Snark warp seven, or hump day.

/ pukeko

It is Wednesday. Hump day: the day I do on call. So some quotage, some silly tweets.The main theme is the snark. For the snark is upon us, and the main way we will be able to deal with those paranoid control freaks who run our nation is to laugh at them. But.. let’s start with what happens if a nation fails. SSM is right in that the options for women are quite bleak because the men of their tribe are gone and enslaved and they are war “brides” while Ton is correct that the effete petals who spend their time seducing people (the Pick Up Artists or PUAs) will have, as cads have done throughout history, sloped off somewhere else, leaving the despised patriarchs to defend home and hearth.

Ah, but you see Ton, it doesn’t much matter to women, does it? Of course, I’m not advocating for anything in particular here, since it was simply metaphor, however, let’s consider this anyway.

I think you and AR fundamentally misunderstand why men kill each other over the violation of sexual norms and who benefits from that.

Let’s take it out of the human realm for a moment. Consider non-human primates in which there is one dominant male and a small group of females. He will periodically be challenged by other males to a physical confrontation. Why? For sexual access to the females. If one of them is killed in the fight, this is of no particular benefit to the females. They don’t care who fertilizes their eggs, so long as he is the alpha male.

It is the same with humans on a biological level. When men kill other men over issues of sex, it has to do with access to females. Stop and think for a moment. Who benefits from the death of an invading male (i.e. the barbarians in our make-believe example in the OP)? Not the females. It doesn’t ultimately matter all that much to females who owns them. Isn’t that the entire point of Rollo’s widely-applauded essay, War Brides? Killing out-of-tribe males is done, in both the human and non-human realm, to protect in-tribe males’ access to the females. It doesn’t provide women with any particular benefit.

That stands in contrast to an invading group that would come to, for instance, steal land. In that case, the men are protecting their tribes’ land, women, and children, so it’s of clear benefit to women. Not so with men killing one another for violating sexual norms.

PUA’ s? No they will cut and run, but they are also… part of a whole different angle on society that would be the wolves and wolf hounds to your rabbits. . . I have no doubt the wheels will fall off sooner or later ( my money is on much later) but I have seen enough failed nation states up close and personal to know, things don’t break down along the lines of church boys vs cads. Betas don’t rise up and put down the bad boy biker types etc. They become one or suck up to them.

Well, our leaders feel all this is great. Everything is going according to plan — for some values of plan.

The first amendment is being violated right now, and has been violated for decades, by the simple expedient of not recognizing the doctrine of socialist egalitarianism for what it is: a religion.

It is a faith that denies reason, that applies mystical concepts like ‘universality’ and ‘minority rights’ in clear-cut denial of realism. It destroys legitimate research by shackling it with political correctness. It worships diversity as the one true god, and wars violently with any opposing philosophy… even if that philosophy is not a faith, but rather a recognition of reality. And, like most religions, it is funded, sponsored, and controlled, by a few individuals who profit enormously from the ridiculous beliefs and indulgence of softheaded followers.

Our country and our world has, to put it simply, become what all socialisms become eventually; to whit, a theocracy led by charismatic tyrants. This is the failure of democracy, that eventually the meek shall be led by popular sociopaths.

Well, yes, and no. Meek does not mean doormat. Meek is about submitting to God, testing what those people in the pulpit say, and being like the Bereans — more noble. testing everything against scripture to see if it was so. The laity should not be inactive, but critical. They should be holding the church leaders to account.

We should not be sheep: we should be a squad.

Bill Price is on a roll.

Unfortunately, I think we’re headed toward a time where these kinds of things will become more common. When you introduce more stressors to society people start to act out. First, it’s the mentally ill, next those with impaired executive function, and finally the committed radical ideologues, who are most likely to successfully pull something off. However, as this happens, expect those who dissent – even peacefully – to be blamed for it. Merely holding views that run contrary to the party in power will be perceived as grounds for punishment. In fact, in comments under the Seattle Times article about Mitchell Taylor, a number of people seem to think he deserves jail time for being a “bigot” rather than for making illegal threats (which has not been established yet).

But all of this is a catalyst for change. Those in power up the ante, people begin to act out, and the authorities’ response to misbehavior is disproportionate, leading to even more social anxiety, followed by more repression in a cycle of radicalization. Ultimately, you end up with a great deal of political instability, a breakdown in social order, and then finally a sweeping political transition. The last time that happened in this country was the 1970s, when the new left, which came into its own after the 1968 Chicago DNC riots, started its march to power.

It’s impossible to predict the future, but I like to think we can get a rough idea of where things are going by using the past as a reference. If so, perhaps the ravings of lunatics are indeed a form of prophecy.

Well, the mainstream has discovered Bill and many of the so-called “Dark Enlightenment”, and are putting up the anti articles. The commentary, however, fisks them mercilessly.

I’ve been associated (if only tangentially) with this so-called “Dark Enlightenment” for quite some time (in Internet years), so I think it’d be constructive for me to chime in regarding various non-points and misconceptions made and/or propagated by the author.

Firstly, the claim that neoreactionaries are in fact “neo-fascist” is pretty gosh-darn ludicrous on the face of it. While neoreaction is to some degree associated with elements of the arguably fascist European New Right, the vast majority of neoreactionaries do not in any way profess to be either fascists or inspired/influenced by fascist ideology (in fact, by “the vast majority” I mean “everybody in the movement that I’ve interacted with”. Seriously. Fascism is pretty unpopular ’round these parts.). If anything, fascism is considered a “demotist” ideology by some, lumped in with both popular democracy and communism, in that it claims to rule “in the name of the people”. This is certainly not a neoreactionary stance to take.

Secondly, the standard conception of the “Cathedral” is not even roughly analogous to a nutter’s idea of a “New World Order”. The Cathedral, simply defined, is a society-dominating memeplex that organically self-directs itself against outside threats to its cultural hegemony. In no way are there people “pulling the strings”, as it were. Cultural values imbibed by various folks at the top (bankers, pols, “social justice advocates”, professors, etc.) transform themselves into actions (such as firing somebody for being racist) that, on the whole, serve to propagate and preserve the memeplex that promoted the aforementioned values in the first place. It’s not really that controversial of a concept once Bartlett’s sensationalist language is stripped away.

Lastly, the race issue. This is likely the most controversial part of Bartlett’s piece, at least going off the comments section. I’m in no way an expert on the heredity of IQ/the g factor, but I think it’s safe to say that holding the position that all humans start from the same general baseline for intelligence is rather obsolete. Accusing neoreactionaries of using “racial psuedoscience” to justify their “white supremacist ideology” (I’m paraphrasing here) is faulty on several fronts. First, no study that I’ve seen indicates that Whites are “supreme” in terms of intellect. Among HBD proponents, the general consensus is that the Ashkenazi are the group with the highest verbal IQ, followed by East Asians. Whites are considered solidly middle-of-the-pack, with Latin Americans below, Africans below them, and smaller groups like the Australian Aboriginals and the Bushmen of southern Africa at the bottom. The science of HBD does not assert white supremacy; rather, it simply asserts that races differ in significant ways.

I hope that clears up some of the misconceptions that Bartlett has put out. For somebody who seems rather intelligent and well-spoken on social media, Jamie is remarkably doctrinaire in his run-of-the-mill progressive smear piece.

Or as SSM says


IMG_20140111_152932