Trump’s Neoreaction Connection?

This is what winning looks like. Winning hard.

Peter Thiel, a major backer of Neoreaction founder Curtis Yarvin’s (moldbug’s) Urbit project, gets a seat right next to Donald Trump at a tech company meeting with the president elect. See above picture. Thiel has been a supporter of Trump for some time and even gave a speech for him in October. And before that at the republican national convention. He is also more or less an official advisor of Trump.

Neoreaction has a number of different strains, but perhaps the most important is a form of post-libertarian futurism that, realizing that libertarians aren’t likely to win any elections, argues against democracy in favor of authoritarian forms of government. In this guise, it’s a heretical offshoot of Valley nerd culture, and has particular associations with Thiel. Mencius Moldbug (real name Curtis Yarvin), the “founder” of neoreaction, is a Bay Area programmer whose start-up, Urbit, is backed by Thiel.

Some remarks by Trump on Thiel:

“I won’t tell you the hundreds of calls we had asking to come to this meeting,” Trump said early on, acknowledging Thiel’s advisory role. “Peter was sort of saying, you know, that company is sort of too small.”

“I want to start by thanking Peter,” he continued, “because he saw something very early, maybe before we saw it, and of course he’s known for that in a different way,” perhaps in reference to Thiel’s early support of his candidacy.

Thiel, he added, is “a very special guy.”

He saw something early. You mean like neoreaction and Curtis Yarvin? You mean like CEO of America Trump? Maybe I am reading too much into this, but neocameralism calls for a CEO of America. Both Trump and Thiel are CEOs with experience. They seem to get along well and do so publicly. Very, very few heads of large companies publicly supported Trump during his campaign (were there any?).  Thiel has a direct connection with the founder of neoreaction in the form of giving him large amounts of money. He obviously believes in Moldbug’s technology ideas if he is willing to give him money. Why should we think that support stops with technology?  Honestly, can you say these are bad choices for the new neocameralist joint-stock company of America?

Edit:

Thiel oddly has a Christian connection as well. Apparently he is quite fond of J.R.R Tolkien’s works and has named a number of his companies after things in those books:

Because he is a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings. So far, he has set up six firms (Palantir, Valar Ventures, Mithril Capital, Lembas LLC, Rivendell LLC and Arda Capital) that take their names from Tolkien’s creation.

Tolkien very specifically wrote those books with Christian metaphysics in mind. This is a synchronicity worth considering.

Edit 2:

According to politico, Steve Bannon, who was instrumental in Trump’s campaign and continues as an important advisor, is also a fan of Moldbug’s writing. However, nothing conclusive appears in the article itself. They could have just made it up.

Share Button

A particularly heinous crime, and how you can avoid a similar fate

Being a good Samaritan only makes sense in high trust societies. And the only societies capable of supporting that high level of trust are those composed primarily of ethnic Europeans. Asians may have this to some degree as well, although I don’t think they reach a level anywhere close to Europeans with the Japanese being a probable exception. What happens when a high-trust individual comes into contact with people who just shouldn’t be trusted?

There was a recent news report about two “teens” in North Carolina who got their vehicle stuck in ditch. A good Samaritan stopped to help them get it out. After the vehicle was extricated from the ditch, the “teens” proceeded to murder and rob him. This level of disgusting behavior is difficult to comprehend for the average European. It seems so… foreign to harm someone who went out of their way to help you.

As you have probably guessed, the “teens” were black males. Black males are notoriously prone to violent crime. 6-7% of the population in the US is composed of black males, yet they make up 50% or more of the perpetrators of violent crime, depending on the crime. In 85% of inter-racial violence between whites and blacks, the black is the aggressor. You can see a lot more details in the previous link. I also recommend this interview/discussion between Colin Flaherty (see also) and Stephen Molyneux.

Not every black person is a violent criminal and I am not trying to claim that. However, a much larger percentage of the black population is composed of violent criminals than any other racial group. So how should a rational person respond to this undeniable fact? I plan to have a more in depth post about stereotypes and statistical reasoning later, and will include a relevant excerpt from my book on stereotypes, but for now it will suffice to say that using stereotypes about blacks to avoid dangerous situations is justifiable. If you avoid a black stranger who happens to be decent and nice, there are no negative consequences of significance. If you give a black stranger the benefit of the doubt and are wrong you could be looking at a beating, a raping, a mugging or even death. Even if only 5-10% of blacks would do something like this, it really makes no sense to take the risk. Why chance it when there is no or very little benefit?

M&M

Avoiding even small risks is perfectly rational when there is no possible pay off. Avoiding relatively big risks like that of black crime is thus a no-brainer. Perhaps the best and most concise elaboration of this sentiment was in John Derbyshire’s The talk: the non-black version. In fact, Derbyshire even specifically advises against being the good Samaritan for blacks with vehicle issues on the side of the highway. Had the victim read and followed Derbyshire’s sensible advice, he would still be alive today:

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

In order to have nice things like good Samaritans a normative commons must be created and maintained:

In a normative commons, each person who forgoes the opportunity of breaking the norm, then pays the cost of maintaining the norms. So, when one lives in a White area, common areas such as shops (markets) will likely be open for browsing, because the norm of behavior is to not steal. Each time a White goes into a store and does not steal, he pays the opportunity cost, equal to the value of the items not stolen. By paying this cost, the norm of keeping shopping areas open to browsing is maintained. Areas with large numbers of Blacks experience increased incidence of crime. In these areas, the risk to shop owners or other providers to allow Blacks free access exceeds the benefits of open browsing (with a main benefit being increased economic velocity). Thus you see convenience stores with no common area, that only sell what can be passed through a bullet-proof teller window. The commons has been destroyed.

Or perhaps someone will follow Blacks through a store to make sure they do not steal, while allowing Whites to browse freely, in this case the normative commons is extended to White co-ethnics, but not to Black co-ethnics. The Whites are the beneficiaries of this normative commons, because they (as a group) pay the opportunity cost of maintaining it…

Privilege is said to be unearned (though I doubt any form of privilege is really unearned). White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons. To insist that the privileges accorded to Whites (who maintain the normative commons), be accorded to ethic groups who do not pay the cost of maintaining the commons is futile: market forces will ensure that the privilege is only accorded to those who pay for it. Call it racist if you want. It is simply the market at work.

If you want your society to have people willing to stop and help complete strangers, you have to forego killing them after they help you. I can’t believe this actually has to be explained, but real life events indicate that it does. At least for blacks and some other minorities. Actually, it is probably more the result of a biological tendency and no amount of explaining is likely to ever work. Only segregation or very intense, no-nonsense policing of problematic minorities could address this. The only long-term solution for a tendency for violent crime is regular executions for violent or otherwise egregious crime; although sterilizations could be considered equivalent. Over several generations this eugenic pressure could greatly reduce the frequency of genes leading to violent crime in any given population.

Ironically, avoiding blacks because of their tendency for violence is not just a sane policy for whites (and Asians, mestizos, Indians or anyone else), it is also a prudent policy for blacks themselves when dealing with other blacks they do not personally know and trust. You see, the good Samaritan in the above case was HIMSELF black. This was no instance of racial animus. It was purely the natural behavior of barely-human animals against one of their own co-ethnics. 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. It turns outs the claim that the “The talk”  is not for blacks is actually quite the misnomer. No group could get more day to day use out of that advice than blacks themselves.

Garrett Chadwick

Garrett Chadwick

It also explains why blacks and (some) other minorities are always in such a rush to settle in majority white areas: justified fear of their own co-ethnics (that and taking advantage of white created social norms). Never mind that whites don’t want and shouldn’t have to deal with the dysfunction of other groups. Never mind that the normative commons whites created are quickly destroyed as an area stops being overwhelmingly white because other groups refuse to pay the opportunity costs necessary to maintain them. The immigration mindset is essentially a slash and burn technique: Move to a white area with high trust, strong co-operation and take advantage of the situation. Individual acts of defection can provide real rewards and largely go unnoticed while the population of defectors is small. Unfortunately, every member of the out-group wants a piece of the action and quickly overwhelm the culture. The commons are destroyed, whites try to literally or at least de facto escape parasites on their cultural institutions, then the process begins all over again with a new white area being invaded. This will continue until it is forcefully stopped, or there is nothing left to destroy.

Blacks may implicitly already understand that their co-ethnics aren’t as trustworthy as whites:

It is common knowledge that Black cab drivers will often drive past Blacks and pick up White passengers instead. This White privilege is accrued to the White ethnic group because the members of the group tend to forgo the opportunity to rob the Black cabbie. Black cabbies understand this and accord the privilege to the White ethnics who will maintain the normative commons. Blacks could earn this privilege by paying for it through maintaining the normative commons. Unfortunately for them, enough of them create the tragedy of the commons for their own co-ethnics by abusing their privilege and not forgoing the opportunity cost.

Now I have read the statistics, I have seen the many news reports (the last two years have been especially enlightening), and I have read or heard lots of anecdotes by other people. However, I have also experienced issues with aggressive and volatile blacks personally, and those experiences are easily the most memorable and substantial in my forming of opinions on this topic. There is nothing like a real risk of being the victim of a group attack by blacks to make a person see things more clearly. Years of progressive propaganda can be washed away in mere seconds, or for 10s of minutes if you are unlucky. Assuming you survive that is. The following are three personal examples copied from a comment I have made previously:

1) In the first instance, I was at University after graduation. I had three friends over celebrating the end of classes for the semester. It was a large party school and I was in a college apartment complex known for throwing parties. Though of course, there were only four of us and I wasn’t throwing a party. We had some music playing and my neighbors thought it was too loud. Hypocritically, they were always making huge amounts of noise themselves the entire year. They first started stomping on the floor, I turned down the music a little, but that wasn’t enough. 5 big black guys then came down and started beating on my door with a baseball bat. We had to call the police who I think ended up arresting one for an outstanding warrant. This sort of behavior was amazing to me. This is a college apartment complex in a party town. Some noise is to be expected at times. With only the 4 of us, we couldn’t have been making that much noise. They had never shown any consideration towards their neighbors about their noise level for the entire year they lived above me. One night on which I had an important test the next day, their washing machine broke and they scrapped the floor with a wet vac from 1-3am. I was super pissed, but I didn’t beat their door with a baseball bat.

2) In another instance I was with my roommate and we were going to the grocery store in his truck. He pulled into a parking spot and all of a sudden a black guy who was around a corner pulls behind us. Being around a corner before this, he was clearly not in a position to own the spot when my roommate pulled in. He got out and attempted to instigate a fight (first with my roommate who was a quiet guy, then me when I stepped in and told him he was out of line). He eventually left after I threatened to call the police.

3) I used to ride my bike and take the train to work. On the train, there is a slot for bikes on some of the cars. However, there is a seat under the rack which makes it unusable when someone is sitting in it. On previous occasions, I was told by police officers (at least twice) that I needed to use the bike rack and not use the aisle. If someone is sitting there I need to ask them to move to a different seat if any are available (there were plenty of other seats on this occasion, the train was maybe 50% occupied). Well, it happened to be this black girl and her girlfriend. I politely asked her to move and she did move to a seat about 2 feet distant (literally, it was hardly a move) but with a great deal of attitude. I explained that the police told me I have to do that. Undeterred, she started yelling/chimping out and wouldn’t stop for about 20 minutes. At first (2 minutes) I tried to engage reason, but when that failed (of course) I just ignored her. Most people would eventually give up when their “opponent” stopped participating. Not her. She kept yelling and yelling and talking shit. She wanted to instigate a fight (probably hoping that her “cousins” on the train would gang attack me if something actually happened). The conductor eventually called the police and they took us off at the next stop (thank god). I explained my story and they let me go. I don’t know what happened to the girl. I noped right out of there, but they were detained at least somewhat longer than I was. I am sure she is using that as an example of “white privilege” while conveniently ignoring her completely unjustified and egregiously obnoxious behavior.

And just to add to that, an acquaintance was recently assaulted by a black man while pumping gas for his vehicle. His great offense was mistakenly thinking the yelling and belligerent black was trying to talk to him, and thus asking him what he wanted. Fortunately, the black guy, who was probably on some drug, was pulled away by his friend before he landed more than one punch.  There is a reason race relations are deteriorating rapidly and it isn’t being caused by whitey.

Share Button

Differences in complex social behaviors can have purely genetic causes even within the same species

An article came out about cooperation between an African tribe and a type of bird called the honeyguide. The bird spots bee hives and guides the human to it, the human knocks it down, breaks it open and shares it with the bird. The tribesman and birds communicate via a series of chirps and calls. For example, there is one special call a tribesman can use to signal to a bird that he would like to look for honey. There is another special call the honeyguide can use to get the attention of a tribesmen when they have a hive they would like cracked open. Now, in the case of the tribesman, it is possible to culturally transmit the details of the various calls down the generations. The honeyguides, however, are very much like the cuckoo which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. This means it isn’t possible for direct cultural transmission of the calls and likely indicates that in the case of the birds, the transmission of call knowledge is purely genetic. To quote the popular mechanics article:

There’s still some mystery as to how exactly young honeyguides learn to recognize the Yao tribesmen’s calls. Like the European cuckoo, honeyguides are nest parasites. Adults will surreptitiously lay their eggs in other bird’s nests and those birds raise the young honeyguides. This pattern rules out the possibility that the honeyguides are learning how to interact with humans through parental training.

Bolding was mine. While I will agree that exactly how this is done is unknown, mystery is a bit too strong of a word. There are really only two possible explanations. Either they are learning it from other honeyguides a few years older, or it is being genetically transmitted. Even if certain aspects of the behavior, like what specific type of call, is being learned from peers, the overall behavior has to have a strong genetic component. Otherwise why aren’t the other birds in the area copying the honeyguides? It would be a very easy source of food.

This isn’t the first time that a complex behavior was observed which really could have no other explanation than genetic. Most notably in Darwin’s origin of species. In it he described the tumbler pigeon which had the following complex behavior:

The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch; and the common tumbler has the singular inherited habit of flying at a great height in a compact flock, and tumbling in the air head over heels.

No other pigeon showed this behavior (i.e., it was singular). And pigeon breeders kept different varieties close together so if it could be learned it probably would have. There is really no other choice but to conclude that the tumbling behavior was and is genetic. The tumbler pigeon was undoubtedly the same species as the other domesticated species. It could breed with and produce viable offspring with those other varieties, yet small and particular genetic differences were more than enough to generate wildly unique behavior. If this genetic determination of complex behavior via only a very small fraction of the genome is possible in pigeons, it is also possible in humans. The outrageously greater violent criminal activity in Blacks, for example.

Share Button

Dark Enlightenment: The beer

Occasionally I like to search various neoreaction related terms just to see if there is anything new. Mostly I find old hit pieces I have already seen, plus maybe one or two new hit pieces if it has been a couple of months. Most though not all mainstream hit pieces seem to all cluster around the end of 2013 and beginning of 2014 at a quick glance, while newer ones are mostly obscure blogs. The MSM seems really faddish like that in general. One reporter does an article, then 10 others do a similar one in quick succession, then they all move on to the next fad. Neoreaction isn’t quite the fad it once was I guess. I won’t bother linking to any of them because who cares really. As a side note, movies come out like that a lot too. If there is one movie on zombies, or asteroid impacts, or whatever one summer, you are almost guaranteed to get another few within the next couple months. Armageddon and deep impact came out pretty close to each other and that is the main example I remember off the top of my head. Not sure what that coordination is about.

The mildly interesting thing I did find this time around is that some brewery in Green Bay, Wisconsin named one of their beers “Dark Enlightenment.” I seriously doubt that they know anything about us or took us into account when naming the beer. If they had known about the Dark Enlightenment I am sure they would have avoided the name altogether. Still, it is kind of neat to have a beer with the same name. Here is the description:

Dark Belgian ale. Fig and raisin notes, full bodied, warming.

Come to think of it, “Dark Enlightenment” isn’t a bad name for a dark ale or a stout. It is a dark beer, and it is so good you get a sense of enlightenment. Good marketing really. Well, if it weren’t for us that is. I think it is currently out of stock, but I would like to try it if it ever comes back around.

 

Share Button

John Derbyshire’s “Dissidents and Doom”

Recently there has been some hand-wringing in neoreaction about the tendency for non-mainstream thinkers (i.e. neoreactionaries, among others) to be contrarian and anti-social. Well, that is true. It kind of goes along with the territory. Going against a well-established and popular consensus (right or wrong) by yourself in the face of possible harm (financial and/or physical) takes a very special type of personality.

First, Warg Franklin penned a piece on the parable of the raft. Then, Nick B Steves had a follow up piece which was also pretty good. In summary, both articles at once acknowledged both the virtues and the flaws of the dissident personality. It has both, of course. Not to mention that neoreaction wouldn’t exist without it. We are nothing if not dissidents from a well established and alarmingly overbearing Cathedral.

The obvious problem with the dissident personality is that they tend to be very hard to get alone with. And then if they do form groups, many or most of the people in the group have the tendency not to get along with each other because they don’t get along with anyone; least of all other people who are hard to get along with. The moment the group starts doing something they don’t like, they wont hesitate to go it alone so they can have their way completely. Clearly that isn’t a very good trait for a society that requires social cohesion. Though the enabling of the cathedral from mass acquiescence of a generally conforming populace is really bad, having a population full of people with the dissident personality that could short-circuit the cathedral would probably be just as bad, but for different reasons. (Well, maybe not AS bad, but it would have problems). Fortunately, we don’t need that many. A firm unshakable belief in 10% of the population is enough to change a consensus.

There is always the possibility that the dissident is completely wrong and the consensus is right. In which case their contrarian determination can only cause trouble. Still, there are definitely times where the dissident is right and everyone else is wrong; in which case they suddenly become quite valuable if they can convince everyone else.

Of course, given Steves’ and Warg’s purposes of herding the cats of neoreaction it is no wonder that this problem is often on their mind. They deal with it a lot. I have to admit that I myself am guilty of giving in a little too much to my own dissident temperament…

Given that, though, I think they came down a little hard on the dissident personality type because of their experience. I don’t blame them, but I think a defense of the dissident personality and why it is so important is needed so that perspective isn’t lost. Fortunately one already exists. It was written years ago by John Derbyshire and to this day it is still one of my favorite articles produced by the alternative-right (before the modern incarnation changed the meaning of that term a bit). In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Steves’ use of the word “dissident” in this context and connotation didn’t originate in Derbyshire’s article/speech. (If you don’t remember the exact title, it can be hard to locate.)

The article was actually a speech given to the providence college republicans titled “Dissidents and Doom” and is related to his book “We are doomed: reclaiming conservative pessimism.”

Personally, I prefer the written transcript. In it he outlines why dissidents are important and the critical role they serve when a culture goes completely off the rails. I recommend the whole thing, but I will provide a few choice quotes. I don’t think I can top what he has already done, and I don’t want to reinvent the wheel anyway, so I will let him explain. First, what is the dissident personality?

The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king’s command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true.

I see in these dissidents a lot of the personality characteristics that my loved ones complain about in me: a stubborn cussedness, a disdain for cant and wishful thinking, a lack of interest in what I am supposed to believe and supposed to say. “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” I don’t, not if it involves saying things I know to be preposterous.

Derbyshire definitely agrees that the dissident can be hard to get along with, but he is more inclined to see the glass is half full:

At root this tendency is antisocial. Indeed, if you mix with dissidents much, you notice how fissiparous they are, how they can never agree among themselves about anything for very long. The dissident scene is full of petty animosities and slanders. I find dissidents to be individually admirable and attractive, but collectively hopeless. I’m glad to know they are there, though — that I’m not the only member of what my mother called “the awkward squad.”

And even gives it to totalitarians that a society full of contrarians wouldn’t be great:

And in fact, though it’s an awful thing to say, and I’m going to smother it with qualification, in fact the totalitarians have a sort of a point. A society can’t be stable without widespread unthinking conformism. That’s why dissidents are unpopular. I have spoken to quite liberal and well-educated people in China about high-profile dissidents like Wei Jingsheng. They are not very respectful of dissidence. Mostly they just think dissidents are a bit wrong in the head. Sometimes, and you especially hear this from women, you’ll hear: “He can do what he likes on his own account, but think of the harm he’s doing to his family.” Along with the association with madness, there is an association with social chaos — in the case of Chinese people, fear that too much independence of mind could bring back the terrible chaos of the Cultural Revolution.

Just as the association with chaos has some justification, at least in societies traditionally or recently disorderly, so has the association with craziness. The totalitarians who put dissidents into mental hospitals are of course doing a wicked thing, but again, there’s a little grain of truth in the wickedness. Dissidents are poorly socialized. As Eugene said: “Who doesn’t want to be a good citizen?” And the poorly socialized are seen by the better socialized as a bit nutty.

On how a dissdent should exercise restraint:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

Truth is one of the central features of the dissident personality and it is no wonder neoreaction attracts people with that personality type given its similar disregard for feelings and sociability for the sack of truth. As a group we all care more about truth than we care about keeping our heads down or sparing feelings. And it is this concern for unmitigated truth which implies that when a dissident speaks (or writes), you should at least hear him out. His main value which leads to him being a dissident in the first place is his sole concern with the truth; especially with respect to social pressure and conformity. This concern leads the dissident to find methods of sifting truth from fiction. Methods the average person never bothers to learn for themselves. Chances are that he is much more likely to speak the truth (or at least his honest perception thereof) as a result. Derbyshire describes the thinking of the average person in comparison to the unmitigated pursuit of truth:

The ordinary modes of human thinking are magical, religious, social, and personal. We want our wishes to come true; we want the universe to care about us; we want the approval of those around us; we want to get even with that s.o.b who insulted us at the last tribal council. For most people, wanting to know the cold truth about the world is way, way down the list …

When the magical (I wish this to be so: therefore it is so!) and the religious (We are all one! Brotherhood of man! The universe loves us!) and the social (This is what all good citizens believe! If you believe otherwise you are a bad person!) and the personal (That bastard didn’t show me the respect I’m entitled to!) all come together, the mighty psychic forces unleashed can be irresistible. Ask Larry Summers or James Watson.

Derbyshire also goes on for a while about “soft-totalitarianism,” what we would call the cathedral. One of the examples he uses is on black/white IQ differences, but there are other examples:

At the beginning of lecture 25, “Intelligence, Genes, and Environment,” [Princeton neuroscientist Sam Wang] promised a discussion of group differences, but all we got was some bland stuff about males vs. females. In one of the lectures on learning he skated as close as he dared to the dread topic, but then opened an escape hatch and dropped through it. The name of the escape hatch is “Eyferth,” a great favorite with those on the nurture side of the nature-nurture issue. Klaus Eyferth was a German researcher who in 1961 published a study on the children of black and white U.S. servicemen born to German women. The study showed no overall difference in average IQ between black and white children. There are all sorts of open questions about the study: we don’t for example know the IQs of the fathers. The really big question, though, is this: Since the Eyferth study has been such a huge hit, and gets mentioned by every politically correct commentator on the human sciences, how is it that in fifty years — fifty years! — nobody has been able to replicate the findings?

The 2003 Turkheimer study that claimed to show heritability of IQ is lower in low-income families is another one of these nurturist darlings. David Brooks cites it uncritically in his new book, which I reviewed in the last but one issue of National Review. Sam Wang refers to it too, also uncritically. Neither of them seems aware that at least three attempts to replicate Turkheimer’s findings came up with results that were either null or else the opposite of what Turkheimer claimed to have found. The omission is pardonable in Brooks’ case — the guy’s just a journalist, after all — but not in Prof. Wang’s.

This is the environment of soft totalitarianism I am speaking about. Quite well-established facts about human nature may not be mentioned, even in a lecture by a professor at a prestigious university — a lecture I paid good money for. (Do I have a case in law here?) Where facts are not well-established, but suggest more than one possibility, only possibilities agreeable to ruling political orthodoxies may be discussed.

It is when pervasive lies and/or denials like that of racial differences, gender differences, socialism, immigration or other parts of the mainstream consensus are both extremely harmful to society and become unmentionable that the dissident personality becomes absolutely critical and indispensable. Only the dissident can withstand the pressure of conformity and tell everyone to pull their heads out of their rears. Society needs them for those inevitable times when Lysenkoism takes over. They are the release valve that can slowly drag the society back to sanity. With the dissident comes the chance to escape collapse. Without them, collapse is inevitable. So when considering whether or not a dissident should be ostracized great care should be taken. Dissidents provide a valuable service and whether or not they are right should always take precedence over whether or not they are disagreeable. That is true in general, but doubly true for neoreaction. It is true that you should protect your community from the sorts who will destabilize it, but at the same time moderation should be shown in such judgements. Not every contrarian is a trolling entryist.

For the non-dissident personality types, as well as for my fellow neoreactionaries, I leave you with Derbyshire’s request in relation to the dissident personality. One I wholeheartedly agree with:

Give the dissident temperament a little respect. When dissidents are obnoxious or nutty, which we often are, cut them some slack. Bring your own critical faculties to bear on the things they talk about, and always check the source materials. Try to learn to spot an urban legend or a convenient truth, especially one you hear a lot from not-very-well-informed people. If, when passing through a public square, you see that they’re burning a heretic at the stake, at the very least don’t join in the applause.

Also, this poem at the end was pretty good:

Here, in this little Bay
Full of tumultuous life and great repose,
Where, twice a day,
The purposeless, glad ocean comes and goes,
Under high cliffs, and far from the huge town,
I sit me down.
For want of me the world’s course will not fail;
When all its work is done, the lie shall rot;
The truth is great, and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not.

(Note: Unsurprisingly, in an example of possible lysenkoism, firefox doesn’t recognize “lysenkosim” as a word).

Share Button

My blog-roll page has been updated to be substantially larger and to match the endorsed flairs on the /r/darkenlightenment subreddit

[Special thanks to Nick B Steves and /u/nemester for helping me with updating the list. The lists of sites included under each of the following flairs can be seen here on my blogroll page, which is also on the sidebar. I have made sure that my blogroll matches the lists used by this sub for flair rules.]

The Endorsed DE Site flair (DE is short for Dark Enlightenment) has been used for awhile in /r/darkenlightenment to help distinguish between articles of interest from outsiders and articles prepared by those acknowledged by community consensus as being part of or closely related to the Dark Enlightenment. Automoderator would add the flair automatically to a list of specific domains. The main purpose of the flair was to use it rather than having to outright remove articles not specifically endorsed or even opposed by the community. This way, if someone posts a highly progressive article worth analyzing, or some crazed rant calling for extreme measures it would be quite clear the content was not Dark Enlightenment endorsed. Since that distinction is clear, the mods are less obliged to remove it. This flair was used very generally before this update and included writers both in the core group and those with only one narrow interest of overlap. For example, a prominent writer on HBD is clearly of interest even if they never tackle any other issues such as democracy or tradition, or even if they disagreed with the dark enlightenment’s view on democracy and tradition. Nemester created it fairly quickly by inferring the most prominent sites based on what seemed to be most discussed. Heroes of the Dark Enlightenment especially helped in providing the initial list. I have been talking with Nemester privately about improving the flair rules and adding substantially more sites to the list based on my discussions with the Neoreactionary community. The Endorsed DE Site flair will still be used, but will be reserved for more peripheral writers. Typically, that means that they have one narrow interest of overlap with the darkenlightenment but are in disagreement or have no comment about other parts. For example, Heartiste talks about masculinity and white nationalism, but also writes on hook-up culture which is understood if not endorsed. HBDchick only discusses HBD. Etc.

The NRx endorsed site flair (NRx is short for Neoreaction) has been added and will automatically be applied to writers considered part of the core group. Clearly all these people do not agree on every single point, however the consensus among them is much tighter than the more generalized circle of the Dark Enlightenment and they are more likely to address each of the various points of interest at one point or another in their writing.

The Fellow Travelers flair is used for sites which core neoreaction likes to read for news or posts, but are either not neoreaction or dark enlightenment, or who would not like the label applied to themselves. It is more or less a catch all flair for sites that did not seem appropriate for the previous two flairs. Degree of overlap with the dark enlightenment is variable.

The main consequence of this change is that the list of auto-flaired domains has been substantially increased and it gives you a better idea of the stratification of writers in the community. Chances are you have not seen many of the bloggers included in this list and I encourage you to look through the list and check out some of their articles.

Share Button

Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.

——————————————————————————————–

I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button