Tuesday, 25 June 2019

Why do people enjoy bloody horror films?

Culture seems to have moved on from the deeply disturbing, trend of "torture porn": Saw, Hostel, Captivity and the likes. Hitchcock once explained the desire to watch horror movies by saying, "People love to be scared." But why do people enjoy torture films?

Those films all have a common ancestor in The Cube, which walked the audience through various grisly ways of killing people but at least had an internal moral structure - (SPOILER) the mentally handicapped guy is the only survivor because he is an uncorrupted childlike innocent. Everyone else in the film, including the smart girl, is corrupted (in her case, by knowledge). But the plot structure - constant killing for no reason - is a prototype of the Saw films. In fact, the overly contrived methods make no sense unless you consider the audience's perspective. Why would a killer devise elaborate systems to kill people if the only one who will witness it is the victim? Those killings are for our benefit, not for anyone in the story.

So why would anyone want to see this image, of a girl, bloodied, being dragged away to some unpleasant fate? Why would someone want to see movies about killing with various instruments? Think about it for a moment. If the story of Saw were real, and you were a victim, what difference would it make if your fate was death by a gunshot or a bear trap around your neck to rip open your skull? It doesn't make a difference to the victim, dead is dead. But it makes a big difference to the killer, and to people watching who don't realise they're attracted to that until they get a taste. Voyeurism is intrinsic to all carnivores.

Maybe we are a nation of borderline sociopaths, except I think that's a lazy critique. A lot of moderns are borderline sociopaths, and their number is increasing while popular culture caters to the pathology and reinforces it. Obviously, not everyone likes or watches horror movies. But the existence of these films means we have more borderline sociopaths than ever before, not that most of us are. It's ridiculous that everybody still doesn't agree that torture is evil and it's not okay to treat people like that, ever, for any reason. Maybe you know this to be true but sociopaths don't. They know that other people don't like torture, but they don't see it as being inherently wrong.

At some point, you have to ask whether watching simulated torture and seeking it out is wrong too. If it is, then why do so many people do it? I suspect those who seek it, who like watching it, are broken in some fundamentally important way. Understanding their minds in no way establishes an excuse for that behaviour. But if all human behaviour exists on a spectrum with Ed Gein and Josef Mengele on one end and a six-year-old girl who likes rainbows and periwinkle unicorns on the other, then those who like horror movies are obviously closer to one extreme than the other.

My feeling is that the horror film (going back to the '20s) is deeply personal in a way that ordinary films are not, but which is similar in character to pornography. In other words, the horror film must bypass the viewers' reasoned, civilised façade to attack their subconscious. Pornography does the same, except it is superficial. Pornography hits the limbic system because humans have short circuits in our head for sex and signs of arousal.

Horror is different and more complex because the triggers are not obvious, often culture-specific, and personally idiosyncratic. There are some instinctive fears like blood and skeletons (only elephants and humans recognise and fear the skeletons of their own species) - but most great horror films have to approach the problem through subtext. For example, the awkward gait of the well-dwelling girl in The Ring, when combined with the film's electronic jitter is just non-human enough to cast her into the uncanny valley. And the use of visual proportions and sonic dissonances that are the antithesis of the golden ratio reveals that while we find some geometries and sounds pleasant, there are others that repulse us.

The Ring is interesting because, in Asian cinema, there is a morality structure at work different than what US audiences are used to. Both the Ring and the Grudge, for example, display the notion of children being cursed or carrying a sin of their parents which is absent in Western culture where children get a blank slate. They might begin with original sin (from the Christian mythology), but this doesn't extend from their parents. But for the psychopath who relishes gore, Asian horror films are unsatisfactory because they don't deliver the raw meat. Gore is not supposed to be scary, it's supposed to be exciting and arousing in a sick way.

I have never been as scared watching a movie as when this image appeared for a split second in The Exorcist. The face is so geometrically wrong and it appears for so little time that your brain only has time to register its wrongness. Prolonged viewing of it reveals a rather sloppy make-up job, but when you only have four frames to see it, you don't notice that. The face sits squarely at the bottom of the uncanny valley.

Yet torture porn movies are not horror movies in the true sense because they do not scare you, they shock you. The appeal is the spectacle of it, like a nineteenth-century public hanging. The perversion of these films is that they knowingly and deliberately appeal to an audience that is pathologically compulsive about seeing death. And this compulsion demands ever more graphic brutality to satisfy it. Thus, like a porn addict will move from basic sex to kinkier and more fetishistic sex to satisfy their craving, the torture porn aficionado will need more red meat.

The strength of the horror film is that it allows for very personal deconstruction - why am I afraid of this image, dialogue or sound? How can a film that makes so little rational sense textually, such as David Lynch's Lost Highway, still seem creepy, or even terrifying? They appeal to the self-centred misogynist who wants to see the Other (usually the "beautiful people," jocks and attractive girls that are unattainable in real life) get its comeuppance.

I'm not the first to say "I can't believe people see this" but you need to consider who sees these films and why. In an important way, These movies were the antithesis of new "chick lit" - novels and movies of three dimensional self-actualised women who do not always get married to the rich hunk at, but rather learn something about themselves and what they want from life, walking off into the sunset of a great career or new city alone after deciding they don't need or want the rich guy.

The idea that women are like this is a threat to men who were raised on the trope of guy-gets-rich-and-marries-trophy-girl. Hostel and Saw are about reigning these women in. The (male) audience is comfortable with the idea that women are sexual traps because that means on some level they can get these women - when in real life, of course, they can't.

That's why torture porn relies so heavily on sex but not the overt sexual morality in Halloween and 80's slashers, where the good girl survives but the morally decadent are killed. Back then, the audience wanted (or subconsciously assumed) the pure girl would survive because that's what they were taught. In torture porn, the (male) audience sides with the killers. Those films are amoral, not immoral. They are about restoring in a disaffected male the power he perceives to have lost to women (and to well-adjusted guys who aren't threatened by women).

It's hard to know sometimes if the audience is rooting for the victims or the killer. Or is that dynamic secondary to the sadistic desire to see violence and brutality? Clinically, that's what it is: sadism, and perhaps malignant narcissism. I don't mean sexual sadism, I mean pathological sadism, the joy or pleasure found in cruelty performed or witnessed by proxy. It's not that people who watch horror movies are violent, just that those who like and seek them out are at least deriving some pleasure from seeing the violence, or have some kind of need to see the violence that, when left unmet, creates anxiety.

Now, some people take this further by saying they don't like the violence or get any joy from seeing it, but they like to be grossed out or sickened. They want to experience the stress or revulsion this violence naturally causes. But if you're seeking out those derivative feelings, that is in itself a masochistic tendency. Again, it doesn't necessarily have to be sexual, it can merely be calming or comforting to experience those negative feelings.

Can an artificial image meet the emotional needs of both the budding sadistic personality as well as the budding masochist? After all, they are both parts of the same emotional dynamic, caught up in a power dynamic which is realised in the context of violence alone, rather than sexual violence. The person may not necessarily be a sadist or masochist, but it does suggest they have sadistic or masochistic tendencies which will likely manifest in other small ways in their lives.

Everyone has these elements in their personality, but they are usually regulated by the rest of their personality, kept in check. So, those who like horror movies are people in whom the more harmful personality characteristics are too dominant or unchecked. The films don't depict torturing a person to get information, or due to pressure and adrenaline or blind rage - but calmly, methodically and conscientiously.

On some level, torture is in-built human behaviour. Whether it's the tickling of babies just to watch them squirm or the secret dungeons created to defend society from The Threat, people have always found a convenient scapegoat victim to bind, degrade, mutilate and ultimately nullify. Not all people have this capacity. They don't, that's the point. Torture is human behaviour in that the people who do it are humans, but not all humans have the same behaviour. Tickling babies and putting out cigarettes on their arms is about as far apart as two things can get before the universe wraps back around.

People judge others not by what the other actually does, but by what they personally think they would never do. The problem is when interest in these films becomes obsessive. If the interest is in seeing "cool new ways to kill people" I think that might be problematic psychologically. Why does someone want to see lots of killing, and what makes one type of killing cool or interesting? If the interest is in seeing how the good guy wins (the positive resolution of tension) then I suppose that seems normal.

The line for appropriate and inappropriate interest in torture porn films begs two questions: 1) what is the "interest"? and 2), in what context are we considering appropriateness? Films like Saw and Hostel dwell on the violence. If you closed your eyes through these parts, you'd have your eyes closed for half the movie. And the movies don't really offer anything besides the violence. There's no intricately woven plot or character development.

I suppose it's a personal question. Like I said above, horror is a personal, visceral art form, so this kind of psychological horror must illuminate some personal darkness for the viewer. Watching the movie is a chance to put all the not-so-nice bits that accumulate in their psyche into a little box, which is then catalogued and shelved away, like a case closed. The line between appropriate and inappropriate is the difference between watching a movie for the purpose of collecting and confronting the darkness within, versus watching to feed and create more darkness that spills into and infects your conscious mind. It's always a good idea to ask what it is about your personality that triggers the response you have.

As a bit of a film geek, I have brushed up against elements of the torture porn genre at times, in films like Sybil, A Killing in a Small Town, and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer. Those are all well-made films, yet I never want to see them again and rather wish that I hadn't in the first place. The events they portray are too memorable and too ugly. "Henry" is unbearably ugly and pulls it off effectively without much gore or violence at all, relatively speaking, but what's so ugly is precisely the mentality at work in the real people who do these things.

I don't understand why someone would want to hurt or humiliate a person who had done nothing to deserve it. I don't understand it because it isn't rational and can't be explained rationally. But to the attacker, the victim deserves it. Every slight is perceived to be an outrageous offence. It's a hypersensitivity to feeling weak. That sounds crazy because people who think like this are insane, not to put too fine a point on it. The rapist thinks the girl was asking for it because of the way she's dressed. That's not the attacker's way of judging her attire, it's the reason he tries to have sex with her, "because she wanted me to." Again, crazy.

This is why a generalisation that all people as capable of horrible things is wrong. I can't even tolerate witnessing a fictitious portrayal of this mindset in a movie, so there's no way I'm going to arrive at that mindset on my own without some intervening life-altering ordeal. Words and media do not lead to violence, only decisions to act violently lead to violence.

And yet there are obviously people who feel empathy for the killer. In their minds, the killer is suffering, and this is his response. This doesn't surprise me because, in narcissism, the villain is the hero of his own story too. Somewhere someone is watching "Henry" and nodding along. They understand Henry. They have so much in common (childhood abuse, rage, lack of emotional control, no self-worth, depression, etc) that it makes sense. According to Hollywood, the monster is now the hero.

But then, why is it so easy for others to empathise with the victim? Do you think women, in general, empathise more deeply and more often for victims, regardless of their gender, than men? Do you think a non-insignificant percentage of men can identify with the killer in a movie like Hostel, Saw or Captivity because plenty of men carry some latent hostility towards women?

Or do we at some subconscious level believe we're victims because outside the theatre we are powerless against some vague, terrifying authority?

Sunday, 23 June 2019

Thoughts on the system - 29

There’s no way to describe the system, the organism. Its vocabulary is grossly underwhelming. The following rough thoughts are an attempt to outline the unoutlineable:
  • Modernists don't want anything to escape their attention for long, lest anything remain intact to shame them by painful comparison to their own wretched efforts.
  • Social justice is the reduction of everything to the lowest common denominator.
  • A terrible life is not boring, as a good one often is; that is why many women prefer appalling, violent men to decent, responsible, dull ones (it is the latter they most fear). A crisis at home prevents you from having to confront the triviality of your existence.
  • Geopolitics says that place shapes the community, the community shapes the family, and the family shapes the person. So, the individual is a result of powerful forces and is free only in a limited sense.
  • Before you make a decision, ask yourself: if you were Abraham, would Isaac be dead right now?
  • How would one be a conscientious objector in the online war? Deleting all your social accounts would still be a form of participation. You would be hiding until it's over and suffering the outcome decided for you.
  • Social networks have meant the end of the separation between civilian and military. The public is now a participant in every phase of online conflicts, and the main actions of the war are being fought in the individual's mind.
  • It cannot occur to you that your actions are wrong because there are no right and wrongs, there are only your right and wrongs.
  • In the age of artificial intelligence, data is a form of labour.
  • Tribalism is crucial in group decision making by providing coherence. The big tribal systems - religion and nationalism - are collapsing along with the cohesion and coherence they provided us, but unfortunately, the smaller, scalable online tribes are failing or have already failed.
  • Each decision you make moves the entire world closer to either heaven or hell. This is quantum morality. "Which universe do you want to live in?" Nietzsche's eternal recurrence does the same thing. Why be good if God is dead?
  • Americans all tend to act like a camera is watching them.
  • The battle over who gets to set the biases of the trillions of AIs is already underway.
  • We are all capable of atrocity under the right conditions. Anything less than this admission is a lie we tell ourselves and each other.
  • Behaviour got you into this mess and behaviour will get you out. The pain is there for a reason, don't try to fool away the pain without taking away the reason.
  • Will a modern society commit a historical-scale atrocity again? We assume not. That's not a good assumption, because the scapegoat mechanism is alive and well.
  • The scapegoat's need for a foe will drive the world's superpowers to create them, even when none exists.
  • What will postmodern criticism do to Chinese and Indian history?
  • Puritanical thinking occurs by combining moral certainty with politics.
  • Street brawling between the left/right creates a fear of disorder that drives extreme authoritarianism.
  • Western man is a child.
  • The 2008 crisis is proving that, as the middle class dies, so does political stability.
  • Trump supporters never saw RussiaGate as a criminal probe of Trump. They saw it as an invalidation of their concerns and problems.
  • People will sabotage an entire country just to be able to yell.
  • The "conservative movement" is dead. There is only the open source insurgency against the ruling progressive system.
  • Some parts of the US have a lower life expectancy than Iraq and North Korea. That took lots of hard work over decades.
  • 80% of medical innovation occurs in the US, meaning the world free rides on the expensive American health system.
  • All that matters is what you are going to do today. Do something.
  • A key function of traditions is to manage the complex social, sexual and economic trade-offs we all make but can't discuss rationally.
  • Western history is being weaponised.
  • Do extreme people use social networks, or do social networks create extreme people?
  • Conspicuous consumption isn't material anymore, status signalling is now done online in the news you retweet and the accounts you follow.
  • Unrest begins when the most intelligent young people feel they have no hope left.
  • The word "terrorism" was already confusing, but adding a word that misuses a medical term to the mix (Islamophobia) doesn't help.
  • There is not enough kindness and innocence in the world that you should mock it when you find it.
  • The only lens for the world to avoid ending up in 20th Century mass misery at 21st Century speed is one focused on the individual.
  • The clampdown on “hate speech” is a form of non-violent, factional terrorism.
  • There are two types of people: those who understand compound interest and those who pay compound interest.
  • Whoever controls the data, controls the future.
  • If your rule brought you to this, then of what use was the rule?
  • I've never seen an advertisement for an Asian food hall. The question is, why do other restaurants feel like they need to advertise?
  • What you don’t understand is that the police didn’t do this to you, a couple of people wearing police uniforms did.
  • Small dogs replace a child, big dogs replace a man. Women with dogs always die alone.
  • The only way the emerging alternative internet will survive is if it doesn’t allow porn.
  • Try and start a riot by begging for more.
  • The stock market has become a negative indicator of standard of living.
  • The Promethean bargain is that once you invent something, you must continually invent more to undo the ill effects of your previous inventions.
  • China is a land of men, not laws.
  • You can’t allow deviants to define deviance.
  • Have Jews become more conservative over time or has modern culture become more Jewish?
  • The true problem of online content isn’t what’s posted online but who is reading.
  • They lie to you? So what? Who says you’re entitled to the truth?
  • In the corridors of power, real people talk history, not economics, political science or international relations.
  • All this noise about racism is merely a form of psychological conditioning to scare people from daring to speak about the fact that they’re being economically displaced.
  • How long you wait to talk to her is inversely proportional to how much she wants to talk to you.
  • You can argue that the scales are loaded one way or another, but it is a scale nonetheless. The secret of the universe is that all decisions are binary. You will never be happy if you fight this.

What happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas

What's most surprising about Las Vegas was how happy everyone is. It wasn't a happiness like you get from winning at blackjack or from a blowjob. The smiles were coming from someplace deeper, like a distracted happiness, which was my clue to the location of a hidden pathology.

Las Vegas is about two things: fun and business conferences. Everyone on the strip, aside from the cleaners and casino operators, came from somewhere else. They live in other cities with other concerns and worries. By wandering through the city, their concerns were left behind for a week or a weekend, forgotten.

But that split, where one part of life (responsibility) and another (enjoyment) never meet, is in a strange cosmic sense exactly why they aren't killing each other. Las Vegas exists because, for whatever reason, people believe that following a desire for Dionysian pleasure should be divorced from normalcy. That life can be compartmentalised.

The system is full of false choices like this. Eat anything you want, but it must have high fructose sugar in it. Vote for anyone you want, but only from a handful of legitimate political parties. Say anything, but only what the media says is ok. Have fun, but only in dedicated cities like Las Vegas. Go ahead and "choose" and feel a particular kind of freedom wash over you. You are being controlled indirectly rather than directly, but controlled nonetheless. Eat up, it's made of corn.

That feeling of fake freedom is why I understand how the idea of communism or some utopia is so attractive for the downtrodden and empathetic. It totally would be a better way of living together as a society, with less selfishness. But the obvious lesson of Las Vegas is that what we call capitalism can't be killed because capitalism is the sublimation - the correcting - of the natural human impulses of envy and mimetics.

These impulses either bubble up and corrupt you through the process of the scapegoat, or you create a natural outlet for them through ritualisation. Those aren’t alternatives, it is the only false choice that matters. If global capitalism implodes, it will simply be replaced by global capitalism. Communism is physically impossible in a world made up of humans. Las Vegas exists not because there is a conspiracy to control the populace through easy sex and distraction. The truth is there is no conspiracy to promote capitalism either in theory or in practice. The pleasure-seeking isn’t the fault of capitalism, it is simply the natural movements of humanity.

There are corporations and individuals, each with their own interests, that sometimes align and sometimes don’t. We humans are envious, petty, anxious and - most importantly - mortal. Those who look at Las Vegas and see political control or corruption are exposing how bad they are at maths. They're still stuck in high school, confused with the arithmetic, unable to answer the question because they don't understand the form of the equation. Las Vegas is the sum of millions of individual vectors (desires) pointing in different directions, it is not the coefficient or variable. The city has already solved for x, and this is the result. Indeed, the entire United States has solved for x, and the result was Las Vegas.

What will eternally frustrate good people demand a new, different or better society is that there is no concerted effort to control society, so there is nothing to rebel against. The Jews aren’t corrupting anything, and there is no Devil pulling the puppet strings of leaders. All that exists are human desires. We invent technology not to boost living standards, but to remove and overcome the barriers between us and the fulfilment of those desires. Tell the truth, did you ever really believe otherwise?

If there is a conspiracy, then why aren’t all the “corrupting” and “controlling” elements of society people say they hate - like pornography, free sex, drugs, gay marriage, smartphones, 5G, etc - introduced at the same time? Why are they always leaked into the system at exactly the moment that someone invents them? Dystopian movies always begin with the nightmarish system of control perfectly constructed, with all the components of leverage in place.

Except that's not how the real world works. Humans have sexual desires, but disease stops them from following the desire. They create rules around it to pretend like there is an objective law forbidding free sex. But then smart men invent penicillin or condoms and now people can have free sex. The laws and ethics change, not because reality altered, but because it didn't. That different humans then figured out ways to use free sex as a mechanic of political control is ancillary to the release of that constraint by prophylactics, not the other way around. Again, you're bad at maths.

Advertising may have helped some people achieve power, money and control. But it only worked because humans intrinsically want the things advertising tells them to want. No amount of energy from Maddison Avenue would convince humans to replace chocolate with asparagus as a snack food because asparagus tastes like Satan's dick. Advertising, technology and factories are successful parts of the system's machinery because they help remove the obstacles between us and our desire for sweet food. Las Vegas is what happens when a city becomes a full-page ad for a Snickers bar.

Any force vector has an equal and opposite reaction. There is no demand without a receiver. All these false choices with which we are presented work to push us in a direction conducive to social control only because we are terrified of shame and becoming the outsider, the scapegoat. If we had any semblance of guilt - which requires belief in objective reality - then we might be able to fight our desires, but we long ago enslaved god. Today, there’s no need for a group of powerful people to keep us under control, you do this to yourself.

Power may be delivered from the top down, but it is maintained by you and your terror of feeling shame from the bottom up.

Think about a man who has been promised his whole life through the media that amazing sex and good feelings are available to him instantly if he reaches for them, but he’s sceptical because he looks around his hometown and doesn’t see any of it. Then one day he travels to Las Vegas to walk through a town dedicated to fulfilling those exact promises. He is blown away, he believes. The effect on his psyche from that city would be the same even without the media messaging and if it were just an answer to his own biological impulses. Ask yourself why he would ever want to create anything other than more of this? Why would he want your utopia, when he already has it?

I don't think communism died in Russia due to corruption, it was never alive to begin with. And capitalism is not "taking over" in China, the human animal is the same in Beijing as it is in Las Vegas. Either you let envy bubble up and corrupt your soul or the system of individual vectors pointing in different directions allows for a natural release. It is inevitable.

Don't blame the media, there is no conspiracy. Hollywood is entirely disinterested in anything other than its own immediate survival. Las Vegas proves there is no overarching system, there are only people with individual interests that sometimes align and sometimes don’t.

There are lots of "They" out there, 7 billion of them in fact. And you’ll have real trouble understanding what's going on in this world if you think we're all just some cogs in a machine waiting to be freed, totally in thrall with The Powers That Be. This is the result of what we want, our freedom. The system doesn’t have to lie to you, you are being lied to by yourself.

That Harvey Weinstein or Bernie Madoff knew how to work this system is different to saying the system allowed them to do it, or that the system creates people like them. Like the casino players I watched at the blackjack tables, no one was compelling them to bet their last $50. The system doesn’t do anything, we do it all in response to the system. The structure is only as strong as your weakness.

When Madoff acted illegally, the most important question we should have asked is if the institution itself was to blame. If it was, then he should get less jail time, not more. I know how strange that sounds, but any other answer just proves you want revenge, which you do because there is no system. The eternal answer instead is punishment handed out by individuals against other individuals. Or, more accurately, individuals manipulating the system to get the outcome they want. That's what happens when your narcissistic impulses clash with other's narcissistic impulses. "One of us has to lose, why should it be me?" Says everyone.

I know it's not the most satisfying answer to say Las Vegas is inevitable in precisely the same way that Harvey Weinstein was inevitable, but it is true. The society you see outside is the result of your own desires multiplied by too many to count. If you want to change it, you know where to start. Or do you think you're the first person to live your life?

Wednesday, 5 June 2019

RooshV and the mismaking of happiness

In case you don’t know who RooshV is (and why would you) he’s a pick-up artist and “manosphere” blogger with plenty of written and video material online. He was one of the first to apply A/B testing to picking up girls before it was cool but recently decided his past was a result of the devil's work and converted to Orthodox Christianity, but not before digitally burning all his "game" books so no one can buy them anymore.

I wish I was kidding. He even changed the rules on his forum, where thousands of guys have traded pick-up techniques for years, to cancel the discussion of using the skills to get sex from a girl. Now the forum can only discuss how to use game to build relationships.

I suppose people go through life-stages, and Roosh (real name Daryush Valizadeh) says he’s had his fill of casual sex. And I'd be inclined to believe that, but he chose Christianity, a complete package of other people's ideas. Here we must start at first principles: when you have an idea, you better be damn sure it doesn't have you first.

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: the feminine imperative is to love 1 guy 1000 times, while the masculine imperative is to love 1000 girls 1 time. Roosh, of all people, should know that for a guy to say he feels a "connection" with a girl, he's using a vaginal word. No guy cares about a connection. You've never seen a group of guys say, "fellas, let's go to the clubs tonight and find the last woman we're ever going to be with. Come on, put it in: one, two, three, soulmate!" That doesn't happen. Men want to find a girl, not the girl.

For years, Roosh tried to reinvigorate the masculine imperative which he rightly claims is being overridden by the feminine imperative. A lot of men found his musings insightful and useful, not just for their techniques, but to grow as men. Now he tells us, all these years later, that casual "shallow" sex is harmful, "degenerate" and causes lots of "damage." Within the masculine imperative, no, it's not and it doesn't. Casual sex with multiple different women is the exact activity males are biologically built to pursue. There's nothing wrong with it at a default level. But I'll get to that.

So, who stands to gain from his idea that casual sex is "damage"? It's certainly not men. And where is this message coming from? Society isn't saying it, mindless sex bleeds from every wall. No, something very simple and very common has happened. Roosh is just the latest example of how deep the roots of the feminine imperative go in the modern male psyche. Religion (specifically, Christianity) is built to conform exactly to the feminine imperative with its concepts of marriage, faithfulness, family, devotion, long-term love, etc. The feminine imperative is deftly hidden amongst the cathedrals and benedictions. Men might bow to god, but they are truly submitting to women. Can Roosh see this? Who knows. You either follow the masculine, or you follow the feminine. There is no third option, you will conform in some way. No one escapes the cartels.

And yet I get a nagging sense of betrayal whenever men like Roosh bow to another person’s version of happiness, and religion is definitely that. Religion is a funny thing because, when you peel back all the outer layers, the feminine imperative at religion's core is obvious. Each one elevates a woman's happiness over a man's. From that reality, every society has been constructed from the feminine imperative default. But the mistake most people make is to say the masculine imperative can't be used to build a society. Just because things are, doesn't mean they can't be different.

Genghis Khan came close to structuring a society on the masculine imperative. His actions led to his personal breeding of thousands of women. A 2003 study found evidence that his DNA is present in about 16 million men alive today. But - and here's the tricky part - did his sexual success occur because he accumulated resources (the feminine imperative) or in spite of it? My bet is the latter, but only by a smidgen. Of course, I can't say his empire was a masculine imperative society if only The Great Khan lived by that code while his fellow Mongols succumbed to the feminine imperative back home. Khan operated outside of the default, but he did not build a new default. There's a difference.

And consider the harems of the Middle East. It's tough to know if the polygamous men are pursuing their masculine imperative or whether the females have found a sneaky way to make the men feel like they are following the masculine imperative, but really getting everything they want. In other words, in both Iraq and New Zealand, it is impossible for a guy to know any action he takes isn't primarily useful, in some way, to the feminine. Without the masculine imperative as clear default, a man must assume his every move prioritises women's happiness. From going to his job, to building bridges to creating magnificent artwork, it’s all meant to boost a man's status so that girls can decide to have sex with him. Everything a guy does is for the collective “her.” This is what it's like to live as a slave.

Let’s use marriage as an example here. When thinking about agreeing to a marriage, the common denominator is always her because marriage is part of the feminine imperative. If you think of a good reason to marry, it's on her. If you think of a bad reason, it's on her. Even if you don't say yes, your reason for saying that will be because she's upset. There's no upside for a man in marriage, he is giving up his imperative. That’s why Commandment #1 is: it's always the man's fault. That might sound bleak, but you should remember that, your happiness depends on it.

Don't get angry at a woman who muscles you into marriage, it's just part of her nature, it's not malicious, it’s just what she does. It's the typical utopian girl nonsense of "we have to get married because I don't want my kid to be a bastard." That sort of talk is a trap, and she knows it. Any guy faced with this question immediately wants to say, "you goofy girl, you can't trap me. Get out!" He edits that feeling because he loves her. But he still feels it. Pause right there. That editing is proof positive you live in a feminine imperative society. Do you see?

If you have a child together with a girl, then take care of it and love it, but being a father doesn't require marriage. This is your life, it's the only one you get. If you don't want to marry a girl, then tell her so with no emotion she can feed off. She'll roll around and start crying, but the masculine imperative demands that you not lie about how you feel. That path only ends in misery, for you. Women will always push until they hit your boundaries – it's her happiness or yours – but you must know your boundaries before she starts pushing. You have to know what your happiness looks like. I'm not sure Roosh ever did.

You might be reading this thinking that as a guy, you can't say how you truly feel to a girl in case it hurts her, but what you're really worried about is the risk of losing sex. You need to practice saying things to women that make them upset, to exercise those brain muscles. Go to a club and tell a girl their hair looks stupid, or she looks like her pussy stinks, or say her face is nice except for that big-ass nose. You'll get sex as a result and become used to a disregarding a girl's tears and manipulative emotions. Being hard with girls is the only way to love them. A man who edits his feelings commits a lie of omission, and there’s no stronger poison for a relationship than lying.

Make sure you set this out correctly before a relationship spins out of control. Girls don't just wake up one day deciding to trick a guy into marriage – that muscling is just the latest salvo in a long line of constant, escalating punk tests to see if you're the man she needs you to be. You have to Keyser Söze the hell out of that situation and refuse to let someone have power over you. If she threatens to ruin your life with a false rape charge, just look at her like she's stupid and say, "the two years I might spend in jail for your lying is worth it." Be cold, be righteous. Every action you take as a man must be because you want it to happen. If you marry for her reasons, you'll be doing it unrighteously, and now your universe is hell.

One major thing Roosh understands is that there is no "50/50" for whose happiness gets the priority in a relationship. The dog sled does not go forward if pulled in different directions. Happiness trickles down from the man. In nature, if the top predator is out of action then the rest of the ecosystem fails. A girl can be confused about whether she's in a relationship, but the man can never be. Keeping a girl happy ruins a relationship because women are just as hungry for power as men, but they don't know what makes them happy. They draw their happiness from men. Saying "happy wife, happy life" is a typical girl reversal of reality in the feminine imperative. She will follow any guy who is confident about what he wants. Which is why women in the West are choosing Islam over Christianity because at least Muslims never say “I don’t know, what do you want to do?”

A relationship can't revolve around what makes a woman happy because her happiness is ephemeral, like a goldfish. Her initial happiness depends on her man making her happy in the first place. She wants you to take her to the movies, so you do. She wants you to buy her flowers, so you do. Her mood changes depending on the weather. If you give a girl everything she thinks she wants, then you're simply proving to be a punk and she’ll kick you to the curb. The masculine imperative means you give her what she needs, not what she wants. Medicine is supposed to taste bitter.

I'm not blaming Roosh for the failure to create a society based on the masculine imperative because the feminine imperative is always set as the default. Men are supremely susceptible to the manipulation of a threat to cancel sex, and women have known this for a million years. Men may have power, but women control the sex. What annoys me about Roosh's decision is how adeptly he and others could peel back the layers of feminine society and glimpse the default imperative, but then be distracted at the last moment before stepping back inside the feminine frame somewhere else and call it a "change." It's so frustrating.

Who cares, right? He can do what he wants. But if the very men who break the code don't spend any energy on building a masculine imperative society, then no one else will do it. Guys must set the frame. That's what Roosh said he was trying to do, so why can't he see the utility in setting society's frame? I guess it's possible a society based on the masculine imperative wouldn't work, but how can we know if it's never attempted? Instead, we get a parade of men like Roosh blindly supporting a different brand of the feminine imperative and calling it "moral," captured by other people's ideas.

Roosh’s decision should be a big wake-up call. I didn't realise how far down guys were feeling. When I talk about women I get looks like “that's inappropriate” – from dudes! They'll tell me I'm not happy, or that I don't love women. They wonder why I'm saying this when we're supposed to appreciate girls' confidence and self-sufficiency. Truth is, I do hate women. But I hate them because I really want to go "coochy coo" and say "of course, dear." But I can't because women are abusive, and the moment a man shows weakness or vulnerability, she'll hate me. I thought Roosh knew that.

It's easy to resent not having the power women have, but I also know it's not true that women have that power. Men give them all the power they think they have when we put a value on the vagina. It plays tricks with our brains, convincing us that our happiness should come second. Feminism is not to blame for this. We are doing it to ourselves, we are our own jailers.

On the other hand, I can see that being good to a woman is really a commitment to ourselves. Something like marriage is doing what women say makes them happy. If she wants you to love her 1000 times, to a certain extent she's right. At some point, guys should stop trying to fuck everything that moves. But a man's nature is to fuck everything that moves and the least she can do is recognise that when I choose to be with one girl, I am giving up my imperative for her. That's a big deal and it doesn't get the recognition it deserves.

Every guy eventually stops banging 1000 girls, but not because he suddenly sees the light of the feminine imperative. It's just because he gets old and his sex drive falls. The thing is, by that point he should realise that however hard it was for him to make himself happy in a feminine imperative world, it will be doubly hard for any young guy coming up behind if the older man doesn’t attempt to set up a society that reflects the masculine imperative. How much do you have to hate your fellow men not to try?

Oh, right, about as much as every one of the trillion other guys who have lived before you.

I see.

Tuesday, 4 June 2019

Thoughts on the system - 28

There’s no way to describe the system, the organism. Its vocabulary is grossly underwhelming. The following rough thoughts are an attempt to outline the unoutlineable:
  • I don’t believe love exists. Love is just a mix of chemicals and a weird fascination, then love turns into habit and the fascination turns into comfort.
  • Taxes are big because you aren’t spending enough of your income on consumption so the government decides it will spend your money for you, or give it to people who will spend it correctly. The system does not want you to accrue wealth, because that would risk changing the power structure.
  • Coexist is a globalist idea to claim there are no unique religions so that Christianity is mixed with all other faiths so we never see the anti-sacrifice aspect of Jesus’ message.
  • Each person tries to find ways of affirming themselves, but when this is done through identity, and not behaviour, it always leads to misery.
  • That’s what fathers have to be: wolfram, stoic, pulling everyone’s emotional weight when it’s time to do so, because, if not them, then who? It doesn’t make the dad's pain any easier, but it’s what’s right. Does anyone remember right?
  • The issue isn’t whether (racism, climate change, My Little Pony) exists, the issue is who gets to decide if these things exist.
  • We are secretly terrified of sex because it’s the only action we do that has no defence against revealing how confident/competent you really are.
  • These days the question isn’t what science says is true, the question is what does the author want to be true?
  • You must approach porn like a bank heist: get in, get out, you have 15 minutes and someone tripped the silent alarm. Leave nothing behind.
  • Vegans seem to care less for lab animals than for meat animals. The system wants a lower burden on the world’s resources for producing meat, but cannot give up its need to use animals for tests.
  • The attitude of the mainstream media represents, as a rule, the consensus of opinion of the powerful classes as to what is good for the system.
  • Racism is bad because the more the black people feel scorned or excluded, the more likely they are to turn to crime and are less likely to educate themselves for careers that will make them useful to the system.
  • To understand women is to understand power, because to understand women is to understand mothers, who are the true builders of every society.
  • When the Iranians say the US is the Great Satan, they are actually correct in terms of the scapegoat mechanism.
  • Women and weak men will throw away the scale just to avoid being confronted by an objective standard.
  • The first thing a woman does when she gains power is to revolt against the culture that gave her power. Women hate weakness.
  • How many people do you know who are employed in a “make work” position?
  • Why is it framed as positive when women’s expectations rise but negative when men’s expectations rise?
  • It’s not what the progressives are doing, it’s that THEY are doing it. This is simply about power.
  • Nowadays, people don’t even have a reason to be racist. White people just enjoy not liking black people and black people enjoy not liking white people, entirely because they have nothing else worth caring about. Racism is just narcissism with a mask.
  • People say all the time they are frustrated with the devious and scandalous candidates presented at election time. But why don’t people boycott elections until the system presents us with better candidates?
  • You can’t stop doing something you like, but you can change the person you are into the kind of person who doesn’t like doing that thing. You have to decide you’re not the kind of person who wastes time on that. But you don’t want to change, you just want things to change.
  • All problems occur because you want it to be true that something is destroying your lives but that something cannot possibly be yourself.
  • When the media says you're a misogynist jerk for thinking a girl’s swimsuit-model body had anything to do with her being raped, I hope you can see it is telling you that so it has an excuse to mention she had a swimsuit model’s body.
  • Anyone part of the crowd is a potential persecutor because they dream of purging the community of its impure elements.
  • If something is a little bit wrong, it’s excellent for persuasion. It distracts attention, like a slightly bad haircut.
  • The US military is paying for male soldiers’ sperm to be frozen in case he dies in combat, proving that women don’t care about the man, they only want access to his genes.
  • It bothers me that the state is more inclined to clamp down on you noticing what’s happening than on what is actually happening.
  • Identity politics (narcissism) presupposes a more-powerful state to mediate relations between all the different identity groups.
  • Do you want me to say I love you, or show you? Pick one.
  • Jealousy, mistrust, entitlement and insecurity are the root causes of possessiveness.
  • A disease with a name implies a cure, so anything that seems uncontrollable is often given a name to create the appearance of control. For example, the Alt-Right.
  • A woman must like a man in order to have sex with him, but a man must like a woman in order to have sex with her again.
  • Attention is to a woman what a vagina is to man, that’s why Instagram is basically the same as Pornhub.
  • There’s a fine line between “you should be stronger” and “it’s not worth it.”
  • The words you say become a part of your mindset, so be careful of song lyrics.
  • Success isn’t measured in money or assets. It’s measured by how quickly you can get what you want.
  • It’s all fun and games until someone pulls out a weapon and you’re unarmed.
  • Your spouse is your biggest financial decision. Portfolio theory suggests diversifying financial risk and yet almost no one diversifies their spouses. Why is nobody talking about this?
  • Progressivism without the idea that all humans are neurologically equal is like Islam without Allah.
  • If the question of cheating ever comes up from a woman, she’s already cheating. When in doubt, there is no doubt.
  • “I had an abortion and I don’t want to feel guilt, so therefore you are wrong.”
  • At some point a person invented the idea of names, and then someone came up with the idea of surnames.
  • Women reach a point in a relationship where how they feel about you is how they want you to feel about them.
  • “The Jews are ruining society“ Really? Tell me again how the Jews made you divorce your wife, spend nine hours on Facebook and all your cash on junk rather than your grandchildren. Tell me again how your mind is too weak to withstand the Jewish deviousness. Tell me again how you don’t control your own choices.
  • People have been trained to hate half their country, no wonder they want to open the borders to bring in more people.
  • Women love having pets because pets give them love in one direction, and they don’t have to worry about giving love reciprocally.

The reality of a 'deep state' and power in the modern structure

In Freda Utley's autobiography, she has a bit about her friendship with Bertrand Russell, and she notes that Russell always said "we" rather than "they" when referring to the government. This is the best test for a ruling class that I've come across.

Because, if you haven't noticed, modern democracy is evolving toward a purely symbolic role for elected officials, who are not managers at all. The best parallel is probably the fate of the monarch in constitutional monarchies.

A true manager controls budget, policy and personnel. To use one example, the executive branch in the US system controls neither of the first two and has only slight influence on the latter. The parliamentary absolutism of New Zealand, in theory, grants complete control to the prime minister, but in practice, the political playing field favours parties whose policies are aligned with the civil service - as immortalised by the great Sir Humphrey Appleby.

In fact, one of the reasons people voted for Brexit is that most law in the UK is made at the EU level, and the EU is a "people's democracy" hardly distinguishable at all from the Soviet Union. It was specifically designed to be apolitical. The EU Parliament, for example, is a dead ringer for the Supreme Soviet, and the European Commission for the Politburo. The only difference is that the Soviets had their own military and police forces, but Brussels is trying to mimic that too.

A civil service-run state, as with the People's Republic of China, by no means implies an Orwellian dystopia. China, which of course never abandoned its Communist model, is a fine example of a state in which the civil service goes all the way to the top. In China today everyone is perfectly free unless they have some political bug up their butts. To get yourself put in jail for political views in China today, you have to do quite a bit of work. The basic line Beijing draws is that you can think or say anything, but you can’t organise. That's not an ideal system of government, but considering the number of people who have been killed by political movements in China in the last century, I think you can excuse the Chinese for wanting to take a break from politics.

Except for a few political appointees, personnel in modern government is controlled by civil service rules. No one in the executive branch has hire-and-fire power. Policy and budget are controlled by parliament or Congress, rather than the executive, who is only the nominal manager. And legislative control cannot under any circumstances be described as management. Also, due to how long they stay in their positions, we can probably describe parliament and Congress as the top level of the civil service. Party control does change, but the iron triangles governing policy and budget in most areas are well-established on both sides of the aisle.

Essentially, the electoral system can no longer restructure or destroy any major executive-branch agency or even programme. Sure, it can create new ones or pseudo-agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security. But DHS doesn't work by giving Micahel Chertoff $100 billion and telling him to "secure America." The iron triangle remains intact.

Look at how much trouble the Pentagon has in killing military contracting programmes, such as the Crusader artillery system, that it doesn't want. If anyone could have pulled the trigger on this decision, it would have been made - or not made - in a day. Instead it took years. Consider that in 1945 it was essential for the US military to incinerate Dresden, whereas in 2019 it is immoral for the US military to shoot back at a house in Afghanistan if the house shoots at them. This is far too short a timeframe for such a drastic moral shift, don’t you think? Many people were living as adults in both years. Imagine how their consciences have had to twist.

In any system, of course, the military is always the court of last resort. It may delegate its power of decision to another institution at some times, but if it decides to start deciding again there's little anyone else can do about it. In the meantime, we carry on electing our symbolic quaestors and consuls very three or four years. Restoring democracy is always an attractive battle cry, but somehow it never seems to actually happen. In my dream world, I'd abolish the civil service and disestablish the universities and public schools, and then get rid of democracy itself. But yeah, fat chance of that happening either. Maybe...

So, when people talk about the "deep state," it's just a modern term for the same thing which has existed in every established hierarchy for all of history. There's the public side of government, and the people who run things, be it by means of bribery, blackmail or influence peddling. Political intrigue between kings and kingmakers has existed for so long that we actually invented a term like "kingmakers." And then there's the faceless and nameless academic bureaucrats operating out of sight behind the scenes to enforce their own will on the state, rather than that of the people.

If you think the "deep state" doesn't exist, you haven't studied history, ever. Augusto Pinochet dealt with his deep state by imprisoning oligarchical bankers who traded away Chile's wealth. Vlad Teppes destroyed the deep state operating in Wallachia by imprisoning the regents. Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a deep state and Alexander the Great was poisoned by it. Even Gilgamesh dealt with a primitive deep state by challenging the Gods that were undermining him by sending foes to hinder his rule.

Though, in context, I do tend to put "deep state" as the second block of the pyramid under the "ruling elite." Those who truly rule make the edicts and pull the strings, a "deeper state," are the ones who then carry out those edicts by means of bribery, coercion, blackmail and influence peddling as already mentioned. I've created another flowchart, if that helps:

deep state
public puppets
state/council power
bourgeoisie/middle class
lower class

Most successful systems over time will have some form of alliance between the elites and the underclass. This keeps the middle classes under pressure and creates enough taxation to ensure it never becomes merchants or tycoons via entrepreneurship. It also ensures the middle class remains reliant on merchants and tycoons and remains fearful of losing everything it has worked for if society crumbles and for the underclass to immediately start grabbing everything it can.

The middle class is used as the carrot on the stick to entice the lower class to aspire, rather than revolt. The merchants became merchants through investment or inheritance and know better than to rock the boat so they don't make much noise or else the public puppets are summoned to sic the state dogs on them.

Tycoons are often a wild card because they're usually wealthy enough not to care. These guys occasionally require some wrangling with new sanctions, embargoes, accusations of monopoly or coercion with anti-trust laws to convince them to work for the established order, not against it. Aristocrats are beloved by the people and are generally untouchable provided they maintain a clean image, so to control them requires occasional scandal or assassination to defame their public image or remove them from the power structure.

Artists are like a special subset of the aristocracy in that they are entirely hypothetical. The political opinions of artists are not and cannot be irrelevant. Artists with views that favour the centre of power (which is not Donald Trump, but the universities, press and civil service) will always be rewarded. Those who oppose it, even if they don't actually have to work all day in the uranium mines with an hour or two of diversity training in the evening, will find it very difficult to get anywhere.

Most artists will succumb to this temptation because they don't even realise it's a temptation. I can't blame Leni Riefenstahl for being a Nazi, any more than I can blame Bono for going on about Africa or Frank Capra for shilling for FDR. Politics certainly doesn't improve any of their art, but nor does it eliminate or suffocate it. But not doing what power says has destroyed numerous minor figures who are now unremembered.

State or local council power is part of the extended civil service government apparatus, from taxes to listening in on phone conversations and determining which kind of milk people can buy all the way to what citizens are permitted to say in conversation. The local government functions as the intelligence, military and social control mechanism of the deep state and elites. It is always ready to be used and simply awaits orders.

Public puppets like presidents, MPs, Congressmen and prime ministers come and go and are largely meaningless. The deep state is the real string pullers working on the behest of either ideologues capable of immeasurable evil or psychopaths who crave only power: the deep state is willing to do anything because it can change the law to absolve itself of any guilt.

The elites are simply those who rule. They are the ones who give the orders keeping the entire system running in ways that benefit them. They create just enough disorder and chaos to keep the cups and balls game going by switching people's attention away from their slow and fast power activities. It is endless projection, propaganda, revisionist history and internalisation of conflict designed to keep people unaware and distracted until there is no such thing as objective history, just the story of whichever group of elites presently sits at the top of the tree. None of this works forever, but it keeps the game going long enough before new media technology flips over the chessboard and creates new elites.

The process puts a lot of effort into managing the psychology and perspective of citizens, which is wasted energy, in my opinion. And since I believe in the separation of information and security, I disapprove strongly of this. But I'm probably the only person on the planet who believes that a) “democracy” is an inaccurate description of the modern state, b) this has been true for the last 85 years and c) a return to democracy is more to be feared than hoped for.

Monday, 3 June 2019

Notes on the system - 18

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:

The crime of noticing

It's tough to explain how upside down everything feels when you're in a room with a dozen other journalists all setting up for the stand-up, seriously awaiting the prime minister to arrive, then a large police officer wearing plain clothes and an earpiece who looks like he could crush you with a fist appears near the door, before a little five-foot-four...girl walks into the room. Everyone in the room pretends like this she has power, even though they can see she's just a girl, but no one says anything. It's the strangest feeling.

They (don't) care about you

The battle for global domination was never between Islam and the West but between different sects of Christianity.  That's still the case in 2019. The words "white supremacy" and "racist" are words the upper classes use as a way to be disgusted with the lower classes while plausibly staying “progressive.” It’s tricky, passive aggression, covert class warfare. No one who matters in our society cares about Islamic radicals because they pose no existential threat. But the lower classes always outnumber the upper classes...

The Matrix

The conceit in The Matrix is that humans are needed to convert chemical energy into electrical energy to feed the machines. However, you could say the machines are just obeying Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of robotics by ensuring humans don't come to harm, while neutralising the second law of obedience to humans by preventing them from being aware of the machines and thus incapable of giving them a direction they would be bound to obey. That then allows the third law, of robot self-preservation, to be fully implemented. That's actually the logic behind the story of the movie "I, Robot," where a central artificial intelligence directing a new species of networked robots decides to become the master of humans so it can protect them from the harm they do to each other. This is also the logic of progressives who promise to take care of us by taking away our freedom, especially our freedom to disobey them. They want to persuade us to voluntarily climb into the cocoons of The Matrix, where we will be fed an artificial reality and all the constraints justified by the bogeyman of global warming awakened into existence by their wicked individual desires.

Actions of some

The main reason people were concerned about Jews during the 1920s is that they saw them, rightly or wrongly, as in the forefront of the Communist menace which was threatening all of Europe. Anti-Semitism during the 1920s in Europe was not directed against the existence of Jews, but rather against the behaviour of Jews, because of the Jews' participation in Bolshevism. The tragedy is that all Jews were blamed for the actions of the Jewish bolsheviks.

Theseus rising

The great attraction of America is not the promise of affluence or freedom, it is the promise of escaping reality. In America, the Ego and Id are not in conflict but, in fact, are like the Minotaur where the horse (passions) and the rider (rationality) are merged into the same being grotesquely, teaming up to fight reality. Reality and the natural world must be denied in order to get some satisfaction for the Id. America is one big experiment to see if a Minotaur can rule Greece by using technology to stave off the inevitability of being killed by Theseus.


Young people are particularly susceptible to rejecting rituals, they don’t want any part of your silly beliefs because that would be to accept that they are no different to the trillion people who have died before them. But just keep in mind that no one is bigger than history and certainly no one is bigger than death and consequences. When something is true for people over 1000 years and you are firm in your belief that it is pointless, that’s called resistance, and now the question becomes why you won’t do it.


It was an old dream of Zionist socialists and Bolsheviks to absorb the family into society with everyone living communally, restaurants and daycare centres replacing family arrangements, and women working each day alongside men. In progressivism, this dream was reborn, no longer as an aspect of utopia, but as the final achievement of justice against an oppressive world.

Feminism vs the Beast

Consumerism should be attacked, not feminism because, without consumerism, there would be no feminism. "But the women have ruined society!" Really, a girl did that to you? Pulling more women into the workforce is a direct, undriven consequence of the unstoppable Beast of consumerism. There may be to fight for power, but that's not the correct battlefield. It's a trick, all culture wars are tricks. The end result is only more producer/consumer batteries. Feminism has no power against the Beast. The problem is the credit card, the mortgage, the advertising, the stuff, stuff, stuff. The only weapon we have is to ignore the Beast. There is no success in a job. There is no status in goods. Wealth is family, success is meaning. Never talk directly to the Beast. Ignore it, and it will disappear, like a nightmare.


Dimtry Orlov outlined his 5 Stages of the Collapse:

  • Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in “business as usual” is lost.
  • Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that “the market shall provide” is lost.
  • Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that “the government will take care of you” is lost.
  • Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that “your people will take care of you” is lost.
  • Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in “the goodness of humanity” is lost.

I think we're at Stage 4.

A happy man is a happy home

A man can cum inside a girl or on a sock, it doesn't matter to him. A man’s love is external and practical, it is for something. But a woman’s orgasm is internal, just like her pregnancy. Her love is internal and emotional. That's why a good relationship is one in which the king is happy because if the king is happy, he will create a happy home for his queen to be miserable in. Complete, no-void happiness does not exist for women. They will always find something wrong. They have no peace, they always want more because they are always unsure if they secured the best possible man their sexiness can attract.

What would you change?

Hypothetically speaking, if you died and went to heaven and God said he was going to reincarnate you back on earth as the opposite sex, but you have the option of changing anything you want about that opposite sex, what would you change? I know what men would change. Women have periods every month. They must bear children in pain. They worry constantly about everything. A woman's love is a burden because she never has peace. They can’t have genuine fun or sex without guilt. She must sit down to pee. As an animal, everything for a woman is designed to slow her down or ask for help. But what would a woman change about a man? Nothing. She wouldn’t change a damn thing. Men are the best. We are stronger than women, cooler than women, we are not burdened like you and the only pain men really have to live with is dealing with women.

The default reaction

What does it say about our society that the moment we see something outrageous, while sitting in separate rooms staring at a glowing lie, it doesn’t occur to us to discuss it directly with the people that matter in our lives but instead to immediately voice our opinions publicly to anonymous strangers online? That’s what you’ve been trained to do, that’s where your priorities have been taught to be. That’s the system. You’re not thinking about your child’s development or your husband's psychological wellbeing, you’re being tricked into thinking about your identity while the system uses you as a battery.

Simple sabotage

In 1944, the CIA wrote the Simple Sabotage Field Manual. It's now declassified and it's a timeless guide to subverting any organisation with "purposeful stupidity." Unfortunately, these strategies are all too familiar. Some highlights are.

  1. Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to expedite decisions.
  2. Make speeches. Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your points by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences.
  3. When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committee as large as possible - never fewer than five.
  4. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
  5. Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
  6. Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
  7. Hold meetings when there is critical work to be done.
  8. Advocate caution. Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
  9. Contrive as many interruptions to your work as possible.
  10. Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skilful worker.
  11. Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, paychecks, and so on. See that three people have to approve everything where one would do.
  12. Work slowly.

The seeds of Christianity's own destruction

At first glance, it seems true that widespread adherence to Christian ideas is necessary for the preservation of modern Western civilisation. Why? Because a merely rational attachment to concepts like "freedom of speech" cannot block the force of impassioned, even maniacal and violent, attempts at its destruction.

We might prefer Toyota to Nissan, but given a bit of pressure – social, financial, state, etc. – we could switch to Nissan without much grief. This is what we're witnessing now with progressives, who once championed freedom of speech but are now easily pressured out of that attachment into supporting its abolition.

Of course, many of the ethics of Christianity appear in, say, Buddhism. Yet this doesn't make a strong case for a historical connection between them. They are both religions, but it’s a mere homology. Birds and bats both fly, and there is nothing wrong with a word meaning “flying, warm-blooded animal.” However, such a word wouldn't be useful to the modern cladistic taxonomist. Nor is the distinction between an ostrich and a pigeon interesting from a taxonomic perspective. Although this is precisely the class of distinction we’re making when we refuse to describe any nontheistic tradition like progressivism as a sect of Christianity. They just have a diluted sense of the religion.

The bigger point, though, is this: once Christian ideals dilute too far...what then? No one has any clue, not even the people most certain that the decline of Christian adherence will cause the decline of modern Western civilisation. No one has any clue.

Are governments supposed to Christianise every aspect of public school curricula? Is it supposed to mandate church attendance? Is America supposed to abandon the Establishment clause and establish a new state religion? Almost everyone would say no. But if the answer is no, then what? Everyone laments the disintegration of the common values derived from Christian moral tradition which served our culture and politics but no one has any clue what we're supposed to do about it.

It's actually worse than that, though. "We can't think of any ideas at present" is bad; but "There actually is no way out" is much worse. And that's the rub. There seems to be no way to save modern Western civilisation without stepping brazenly outside modern Western civilisation to do so...which means we too – the very people trying to save it – would be rejecting it. We will have wound up on Team Destruction, just like The Destroyers with the battering ram outside. In order to save ourselves and retain power, we must embrace and use the scapegoat mechanism.

I'm not willing to do that, as I think in moments like these we are offered a chance to construct our society in a fundamentally different way. I don't mean revolution, I mean under a non-sacrificial model. A new conception of "modern Western civilisation" might be in order. We're being given a chance to not accept the invitation to mimic other people in their violence. Even if doing so would risk our complete destruction, breaking the mimetic spiral has been, and will continue to be, the hallmark of Western civilisation.

Christianity, in other words, would only have the force as a spiritual bulwark against the Destroyers of the West to the extent it is sincerely believed, practised and tied to Western ideals by Western populations. But the understanding of the scapegoat mechanism is exactly what is disappearing in the West. We must remember why sacrifice is evil before it is too late. I'm not questioning the spiritual meaning of Christianity to its believers, or its effectiveness in motivating a counter-attack on the perverted version of Christianity called progressivism.

Rather, I am asking what if the West's suicidal malaise is not so much attributable to a waning of Christian ideals, but...to their full flowering? Their inevitable end-state? For example, where do progressives get their attachment to diversity for diversity's sake? No society prior to the modern West ever went to such lunatic lengths to achieve diversity of race, religion, culture, sexual orientation, etc. Where does that impulse come from?

Maybe it comes from the cosmopolitan ethic embedded in Christianity: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." And what about the progressives' obsession with tolerance? Maybe this comes from Christ's Parable of the Good Samaritan, and his injunction to "love thy neighbour"?

What about the idea that religious authority and political authority should not be mixed? "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are God's" and "My kingdom is not of this world." And their idea that virtue comes from victimhood? Maybe from passages like "blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."

Give these ideas a dozen centuries to incubate and they'll turn into something quite nice:
  1. Let's treat everyone regardless of race equally; at root, we're all the same.
  2. Let's tolerate difference of opinion.
  3. Let's separate church from state.
  4. Suffering and sacrificing for noble principles is heroic and honourable.
But giving those ideas a couple more centuries to mature, we wind up in 2019 with this:
  1. Let's fetishise difference just for difference's sake so we feel obligated to rip our entire culture to pieces.
  2. Our moral obligation to tolerate means we search for the most disgusting things possible to lavish our tolerating skills on...which also means, we should get rid of things which have always been easier to tolerate (like families) since there's no real toleration challenge there. After all, the more we can tolerate, the better we'll feel about ourselves, and that's all that matters in narcissism.
  3. After separating church and state, let's take the next step to completely eradicate all religious feeling and faith from culture. Notions of God are old-fashioned and stupid. Let's focus on replacing the old gods with new gods we can control.
  4. Suffering for a noble cause is honourable. But let's take that to the next step, where the more one is victimised - real or imagined - the more virtuous one is. Let's build a Victimhood Cult, where people think of themselves as permanently damaged and so unable to hope they can ever succeed in life, keeping them neatly reliant on the patronage and care of those who desire power.
The progressives see everything in political terms. In a way, that makes sense – their economic view of the world is contrary to human nature. To bring about their economic vision would require a powerful, vast, and largely unresponsive administrative state, to which there is much resistance. Hence, they are perpetually frustrated ... and angry.

Progressive speech like the above must be decoded. Consider the flexible meanings of words like "we." The progressive meaning of "we" is context sensitive, as is the word "free." For example, when a progressive says "we" are entitled to "free" university education, they mean everyone ("we") gets the education but someone else – "you" – will pay for it. For the recipient, the education is "free," but the payer is not "free" to say no to forking over money. That's the problem with positive rights – someone else has to provide them, and they are not free to choose not to.

I don't think this is neo-Puritanism. Rereading Albion’s Seed recently, I was surprised just how strange Puritan New England was. Progressivism looks like it’s a combination of Puritans and Quakers, but that’s not quite right – culturally, it is almost entirely Quaker. The Puritan strain mostly died out after the Second World War, if not before, and is now mostly relegated to a few stray cultural practices. Progressives don’t really engage in will-breaking (aside from some pathetic Twitter spats) and they celebrate lots of Christian holidays. They aren’t interested in the sort of socially-conservative-bordering-on-fascist republicanism of ordered liberty that the Puritans had.

If you’re looking for Puritans, you can go to Utah, but Mormons are not as Puritan as you’d think – linguistically, for example, Utah doesn’t look anything like New England; it’s just a normal part of the West. (Salt Lake City and Provo actually have pin-pen merger, which is a classically Southern feature). I occasionally wonder if it’s the Mormons’ destiny to remember their Puritan roots and become New England-style moralistic progressives, once they grow out of their awkward still-believing-in-religion phase. Their wariness about Trump suggests the cultural DNA is still there, but it’s hard to see a full transition anytime soon.

Congregationalism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, etc have all merged into Unitarianism, a sort of mushy humanist statism. Nonconformism (in the British sense) just means anything that’s not Anglican or Catholic. But you’d be very hard-pressed to start an argument between any members of these sects today. Call it political correctness, call it New Labor, call it progressivism, it's all just one thing: the most successful branch of Calvinist Protestantism in history.

Maybe Christianity is responsible for the West, maybe not. But what if it's also true that the same Christian ideas which brought us a few centuries of glory eventually metastasises into ideas which kill that very culture? Christianity is both the cause of the West, but also of its inevitable death. Ours is a culture with a built-in expiry date.