Trump Wins the White House

I have been preoccupied with other matters for a while, and that probably won’t change in the immediate future, but I thought I would take a break from my recent absence to comment on the Trump victory. There is a lot of good feelz out there in reactionary circles about it, and I will admit the feeling is somewhat contagious. It is nice to finally win one after so long watching everything just get worse and worse with no apparent relief until the appearance of the Trump candidacy (and now future presidency). There is a hope that there is more to all this stuff we have been doing, and there seems to be a real possibility that there is more to living in the west than mere fatalism. Maybe we don’t just have to accept that the west is doomed.

Unfortunately, the above paragraph just about uses up my ration of optimism for this year. The truth of the matter is that Trump is not a reactionary, and there is no reason to think that he will go anywhere near far enough to correct the massive dysfunctions infecting our institutions and culture. Even if he does everything he has talked about, to the letter, most of us would agree enough still wouldn’t have been done. And I doubt he will go as far as he said he would on the campaign trail anyway, though I expect him to do something in that direction.  Let’s not forget that he will have career bureaucrats trying to block and ruin his every action even if he does try to do everything he said he would.

Our demographics are absolutely swelling with hostile minorities who falsely believe that white men are to blame for their own problems. Trump isn’t going to fix that distorted belief, and the problem is still getting worse. The distortion itself continues to become more extreme, and the number of minorities around who hold it increase at a high rate because of both immigration AND birthrates. Stopping immigration will not stop high birth rates. It will continue to get worse even if he halts all immigration the day he is inaugurated.

In addition, even if he is a natural alpha, to borrow red pill terminology, I don’t see any indication he will push for changes in law that restore more traditional family structures and end the tyranny of feminism. Such things don’t harm natural alphas much anyway. Feminists may have suffered a blow to morale, but that is temporary and ultimately meaningless. They will return with renewed and redoubled vigor, eventually.

For both of these tenuously allied groups, there is a future election waiting to be won. Especially since demographics are heavily in favor of minority factions. At that time, they will pick up right where Obama left off and make the spirit of a Hillary presidency a reality, just at a delayed date and with different names to attribute it to. This election has at best delayed the agenda of the far-left, if that. Some day they will come back and use the institution of democracy to further that agenda.

Hence we find our real enemy. The institution of democracy is what will be used to continue the dispossession of productive whites and traditional families. If not today, then in four years, or eight, or twelve. It doesn’t really matter exactly when, because the clock is ticking and it is only a matter of time. When, not if. There is going to come a point where European stock all over the world will have to accept that the number of warm bodies at the ballot box is an insufficient justification for rule. Otherwise, we will be destroyed by vindictive incompetents. We will have to stand up and yell: “I don’t care how many billions you number your horde, I will not be ruled by you and yours under any circumstance. I will not allow you to have any say over myself, my family, my people or my nation. Get out.”

Share Button

The desire for race war is a result of confusion

Recently Jim had an article in which he discusses the so-called day of the rope. The day of the rope (and the related helicopter rides) is a commonly referenced trope among at least some parts of the alt-right. It is my humble opinion that most of this is hyperbole used primarily for shock and awe. Otherwise known as lolz. In other words, it probably shouldn’t be taken too seriously and I think most people realize this. Or hope so.

However, it may be that some people at least take this as a serious and proper policy in the event that power is seized by reactionary groups. The left does, of course, because it suits their narrative. However, I could also imagine particularly disenfranchised and confused individuals taking this hyperbole to heart and acting rashly on their own accord. It is towards this avoidable potentiality which this post is addressed.

As Jim points out, many people in support of the cathedral today are exactly equivalent to Havel’s green grocer. In other words, there are many people who ape the common tropes of the cathedral because if they don’t they may lose their often apolitical jobs and their kids will starve. These people are in the completely unenviable position where they are forced to live a lie while knowing in their heart they would be much happier without it. I would argue that a true majority, at least, of those outwardly espousing progressivism to co-workers and other personally known acquaintances fall into this category for one reason or another. It is not right or proper to hate a man simply because he wants to live his life in peace and/or wants to maintain good conditions for his family. This is a reasonable desire we all share. He really has very little choice in the matter and this personally rational decision under current circumstances in no way warrants punishment at the end of of a rope or a ride in a helicopter. Give him the opportunity to be free and he will gladly call you brother.

A great deal of the anger felt on the reactionary right is related to race. And for good reason. It is clear that large portions of some populations, especially blacks, are basically out of control. The broader community is doing a pretty good job pointing this out and convincing people that something must be done about it. The rope meme, for better or worse, is often used in the context. Honestly, though, I think some may not realize that greatly reducing “petty” crime, for lack of a better term, is not actually all that difficult when you have the proper will, motivation, and institutions. Even extremely flawed cathedral institutions can successfully solve, or at least drastically reduce, this issue given the right motivation. Criminality by individuals is certainly an issue, but it is one that is eminently addressable without the need to resort to mass public executions.

The real issue with crime by problematic populations over the last few years has far more to do with motivations and reactions of institutions than it has to do with the technical feasibility of curtailing crimes by individuals. Even though law enforcement institutions are on the front lines, it is difficult to pass very much blame onto them with the exception of some of their leadership. Far more important to the public perception of the problem, which increases it like throwing gasoline on a fire, are the actions of NGOs, academia, and the media. All of which regularly and consistently encouraged more chaos among simplistic proles through their publications and coverage.

The unifying feature of these organizations is that in most cases it is possible for a small number of individuals to direct the policies and narrative of them. In the case of NGOs like the SPLC and Black Lives Matter, this control is exerted by donors:

The documents further confirm that the Open Society [A George Soros org] last year approved $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.”

In the case of the media it is a small number of owners. In the case of academia it is less obvious how this control structure works, but clearly involves centralized federal funding, hiring ideologically and enforcing ideological norms on possibly neutral professors.

It is clear to me that these groups who clearly have a limited number of leaders and funders are intentionally exacerbating the fundamental problem of individual cases of black crime to exceptional levels above and beyond all reason. This is obvious in the case of getting blacks riled up to go out and riot, but I think it is less obvious that they may also desire to some degree the militant reaction of the white population. In other words, I am starting to wonder if these actions are some sort of divide and conquer initiative.

It is quite possible that this is a case of virtue signalling gone awry and at the lower levels and in academia this is almost certainly a large factor. However, it is clear that there are other motives at higher levels. From the leaked emails at the Soros foundation:

In particular, recent events offer a unique opportunity to accelerate the dismantling of structural inequality generated and maintained by local law enforcement and to engage residents who have historically been disenfranchised in Baltimore City in shaping and monitoring reform.

It seems to me that the apparent over-arching goal of the last several years of black riots was to get blacks, whites and everyone else so bothered by black crime/black deaths to consent to major reforms in law enforcement for opposite reasons. Typically the way any such reforms have been handled in the past has been to create federal legislation and mandates that require specific actions for local or state entities to qualify for federal money. Usually this money is substantial and virtually no local agency, law enforcement or otherwise, can say no. Since the feds are getting the money from local taxpayers then redistributing it, the setup can directly hinder local self-funding. Refusing the federal policies basically equates to instituting a double tax on the locals because the federal income tax just disappears and more tax must be taken locally. It is a double bind and onerously expensive, thus almost never tried. It is a very sneaky way to exert centralized control in a way technically within the limits of the constitution, though obviously in complete opposition to the spirit. Proving, perhaps, the worthlessness of the document.

Thus, the handling of the very real issue of minority crime appears to be a distraction with ulterior motives at its current level of hysteria. Specifically a desired result of it is some sort of federalization of police departments. Getting wrapped up in the distraction can and will cause confusion for everyone involved and could potentially result in a much more Orwellian structure than needed to address the underlying problems. People who want a day of the rope, or a race war, have allowed themselves to be caught up in this ploy and need to reflect on more sensible positions than any which require completely unnecessary mass executions.

In the early days of my subreddit, I created a guideline to help with this unfortunate tendency for drastic reactionary anger and termed it biotemperance. I believe it is a helpful concept to re-review considering the events which have happened since.

There has recently been some confusion about how discussions about different ethnic groups can be conducted in this subreddit. Frank and open discussion on any and all ethnicities is and will be tolerated. Period.

However, there is a common concept or principle in the manosphere that is equally applicable to this situation (slightly modified) which I will refer to as biotemperance. In the context of game and relationships there is a disparity between what men tend to want in terms of love and relationships and what women are able to provide. (read this, then this, then this for more detail) Taking the red pill involves the understanding and acceptance that due to biological instincts women act in certain consistent ways which often lead to frustration in men. By understanding the biological imperatives of women, a man can work within that framework to then create more fulfilling relationships. Men gain an understanding and acceptance of biological determinism in mating with the intent of improving the quality of his life and that of the woman or women he is with. Women can’t be blamed or hated for having the instincts that they do because the man would never, ever be able to form fulfilling relationships with that kind of baggage. Moreover, natural selection has endowed women with these instincts for a reason: it improves her odds of being successful in reproduction. Therefore not only is it necessary to not hold onto hate or blame from a quality of life perspective, it is also irrational in the context of evolution.

In the general case, a good definition of biotemperance:

biotemperanceis when the pursuit of knowledge of biological differences between human groups is guided by a moderate temperament and desire for benevolent outcomes for both the pursuer and group under consideration.

I do not suggest that one group should make sacrifices for the sake of another (see Atlas Shrugged for more details).

I feel the concept is important for the growth of this sub. Western culture is irrationally afraid of HBD as part of the aftermath of World War II. Racial conflict and mass murder figured greatly into all the theatres of that war. After it was over, it is understandable that intellectuals would try to craft the culture in such a way as to prevent such things from happening again. Preventing genocide is a desirable goal. Unfortunately, they resorted to a fiction of complete egalitarianism which, being untrue, is also very unstable. To quote Anthony Edwards

It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.

Biotemperance, if genuinely accepted by neoreaction, should allay the neurotic fears many people have that even talking about HBD is one step away from genocide. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction of fascism when they read this sub, I want to do whatever I can to get rid of that impression.

If and when the egalitarian bubble pops, and neoreaction grows significantly, biotemperance should ensure that whatever realistic steps are taken to improve order in society do so in a humane way. (I am not using the liberal definition. For example, it would have been far more humane for Belgium to have maintained control over the Congo so it could have imposed order. Imposing order through force by colonial powers would have clearly been more humane when compared with the suffering, deaths, rapes and other atrocities since the country became “independent”.)

Biotemperance will be treated as a guideline or suggestion and not a rule. It is not mandatory that you agree with it. You should feel free to disagree with the concept and perhaps post a better alternative if you have one. In terms of moderation, biotemperance will be my main guide for evaluating whether posts are trolls or, less likely, shills. If experience of /r/theredpill is any indication, there are people who would like to create havoc here because they strongly disagree with the DE. One of the tactics employed is to post extreme crazy ideas in order to discredit the overall sub to outsiders. This problem hasn’t happened yet, but if the sub grows it will likely be something that needs to be addressed. If a post strongly deviates from biotemperance (IE advocating genocide) it would be removed. However, I only anticipate applying this in very extreme and obvious cases.

Share Button