Friday, 30 November 2018

Rethinking the beatitudes from a Girardian view


Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven – the poor in spirit are those who understand the scapegoat mechanism used to manufacture peace (satan) and how much power it has over the world. They haven’t lost faith that it can be overcome, they’re just despondent in the face of so much resistance. Only a narcissist would think this has something to do with material goods. Which is why everyone does.

Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted – the mourners are those who lost an innocent loved one to the crowd that screamed out for a scapegoat. Because the satanic process hides the real reason people demand a scapegoat (they are not taught how to want), any collective murder it commits against a person is always against the innocent. You can't kill or expunge to remove the cause of tension if that cause is your own failure to healthily differentiate from others.

Blessed are the meek: for the shall inherit the earth – meekness refers to a person who knows how to use a weapon but chooses not to. In other words, he is someone who can see how the rock they are compelled to throw at the scapegoat will not fix the problem of knowing how to want. Rather than blaming the Other and succumbing to the satanic process, the meek lowers his eyes to the ground. In doing so, he creates a new, non-violent example for others in the crowd to mimic (which is all they were doing anyway) and the satanic contagion gripping the crowd is given a chance to break. Will it break?

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled – this has NOTHING to do with people who are hungry for food. Righteousness is about speaking the truth at that comes from the bottom of your gut. Truth always starts as a feeling that involuntarily captures your entire being. To filter it through social conventions, even at the smallest scale, makes a person vulnerable to the collective satanic process of the crowd when it arrives. And it always arrives.

Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy – the mimetic contagion can only control a crowd if little infractions escalate to become a war of all against all. Since the problem is your own inability to want different things and your natural tendency to mimic others, the one who is aware adopts a stance of mercy whenever his mimicry creates conflict with another. He steps back the moment he feels another person sees him as an obstacle to achieving a mimicked desire. In exposing that the two have become doubles, the trance of mimicry is revealed and the merciful at that moment becomes different to the rival, defusing the conflict. Approached correctly, the rival other may just learn that the answer to the mimetic contagion is mercy as well. But reciprocity is not guaranteed, nor should it be pursued. All that matters is that you are merciful no matter the temptation.

Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God – the pure in heart understand that the problem is them. This person works to discover a way of coming together as a group that doesn’t require blood or violence. This new process must tear a hole into a world without the domination of the satanic process, called the Kingdom of God. It is not a place beyond death. The pure in heart have resigned themselves to the infinite and thereby know the correct moves to make in the finite, as Kierkegaard says. The Kingdom is achievable the second we stop looking for scapegoats. To keep a pure heart means observing the stumbling block, the scandal, and avoiding the tempting sin to scapegoat.

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God – those who can see, and know what to do, realise the key to the Kingdom of God lies in encouraging people to stop mimicking each other and to shift their mimicry to a model no one can ever rival, a god. This will stop the contagion before it spreads. But if the satanic process grips the community before it can be paused, because the ultimate model has not been mimicked, the peacemaker must offer himself as the new model for the crowd by taking on the attributes of the ultimate. Done correctly, he dissipates and defuses the sacrificial, searching energy of the crowd to avoid it mimicking the person who wishes to cast the first stone.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for their's is the kingdom of heaven – as history shows, anyone who stands up to the satanic process and makes even one error when defusing it will instead become the very target of the scapegoating process. This is the risk of righteously exposing the powerful magic that rules our world. This power does not want to be overcome, and it lies in the heart of every person. In the Matrix, Morpheus warns Neo that anyone who is not unplugged is potentially an Agent. Same thing with the scapegoat mechanism. The satanic process of peace is so powerful that the very people enslaved by it will fight to keep it going because it is all they know.

Thursday, 29 November 2018

Notes on the system - 9

Saying what the eye sees – rather than what the brain sees – is like a camera shutter. Long exposures soak in more light. Short exposures are for speed. The following rough notes are about light:

Power is responsibility

The intellectuals who see themselves as part of something larger, and serving it, are exactly the problem. Hominids crave status, status is power, and power is responsibility. The best way to attract the supporters you need to gain power is to present yourself as responsible. The best way to present yourself as responsible is to actually mean it. Powerful people always see themselves as bearers of a heavy and unpleasant burden. So, the most powerful people in the West today, measured strictly by their ability to influence the real world, are journalists and professors (they call it "creating social change"). These are also the people who natter on endlessly about ethics and responsibility - and are quite sincere about it all. The really daring and public-spirited move for an intellectual is to embrace irresponsibility, to accept the lesson of Boromir, to admit that art is nothing but entertainment.

Use of adjectives

Originally it was Bolshevik propaganda that called anything anti-communist as fascist, nazi, imperialistic, etc. The Soviet-Bolshevik's descendants alive today continue to use these adjectives whenever some force opposes their plans of a progressive world order (originally: the communist world, same idea, different name). During one of the Central Committee of the Soviet Party meetings, the decision was made to paint/smear the enemies in such a way. One illustration of this point is that most US organisations in the 1930s called "anti-Fascist" or "anti-Nazi" were Communist fronts. The "Hollywood Anti-Nazi League" and the "Joint Anti-Fascist Rescue Committee," for example. The aim was likely not just to demonise any anti-Communists as not-sees, but to allow them to attract useful idiots opposed to national socialism/fascism, but sceptical of Communism as well. The use of "progressive" as a synonym for communist in the USSR is also a historical fact. For example, "Comrade Stalin—Leader of Progressive Mankind" by G. M. Malenkov.

Nazis and nationalism

The caricature that now is being associated with the word "Nazi" holds as much validity as the word “fighter for justice” for a synonym for progressives. The problem is they have taken the socialist connection, which is a positive in their view, out of the Nazis and retained only the nationalist connection, which now stands for everything evil. This shows the key point of progressivism: it wants the internationalist, “Open Society,” post-Christian global empire. Any hint of nationalism is a threat, hence their violent opposition to Trump’s “America First”. They want to make out of the world community of nation families a commune of powerless individuals they can easily manipulate and control.

University collapse

The idea that everybody is equal in all ways is a concept only academics could come up with. But ironically, it has led to a parabolic rise in university attendance (because IQ is equal too, duh), devaluing the degree and undermining the purpose of the education. It is now leading to a bubble in education which will explode and destroy 50% of all universities in the West at a minimum. So, just as universities took over from churches to deliver rightthink and perform psychological capture on the population (to produce cadre) they will collapse from their own deadweight.

Sunni vs Shi'a

Why do you think Sunni terrorists and Osama bin Laden both say they want the US out of the Middle East? The narrative is they hate the West for its freedom and there is a clash between Islam and Christianity. But that's jumping ahead. Pretty much all terrorism in the Middle East is Sunni, which means it is not "Islamic" terrorism, at least not yet. The Sunnis want the West out of the Middle East so that they can destroy the Shi'a, and vice versa. I used to think the Sunni and Shi'a hated each other, but they really hate each other. The goal for each is the complete destruction of the other. Once this is achieved, there will be hegemony in Islam then it will look to convert or kill the entire planet, as the Koran commands.

False virtue

Prudishness is also strategy. Indeed misanthropy - which is very like it - is similar to an intellectual prudishness which Nietzsche called ressentiment: the defensive strategy of the losers, of those who speak against desire because they are unsuccessful in their attempts to attract it and capitalise on it.

Wait and see

Is there space for every boy and girl? Probably not. Diversity programmes follow the natural solipsism of women. Women already have a role to play in society: to be a mother. For each woman in the workplace, she cancels the employment of a man. But men don’t have a secondary role to play in society. Men can’t have kids. All they have as a task is the development of society. For many loser men, operating even marginally well in business is the only chance they will get to attract and breed with a woman. What are you going to do with all the surplus men? More importantly, what will those men do?

Beauty carries no information

Over the centuries, the best men have become fathers by displaying their superior nature. Admittedly, the best nature of a man is often also the most ruthless. But a ruthless man also has a code of conduct. Only weak men fail to uphold something beyond themselves. Yet generally only attractive women breed. What must a beautiful woman have aside from her body? Nothing. It is luck, plain luck if an attractive woman is also a good person. Why is assumed a beautiful woman also has the best genes for creating better people? Why is beauty a proxy for “best”? Does anyone consider this? What legacy have the Greeks left us?

On rape

Why are men so bothered by girls getting raped? If girls are more than just their vagina, then why would it matter if they give their bodies away or their bodies are taken? Men don’t care about our bodies because we know we are more than our genitals. Search your feelings, are you sickened by rape because you didn’t get to have sex with her instead? If women want their emancipation to be taken seriously, they will need to get over this fascination/hang-up about rape. They say they’re more than their body, but they keep saying the worst crime is to defile their bodies? Who are women trying to convince? Men or themselves? Rape fantasies emerge from a woman's narcissistic desire for her value to be so high that a man just can’t help himself.

Care for animals

Veganism in the modern world is a largely urban phenomenon. I suppose this has more to with the fact that people in cities tend not to have any interaction with animals aside from their pets. After all, if you knew how animals really behave, then you wouldn’t think the creatures are victims of humans aside from perhaps the domesticated few. Chesterton says somewhere that where animals are worshipped, humans tend to be sacrificed. Cities are full of abortion clinics.

"Defence Force"

Peacekeepers and defence forces are not militaries. They perform police actions within the shell of the military. A defence force by definition does not engage in expeditionary actions, it defends from other military’s expeditionary actions. In reality, a defence force is a name given to a military which defers to a larger force. A defence force is best seen as a domestic tool of violence, in other words, a police action. What does it mean when most major economies own a "defence force," while the US is really the only country that says it has an army? A police force assumes a sovereign has a monopoly of force. Which is the sovereign that controls the force on a global scale?

Names of the progressive empire

Almost all public discussion is conducted in a murky newspeak riddled with euphemisms such as “new world order” “ever-closer union,” “openness,” “globalization,” “global governance,” “pooled sovereignty,” “rules-based order,” “universal jurisdiction,” “international community,” “liberal internationalism,” “transnationalism,” “the right side of history,” “the end of history,” and so on.

End of the road

Last century, no matter how much carnage was occurring in Europe, at least the Americans were across the Atlantic fretting about whether they should intervene. Today, there is no "across the Atlantic." If America starts to burn, no one is coming to save the Western human project. this time

Bitcoin safety

The thing about blockchain and Bitcoin is that it's a rather desperate effort to impose scarcity onto a post-scarcity age. So you could say, it's a wonderful solution if you're driven by the need to keep capitalism comfortably in the 19th Century. What does it mean about the state of capitalism that someone had to go and invent artificial scarcity?

Tiresias' role in tragedy

Tiresias makes a dramatic appearance in the Odyssey, book XI, in which Odysseus calls up the spirits of the dead (the nekyia). "So sentient is Tiresias, even in death," observes Marina Warner "that he comes up to Odysseus and recognises him and calls him by name before he has drunk the black blood of the sacrifice; even Odysseus' own mother cannot accomplish this, but must drink deep before her ghost can see her son for himself." In Greek literature, Tiresias's pronouncements are always given in short maxims which are often cryptic (gnomic), but never wrong...it is Tiresias who tells Amphytrion of Zeus and Alcmena and warns the mother of Narcissus that the boy will thrive as long as he never knows himself. This is his emblematic role in tragedy. Like most oracles, he is generally extremely reluctant to offer the whole of what he sees in his visions.

The Iron Law

Progressives operate according to the Iron Law of Institutions, which is: the people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution.


Saturday, 17 November 2018

Yo Momma

Yo momma so fat that one day she got sick and had to go to the hospital. Her young son and daughter stayed with her and watched her fall asleep. But she didn't wake up. The doctors said it was a diabetic coma, and that there was nothing they could do. Her little children stood at her bedside and watched her slip from the coma and pass away.

She was their whole world, their safe harbour. Now momma was gone and it broke their hearts. Yes, momma was fat, but she tried so hard and she never gave up on them. Not once. When she was laid off last November, her son and daughter were sure there'd be nothing for them that Christmas. And they were ok with that, because as momma said still they had each other against all the world, and that was all you ever needed was a strong family. But one night that December they saw momma pull a jar full of crumpled bills and coins from behind the stove, and a week later they had new toys under the Christmas tree. Even though momma got paid next to nothing, she still managed to save for the rainy days.

Now the little boy and girl are all grown up and have little boys and girls of their own. But they still miss their momma. Especially on the rainy days.

Handful of quotes - 2

Theodore Dalrymple, 2018

"It goes without saying that the more groups that claim the right not to be offended, on the grounds that either in the past or present they have been persecuted or maltreated, the narrower and narrower the range of opinion that can be expressed. Which groups are to be protected from offense becomes itself a matter of conflict — but the fact of the matter is that the majority of the population now belongs to one minority or another that claims the right to decide what is offensive. An atmosphere not exactly of terror — that would be a bit of an exaggeration — but at least of fear and anxiety, that I think is now general, has resulted: people are afraid to speak their mind."


Victor Hugo, Les Misérables, 1862

"Reform is a discredited fantasy. Modern science tells us that people are by nature, law breakers or law abiders. A wolf could wear sheep's clothing but he's still a wolf."


Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, 1997


"The story of America is essentially one of the difficulties being overcome by intelligence and skill, by faith and strength of purpose, by courage and persistence. America today . . . is a human achievement without parallel."


Carl Sagan, Contact, 1997

"Your religion assumes that people are children and need a boogeyman so they'll behave. You want people to believe in God so they'll obey the law. That's the only means that occurs to you: a strict secular police force, and the threat of punishment by an all-seeing God for whatever the police overlook. You sell human beings short."


Stephen King, It, 1986

"If there are ten thousand medieval peasants who create vampires by believing them real, there may be one – probably a child – who will imagine the stake necessary to kill it. But a stake is only stupid wood; the mind is the mallet which drives it home."


George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949

"The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak...Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."


Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, 2005

"What is involved is a common subculture that goes back for centuries, which has encompassed everything from ways of talking to attitudes toward education; violence, and sex ”and which originated not in the South, but in those parts of the British Isles from which white Southerners came. That culture long ago died out where it originated in Britain, while surviving in the American south. Then it largely died out among both white and black Southerners, while still surviving today in the poorest and worst of the urban black ghettos."


Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, 1953

"Coloured people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. With school turning out more runners, jumpers, racers, tinkerers, grabbers, snatchers, fliers, and swimmers instead of examiners, critics, knowers, and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual,' of course, became the swear word it deserved to be. But you can't make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up around them. It can't last."


Lyndon B. Johnson

If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: 'President Can't Swim.'"


Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, 2010

"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them.

"We all have private ails. The troublemakers are they who need public cures for their private ails.

"The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause."



Ayn Rand, An Untitled Letter, Philosophy: Who Needs It, 1973

"'Meritocracy' is an old anti-concept and one of the most contemptible package deals. By means of nothing more than its last five letters, that word obliterates the difference between mind and force: it equates the men of ability with political rulers, and the power of their creative achievements with political power.

"There is no difference, the word suggests, between freedom and tyranny: an “aristocracy” is tyranny by a politically established elite, a “democracy” is tyranny by the majority—and when a government protects individual rights, the result is tyranny by talent or “merit” (and since “to merit” means “to deserve,” a free society is ruled by the tyranny of justice)."


Vladimir Lenin, The State and Revolution, 1917

"Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners."

Ayn Rand, The Age of Envy, 1971

"Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semi-human cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

"This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree. . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

"If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

"The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues."


Oriana Fallaci

"We are an age without leaders. We stopped having leaders at the end of the 20th century. Instead of learned young people we have donkeys with University degrees. Instead of future leaders we have mollusks with expensive blue jeans and phoney revolutionaries with ski masks. And do you know what? Maybe this is another reason why our Moslem invaders have such an easy game."


Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

"In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow.

"The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness."

Thursday, 15 November 2018

Notes on the system - 8

Saying what the eye sees – rather than what the brain sees – is like a camera shutter. Long exposures soak in more light. Short exposures are for speed. The following rough notes are about light:

Four wheels and a vagina

Women don't understand that having a vagina means nothing. If a car salesman wants to sell you a vehicle, he doesn't say "it has four wheels." That doesn't make a car special. A vagina is just four wheels. It's just equipment. You buy a car for the features, but women rarely on their features, they just think a good paint job and four wheels is the great car. Women aren't selling what men are buying. Worse, they think their "features" are the ability to cook or clean. But that's a female's version of a good woman. That's not a good woman to me. She thinks I want high, but I think low. I don't want a lady, I want a babe. If she makes me feel good to get what she wants - money, kids, a house, whatever - I will give it to her. Men don't want to keep their money. We have nothing to do with it.

Rebellion unplugged

How do you be a rebel in a world where everything rebellious is commoditised? Tattoos make you look normal. Music is all the same: a safe diffusion of energy. Writing is mediated. Hate is just the opposite of love, it's all just attention. Drugs are a way to "experience life." Suicide is a middle finger to an oppressive regime that no longer exists. Nothing is absolute. Everything is inauthentic. The world of the grey is a half-broken piano playing chords no one can hear. Over and over. Why try? Why push? Why pull? What's on the other side if there is only one side? How do you know you're soaking if the whole world is under water? Is engaging or not engaging really a choice? As if ignoring the system is the only thing left to those who want something more, or perhaps to retrieve something we've lost? Being a rebel means blocking the interdiction of forces cycling through the core of the social machine, but also destroying yourself because what comes after the machine? Who will come with you? If the system embraces everything, it's too easy to be anything.

End of the tunnel

Progressivism is dependent upon consumer consumption (vs. durable or business consumption). But on every metric that matters, the long-term trend is against this - chasing the long tail, conservation, looming energy crises, etc - all mitigate against the level of spending that support a consumption economy. Too many small players, too much importation, and a growing guilt among many consumers over how much they consume in the face of falling prices. The key divide here is in the emotional investment in consumption - bigger/more is better vs. smaller/less - and hence the knee-jerk, seemingly bizarre, emotional reaction to things like whether global warming is real or not.

Listen to the words

Totalitarian consequences are baked into democracy. After all, if you aim to control the "environment" you also aim to control people who are also part of the environment. It always pays to listen to the words. A good way to find the most powerful people is to find the most responsible people. No one is scheming for power. A lot of them seem to be "working for change." No one is brainwashing the masses. A lot of them seem to be "educating the public." No one is ruling the world. A lot of them seem to be making "global policies." The problem with people is everyone thinks they're doing good. They all want to be Boromir, no one wants to be Frodo. That's the thing about power, once you get a taste, the path only ends when the planet is painted in your own favourite colour.

Kanye + Trump

Of course Kanye West supports Trump. They're both tools for consumerism. Rap and hip-hop are the quintessential consumer art forms (if the word "capitalist" makes any sense today). Both Kanye and Trump are so deep in the system, working for the Beast, that the last time they saw daylight was via a computer screen. Why else do you think we're hearing about them? Neither poses any real threat to the status quo of consumerism.

The man must change!

Uggh, everything a woman does is wonderful, beautiful and glorious so women are never the problem in a relationship. However, everything a man is should change because it's his fault that his "high sex-drive" isn't being fulfilled or that he has a "desensitised arousal" or a broken ability to "connect with women." It's not that women need to step it up in the bedroom, have no clue what men actually want or that they want men to conform a female's idea of a relationship at all times. No, that can't be the problem at all. Real men don't care about this. The man is always at fault because men have responsibility. If there are problems with the relationship, it's his fault for not ensuring she has a reason to love him. If he has sexual problems, it's because he isn't communicating what he wants from her. If he has a high sex-drive, he needs to find a girl who also can be his outlet. But think about how always asking the man to change really looks. Women don't have agency. Do you see? There is no patriarchy. It's women who are doing this to each other.

Open borders

The point of open borders isn't primarily to decrease labour costs, that is the secondary goal. The primary goal is to remove jobs and therefore work experience, innovative thinking, capital, competition and, ultimately, morale from the non-progressive, non-global white people. The companies don't care about these motivations, because for every new country added to the progressive globalised empire just means more batteries to feed the eat/sleep/consume cycle.

Part of the plan

The Russian hacking narrative gives progressives a legitimate excuse to cancel free electoral parliamentary processes they don't like. If Brexit were to be voted on again, it could conceivably be delegitimised by the State with a hand-wave of "Russian interference."

Bullying the bullies

So, let me get this right: the Resistance represents the SJWs, because in real life SJWs are oppressed and downtrodden by a stomping Patriarchy? Is that right? Ok, then if Hollywood is a huge beast full of powerful people, how is it possible an anti-establishment movie was made? If you're the Resistance, and you can get the system to bend so far backwards that they produce a multi-million dollar film that "angers" the "status quo," then explain to me again how you're downtrodden? It sounds like you're the bullies. But who will bully the bullies?

Immigration goals

Why is racism wrong? Racism is wrong because all humans are born simply as humans, having done nothing right or wrong, and it is incompatible with our deeply-held ethical principles to mark these newborn babies with indelible labels assigning them either privileges or penalties they have not earned. Such as the privilege of being able to drink at sparkling-clean water fountains marked "Whites Only," or the penalty of having to go out back to the horse trough. We hit that one out of the park, didn't we? Okay. So why is it ethical to label newborn babies as "American" or "Mexican," due to nothing but the geographical position at birth of their parents, and give the former a cornucopia of benefits but not the latter - such as the right to live, work, and drink from drinking fountains in the US? What makes Washington think it is somehow ethical to establish two classes of human, "Americans" and "Mexicans," based only on coincidences of birth that are just as arbitrary as "black" versus "white," and treat the two completely differently? How does this differ from racism, Southern style? Can you see how the end goal of the immigration debate is to create a situation in which every person on the planet is effectively American. Therefore every person on the planet will be able to vote in the American elections, and the Washington government will be the de facto and de jure government of the entire planet.

Sunday, 11 November 2018

Lying to get what's yours - Instagram and the rape of makeup

I

I set up an Instagram account the other day to check out a girl I'd just met. At least one of us is being honest. Women get very angry when men lie about their height or income to get sex – but women use makeup, Botox, cosmetic surgery, yoga pants and other deceptions to pretend they are more fertile and aroused than they actually are. You could call it a double-D standard.

Instagram is packed full of young women cloning themselves. Silicone breasts, plumped lips, plastic surgeries, workouts, yoga - all to get a certain kind of body and face. I'm sure it takes a lot of time and a lot of money, too. Each one a huge consumer in the marketplace of beauty and high maintenance. Other women see them and desire to look better and better, then as each girl ages, she fights off death. That is what the whole social network is about. A desperate plea to live forever as a 22-year-old.

But then I started to think: if I'm seeing it, it's for me. So, what's the sign? What is the signal I'm absorbing by scrolling through all this airbrushing? If the medium is the message, then is it just the smartphone I should be worried about, or something deeper?

II

Now, I've seen some girls' social network/dating inboxes with four or five figures of unread messages sent by men forced to make the first (and every subsequent) move. These men were begging, pleading, screaming but girls aren't scared. They solicit attention. Same with the girl I wanted to see on Instagram.

She was complaining that being an object of desire isn't easy. I asked her why not take her clothes off? After all, she wasn't born in them. She didn't understand. Girls dress to undress (or dress to suggest). Then I asked her why not take off her makeup? She didn't understand. Always keen to help, I finally asked why she didn't just replace all her enhanced images with pictures that actually look like her in reality?

"Those pics are me!" She didn't understand. When 1300 guys click "Like" on her fraud, she values an illusion created by her own illusion. 1300 guys don't like her, they merely appear to. "What do you mean?" she asked. Does it matter? No one says what they mean or means what they say so why talk at all. From the age of two, women are conditioning girls to imagine men want to kidnap them, leer at their exposed bodies, look up their skirt, rape them. "No one will rape that face, poor thing. Try this. Us girls gotta stick together."

Big sisters look out for younger sisters, helping them fail before they even start, policing their own modesty and purity, teaching them to be hostile, to defeat themselves, to be afraid. Of course, this abuse is "normal" conformity. What is conformity? Suppressing your true Self to please others, like the way you put on clothes every day to conceal yourself. And makeup, to conceal yourself, because it's "normal" to make yourself appear to be what you are not.

Everyone has a true Self. In all their deceit, girls only succeed in displaying need. They need attention, popularity, the perfect image. But all need is weakness, you are a slave if you are dependent on those who control what you need. A healthy Self would never be dependent. This erosion of Self is not a mistake, it's about harvesting broken children raised with learned helplessness. Any girl that doesn't feel presentable without first concealing her face with cosmetics or a burqa has a severely-eroded Self. Who told them this was a good way to live?

You can't induce desire insane enough for love or marriage without inducing the desire to rape. It's all the same insanity and that's the problem, do you see? I understand how hard women work to create suffering but please try to understand, there's no value in suffering. You value lying, and lies are not valuable. It's very confusing for narcissists but if you lie to impress, you're not actually impressive. You only appear to be. No one is impressed. They just appear to be. To be fooled by the illusions you create with your own illusions makes you psychotic, but in the reality you're detached from, when your illusions fade, no one will be impressed. It was all pretend.

Women merely appear to represent value by concealing what men had no interest in before. But does gift-wrapping a lie make it valuable? Makeup has always been a brazen fraud, which is why, to secure their fraudulent gains, they require binding, bonds, ties...marriage. Wedlock finishes the fraud, at least Until Death Do You Part. Women employ fraud to capture men's interest in concealed liability and then get fooled by the illusion (of being valued) created by their fabricated illusion (of value).

You can disagree if you want, but impressive women don't need wedlock. Men don't leave valuable women, they leave miserable frauds. I know women feel that men should value their fraud forever. All the same, women who bind victims of their life-rape to their side risk domestic violence because men will defend themselves from psychotics who want their fraud to be loved. Liars are appalled when their fraud is not valued but that doesn't make the truth rude. It just makes you broken.

The feminine system offers women illegitimate power to exploit men. Even though deep down every slave girl who takes the bait knows it's wrong, they can't help themselves from swallowing it all hook, line and sinker. Having fallen into the trap, they set about busily breeding dependent slaves for other, future, women and making the lives of their sons intolerable.
"To the moralist, prostitution does not consist in the fact that the woman sells her body but that she sells it out of wedlock." - Emma Goldman
Women know exactly what they're doing. Every feminist plays off men's miserable confusion. Truth is always on the side of the oppressed because the oppressors can stop lying any time they please. 99% of girls buy into the absurd lie that declares the intrinsic value to reside in their concealed objects. They conflate [being valued] with [real value]. The difference is [value]. There isn't any.

III

I once had a girl with incredibly low self-esteem. I've never seen a cuter woman but I only ever saw her face once (concealed by cosmetics the rest of the time, with day and night routines). She would probably die before showing her stunning face in public which, I'm ashamed to admit, suited me just fine at the time. She was still hot with makeup and I had to get used to every guy's head turning, whistling, catcallers, guys coming up to hit on her like I didn't exist - I thought they were just blind or stupid but I was in denial.

They were being very shrewd. Women have specific value systems. They are attracted to rude, imposing, cowardly bullies because they are rude, imposing, cowardly bullies themselves. Watching her helped me understand rape fantasies: why would you desire something to be done to you if you weren't already doing it to someone else? Treat others as you want to be treated, as the old phrase goes. Men won't call makeup rape, because they've been told it isn't. But what else would you call it?

I was cool with the guys chatting her up as I was fucking her, but I didn't like it when better-looking guys made her laugh. Thankfully, that didn't happen too often; through no fault of the guys (she wasn't bright enough to know how funny and charming some of these guys were). She just sat there like a painted rock, a Cargo Cult victim of older women's malicious lies of entitlement, waiting for what she thinks she deserves as the male victims of their coercive monopoly flail themselves - mostly in vain - against their infantile delusion, her mind corrupted and reduced by a lifetime of malicious lies and degradation. She cannot reciprocate true value. In many ways, she was a robot. An entitled, boring, insulting robot. But the feminine system displayed her to me as infinitely more important than I. The crazy thing is that men believe this nonsense that women are better, and even someone like Brad Pitt says he's "lucky" to have Angelina Jolie. She's nothing compared to him, everyone can see that. But in every photo of them together it always looks like he's in the shot with her, rather than the other way around. No wonder they broke up. Women don't want to be cool, they want a cool man.

One day I asked my girl at the time why she was so unmoved by her near-celebrity levels of male attention. "All those guys? Them? They just want to fuck me." I told her sex isn't all they want, unless it's all she has. That baffled her, but her response was telling. She asked me why I was with her. I told her it was for the sex and I swear I saw a moment of realisation flash in her blue eyes, and then it was gone. And so was she.

A few days ago I saw her downtown. She's changed her hairstyle, but nothing else. I still wonder if she will ever realise that she mistook the male attention for approval.

IV

And one person whispered to another, "Only whores obstruct biology. The victims of domestic violence are men and children. Women's clothes conceal liability. They reveal intent to sell a fraud. Women who sell fraud are whores."

"Silence those misogynists!" the whole town cried out at last.

That's their counter-argument. "Shut Up." They cannot counter truth. They refuse to accept it. They exist in bubbles of delusion where truth is subjected to more controls than state media in North Korea. I don't need to suppress reality. The Young Girl wants to sell deceit but no one needs or wants to buy it. Still she persists, encouraged by mothers. "Keep waiting for what you deserve," the mother says.

Instagram models fabricate ludicrous lies with professional cosmetic makeover, then they take 500 selfies and choose the best five before manipulating those with an photo-enhancing app. Voila. The final product has no correlation to reality, but that false image goes on Facebook to represent them. Women did to images what they've done to conversation and context. I know if you're not cheating you're not playing hard enough. I get that. But that doesn't remove the fact that trying to cheat will destroy everything. Guys gush over the Instagram model who is worth less than worthless until she starts thinking, "Yeah, you guys are right. I am super cute. I need to think positive. Ugh. Men are so pathetic. You guys need to leave me alone. Have some self-respect." Yet she can remove the paint whenever she wants. But why would she? No oppressor in the history of the world ever just stopped.

Girls adore Instagram as it lets them create a virtual life. They fall in love with their false image, even if they not-so-secretly hate themselves. I know how they feel. They'll never love themselves until they stop loving the false image. They must embrace reality or they'll be worthless for life. Until I stopped trying to make a good impression, I hated myself as well. But then I discovered I had nothing to hide. Every guy who isn't blind would be disgusted by Instagram but they're too polite. They suffer to avoid hurting a girl's feelings, awkwardly feigning interest until they can escape. Other guys, broken by a valueless world, just shrug and adjust. They have polite sex with her before hating themselves. Guys are conditioned to be raped and suffer in silence. They never retaliate. Men can't protect themselves. Their hands are tied by conditioning.

We are all out of our minds, conditioning children to value illusions over reality and training boys to be raped without complaint. Sex enabled by cosmetic makeup is rape by fraud. These are your rules! Rape by deception is a crime in which the perpetrator has the victim's sexual consent and compliance, but gains it through deception or fraudulent statements or actions. Do you see? Deception serves to distort or omit the complete truth. Intent differentiates between deception and an honest mistake. The five primary forms of deception are: Lies, Equivocations, Concealments, Exaggerations and Understatements. All of these describe cosmetics. Women know this. Their intent is to rape men because concealing reality is the sole function of cosmetics.

Girls are told by mothers that men hate honest girls who want to act on her biological desire for sex, calling them "too easy." According to controlling women, men love to suffer and will only value malicious girls preoccupied with inflicting suffering to inflate their sale price and "playing hard to get." As a result, girls' default behaviour is antisocial. And when men retaliate or protect themselves, the girls imagine they're victims of unprovoked malice. Embittered, they dial up their antisocial behaviour, seeking revenge on men who have done nothing wrong other than refuse to value being raped by deception. They begin to suck the fun out of everything, steal 90% of the value of sex, then have the nerve to "feel unfulfilled" because men don't respect their abusive value system.

There are no outliers when discussing The Problem of makeup. Women refuse to contribute value because their minds have been stunted by mothers who tell them they're entitled to things they haven't earned: the love of men, the trust of children, the affection of others, the respect of strangers. And when they don't get what they believe they deserve, they become abusive. When the husband no longer appears to value what no longer exists (temporary illusions of beauty), the leech feels betrayed and refuses to let him leave. This is the root of all domestic violence. To imagine women are the victims of domestic violence is stupid. It is a disgusting provocation to refuse to leave when your presence is not welcome.

Instagram is the technological answer to mothers shaming children, turning them into narcissists. Creating a false image to hide the shame of our true Self begins with clothes. Forced to conceal what isn't shameful, we lie to avoid punishment for having fun. We're conditioned to prize what makes us miserable: lies, violence, imposition. What is concealed can't be shown to be invalid. That's the trick we play on ourselves. We deny the reality which disgusted our trusted mirror and so pursue the false images that meet our their approval.

Instagram is what happens when our trusted mirrors are liars.

V

Creating artifice and illusions to get sex is rape. Just because Instagram is full of women who don't want to believe their lies are malicious doesn't mean their lies have value. It just means they are children who don't value consent. Why am I told to accept being deceived by women who know I will not give my consent if they are honest? Why do I have to explain the problem with a world that lies to impress? Why isn't anyone talking about this?

I am not redefining the English language by calling makeup rape. You just don't know the correct meanings of words. There's no justification for ignorance. There's no excuse for imagining lies have value. Artifice and illusion is misrepresentation and deception. If you didn't need to wear makeup, you wouldn't. In all these pictures throughout this story, a homely girl on the left turns into a rapist on the right. Yes, even Heidi Klum.

Now, you might say men's tuxedos, cologne, gelled up hair, and any demonstration of power or wealth all do the same thing as makeup. The net is cast so wide that any aspect of artifice, presentation or grooming falls into the realm of deception. And that pretty much makes all of humanity whores. Yes, but - and this to my point - women don't need to lie. That men lie also is irrelevant because they don't want to lie; women force them to be liars by displaying on their faces that they hate the truth. Again, you treat others the way you want to be treated. If a girl wants sex, all she has to do is say so. Cosmetic illusions are required not to enable women to acquire a biological need, but to allow women to induce inflated desire in men with the explicit intent of exploiting the artificial arousal. This is the opposite of morality. Why isn't anyone talking about this?

Women aren't competing with each other for sex, they are competing with each other for sex appeal. They're horribly broken, courtesy of broken women who broke them, who were broken by broken women. Men can end this cycle by protecting girls from mothers' shame, but men are pretty badly broken themselves. And besides, how much impact can a man have on his daughter's mental health if he's forced to work all day to bring home resources and told by other women he's a creep if he tries at all to bring some balance to the poor girl's life?

A girl tried to convince me the other day that her padded bra was ethical in ways breast augmentation was not because "fake breasts are fake." She couldn't understand that she was the victim of her own labelling. A beautiful nose will be artifice when it is artificial. It is an illusion when it is illusory. I can see how that would be confusing in a world where No means Yes, deceit is nice and children love their mothers. But rape isn't made acceptable by virtue of men's acceptance of it. She rationalised her padded bra by pointing to my willingness to stick around as proof that being deceived is what men want.

What is deceptive is what deceives. What deceives is malicious. Malice is self-defeating in a world where human fortunes rise and fall together.

It seems like every girl I meet is investing in her body over her mind. Their minds are written off, unserviceable. You can't talk sense to them, or even hold an intelligent conversation because everything they say is a transparent lie. Women are not virtuous; I can sleep with them as easily as not offending them. The easiest way is to trigger interest, then slam the door shut; lock them out and they scream to be validated. They've all been taught to chase a dream of living as a beautiful leech.

And when the looks start to fade, they tend to find themselves back with a former boyfriend, desperate to have children. There is no girl obsessed with her appearance who isn't an example of The Problem. You've all met a lot more than one girl who wants a free ride (but only after she's had some fun). The only girls I've ever met who reach for their purse early on a date are simply playing a more advanced game of impressions. And it's all illusions because those impressions are riddled with deceit. Mr Right only becomes a serious priority when the clock is running out.

Tiqqun is a genius:
The Young-Girl is old already insofar as she knows herself to be young. So for her it's just a question of making the most of that suspended sentence, that is, committing the few reasonable excesses and living the few "adventures" expected of her age, all in view of a moment when she'll have to quiet down into the final nothingness of adulthood. 
The Young-Girl is good for nothing but consuming; leisure or work, it makes no difference. 
The Young-Girl never creates anything; she re-creates herself. 
By investing youth and women with an absurd symbolic surplus value, by making them the exclusive bearers of the new esoteric knowledge proper to the new social organisation - that of consumption and seduction - the Spectacle has thus freed the slaves of the past, but has freed them AS SLAVES. 
The most extreme banality of the Young-Girl is still to have herself taken as something "original." 
The scrawny character of the Young-Girl's language, though it implies an incontestable retraction of the field of experience, does not in any way constitute a practical handicap, since it's not made for talking but for pleasing and repeating. 
Blather, curiosity, ambiguity, hearsay; the Young-Girl incarnates the fullness of a misfit existence. 
The Young-Girl is a lie, the apogee of which is her face.
It's not about the makeup so much as what cosmetics represent - a resolute and terrifying nonchalance at brazen deceit, by definition an act of malice. The sickness is in the casualness of it all. It's like men can't understand that predators scream "I'm a predator" when the banners advertising it are draped across every girl's face.

The Instagram desire to look better and better reveals women's values. Their priorities reveal what is most important to them. Their willingness to resort to non-default, antisocial behaviour uncovers their motives. Everything else is just noise. Look at what they do. Listen to their actions speaking the truth.

VI

I asked a friend the other day how much he'd need to like sex before he threw away his future to compete with other men to impress girls. He said if sex was 5x better he'd probably think about it. For me, it'd have to be about 10x better before I'd even consider it.

Tiresias would not be confused by Instagram. Before becoming a prophet he had spent seven confusing years as a woman and made two important discoveries. First, that women get more pleasure from sex than men. When he told this discovery to Hera and Zeus, Hera, in a rage, struck him blind, which led to his second discovery: not all women want to hear this.

Do you see men stuffing their underwear with tissues or socks, wearing push up shorts? Do you see men spending 2-3 hours a day making themselves deceptively - competitively - more attractive to the opposite sex? Do you see men getting collagen injections, Botox, agonising through diets, throwing their entire lives away obsessing over how to create illusory beauty for the purpose of appealing to the opposite sex? We would, if we enjoyed sex 10x as much.

Tiresias was right.

Instagram is packed with messaging, and men are picking it up loud and clear. The market for the product in demand (which has been subject to price-manipulation with women and the Church acting in tandem as a coercive monopoly for thousands of years) has been flung wide open.

Women selling their 'beauty' and 'favours' (and I'm not talking about prostitutes who are upfront, but those who deceive and play games with men) are now forced to compete with superior products like porn, lifelike sex dolls, Asian kawaii "pretties," accessible prostitution, etc. Gone are the days when an agent working for the corporation could taunt a crowd to be the first one to stone the competition to death. Women have to compete now and given the number of men checking out of relationships, the market says their package deal is no longer competitive enough. They've been lying non-stop, smearing the world with their cosmetic deceit and obsession with polite lies for years. Lots of men are saying porn is a better product than awkward deceit and manipulative games, for life. Can you blame them?

The value of women who lie is being rapidly traded down to zero (where they'll continue to be over-valued). But men not being interested in bankrolling established, meaningless, life-long host relationships for deceit-obsessed, face-painted liars is not the problem. The problem is that women need to start being authentic and stop trying to trade doing what they want for a lifelong contract, security, promises and guarantees, all on the transparent pretext that they desire children of Their Own in a world where children are dying at a rate of 30,000 under the age of 5 every single day. It's selective empathy when women only want to care for Their Own...property.

But men under-valuing women isn't the issue either. Barriers to trade have been lifted and it's proving to be rotten luck for girls who don't want to contribute setting in play a 5000-year overdue market correction. Many women invest their entire lives in a fraud perfected to "catch" a guy who is then trapped with no idea how cruelly he's been set up. Guys are losing interest in being a "catch." It boils down to this: aside from their pussy, what else are they bringing of value?

Very often the answer is nothing at all. And almost always the answer is: emotional poison, lies, repetitive sex, surrogate services, terrible cooking aren't enough anymore. The market is speaking. Porn is a better product than most women who display themselves on Instagram. Virtual (dis)honesty vs Virtual deceit.

VII

It is not absurd to point out that women are exploited by each other in the Instagram world.

I have never once heard a man say something like, "Oh honey, you look absolutely exhausted. Are you getting enough sleep?" Everyone flinches when women do it because it's about motive. Women keep each other trapped under the glass ceiling. In other news, grass is green. The manipulation is everywhere. Unserviceable, tortured minds. Broken, snapped and screaming. Why do we permit it?

I couldn't understand the attachment women had to what is really nothing more than a Western burqa until someone asked me why I shave and wear clothes. We're all victims of exploitation. But women should not have to wear makeup. Beauty isn't in the eye of the beholder, our eyes are fine. The problem is not with what we see, but how our corrupted - emotionally conditioned - minds process what we see.

Scrolling through Instagram, it's clear that humans have the capacity to accept subjective aesthetic preferences while simultaneously imagining that what they perceive is the reality. Every post is a corrupted distortion, a uniquely individual product of our mass conditioning with corrupted constructs like the emotional poison of Love, for example. If these people truly wished to be honest, they would eliminate everything they wished to hide rather than turn everything they say into a lie. There is nothing more ridiculous than someone asserting honesty but lying "only about a few things." Their 'truth' is revealed as nothing more than a setup for the lies they know will now be more convincing.

I'm starting to think that in Tiresias' story, the only sane person was Narcissus. To be sane is to be Alone. You cannot win because the marketplace is corrupted. The only way to win is not to play. This is a game of Chicken with pretty little girls batting their eyes and men blinking. I know why they blink. There are dark secrets being traded here and guys have been shut out in the cold. Women like sex too, but if you suggest that they're selling it, they lose their minds. But it's so much darker than that.

They lose their minds as a cover, a distraction, for everything. Girls have told me this truth. That poisonous toxic sweet. Girls don't get hysterical accidentally. The waterworks. The concern. The caring. The crying over nothing. The tenderising. They know men are conditioned to blink, to avoid offence and ask "how high?" when told to jump. It might be implicit but it's something more...tangible than a mere understanding. Instagram is a glimpse into the subjugation of an entire gender. There's no other way around the corruption. Men have to unite instead of fight. Take back market share. We've been bred to be miserable. Is it really our destiny to suffer like this? We're told to be brave, but no one ever asks: "Why"?

Mothers have made a deal with devils. Or they are the devils. They breed sons to be miserable. Emotion is the toxin. Religion is heavily mixed up in it somehow, perhaps entirely controlled by women. I dunno how they do it but Instagram is the system at work. How does an entire gender get tricked into thinking it needed to be hijacked by such an insulting degrading lie? Women don't like sex. Hah. Morons. Men are morons. But are we, really? Who is the worse person: those who lie or those who believe the lie?

VII

Narcissus was immune. That's how you win: when you need nothing. It's a game of Chicken and you are losing by being in the game.

What is Narcissus' crime? How is he the bad guy of that story? What has he done wrong? The banshees scream their judgement. They unite in crowdsourcing to scream down the only example of sanity in a thousand miles. A girl told me the truth once but I had to want to see it. She's brilliant. She'll never speak to me again but she told me something before she cut me off.

"You are the needy one"

I see it now. I was lying. It's doesn't matter what the need is. Why am I in the game? Women can't be fooled in the game of sex. No women in the history of the universe has ever truly been seduced. They set the rules. But I don't need the lies. I don't need the insulting. I don't need to be degraded. Narcissus is sane. When you see it, you'll stop reading. Nothing more matters. Narcissus is looking at Utopia where there is no insanity because no one imagines a need to destroy their Self. He is looking at a dream that's so close he can't just get up to leave. It's right there. So he lives in hope while the screaming system cons him into cracking. But he cannot be broken. He has seen the truth. Narcissus knew the secret of exploitation.

Are you special enough for Instagram? This world will make you feel you are, if only to rape you. If you want to be special, you'll sleep alone even if you're with someone else. We should all look into the mirror that never lies. But we won't. And so it's you. It's all you. It's always been you. Your sociopathic exploitability. You're special. They know. They invested everything to disconnect you from your Self.

We are exploiting ourselves. Men are the enablers. Who is the guilty party when one is providing the treats and one is accepting them? Don't provide. Cut off the supply. After all, it's what women did.

Or don't. I don't care. If you do care, they will make you pay for caring. You cannot win, but I don't need to be beaten any more. I don't need to be manipulated. I don't need to pay for past mistakes. I don't need anything validated.

Instagram is a window - not a mirror - into the quintessential feminine solipsism that governs the system: if it isn't about women, then it doesn't matter. I, I, I, me, me, me.

The frustrating thing isn't that women are always selling sex, but that she refuses to see herself as doing so. Like all prostitutes, she dreams of innocence, but unlike them, she demands to be believed and believed sincerely. And yet before her decay becomes too obvious, she will attempt to get married to hide her fraud.

Is makeup a lie?

Why bother arguing with me, I'm just the messenger?

Tuesday, 6 November 2018

We're a lot closer to the edge than you think

The Romans and Greeks pretty much won history. Everyone else is just along for the ride.

Their systems were, without a doubt, the best systems of government and society ever constructed. However, Roman, or as we now call it "Western," civilisation has been declining for about the last 2000 years. Or maybe 2500. Believe it or not, this view used to be quite widely held. It's actually funny that people think things are getting better.

For instance, remember "law"? Compared with only 100 years ago, we actually don't have jack at all. Next to, say, the UK in 1907, we pretty much live in a law-free zone, like Belarus or something. The greyish, sticky material we now call "law," that seems to cover everything these days, is not Law at all but a malignant growth. It thinks it is healthy tissue, but so do all growths. It is, in fact, a system of bureaucratic decrees, very similar to the Tsarist ukase or the Roman imperial rescript. Neither Cato nor Cicero would ever call it Law.

Up until about the 19th century, people believed in Law. But some time last century, the powers that be decided it was silly and started to believe in the People instead. At the time, those who believed in Law warned that the result of discarding it would be enormous massacres and destruction. But they were stuffy and old, so they got pushed aside. And no one reads their books these days.

Needless to say, enormous massacres and destruction did happen. Starting first in the United States, where the dangerous and evil doctrine of government "by the People" had been incubated, while Manchester liberalism had pushed it (somewhat) into remission in England. The military atrocities of the American Civil War that came as a result were unprecedented in modern history. Little did the Victorians know that it was a small taste of things to come.

The English cancer returned in the nastier form of the Fabian movement which dominates the UK even in 2018. Back in America, the Unionist military dictatorship evolved into the Progressive-Nationalist machine which seized power under Wilson and Roosevelt and fully secured its grip by writing the New Deal. The "People" still rule to this day. For some reason, we call it "politics," which Cato and Cicero also would have laughed at.

Today, whole industries have rotted, large parts of their cities have been destroyed and abandoned, the dollar has been debased to near worthlessness and is propped up only by the irresponsible monetary policies of Third World despots, our militaries cannot defeat a few ragtag goat-herders, unarmed barbarians wander freely across our borders, politics is a circus with no actual power, our countries are oppressed by hordes of moralising bureaucrats, atrocious crimes are common and generally unpunished, etc. All of this is absolutely normal for declining civilisations.

I think a major reason no one really notices this decay is that technical advances mask the signs that would otherwise be obvious. In other words, the only reason the 20th Century's political system has survived is that the rise of technology has allowed it to escape most of the consequences of its degeneration into patronage, bureaucracy and barbarism. Try to imagine what would happen in your country of 1918 if you could instantly give it access to the technology of 2018. Then, imagine what would happen in 2018 if your country were reduced instantly to the technology of 1918. Even if technology hadn't advanced since 1945, it's pretty easy to see how the "progressive" system would have fallen apart like the Soviet Union.

I don't fully subscribe to Ray Kurzweil's "Singularity" idea, but you have to admit the curve of technology looks pretty irresistible right now. Almost as irresistible as the decline of the West. When you combine the two curves, we're a lot closer to the edge than you think. For instance, consider the 47x increase in the British crime rate. That's not 47%. It's 4700%. For a comparison across centuries, that crime rate number is incredibly solid. It is compiled by a single continuous agency and presented by an authority with every interest in concealing rather than revealing the data.

And you know what? It's still shite. It proves nothing. It's just data. History and government aren't a science. They are both arts. The former is the art of narrative interpretation, the latter is the art of sovereign management. Because there are no controlled experiments in government, it is impossible to reliably confirm a connection between policies (the Great Society) and results (the breakdown of the family), for instance. Even data just doesn't cut it. Sensible people can think. The scientific method is only one special case of thinking.

Let me put this more simply. If I tell you that Catwoman is a cinematic disaster and Blade Runner is a work of genius, will you ask what data supports my conclusion? Well, you'll probably want to see the box office returns to get some clear numbers. But the truth is, even if neither film had had a box-office release, Catwoman would be shite and Blade Runner would be great. Reality exists.

I just read a book by an English anthropologist who travelled through French and British West Africa in the 1930s. Could I quantify the difference in the quality of governments in Lagos then and today? I could dig up data to support any comparison – in either direction. Just look at all the numbers Sidney and Beatrice Webb produced for their "new civilisation," Soviet Russia. It was all shite.

Another fun game is to apply hindsight to the political debates of the period. Do you think the Fabians who made modern Britain what it is today believed that their New Jerusalem would turn out as it has? "Oh, yes, we'll lose the Empire, our cities will be filthy, dangerous, and colonised by truculent foreigners, and there'll be about fifty times as much crime. But on the upside, they get council housing, Sir Paul McCartney, a National Health Service, SUVs, the internet and enormous flat-screen TVs."

Yeah, I don't think so either...

Trying to explain why much (certainly not all) of the world has gone to hell since 1908, is like trying to explain why Catwoman is shite to someone who has not only never seen it but has never seen any movie, and who doesn't trust my opinion in the slightest. Modern historians and everyone else are trained to understand history through numbers. Doing it this way is a rejection of history, just like how 20th Century economics is a rejection of the discipline practised by Ricardo, Mill and Smith.

I am not saying that just because Cicero would be appalled by the state of today's government, he is right. Just because he's a dead white man or something.  I'm saying there's no reason to consider the methods of public policy in 2018 are superior to 1918's, and there are many reasons why the methods of 1918 (or, for that matter, 1818) got better results with much less powerful tools.

And don't think the "conservative" movement can reinvigorate what the Romans made. What a disaster that movement is! If you trace the line from Edmund Burke to Donald Trump, you can see how everything sound, honourable and effective disappears, while everything meretricious, dishonest and meaningless is amplified to monstrous proportions. Compared to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump is an honest, traditional and intelligent man. But the bar is low, and only getting lower.

Maybe the peasants with pitchforks are about to revolt, but the internet is doing a good job distracting them. At most, they will keep watching their 61-inch TVs, mutter impotently and go back to making payments on their toxic-ARM loans. If Orwell is right and the future belongs to the proles, they've been slow to wake up. And what if they do? What if disgruntled soldiers, home from Iraq and a little upset about the vicious stab in the back by progressives, roll the tanks and install Donald Trump as Caeser? What would stop this conservative movement from just reusing the liberal machine to express their own version of political correctness? Exactly. Power corrupts.

According to one biographer, the Duke of Wellington felt that all the problems of modern government could be solved with one simple phrase: "pour la canaille, la mitraille" ("For the mob, use grapeshot"). Unfortunately, getting rid of government "by the People" will require some fairly invasive surgery, if it doesn't collapse under the weight of its own incoherence first.

But if anything makes me optimistic it's that both the progressive and conservative movements are so utterly bereft of plausible leadership and intellectual honour that there has to be some way to get rid of both. We should think hard about how to get the democratic ring off of their finger and into the volcano.

Of course, the rate of cultural, sociological, psychological change/destruction we've experienced in the US far, far exceeds the Duke's time. We're slowly coming to grips with the fact that the pace of change in the early stages of a Singularity will tear us apart. We increased technological dynamism by destroying the social-biological-cultural-religious-familial glue that holds minds and society together.

The key to surviving the 21st century depends on avoiding an existential bonfire with so much technological gasoline and Darwinian economic kerosene lying around.

But I can smell the fire rising.

Monday, 5 November 2018

Handful of quotes - 1

Theodore Dalrymple, The Soviet Way, 2017

"I came to the conclusion when I travelled in what was then the Eastern Bloc that the ubiquitous propaganda was not intended to persuade, much less to inform but to humiliate; for citizens (if that is the proper word for them under that system) had not merely to avoid contradicting it in public, but actually to agree with it in public. Therefore, from the point of view of the ruling power, the less true and more outrageously false the propaganda was, the better. For to force people to assent to propositions that are outrageously false, on pain of losing their livelihoods or worse, was to crush them morally and psychologically, and thus make them docile, easily manipulated, and complicit in their own enslavement."


Michel Houellebecq, The Elementary Particles, 2001

"Children existed solely to inherit a man’s trade, his moral code and his property. This was taken for granted among the aristocracy, but merchants, craftsmen and peasants also bought into the idea, so it became the norm at every level of society. That’s all gone now: I work for someone else, I rent my apartment from someone else, there’s nothing for my son to inherit. I have no craft to teach him, I haven’t a clue what he might do when he’s older. By the time he grows up, the rules I lived by will have no value—he will live in another universe. If a man accepts the fact that everything must change, then he accepts that life is reduced to nothing more than the sum of his own experience; past and future generations mean nothing to him. That’s how we live now. For a man to bring a child into the world now is meaningless."


D. H. Lawrence

"I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself."


Gustave Aimard, Les Francs-Tireurs, 1861

"There is something more powerful than the brute force of bayonets: it is the idea whose time has come and hour struck."


H. L. Mencken

"At the bottom of Puritanism, one finds envy of the fellow who is having a better time in the world, and hence hatred of him. At the bottom of democracy, one finds the same thing. This is why all Puritans are democrats and all democrats are Puritans."


Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements, 1951

"There is a fundamental difference between the appeal of a mass movement and the appeal of a practical organization. The practical organization offers opportunities for self-advancement, and its appeal is mainly to self-interest. On the other hand, a mass movement, particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation...

"...The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the single-handed defiance of the world. The permanent misfits can find salvation only in a complete separation from the self; and they usually find it by losing themselves in the compact collectivism of a mass movement.

"...Scratch an intellectual, and you find a would-be aristocrat who loathes the sight, the sound and the smell of common folk."


Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky, 1988

"Not only should they be kept well away from the levers of power, but they should also be objects of particular suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice."


Jonathan Swift

"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."


H.L. Mencken

"Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."


H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women, 1918

"In the courts of law one occasionally encounters a male extremist who tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, even when it is against his cause, but no such woman has ever been on view since the days of Justinian...

"...It is, indeed, an axiom of the bar that women invariably lie upon the stand, and the whole effort of a barrister who has one for a client is devoted to keeping her within bounds, that the obtuse suspicions of the male jury may not be unduly aroused...

"...Women litigants almost always win their cases, not, as is commonly assumed, because the jurymen fall in love with them, but simply and solely because they are clear-headed, resourceful, implacable and without qualms...

"...No woman is really humble; she is merely politic. No woman, with a free choice before her, chooses self-immolation; the most she genuinely desires in that direction is a spectacular martyrdom. No woman delights in poverty. No woman yields when she can prevail. No woman is honestly meek."


Oscar Wilde

Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.”


Che Guevara, The Motorcycle Diaries, 1995

"The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese...

"...The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations...

"...Mexicans are a band of illiterate Indians."


Upton Sinclair, The Jungle, 1906

"They use everything about the hog except the squeal. Into this wild-beast tangle these men had been born without their consent, they had taken part in it because they could not help it; that they were in jail was no disgrace to them, for the game had never been fair, the dice were loaded. They were swindlers and thieves of pennies and dimes, and they had been trapped and put out of the way by the swindlers and thieves of millions of dollars."


H.L. Mencken, In Defense Of Women, 1918

"A woman, if she hates her husband (and many of them do), can make life so sour and obnoxious to him that even death upon the gallows seems sweet by comparison. This hatred, of course, is often, and perhaps almost invariably, quite justified. To be the wife of an ordinary man, indeed, is an experience that must be very hard to bear...

"...The hollowness and vanity of the fellow, his petty meanness and stupidity, his puling sentimentality and credulity, his bombastic air of a cock on a dunghill, his anesthesia to all whispers and summoning of the spirit, above all, his loathsome clumsiness in amour—all these things must revolt any woman above the lowest."


Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1532

"It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm ... partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience."


Saturday, 3 November 2018

The simpl(er) reason why Africa is broken

I used to think almost wars and trouble in Africa are due to the national borders having been imposed on the continent by colonialists rather than on local tribal affiliations. That's what everyone is supposed to think. No shame in that. After all, most people barely have time to learn the official excuses, let alone dig around for the actual story.

Thankfully, our good friend William of Occam has a simpler explanation: all the wars and trouble in the developing world are the result of decolonialisation - the process by which the British, French and Belgian empires were confiscated by the US after WWII and transferred from colonial administration to postcolonial aidocracy.

This process is also sometimes called "independence," but by any objective indicator post-colonial Africa, for instance, is more, not less, dependent on the outside world. "Third World" forms of government also owe much less to local structures than the colonial regimes - the Indian Raj was much more similar to Moghul India than the postcolonial democratic welfare state. It also worked a lot better -- surprise!

The writers I was told to read are institutional defenders of decolonialiation. But try Occam's Razor on for size. Before decolonialiation, not a peep is heard from the would-be aidocrats about how these countries will be completely screwed up once the Europeans leave. No, the party line then is that Europeans are at fault for not industrialising West Africa, South America, etc, choosing instead to retain an agricultural and artisanal economy. And, of course, not employing enough Harvard-educated natives in the local governments.

As soon as the transition in power is accomplished in these regions -- not at all a spontaneous event, but driven at various leves of effort by US diplomatic pressure -- the Third World falls to crap. The steel mills and factories in the jungle are all white elephants. The Harvard-educated natives are all "wa-Benzis." And the aidocrats responsible for the "governing" turn to... blaming the Europeans from whom they confiscated Africa. Funny how that works.

Congo is a good example. You'll notice that the official Congo sources paper over the period of Belgian rule between the Congo Free State and "independence." There's a reason for that. Rescued from the memory hole, here's the first paragraph of a Time Magazine article about the Congo in 1955:
"In the Belgian Congo last week massed tom-tom drummers practiced a welcome tattoo. Prosperous Negro shopkeepers climbed up wooden ladders and draped the Congolese flag (a golden star on a blue field) from lampposts and triumphal arches set up along Boulevard Albert I, the spanking concrete highway that bisects the capital city of Leopoldville. In far-off mission churches, encircled by the rain forest that stretches through Belgian territory from the Atlantic to the Mountains of the Moon, choirs of Bantu children rehearsed the Te Deum. African regiments drilled, jazz bands blared in..."
Of course, Western reoccupation of the "developing world" (developing to what, exactly?) is not possible today because the political forces that destroyed the original colonial system are even more powerful now than they were back then. Colonialism ended because political changes in the European colonising countries made it impossible for the colonial governments to govern. In other words, to suppress nationalist revolts and impose law and order.

War is war. It should not be confused with either police work or missionary work. It is physically impossible to win a war by arresting an invading army and trying each of its soldiers. The same is true in a civil war. We can see the effect of this kind of magical thinking for the last decade in Iraq. Iraq simply cannot be governed by any military effort -- no matter how technically advanced, well-trained and well-funded -- that thinks it is a combination of a SWAT team and the Salvation Army, aka the US military.

What the traditionalists back in 2003 failed to admit was that their main purpose in invading Iraq was to defeat their domestic political enemies -- the progressives -- by providing unignorable physical evidence that Third World nationalism is not foreordained and invincible. But what they forgot is that two can play at that game, and if you play you have to win. Paul Bremer proved useful to his State Department overlords in putting numerous spanners in that plan.

But don't be fooled by the results of Iraq, the Western world has all the physical and human tools it needs to restore civilization in the developing world and resume the work of Lord Cromer. But it lacks the legal and political tools, and until it has those it shouldn't even try. Just like in Vietnam, it ends up handing victories to its progressive adversaries, who use the bloody result as one more piece of evidence to demonstrate their Divine invincibility.

The legal and political tools to do this would have to be developed by getting our hands dirty and actually doing the job. Trial and error is a good model. The British Empire didn't wait until it knew how to abolish slavery before starting the project. It tried all kinds of methods and built upon those which worked best and abandoned those that didn't. If people really cared about the very poorest in Africa, they should use colonialiasion to impose a low-corruption infrastructure on these nations (law, public admin, non-political military, etc). Together with free trade (liberal democracies unilaterally abolishing import tariffs), this would improve the lives of African poor faster than anything presently being tried.

But most of today's politics is really a kind of moral warfare entirely detached from real-world effects, and so long as people can advertise their virtue by buying "Fair Trade" products, that will probably satisfy their urges. Like Mother Theresa once said, if you make the poor disappear by improving their lives, then there's no way for you to broadcast your virtue. Of course, "the poor will be with us forever," they supply a steady stream of good feelings and pity for all of us rich people.

The fact is, few of these do-gooders support any policies which would truly improve the lives of the poor. Quite the opposite, in fact (see also: DDT). Now why is this? How can this have happened? Is it just a simple misunderstanding? Nope. I think the tradition of misguided remote philanthropy stretching all the way from the folk at Exeter Hall and Mrs Jellyby to Bono and Doctors Without Borders is essentially about power, and it is much more robust than it looks.

Before the end of colonialism, the internal conflict in the colonial world was always between evangelical missionaries (Exeter Hall) and everyone else - soldiers, merchants, settlers. After WWII this conflict was resolved in favour of the former, who stopped talking about Jesus and started talking about "human rights." The missionary impulse is deeply satisfying because it is a power drive. It is simply clientism and patronage. To give is to feel powerful and noble. Whoever has the most henchmen gets the best seat in Valhalla. This is human nature, and it's not easily defeated.

Worse, human rights advocacy is invariably deployed against any venture that even smells of neocolonialism. Any resistance to the human rights establishment constitutes, by definition, a war. The effect of the "missionary position" is to make this war so asymmetrical in its rules that, whatever the disparity between the power of the Western force and its opponent, the former cannot win. This story also provides the nationalist resistance with a plausible story of how its victory is inevitable, a narrative which historically has been quite self-fulfilling.

In other words, the missionary attitude satisfies not one but two power drives. Not only does it allow Bono to feel important, but it also allows him to defeat his enemies. No wonder it's been so utterly victorious over the last 80 years. But unless we understand how and why the "developing world" is the way it is today, it will happen all over again -- as we see in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Ukraine, Venezuela, Mexico, Tunisia and many others.

The most realistic action would be to gradually modernise these failed states. In other words, enlightened self-interest must be given room to operate so that G7 nations (G8 minus Russia) can work together. It's worth remembering that great things can be achieved by modernisation via evangelists (the abolition of slavery). But that required massive public support sustained over decades. I don't see that happening today, do you?

On the other hand, pro-modernisers (such as myself) need to feel strongly enough in their own position to confront the missionaries and nationalists and speak the truth about their terrible efforts. I know modernisation will mean tragic losses and the extinction of local cultures and languages. But I don't think it makes me an asshole to say modernising societies are better than pre-modern societies. Even people in these regions agree with me, which is why modernisation tends to happen spontaneously if it isn't prevented by the local culture elites who almost always have vested interests in the backwards status-quo.

However, gut feelings of moral rightness are a hopeless guide to foreign policy, economic policy, science policy, etc. The key to modernisation is functional specialisation so that systems like foreign policy can avoid the tempting missionary impulse. This sort of thing happened long ago in science, is increasing within the economy (we no longer worry about usury) and is the norm for foreign policy (which in the US and UK differs sharply from that advocated by pacifist elites).

But maybe the only way to achieve functional specialisation is to privatise entire African countries, perhaps starting with the really, really misgoverned ones, such as Equatorial Guinea (King Leopold himself would be a positive change to modern Equatorial Guinea). Missionaries would fight this with incredible passion, of course, which is why it's probably worth proposing until their domestic progressive political efforts have been defeated.

The tragedy of the last half-century is that Africa became the playground for elite moralising and a gross lack of genuine concern -- the Bono-type missionaries and NGOs staffed by disaffected Western ruling classes are allowed to play with Africa because neither the African ruling class nor they really give a damn about Africans. And the mass of Africans are so uneducated and unskilled that they're of little value to anyone, and certainly unable to defend their own interests.

Ultimately, our pathetic progressive elites will continue to give us frivolous African policies because African nations do not threaten us in the way that Middle Eastern nations do, nor does Africa have anything to offer as valuable as Middle Eastern oil. There are absolutely no incentives against screwing-up because endless mistakes mean endless missionary work, which unsurprisingly is a huge money-making enterprise.

I suspect Africa can't be fixed until Western missionary politics as a whole is abolished. And if there is any road to this endgame - which is not at all clear - it certainly won't come from Africa, unless it means using Africa as an example of why missionary politics doesn't work.