what is not manly and feminine.

      Hiding behind a blog regardless of the potential social consequences due to the views held by yourself and your ilk thoroughly demonstrates an absence of manliness and womanliness. Prewar Japanese men died for their cause. They took out those who were their ideological enemies. They were front and center, not cowards.

      I know this because I observe reality and am really good at noticing how past behavior is absent today. Therefore my generalization is reasonably accurate on this specific matter.

      This is Jim’s logic I am demonstrating.

      “This will have the effect that elite men, who are selected for conformity, and high IQ men, who are best able to appear to conform, will be manly, and will be the most manly of men within the civilization.”

      Are you one of these elite men? How were you selected? Who selected you? What is the process involved?

      • peppermint says:

        I am so sick of you coming here and speaking power to truth. You’re right, we’re hiding behind a blog like cowards while secretly oppressing the women in our lives.

        Alison Rapp had a master’s degree. Master’s degrees are low quality toilet paper. Everyone laughs at churches and bibles now. Everything you have ever done in your life is going to come crashing down, Corvinus, and when that happens, you can either have White friends who are loyal, or SJW friends who will sell you because they enjoy seeing you confused and hurt. Which will it be, cuck?

        • Corvinus says:


          “I am so sick of you coming here and speaking power to truth.”

          Did you pound your fists on the keyboard or stammer your feet when you typed this statement?

          “You’re right, we’re hiding behind a blog like cowards while secretly oppressing the women in our lives.”

          Why not tell us exactly how you are able to control the women in your lives. Offer a field report, a glimpse into your manhood.

          “Everyone laughs at churches and bibles now.”

          SOME people do, certainly.

          “Everything you have ever done in your life is going to come crashing down, Corvinus…”

          Good ol’ Peppermint the soothsayer.

          “and when that happens, you can either have White friends who are loyal, or SJW friends who will sell you because they enjoy seeing you confused and hurt. Which will it be, cuck?”

          I have my friends regardless of race who I am able to rely on, thank you very little.


          “Open warfare with SJWs is not a good tactic at this stage.”

          Exactly what a girly man says.

          Stevie, you mad bro?

          • bomag says:

            Corvinus, how much does Soros pay you to come here and shill for the Progressives? I can’t believe someone would volunteer to support the current ramp to failure.

            Demographics alone is troubling for your side, never mind economics etc. Do you really thing the wheels are going to stay on the current arrangement?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Corvinus, how much does Soros pay you to come here and shill for the Progressives?”

            White nigger, please. Soros is just as screwy-lewie as neo-reactionaries. Putting that label on me makes you feel better inside. It takes away the burn.
            I can’t believe someone would volunteer to support the current ramp to failure.

            “Demographics alone is troubling for your side…”

            Haven’t you heard, niggers and spics are poppin’ out kids like Amanda Bynes poppin’ pills.

            Do you have white kids at home?

            “Do you really thing the wheels are going to stay on the current arrangement?”

            Yes, the only way you will become involved in this impending race and social class war is when the entire system goes belly up, as if the banksters and corprocrats lack contingency plans.

            Didn’t the Joker tell you, all you need is a little push? Only manly-men need apply here. Are you cool with that, bro?

          • bomag says:

            “Only manly-men need apply here.”

            You have a fetish for displays of strength and bravery, but that’s not all that makes the world go ’round. How much do brave ghetto dwellers accomplish? The American Indian was plenty brave, but away he went.

            My side is getting beaten by the Welfare State. When that goes away, the Cherokee Nation Will Return ™. Not that it will collapse overnight, but I doubt the thing will last all that long by historic measures.

          • Corvinus says:

            “You have a fetish for displays of strength and bravery, but that’s not all that makes the world go ’round.”

            So does Jim, but I don’t see you criticizing him for his belief. Don’t you know that strength and bravery are the exclusive traits for white people?

            “My side is getting beaten by the Welfare State.”

            What side are you referring to?

            “Not that it will collapse overnight, but I doubt the thing will last all that long by historic measures.”

            So, do you have kids? Better have at least four of them, or you are woefully behind. Are they being properly indoctrinated, I mean taught, about what it means to be white?

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “I know this because I observe reality and am really good at noticing how past behavior is absent today. Therefore my generalization is reasonably accurate on this specific matter.”

        Corrected for accuracy -> you are shit at observing reality and noticing things unless they’re things you are permitted to notice

      • A pint thereof says:


        You’re right. It reminds me of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah:

        “[Abraham)…but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?

        [God] For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

        How cucked is the alt-right if it can’t find a dozen men in each western city to publicly form a reactionary vanguard? They will trade comfort and lukewarm mediocrity for the existence of their race.

        Disclosure: I’m just as cucked as everyone else here, you included.

      • bomag says:

        “Prewar Japanese men died for their cause.”

        I notice that wartime Japanese men were pretty brave, but they abandoned the Banzai attack in favor of more subtle tactics.

        If a grizzly bear is killing settlers, bravery does not demand that one rush out and get killed to gain social cred. Open warfare with SJWs is not a good tactic at this stage.

Leave a Reply