Open Letter to Scott Aaronson

Obviously you are not going to read this, because even though you keep patting yourself on the back about how open minded you are and how you refrain from cutting off contact with those who disagree with you, how you love all of humanity and want to maximize utility, you are in fact isolated in a self imposed bubble and blinded by hatred, self imposed ignorance, crimestop, and ignorant prejudice, which hatred and ignorance will quite likely get both of us killed, you more likely to be killed than me, because I lie low, have more than one passport, and more than one identity, while you hang out with totalitarians even more murderous, cruel, hateful, and intolerant than yourself. You know this, and at the same time you refuse to know it. You say it, and you deny it.

You are a very very smart guy – except that crimestop makes you very stupid. You think yourself a very good person, but have sold your soul to evil that is likely to devour you and all of western civilization.

And here is a good example of self imposed ignorance, willful stupidity, and self imposed isolation from outside thought.

The emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling and blasphemy laws and the divine right of kings, women’s suffrage and participation in the workforce, gay marriage—all these strike me as crystal-clear examples of moral progress, as advances that will still be considered progress a thousand years from now, if there’s anyone around then to discuss such things.

Obviously I disagree strongly with all of those things. I hope that Trump will make himself King to be succeeded by his sons, and so does pretty much everyone who uses the phrase “God Emperor Trump”. Which is a lot of people, many of them very smart people. You may think you are right, but if you think they are crystal clear, you are just suffering from ignorance and self imposed stupidity. You will not listen, and will not understand, why some people argue we need a King, that we are suffering from chronic Kinglessness.

If gay marriage is crystal clear and will be recognized as crystal clear in a thousand years, why was it not crystal clear eight years ago? Answer me!

Take my favorite topic: Female emancipation. 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, and even though I sometimes have some pleasant youthful female companionship, I still sometimes find myself shaking and weeping when I remember my wife.

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.

And, in case you have not noticed, we still have blasphemy laws – except that these days you cannot blaspheme against magic Negroes. For reasons I have explained at length, all societies need blasphemy laws, and prohibiting people from blaspheming against something like holy oil or the flag, causes considerably less harm and suffering than prohibiting people from blaspheming against John Lewis. All your objections to Trump are objections to blasphemy. What is supposedly crystal clear to you is in fact something you do not believe in the slightest. Elsewhere I argue that we should venerate holy oil from Mount Athos because of all the things we might venerate, that is likely to cause the least collateral damage.

39 Responses to “Open Letter to Scott Aaronson”

  1. Andrew says:

    Your post underscores a very painful and frightening reality – that average modern people haven’t the SLIGHTEST clue what they are doing when they tear down gender roles, hierarchies, taboos, racism, overall discrimination etc. These are broken humans, desperate to see themselves as anything other than slightly more advanced chimps standing on the shoulders of past giants whose Herculean achievements allowed their sub-par genes and intellects to survive.

    What these useful idiots don’t understand is that the ONLY two factors to consider in society are practicality and sustainability – idealism is for young children and women. Idealists should not have a voice and if they insist on speaking, they must be ignored or silenced.

    Your wish that human society can operate in a healthy and sustainable way without clearly defined gender roles does not make it so.

    Your wish that all the races were equal and had no in-group preference does not make it so.

    Your wish that racism would cease to exist will not make it so.

    Your wish that individuals with average IQ and horrible educations can be trusted to make decisions about the long-term OR short-term trajectory of society does not make it so.

    Your wish that the world will become simpler and easier to navigate and decipher for average intellects does not make it so.

    Your wish that all religions and ideologies are equally dangerous does not make it so.

    Your wish that our current population is compatible with and can protect Western values does not make it so.

    Your wish that individual rights can be respected when the pool of individuals are this decayed emotionally, and intellectually does not make it so.

    Your wish that we can build a better future for humanity without positive eugenics and probably sterilization does not make it so.

    Your wish that this many of the humans which comprise our current society can be sustainably held together by the concept of a nation-state without an accompanying religious dogma does not make it so.

    Your wish that humans are rational creatures does not make it so. We will remain driven by emotion as long as we remain the same species, as additional expansions would presumably add another part without removing our most base instincts.

    Their constant substitution of empirical and theoretical facts for feelings and utopian fantasies will be the death of the high IQ, high conscientiousness gene set, whose membership I was cursed with at birth. It’s no wonder I feel progressively more alienated from society with every passing month – I can see all too clearly the direction we’re headed and I simply don’t see my place in the world that is coming, nor do I see my place for my offspring, even if I found a suitable mate.

    I am glad I came across your blog though! Such conversations are limited to the “dark corners” of the internet – but they are the only ones worth having for me. I don’t have much faith in technology to get us out of this hellhole because the power is so consolidated and coordinated at the top, that whatever the next big advancement is will represent yet another power grab by the elite of the powerful elite who already have us all by the balls.

  2. […] A. Donald: Open Letter to Scott Aaronson. A pithy and entertaining recapsulation of the reasons that it is not all “crystal […]

  3. […] pens an Open Letter to Scott Aaronson. It is a rehash of many themes common to his blog, but what a poignant rehash it is! At issue is […]

  4. Alfred says:

    > Answer me!

    Oof no need to yell Jim…

    Eh who am I kidding, yell away. Powerful writing.

  5. Elie says:

    Ten bucks says that Jim’s wife killed herself because she couldn’t otherwise get away from him.

    • peppermint says:

      elie is a jewish name, and, as is typical of jews, his insult is so over to top blatantly false as to not even be insulting

      the gas chambers await, elie

    • Anonymous says:

      Elie the Jew is genetically predisposed to be a sexual degenerate and an overall degenerate, and to advocate for sexual degeneracy and overall degeneracy, utilizing all his verbal iq. When your society or elite are composed of Elies, they act like him, and stink like him. Hence, you don’t want your society or elite to be composed whatsoever of Elies. Let Japanese society and elite be Japanese, and let white society and elite be composed exclusively of whites – devoid of subversive rats who are born subversive rats. That is justice.

      Scott Aaronson is not a sexual degenerate, and overall degenerate, because the puritans converted him into it. He was born this way, and the best thing for Aaronson, which is the best thing for Alexander, which is the best thing for all their ilk, and also a very great thing for their host societies, is that they depart to a country of their own, where sexual degeneracy, and overall degeneracy, are normal.

      Separstion is necessary to disinfect society off of such people, and physical labor is required to normalize them to the extent it’s possible to normalize them, hence either send people like Aaronson and Alexander to labor camps away from normal society, as Hitler proposed, or to Palestine, as Hitler was willing to support had the British, the eternal-Anglo, allowed him this solution. The Brits are responsible both for the defeat of the Third Reich, and for the holocaust, thus fairly earning the moniker “eternal-Anglo”, being responsible for millions of dead Germans, and millions of dead Jews.

      Had separation between Germans and Jews been achieved in 1940, and the Third Reich ruled Europe, separation between Americans and Jews would have proceeded to occur by the 1960, provided Israel remained. Thus it’s better to let separation happen — not to say actively and efficaciously encourage it — than to resist it, because resisting separation may lead to a holocaust, and regicide.

      • jim says:

        the Jew is genetically predisposed to be a sexual degenerate and an overall degenerate, and to advocate for sexual degeneracy and overall degeneracy, utilizing all his verbal iq.

        This is not true:

        And we know it is not true because Orthodox Jews are not sexual degenerates, and we know they are not sexual degenerates because they reproduce successfully. The ideology that drove Scott Aaronson half mad, ruined his sex life, and made him a sexual degenerate is clearly puritan descended. If he had adhered to the right wing Jewish Orthodoxy of his ancestors, he would be fine.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          A peoples religio is an expression their higher, more noble social technology.

          Meaning, since it is an expression of the higher, more noble members of of that people, the religio is also a *patch* for that peoples *lower* and more *ignoble* expressions that they are prone too, and hence prone to causing problems, and hence coming to the attention of the more perspicacious.

          A mans world is that which concerns him, after all.

          • Anonymous says:

            “The tiniest incidents of daily routine are as much a commentary of racial ideals as the highest flight of philosophy or poetry.”


            “Cohesive instinct is as vital to race as gravitation is to matter.”

        • Anonymous says:

          >And we know it is not true because Orthodox Jews are not sexual degenerates, and we know they are not sexual degenerates because they reproduce successfully.

          Orthodox Jews, being Jews, have a high sex-drive. Jews tend to have OCD, and people with OCD are sometimes asexual, usually hypersexual.

          • Anonymous says:

            Unlike secular prog Jews, Orthodox have societal control mechanisms for hypersexuality. Hence, reproduce within monogamy. But on the genetic level, congenitally, they are hypersexual.

            >The ideology that drove Scott Aaronson half mad, ruined his sex life, and made him a sexual degenerate is clearly puritan descended. If he had adhered to the right wing Jewish Orthodoxy of his ancestors, he would be fine.

            True enough. Hence, Aaronson shouldn’t live among whites.

            • Anonymous says:

              What we can learn from Orthodox Jews is that strict societal control mechanisms are required to combat hypersexuality and asexuality, and are probably beneficial for normal people as well. But genetic Jews still incompatible with whites, despite possible mitigating social technologies.

          • jim says:

            It is not apparent to me that Jews have a high sex drive.

            And if they do, there is no logical relationship between having a high sex drive and being sexually degenerate.

            • Anonymous says:

              People with a higher sex drive have more urges to suppress, or, if willing to engage in degeneracy, more urges to satisfy. Hence people with a high sex drive tend to suffer, and by their conduct, alienate all the rest, who find it difficult to understand them, or are disgusted by them. Jews are notoriously perverted sexually, must be related to hypersexuality, which is itself related to a form of mild OCD, non debilitating OCD, from which genetic Jews suffer at much higher rates than everyone else.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                That skypes have an affinity for degenerate sexuality is evident just by looking at the output of hollywood (or perhaps, weimar germany), but i agree with jim that high libido does not necessarily mean *perverted* libido.

                Point in fact, take Scott Alexander for example. He lacks a disgust reflex for all sorts of degenerate perversions which he alternately condones or (wishes) he could indulge in himself (such as his transsexual ‘cuddle partner’). He is also a typical grey tribe borderline asexual.

                I think you might find that many of those who push degeneracy also tend to be such sorts of incels (often out of a misguided belief that condoning slutting around will make it more likely for them to have sex [it will do the exact opposite of course, since female license means they will all try to chase after the same small pool of alphas and completely ignore betas and gammas where they might otherwise be obligated through patriarchal monogamy]).

                High libido is in fact a virtue and an essential part of what makes a good man a good man.

        • Anonymous says:

          Jews, genetic Jews, genetic Ashkenazi Jews, are overwhelmingly prone to anxiety, and to issues related to anxiety. (Generally, mental illness and personality disorders are common among Jews; all Jews are “weird”) Among them, this anxiety may manifest as a persistent, very irritating sexual urge, the satisfaction of which relieves the anxiety, for a short period, if even that. Hence, very anxious Jews, are very horny Jews, and when a Jew feels a spike in anxiety, also feels a spike in horniness – thus, anxious Jews masturbate a lot, and anxious Jewesses are promiscuous, though it could also be the other way around.

          Jews should marry among Jews because only Jews can sexually sympathize with, and satisfy, other Jews.

  6. Robert says:

    “We search the world for truth;
    We cull the good, the pure, the beautiful,
    From all old flower fields of the soul;
    And weary seekers of the best,
    We come back laden from our quest,
    To find that all the sages said,
    Is in the book our mothers read.”

    John Greenleaf Whittier

  7. peppermint says:

    》 So women should never have been emancipated, and some “violence against women” is legitimate, proper, and proportionate.

    Rather, emancipation is a lie, and the presumption that all violence in a relationship is because of one party is ridiculous. Furthermore prior to emancipation and VAWA women could leave an abusive husband, and the battered women’s shelters were called convents.

    Anyway, blasphemy consists of insulting the nation of which we are the ephemeral fingers.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    The nonsense about “freedom of religion” blasphemy laws is old hold-outs of Enlightenment classical liberalism, which was nothing more than an anti-nomian and polytheistic plunge toward Greco-Roman religion at the expense of the animating Christian worldview.

    However, emancipation is good, and since you “Jim” are referring to slavery in your other recent post, it becomes more relevant. You have adopted a pagan view, much as the C.I.N.O. slaveowners in the American South had—Christian in name only. Christian law does not enact lifetime—indeed multi-generational—slavery, and that is something which should be viewed as extreme decadence, the laxity that permits life-time enslavement with no consideration of the soul of the enslaved. When life-time enslavement was encoded, the indentured servitude form of slavery was infringed to the point of being done away with—that form of bondage which uncoincidentally is not more than 6 years in length.

    You don’t want to hear that because you nearly invariably take a directional style of critique which is not amenable to nuanced view. That sort of way is your prerogative to a certain point. But you want the spiritual strength of Mahometanism and they are a culture which does enslave but also frees slaves in ways that could be translated as emancipaton. You’re creating a double standard, and as much as you get high off of the laurel-leaf glory of Rome of antiquity, it’s an inferior system to those which overthrew it.


    • jim says:

      Christian law does not enact lifetime—indeed multi-generational—slavery.

      The proposition that Christianity prohibits multi generational slavery would be surprising news to a great many Christians before the nineteenth century.

      Old Testament does not allow Hebrews to permanently enslave Hebrews. They can enslave the rest, no problem. New Testament encourages, but does not require, Christians to free their Christian slaves.

      • lalit says:

        Good point Jim. Christianity indeed justifies slavery. But then these religious texts are pretty vague and so they can be interpreted to mean whatever the current power structure wants them to mean. I’m pretty sure we will soon find Biblical prohibitions against homophobia, support for transgenderism given the present power structure.

        • jim says:

          Not vague. Pretty clear.

          You just cannot legitimately interpret Christianity as proggism, any more than you can interpret Islam as proggism. Of course that does not stop people from doing so, but they are liars and heretics. In particular, the Pope is a liar and a heretic.

          Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

          Leviticus 20:13 “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

          Romans 1: 26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

          (In other words, gay men will suffer disgusting filthy gay diseases as the wrath of nature and of nature’s god for their disgusting acts.)

          • lalit says:

            This can be solved by changing the meaning of the word “lie” as in liar liar pants on fire. And then they will have a huge theological argument regarding petty lies (as told to women, “No you’re not fat”) and deceptive lies (as told in a court of law, full of men, “Yes, that is the killer, I recognize him”)

            Having spent some time arguing with religious fanatics in the foolish days of my youth, I know how capable they are when it comes to twisting anything to fit their worldview. As Spandrell says, the entire purpose of the humanities departments in universities (India as well as the west. Our Harvard is JNU, a cathedral subsidiary. Perhaps India is no longer a British Colony and is now a U.S. Colony) is to change the meanings of words.

            • Wency says:

              Happily, the Bible was not written in English. Of course, man is always inventive enough to find ways to creatively misinterpret words to his benefit. I’ve seen a 4-year-old do it. But the usual tactic in this case is to say, “God was only condemning homosexuality in certain narrow contexts.”

              One argument I’ve heard is that only pedophilia was being condemned, as this was the default homosexual arrangement in classical times. Later, if prog consensus embraces pedophilia, that interpretation will have to be further modified, if any liberal Christians remain.

              • jim says:

                “men with men” and “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman” – does not say man also lyeth with children. Of course if you search for these verses, you get one hundred and one hits piously explaining that they do not say what they do say.

                But the fault is in the heretic, not any ambiguity in the text.

      • Bruce says:

        I can’t remember where in the NT Christians are encouraged to free their slaves.

        • peppermint says:

          In fact, if you enslave everyone, they are blessed under the Beatitudes. Problem is, you’re not blessed, unless you’re the government, and it’s hard for the unblessed to justify ruling the blessed. Thus Gandhi.

    • peppermint says:

      Neato, AJP. Do black lives matter?

      • Steel T Post says:

        To a Christcuck, Low Lifes Matter!

        “(((Jewgod))) chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things…” One Corinthians 1:28

    • Steel T Post says:

      Yeah, we loyal Whites do “get high off of the laurel-leaf glory of Rome of antiquity,” because Greek and Roman civilization was White and forms the foundation of Western society. What’s your problem? Do you worship a Magic Jew?

    • That would be news to St. Paul, who encourages slaves to be obedient in the New Testament (while acknowledging that freedom would be preferable), and even encourages (Christian) slave-holders to be good masters; and also to St. Thomas Aquinas, who continued to develop the Natural Law truth that some men are “natural slaves,” and that the institution of slavery can (and should) be run to their relative benefit.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        The left doesn’t disagree. Omnipresent regulation and seizure of over half of earned income is slavery. They simply think everyone should be a state slave, which works badly for much the same reason the state owning all the car companies results in bad cars.

        • peppermint says:

          no, they want everyone to work for the state because government jobs are high status and if you don’t have a government job you should be happy to pay a lot of taxes as your dues to society

          government jobs are high status because they imply that you’re in with the guys who have the authority to defend themselves

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            White collar government workers have no more authority to defend themselves than white collar private sector office workers and much less than blue collar small business owners.

          • pdimov says:

            “government jobs are high status”

            Are they? Is being an ordinary EPA or EEOC rank and file bureaucrat high status?

            Quasi-government jobs – NGO/nonprofit – where you pretend that you pressure the government into doing what it already wants to do are high status. Because speaking truth to power.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              They’re not. Literally no one cares about those jobs, or the people who do them, except other people who do them and other people who want to do them.

              And as we have well established on this blog, women are not going to be faithful to you because you have a cool job given to you by someone else.

        • A fantastically irrelevant response. The Left “doesn’t disagree” with the Natural Law doctrine on slavery, because half of them are illiterate morons who probably don’t understand the first thing about it, while the other half is evenly divided between goodwhites who studiously ignore it and Jews who twist and exploit it (say it ain’t so!). The Left’s welfare policies and their continued admission that they don’t expect their constituents can do so much as get to the polls unless they are allowed to bus them in en masse free of ID requirements, however, is a frank admission that they understand the raw material, on account whereof the law’s truth is perceived (by perceptive persons, that is).

          The difference is immense, between that and the exploitation of persons who desire and are able, to be truly free. Even the etymological origin of that word, “free,” has less to do with being “without restraint,” and more to do with being “excellent and approaching the ideal of autarcheia.” Society has no interest in simply freeing people, generally, from all restraints; it absolutely has an interest in giving worthy persons the use of Liberty (“use of Liberty” is my carefully chosen phrase), and herding unworthy persons towards the most realistic approach to the good, of which they are capable… in chains, if need be.

  9. Alraune says:

    “All objections to Trump are objections to blasphemy.” should probably be more prominently positioned in this essay.

Leave a Reply