Show post
Atavisionary #conspiracy

" When I was an SJW Leftist I experienced a feeling a perverse glee at the deaths of Antonin Scalia, Andrew Breitbart, and others. Leftism creates a sort of bloodlust in its adherents and I’m happy to be free of it!

I’m no spring chicken… I’m in my mid-thirties and I’d been a leftist for my entire adult life. I voted for Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, and I was prepared to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016. But something happened. The leftist house of cards fell very quickly for me…and boy, am I glad it did.

I am reading Brietbart’s autobiography right now and I was able to recall the absolute GLEE I felt when this man died… at 43, leaving a wife and four children behind. I wasn’t troubled by this reaction at all at the time. My ideology had stripped him of his humanity and made him a subhuman creature whose extinction was meant to be celebrated. He wasn’t the only one either… I recall similar feelings when Antonin Scalia died, for example.

I’m so happy to be free of the oppressive, dehumanizing cult that is progressive thought. It’s fantastic to be able to celebrate life in all of its forms now!

If you had told me that some loud-mouthed billionaire reality star would have been the impetus I needed to re-examine the way I had seen the political world for two decades… I’d have told you that you were crazy!"

Leftism is a violent cult. Its adherents suffer from a mind virus which destroys rational and reasonable thought. They want you dead, and would happily celebrate your death by pissing on your corpse. However, it isn’t impossible to reduce or remove this mind virus thus converting a dangerous and destructive cultist back into a thinking human being. We should try to generate instances of this solution as much as possible. We can thank Trump for steering people in the right direction, even if he doesn’t go as far as we would prefer.

Also keep in mind that Breitbart was in all likelihood killed for his attempts to expose child abuse and pedophilia among the governing elite years before pizzagate became common knowledge. He knew John Podesta was the prince of pedos all the way back in 2011. Given what is otherwise known thanks to wikileaks, there is also good reason to suspect that the Podesta brothers were involved in the 2007 disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a very young girl.

Show post
Atavisionary #sexist

Women have a much stronger preference for security and safety than men, and vote that way. They like social safety nets and related things because of an instinctual fear that they may end up as single mothers and in poverty. There is also a component of “cat-lady syndrome” to this where women more often suffer from excessive altruistic desire without having access to enough wisdom to do so in a sustainable or pragmatic manner. They also tend to pay a lot less in taxes, so they don’t have to worry about that particular harm as much. The result is that this creates an unaffordable social entitlement structure and it creates very bad incentives for family dissolution. Every western country currently has massive amounts of debt thanks to excessively generous social welfare benefits. The only partial exceptions to this occurs when there is a substantial cache of natural resources which can be used to supplement insufficient taxes. The entitlement bubbles get more extreme and more ready to pop every year.

Women’s suffrage was certainly a massive mistake. I wouldn’t say, however, that women’s suffrage is the root of the problem. Suffrage of any form is the root of the problem. Women’s suffrage merely served as an accelerative catalyst. Men can and will also vote themselves free stuff if given the opportunity, but a greater proportion of that population has more to lose from increased taxation so the overall rate of entitlement related government degeneration is significantly slower. Yet Cthulhu still swims left. Let’s not also forget that it was men who voted and decided to grant women’s suffrage in the first place. And universal male suffrage was a result of granting only propertied men suffrage. Once the franchise is given on a partial basis it is basically inevitable that it will be gradually and continually expanded to include less and less suited populations until the strain is so high and unsupportable there is a collapse and/or balkanization. Typically this is goaded forth by cynical politicians who (usually rightly) believe they will be more secure in their power thanks to the newly introduced voting population being much more in favor of them. Even today, a major motivation for unlimited immigration is the cynical understanding by current democrats that their political positions are more secure when they elect a new electorate. This is actually a recipe for disaster, however, because at some point legacy Americans are going to, and currently are coming to the realization that they have no interest in being told what and how to do things by alien ethnic groups. Hence the waning support for universal suffrage democracy. Open civil war is not at all unlikely if the current trends continue. The desire for self determination has been both strong and consistent throughout history.

In my book, smart and sexy, I have literally hundreds of citations from scientific papers going over the biologically based differences in intelligence and psychology between men and women. In short, intelligence is substantially an X chromosome linked trait and many intelligence boosting (and lowering) genes are recessive. The result, which is easily viewable in IQ test data, is that males are substantially more variable than females. On one end, this means you have many more mentally handicapped males. On the other, you have many more very intelligent males. Since intelligence is necessary for competence in essentially every occupation that exists, including in government, you are going to have far more males competent and suited to the highest level positions than females.

You could say that probabilistically speaking, there are going to be some number of suitable women and on that basis argue that even if we can accept that there will always be a smaller absolute number of women, we should still leave the doors open for the exceptions that come about. There are a couple of problems with this. First, a population requires a certain minimum birth rate to stay stable. It has been estimated that this rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman. Encouraging women to prioritize anything above motherhood is thus detrimental to the society as a whole and should not be generally tolerated. Allowing exceptions means allowing the existence of poor role-models for the average girl. Careerism in women also seems to be harmful to the women themselves. Despite all the “advances” made by feminism in the last 100 years or so, women are more unhappy than they have ever been and a huge number are now on anti-depressants and other psychiatric medications. A large number of women are completely ignorant of the biological foundations of their fertility and its rapid decline after the age of 30. Many women who wanted to be mothers thus now find themselves unable to have children because they wasted their time pursuing unfulfilling careers instead of arranging for their families during the optimum window. It is quite sad actually to see some of these lonely, old, cat-lady spinsters. A realistic understanding and teaching could have prevented the vast majority of these cases. Instead we have a growing class of middle aged or older women who have an iredeemable life regret and thus are rendered completely miserable.

Then lastly for this interview, workforce and employment statistics strongly indicate that even very intellectually talented women have a strong tendency to leave the workforce early or only work part-time. In general, women don’t actually want to work the same long hours that men do and this can be very detrimental for important jobs that society needs to be filled. For example, part (obviously not the only part) of the problem with our medical system being so expensive is a relative shortage of doctors. Well, this doctor shortage is largely a result of pushing women into medicine combined with their much greater rate of leaving the workforce.

Show post
Atavisionary #sexist

Everyone is supposed to get a degree, but it is especially important for women and minorities to get them. Currently, this bubble consists of 1.3 trillion dollars in debt and rising. Propaganda is also mainly focused on taking advantage of the demographics who, with less innate critical faculties, are least likely to get through the system unharmed. As much as low-IQ minorities and women get on my nerves, I do not approve of those taking advantage of their deficits for personal gain.


One thing I would like to point out about this interaction is the sex of the two interviewees. While right leaning women and left leaning men are common enough as to not be remarkable, it is worth remembering that there are somewhat strong sex differences in political attitudes, among other things, over the population. Men more naturally fall into right-wing and/or libertarian positions whereas women more often fall into progressive, paternalistic, and big government positions. Evolutionary psychology suggests that women have preferences for paternalistic, big government because in the ancestral environment lack of security was almost always their biggest trouble. They had to rely on males almost entirely for physical security and also had to depend substantially on males for resource security (i.e. food). Given any say in how society is structured, women will tend to choose arrangements which appear to provide that security regardless of circumstance. This pattern is observable by looking at the increases in government spending in various jurisdictions immediately after women’s suffrage was approved. A number of US states enacted women’s voting at different times prior to the 19th amendment and in every instance taxes and expenditures increased substantially.


Proof enough that attractive women like our bimbo are best seen and not heard.

However, physical and resource security doesn’t just arise out of the ether. It has to come from somewhere and has to be paid for by someone. As usual, it is men who had to bear this increased burden. This resource transfer is largely equivalent to state-enforced cuckoldry so as the level of this burden increases so does the number of men who opt-out of the system entirely. This explains to some extent why more men tend towards less government and less taxes. It isn’t that men don’t value security, its that they know the costs of ensuring the security of the incompetent will disproportionately fall on them and thus lower their own prosperity and happiness. It also ultimately lowers evolutionary fitness for the successful which many may be able to sense at some level.

While it is useful to be aware of possible evolutionary explanations for the poor political choices of women, that doesn’t mean directly perceived advantages should be ignored (or be considered mutually exclusive). As I mentioned in a recent article, women tend to incur more debt to get a degree (and in general), and more often choose degrees which are less likely to confer employable skills:


With this pattern of economic and educational foolishness, it is not hard to understand why many women favor more wealth transfers with respect to student loans. More wealth transfers here softens or eliminates the financial costs of poor decisions on the part of the poor little ladies. It is hardly surprising when a group of people selfishly vote in their own interests regardless of the costs to others or society as a whole. However, as I have mentioned before more than once, this only works in the short term. Eventually the guys figure out the scam and once the game is up they withhold their resources as much as possible, which can turn out to be quite a bit. The ironic result of these policies that ostensibly increase female well-being is that there will be substantially less resource and physical security for everyone.

As a closing note, I do agree that to a substantial extent it is quite unfair to dupe naive kids into taking on massive amounts of non-dischargable debt for the often worthless product that is today’s university degree. Especially for women who can’t really be expected to have the same level of critical thinking skills as men for biological reasons. If these loans are to be forgiven, I think the best way to handle the cost is to take as much of the money as possible from selling off the property and endowments of the universities. Considering the holdings of universities this could easily be worth tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars. Since the universities were the ones actively encouraging this fraud, they should be the ones expected to make things right. Not to mention this would largely destroy the institutions most responsible for propagating the far-left narratives destroying our civilization. No reason not to kill two birds with one stone.

Show post
Atavisionary #racist

To those who are paying attention, there is a lot of anti-white sentiments in our culture and they seem to be increasing at a dramatic rate year after year. You can see this article written that seeks to ban whites from holding elected office in student governments in Britain. Considering Britain is a natively white country, the audaciousness is astounding. That it is published in a mainstream newspaper, rather than some fringe blog, is even more concerning. In another example, a student banned white men from her organization then claimed she wasn’t racist because racism is a quality unique to whites. Sure. Or racism is a word used to attack whites by other ethnic groups, and that power isn’t as helpful if whites can use it too. There are plenty of other examples, but this drives the point home. A significant portion of society hates white people, and white males especially, and would like nothing better than to turn us all into second class citizens; in our own countries. Enough people agree with this that they can publish such articles and opinions in mainstream outlets. It isn’t clear that they won’t succeed either.

Knowing the attitudes of these people towards myself and people like me makes it very clear that they are my enemy. They want to see me and my kin reduced to nothing politically, socially, and economically. They probably would love to see us all dead too; though they usually avoid stating this preference publicly. Usually.

I didn’t ask for this. I have never gone out of my way to inconvenience anyone because of their race or gender. I would have loved to continue on neutral to the whole business of identity politics. This sort of increasing and outspoken aggression has convinced me to take a side. My side; which in this case means my people’s side. Since whites are being attacked as group, they must resist as a group. There are still many whites who have yet to realize this important turning point in their attitudes, but as the rhetoric against whites continues to increase, so will the willingness to “pick a side” increase. In theory, people will tend to pick the side that best promotes their personal interests; at least when things become saliently dire. In this case, that means picking the side of anyone that promotes a positive white identity; and if you look around there are preciously few groups with such a message. Given the candidates, I worry that this may end up very badly for a lot of people. Still, if forced to do so, I will choose which ever group is available and has its interests aligned with my own. If there is only one group which will protect my person and my interests as a white male, then the choice will be a no-brainer based purely on self-interest. Here’s to hoping against worse case scenarios, though.

One method of attempting to turn the tables on enemies, hopefully well before anything nasty happens, is to take their rhetoric and reconnotate or redefine it. By redefining racism as something justified and worthwhile, by showing drastically contrasting stats for criminal acts for example, you could make it so people no longer have to dodge the accusation. In fact, they may even embrace it. The attack term thus looses its claws and can even become an asset. There are many terms which could, with variable levels of difficulty, be redefined in such a way (racism has a long way to go, though). Some time ago, there was a very good article which conceded “white privilege” as a concept worth discussing, but that it was not something that white people just got because they happened to be white. White privilege is a normative commons that white people as a group earn by foregoing opportunity costs. For example, stores where whites are the main customers can leave their merchandise out in the open and unguarded because whites as a group accept the opportunity cost of not stealing. As a group they support the normative commons of having open selections. Some other ethnicities support similar normative commons, and may even have commons unique to them, while others do not. The groups who do not support such commons and regularly steal items from stores are faced with straight-forward results; merchandise is kept behind the counter or there is a heavy security presence. Is this racism? Well, racist is just another word for someone who accepts the reality of group differences, so I guess so. Nothing wrong with that at all.

This is a nice bit of white magic, but I think we can go even further. White privilege can be more than an abstraction; it can be a consciously pursued policy. Basically, white privilege is something whites should actively work towards granting other whites. When given a choice, say you have a project and have a series of different people to choose to hire, choose the white male. Choose the option that keeps the benefits within your in-group. Clearly the government limits choice for many businesses, but there are still opportunities where white males can be consciously favored by other white males. Do so every chance you can get without running afoul of the law (or when the eye of Sauron won’t spot you). We must still render unto Caesar, and thus follow the laws even when they are absurd, harm ourselves, and harm our group because we are not in a position of sovereignty, but that doesn’t mean we are completely unable to act. (The restrictions suck, but it is what it is).

The way I see it, as a white male I do not owe anything to anyone who hasn’t earned it. I especially do not owe anything to groups of people who regularly and without shame call for using the government to increase the difficulties for me and my kin; in the countries that were single-handedly built by MY ancestors, not theirs. Anyone who has applied for a job in recent years gets a constant reminder of anti-white discrimination on every. single. application. I think the constant reminder of the state of things is what is most frustrating. Businesses are forced to preferentially hire minorities over me, regardless of relative merits. If I can go out of my way to return the favor by discriminating against the people who discriminate against me, then I will. Quite happily I might add.

Even so, I realize that most people of any group are just trying to get along with their lives. I do not, and do not advocate, going out of the way to inconvenience or harm them. What I am advocating is going out of your way to benefit your in-group whenever possible. Given a choice, pick the option which ends up helping the white male. The other people are merely left at a neutral position; or to pursue similar treatment from their own co-ethnics. Undoubtedly they receive it all the time. Other than whites, all groups do this as a normal part of their lives and culture; and there is nothing wrong with it. There is no reason we shouldn’t also.

Recently, I was faced with such a decision. I needed some work performed and I posted a job to a forum asking for applications. I was given 10 or so options to choose from. Most of the applicants were ethnic minorities from other countries and two were white male Americans. As far as quality of work goes, most seemed perfectly capable of completing the project successfully based on their portfolios. Some of the foreign labor even had more references than the white males. At the end of the day I decided to use racism to help me with my decision. I gave the job to one of the white males, and the deciding factor was his identity as a white male. I couldn’t be happier with the results of the contract either. It exceeded my expectations.

Though granting white privilege purely to benefit your in-group is worthwhile on its own, it also increases the probability you will be the beneficiary of a higher quality performance or have better work completed. As a group, you know that whites have a long history called western civilization in which they collectively performed very well. There are exceptions, but you increase your probability of success by choosing someone from a group with a good track record. Not to mention group differences in IQ tests. By that logic, you could also use racism successfully in choosing whom to hire even when a white male isn’t an option. Northeast Asians, like the Japanese, would also be very likely to provide good labor. So would ethnic Indians (dot, not the feather). By applying your knowledge of group differences discriminately, you are more likely to get the quality you want. Though, you still have to work within the bounds of the law.

A person who utilizes white privilege in their business dealings is moral because to benefit your in-group is moral self interest. I am not saying that someone shouldn’t have to earn their white privilege, they do, but if they can then you help yourself by selectively helping them. Or, that would be true if most whites would act this way because the benefits would eventually hit everyone in the community. It is something worth working toward. In addition, you are also more likely to get higher quality work, and are less likely to be screwed over. European high trust societies mean that whites generally are more trustworthy as a result of their genetic inheritance. As savvy as Asians are at building civilizations, there is a reason they prefer to invest in governments, banks, and other institutions that are primarily European run. As a group, Europeans tend to engage in corruption less often and therefore their money is safer than with their own co-ethnics.

So be proud of your white privilege. Be proud to grant white privilege. Its a good thing, use it. You’ve earned it.

Show post
Atavisionary #conspiracy

WM Briggs recently put out a post in which he describes a new spirit cooking inspired video by Katy Perry called bon appetite. The video itself is quite disturbing and involves cooking and cutting people up to be eaten. Read Briggs’ post for a detailed description. Or watch it if you your stomach can handle the degeneracy.

That is not the only thing Katy Perry has put out that very obviously has sinister/satanic imagery. When the pizzagate story broke I watched a number of videos on it and one such video went through the song titled this is how we do which had imagery reminiscent of all those pedophile code words that was released in an FBI document. (The previous page has a short description, but also a link to the longer document)

The following is a youtube video which goes through the imagery and the lyrics and allows you to sift through it to get what it is actually saying and showing. There is too much there, and in the previously mentioned video, for this to all be a coincidence.

Pizzagate is no joke. It is real. That is my official opinion and its time I publicly stated it. I am quite convinced that our current elites are even more sick and twisted (rather than just stupid) than even neoreaction believed a couple of years ago. However, don’t take my word for it. I highly encourage you to research the details yourself. It is very hard to ignore once you start to understand the evidence in any substantial level of detail.

Hopefully this Seth Rich stuff will blow this shit open so that the scum can be removed.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

He complains (rightly) that the progs in the entertainment industry use their influence over plot lines to create propaganda for children, when they are least able to critically evaluate it and so soak that crap in like a sponge. I remember once we were talking about education around my teenage nephew and he, at different points, both said “that is sexist” and “that is racist.” Poor guy. This is probably more to do with the school system than cartoons, but same difference (same same, but different?). Keep in mind that I do sort of, maybe try to tone myself down at family events. Apparently dismissing blog posts isn’t the only thing I do halfheartedly. After the third or so statement of this sort, being the cold-hearted, insensitive asshole I am, I responded with “reality is racist” and he suddenly seemed to be deep in thought. I didn’t hear about being racist again. It turns out crazy uncles might have more influence than low-IQ education majors! Who knew?

In any event, I almost never watch TV anymore except stuff I can be very preselective with on the internet for this very reason. Every time I give a show a chance, which is rare anymore, I am invariably disappointed and disgusted by the progressive parasites infesting the story. For example, I like gore and zombies. Who doesn’t? I was told The Walking Dead was a pretty decent show and reluctantly gave it a chance. The first 4 seasons were on netflix so I watched them. For the most part it was pretty good, but they just can’t leave out the prog propaganda. A mindless show revolving around killing zombies can’t just be about killing zombies; it also must be progressive. At least the progs finally did something right though, a post-apocalyptic wasteland seems the appropriate setting and endpoint of progressivism. The third and final straw happened in the last episode in which they introduced some gay dudes and had them make out. Ya, I am not shitting you. The gay dudes make out in the show. I have a very bad feeling that those two are going to stay on as characters for a long time. I am not going to find out, though, because I am done watching it. It isn’t that I have anything against gays, like everything else in human psychology (most importantly intelligence), I am pretty sure it has biological origins and that they are unfortunate misfits born with a bad combination of alleles. Gnon was not kind to them. But understanding that does not mean I want to see them make out (or have civilization cater to them or give them special victim status). Even then, that isn’t even the major problem for me (though it is an important problem). The major problem is the er…hrmm northern aggression of it all. It is the fact that these assholes can’t keep their fucking values to themselves. They HAVE to try to propagandize me and everyone else who don’t want to have anything to do with them or their values; even if we would never bother or hinder them in their personal lives at all if they just left us alone. It isn’t enough that I am (or was) willing to just let them be if they let me be. They HAVE to get in my face about it. Fuck them. Goodbye libertarianism.


It isn’t that other people have different values that bothers me, it is that people are trying to forcibly push their values on me and others who may be ambivalent or in strong disagreement. Most important is that the values they push are objectively shit. Ya, maybe I haven’t been a paragon of virtue in the past, but at least when pressed I can objectively evaluate what values are best for civilization as a whole. I don’t pretend like self-interested behavior is anything other than self-interested behavior. If people disagree with a set of values they should be able to disassociate and allow Gnon to be the judge of who is right or wrong. We aren’t being allowed that privilege. This northern aggression can not stand.

EDIT: I just remembered there was another thing that was dumb in the show. There was a group at a hospital being lead by a small framed women. This was just stupid, in such an apocalyptic setting strength and endurance are what matter most and men wouldn’t follow someone who would never be able to keep up with them. Post-institutions affirmative action would not apply and she would have been demoted to a support role she was actually suited to.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

However, I am not entirely convinced that this student’s lack of interest both in the book and in the essay were all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Specifically, the summaries I have since read on this book strongly suggests to me that it is a very clear case of progressive propaganda being forced onto unwitting children. In fact, I was at once reminded of my own experience in high school with similar propaganda. “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson. Where as speak was only concerned with feminists conceptions of rape, “The Kite Runner” appears to focus more on Muslims/Afghans (although it also goes into rape as well).

In summaries of the plot, it follows two boys in Kabul who play with kites together. One is of an Islamic sect which is considered lower class than the other. The lower class boy in one scene protects his superior from being beaten up, while in another, later scene the higher class boy does nothing to stop the former from being raped (by a male). Typical prog lionization of lower classes; as well as an awkward insertion of rape. Later the high class boy escapes the soviet invasion and moves to America as a refugee where he experiences guilt at his luck generally (he regularly imagined the hard lives of his friends back home) as well as specifically with respect to this friend he didn’t save from the rape. Finally, he finds out that this friend who he didn’t save from a rape both had died and also had a son during the general turmoil in the country. He goes back and saves this friend’s son and brings him to America as well.

In this story we seem to have both support of cat-lady style saving of refugees as well as touching on rape hysteria. There was probably little mention that there might be a connection between the ethnicity involved and tendency for rape and violence. At least that is how it seems. Without reading the book, I can’t be entirely sure of how much it is in fact propaganda and how much it is just a story (though my own experience with progressive propaganda leads me to a specific guess). I won’t comment further on the content of the story itself. However, the student also showed me his rubric and instructions on what topics were allowed for the essay. All of the designated topics were clearly progressive points of interest (such as “human rights,” which is what this student chose) which leaves no doubt that whatever merits this story has on its own, if any, it is being used in schools to indoctrinate children into progressive positions.


Anyway, I focused mainly on non-content related suggestions to improve his essay. However, I also made a point that when he spoke of human rights he did so in a very general sense, yet all of the examples from the story were from a very specific group of people with a very specific religion. After all, we don’t hear about Theravada Buddhists raping and murdering Mahayana Buddhists. To generalize Muslim culture in Afghanistan as if it were a world wide issue for every group of people is inaccurate and absurd. This is as much crimethink as I dared to inject into the situation, but I think the point was taken and will be considered by the student. In my head, I thought facetiously that the human rights issue he should write about is forcing young children in schools across the country to read and write about progressive propaganda; with their essay conclusion being determined in advance of writing. I did not say this however, as I anticipated the comment would not be appreciated by the adults who would no doubt hear about it. If you are a parent, I would suggest keeping an eye out for this story in your child’s curriculum so that you can do any necessary damage control when they are forced to regurgitate prog propaganda as a graded assignment.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

Sometime when I was in high school I was in a class that watched 12 Angry Men, rightfully considered a classic film. I vaguely remember my impression at the time was of surprised admiration. The fact that a black and white film could be enjoyable and impactful was somewhat unexpected to my shallow 15 year old self. Of course what really struck me, and presumably everyone else who likes the movie, was how close the jury came to carrying out an “obvious” miscarriage of justice. The portrayal of the situation by the movie was that prejudice and human fallibility were conspiring to condemn a young boy to death. As such, it was only just that he should be found not guilty. At least, that was how 15 year old me felt. How I was supposed to feel I guess.

I recently watched this film again and I now take the message of the film with a large grain of salt. As I have grown older and wiser, and also more experienced with neoreaction, it is easier to spot the undeniably progressive stance of the film. 12 Angry Men is the quintessential artistic expression of the progressive attitude toward the criminal justice system. The film itself was made in 1957, which was a time at an early stage of progressive reform of the courts. These reforms, which were implemented during the 50s and 60s, led to a huge spike in criminal activity during the 70s and early 80s. The reforms made it much more difficult for prosecutors to actually convict real criminals at trial. After all, it is better that 99 criminals go free than 1 innocent man goes to prison, right? Well, apparently not. Legislatures and prosecutors reacted to the surge in criminality created by these reforms by putting into place the draconian penalties and mandatory minimum sentences that allow prosecutors to scare 97% of the accused into accepting plea bargains to avoid the extremely harsh sentencing that would result from a jury trial conviction. For more on the changes that have taken place in the criminal justice system over the last 60 years or so, I recommend Handle’s review of “The collapse of American Justice” (and of course the book itself).


The accusing jurist himself, along with 2 or 3 other jurists to a lesser degree, is an interesting example of a caricatured archetypal conservative. Where the progressive leaning jurists are portrayed as calm, reasonable and objective, the “conservative” jurists are portrayed as emotional, angry, and prejudiced in order to create as polar a dichotomy as possible. In other words, good and evil were clearly defined by the exaggerated character and personalities of the individual jurists. This was especially pronounced in the attitudes written for the right leaning jurists towards immigrants and other ethnicities, which seems to be an early example of anti-white “anti-racism”. That is, the audience is made to feel antipathy towards the obviously negative personalities of the white, conservative jurists with illiberal opinions by associating those opinions with the absurd and flawed characters. For example, the “bad” jurists angrily referred to immigrants and minorities with disdain through terms like “they are just like that,” “that’s how they are,” and “that’s what people from the slums do”. Never mind the fact that such observations aren’t completely irrational, the point was to paint the picture that anyone who might use such information to help them decide a case is just as evil as this caricature through the association of flawed personalities with quick and prejudiced judgements. As illogical as such an association is, the film succeeds masterfully at this point.

It was this portrayal of the personalities of pro-guilty (IE conservative) jurists that I found to be most bothersome. In the most notable example of ad hominem via caricatured conservative, one jurist was given a back-story of conflict with his own son. He apparently was a hard father who engaged in a savage fight with his boy when he was 16. The boy had left and never spoken to his father again for many years. This bad father thus projected his bad situation onto the accused boy and associated the accused with his own disappointment and bitterness he experienced with his son. “Bad” was determined as much if not more via synthesized character attacks against the archetypal conservatives as it was by synthesized doubtful evidence. Surely this emotional appeal has little to do with jurists, conservatives, or justice in reality. And yet, we can see how effective it was on influencing the average person by the prominence of the movie in cultural history and the ultimate success of the progressive reformers to change the system.

Although this is a well made film and worth a watch, it has to be understood in the context of the times and especially the progressive ideologies of the writers. Being fictional, it is easy to simply manufacture doubtful evidence, testimony, and flawed personalities of jurists. Within the context of the reality created by the film, the progressive message does indeed seem right and just. However, a better way to judge the film is by the real world consequences of the progressive ideologies it embodies. Considering the sorry state of our modern criminal justice system, history should not remember this film anywhere near as favorably as it currently does.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

Moving on to the main topic. Surprisingly given their modern conservakin demographics, the history of Kansas makes for an excellent example of a transitional period for progressivism. Kansas became a center for progressive politics in the 1800s which peaked around 1890 because so many of them moved to Kansas because of the slavery issue. New England abolitionists were invested in a pure morality status signaling way in the outcome of whether new states came into the union as free state or slave states. Based on purely moral reasoning without regard to economics or convenience, many of these New England proto-cathedralites moved to Kansas just so they could ensure Kansas would be a free state.

The most famous example is that of abolitionist John Brown. He was every bit of the same kind as the violent far-left activist/terrorist of today, but in the setting of the 1850s. Brown led raids with other activists and even murdered a number of people as he believed a peaceful end of slavery was not possible so a violent overthrow of government was the only solution. He was motivated by his religion: “He believed he was the instrument of God’s wrath in punishing men for the sin of owning slaves.” The stage was set for the civil war by conflict between free-state puritans who had moved to Kansas and Slave-state Missourians who had a number of small conflicts that happened before the civil war. These events became known as bleeding Kansas. Brown later went on a raid of an armory in Virginia in 1859 in which he and his supporters killed five men. Brown was executed for treason for this act, but its effect was to greatly increase the tensions between the North and South. The South was correct in identifying the highly aggressive posturing and support of violence by Northern abolitionists. Even if most paid lip-service to a peaceful resolution, they weren’t exactly angry that the fringe of their movement was engaging in violence and were dead set in isolating and inconveniencing the south as much as possible. This was Anarcho-tyranny at its very core. During the civil war proper, the union army even had a marching song celebrating Brown as a martyr.

After the civil war, abolition was no longer an issue, but Kansas was still full of puritans and through their activism the state became one of the main centers of progressivism during last half of the 19th century and into the early part of the 20th century. They instituted or tried to institute child labor laws (somewhat understandable, but this had an undesirable side-effect of turning children from a economic gain into an economic cost for families), temperance/prohibition, direct election of federal senators, and labor reform among other things. They even had a populist party called “the people’s party” which engaged in outright illegal actions in the Kansas house of representatives. For example, locking the republican party out of the state congressional hall. Armed conflict almost resulted in Kansas because of these sorts of antics, which demonstrates that democracy really is just a low level civil war that always has the potential to turn violent.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

Western culture has progressively eroded the foundations of the traditional family for at least sixty years. Many on the left claim that the institution of marriage and traditional values are simply a relic of religious prejudice and a symbol of oppression. Part of the problem that allowed such frivolous conspiracy theories to spread was a lack of a comprehensive and objective explanation for why traditional monogamy was instituted in the first place by its defenders on the right. Appeals to divine authority, though effective with some populations, will simply not be sufficient to persuade the minimum number of people necessary in a secular culture to allow it to stay the dominant form of social organization it needs to be to support a thriving civilization. Though religious appeals for monogamous culture should not be thrown out, a secular defense of traditional culture needs to be built up to compliment the arguments of religious authorities.

One of the most useful consequences of a monogamous society is that it unleashes the creative and industrious potential in the largest number of men in society, thereby creating the foundations for a thriving and advancing civilization. In an age of free love, better described as pre-modern love, a significant portion of a man’s energy has to be expended fending off poaching attempts by other males or preventing capricious dalliances on the part of his mate. This is energy that would be much better utilized if directed towards building civilization.

However, the pro-civilizational effects of traditional values are not the only benefits worth considering. Rather than being neutral, the current system of soft polygamy (effective, but not institutionalized polygamy) has active negative attributes. Polygamy benefits men with high sexual market value and young women, but hurts men of middling to low SMV and older women. As high status men take multiple women out of the market place, the supply of women decreases for all other men.

One of the important solutions offered by traditional monogamous values is the prevention of men like Elliot Rodgers from being marginalized in the sexual market place and becoming deranged and violent. In cultures that allow the practice of polygamy, you generate a large underclass of men with no access to women. This leads to an increase in violence, crime, and excessive risk-taking by the frustrated men who are programmed by evolution to do whatever they can to secure reproductive success at any cost to themselves or society. From the standpoint of natural selection, everything is secondary to reproduction. If your current culture reduces your reproductive fitness to near zero, it is a rational, if morbid, instinct to try to disrupt that culture on the part of young men. If you “kick a friendly dog enough times, you get a nasty dog“.

The prevention of this kind of violence is one of the key reasons for having an institution of monogamous marriage. By monogamous marriage, I am not referring to the pale shadow of the institution that exists today. I refer to an institution that provides large disincentives to both men and women against breaking their vows, which is what existed through most of history. Monogamous marriage subordinates the hypergamous instincts of women to the interests of civilization. Those interests ultimately being to create order and general prosperity, which are more beneficial to women than their unbridled pursuit of the highest SMV males. Ironically, monogamous marriage and its motto of “one man, one wife” was probably the earliest egalitarian ideal. Though this ideal is often proven false in practice due to the innate differences between people, in the case of monogamous marriage it has proven the most conducive organization for advancing a prosperous and stable society. We throw that institution away at our peril. I don’t expect this warning to be heeded though, so you can expect many more Elliot Rodgers in the future.

Here is his chilling last video and his autobiography/manifesto.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

In one of many experiences I have had with this phenomenon, I was out with my friend and a group of people he knows including the heroine of this anecdote. The first point where I could see that this young scold was troublesome and prone to quarreling with her neighbors was when she brought up a contemporaneous debit card hacking thefts from Target and other stores in order to perform a vitriolic diatribe. Being keen to participate in the group discussion, I made the innocuous observation that while the hacker’s actions were wrong and deserving of punishment, the technical mastery he required to accomplish the crime was undoubtedly impressive. That a person engaged in criminal activity could demonstrate impressive skills was too much of an abstraction for her and thus provoked her to reveal her quarrelsome nature in the form of various insults towards me. Fortunately, another member of the group mollified her by explaining that a person may simultaneously have concepts with both positive and negative connotations associated with them without there being a contradiction. The emotional “reasoning” of many females seems to stumble when confronted with this fundamental, yet subtle, truth. However, though the third party adequately explained that being impressed by something doesn’t mean you condone the act, I am not convinced that it was anything more than a mere Pavlovian response to the attitude of multiple peers which doused her temper rather than a true comprehension of the nuance involved.

Later that same evening, we were all sitting around a table and out of blue our heroine pointedly asks me “What were the longest relationships you were in?” Seeing no immediate need for subtlety or outright dishonesty I responded frankly that “2 years was my longest relationship, but to be fair it wasn’t with an American woman.” Dear me, this was not a tactful thing to say to the common American scold as they will in their solipsism invariably interpret any comment or statement to be descriptive of their own person. Though there were signs she was getting ever so huffy, to my discredit I was hopelessly oblivious to the volcano preparing to erupt before me. Responding to her quite earnest desire for clarification, I elaborated on the fact that I find most American women difficult to get along with for anything longer than a fling given that so many are common scolds (though I did not use this terminology at the time). To this her barely contained rage erupted with a rabid desire for acrimonious verbal combat, yet her rage was too great to craft more than a small sum of suitable slurs and so she simply stomped off somewhere to succor her now sore psyche.

Of course this would not prove to be the end of this anecdote. Our resident white knight decides to step up to defend our heroine’s fragile ego since she found herself lacking the skill to patch this bit of cognitive dissonance. Sir lancelot starts by trying to lecture me about what kind of opinions I am allowed to have and what I am allowed to say. Not being a pussy and possessing an acute loathing of white knights, I was quick to assert that he had no authority to lecture me or to define the acceptable range of opinions I was allowed to possess. Our heroine’s knight in shining armor was so prepared to defend her “honor” that he had the audacity to threaten me physically if I couldn’t be otherwise cowed. Though, or perhaps because, I made it clear I was prepared to accept his challenge to fisticuffs, the tense moment eventually passed without coming to blows and the night continued without further incident. To escalate this absurdity to even greater heights, Sir Lancelot did all this despite his Guinevere being foreign born.

Probably all men, or at least all American men, have experienced this sort of situation as a result of the unruly and irrational emotions of the common American scold. The question is, when the institution of patriarchy is restored because of necessity, what can the new order do to reduce the number and severity of the disturbances to the public peace caused by such women and their valiant saviors? I think that English common law, as detailed in the introductory poem and links, sets a fine precedent of how such socially disruptive backbiters can be disabled. When a queen of histrionics and her knights of the unstable are identified, the punishment used to correct the bad behavior should be focused on public shaming and minor physical discomfort. Such chastisement is an appropriate response to the indignities caused by common scolds because the guilty would likely be easily reformed for the public good with only a few treatments. This is especially true of the most egregious version of the common scold currently in existence, which are of course the feminists who acrimoniously agitate for social norms that destabilize and eventually destroy civilisation. A few public dunks on a cucking stool for the most heinous of these harpies would humanely cure them of their hysteria and thoroughly deter any other would-be agitators.

Show post
Atavisionary #fundie

Diverting the most capable women away from reproduction is dysgenic

A large variety of research and common experience has made clear that cognitive and physical sexual dimorphism already exists, hence the tendency of men to outperform in areas necessary for productive labor including physical strength, mathematics, and mechanical or scientific reasoning. It is also apparent in the difference between men and women in cranial capacity. Males average between 100 and 200 cubic centimeter larger capacity depending on the methods used in a given study. This study found an average of 123 cubic centimeter difference favoring males on average, but also found a lot of variation for both genders. Larger cranial capacity correlates well with higher intelligence and as a group men tend to have larger brains.

Income, which is a decent proxy for intelligence, correlates heavily with childlessness. Importantly, the correlation goes in the opposite direction for men than it does for women. High income men are much less likely to be childless, whereas high earning women are with even greater probability much more likely to be childless. In biology, this contradictory relation between intelligence and fertility would be described as a sexually antagonistic trait because it increases reproductive fitness of one sex (males) and decreases it in the other (females). As such, these genes are under conflicting selection pressures as they pass between genders over the course of multiple generations. This creates a large incentive to evolve sexually dimorphic expression patterns which can silence or diminish expression of intelligence genes in females while allowing the same genes to be turned on in males. Intelligence being a sexually dimorphic trait is parsimoniously explained by its divergent consequences to fertility depending on gender.

The lesson here is clear. The huge direct costs, opportunity costs, and the inefficiencies created from reserving jobs for women that they aren’t biologically suited for aren’t just unaffordable. Diverting women away from motherhood disproportionately and negatively impacts the fertility of the the most intelligent women; the most intelligent women being the ones most likely to be capable of successful careers and high incomes. Any policy or culture that prioritizes pushing women into the workforce does so at the expense of motherhood among the natural aristocracy and is by its nature dysgenic. The result in the short term is decreasing the average intelligence of the population and greatly exaggerated sexual dimorphism favoring male intelligence in the long run. Traditional environments (patriarchy) minimized the shredding of intelligence traits that passed through women to some degree by prioritizing reproduction even for capable women. If the current environment doesn’t send humanity back to the stone age first, then it will likely create a version of humanity of very smart men and dumb women as mechanisms evolve to safeguard intelligence genes while they temporarily pass through females. Lameness of mind will be protective against a loss in fertility for women and income potential that can only result from intelligence being indispensable for male fertility will also be preserved. The selection pressures set up by feminists will ironically create a population of feeble minded women. This is of course assuming that civilization is somehow able to maintain itself long enough and the current pattern of abysmal fertility in intelligent women holds. However, it is in no way clear that this is the case. So insidious are the effects of deprioritizing motherhood that any culture who implements them is patently suicidal.

The drop of fertility rates across the west and the concomitant decline in western civilization that will result can be blamed to a significant extent on the misallocation of life priorities among western women by their own poor choices and at the irresponsible prodding of the progressive culture. The future belongs to those who show up. Humanity as a whole will return to traditional gender roles because the groups where women prioritize motherhood will displace the cultures who don’t through demographic increase and eventual subjugation.

The real question is whether or not the west will have a place in that future. The west can either accept that harsh biological reality has allotted motherhood as the primary raison d’etre of women, or it can be displaced by less advanced and less benevolent cultures who haven’t forgotten that reality. Considering that it was the people and culture of the west who almost single-handedly brought humanity into the modern age, the loss of the western races and subsequently western culture would be a very sore blow not only to those people, but to humanity generally. The only morality is civilization, and unfortunately the unpleasant truth is that significant female enfranchisement is dysgenic and destroys civilization. Since prioritizing anything but motherhood for women works against civilization, it is by definition immoral and any sane polity will take every necessary step to minimize women, and especially intelligent women, from making anything other than motherhood the primary devotion of their life.

To preserve western culture, motherhood in a patriarchal context must be reinstated. It is often complained that such an arrangement is more unfair to women. In reality, the demands the patriarchal system makes on men are and always have been much more challenging than those it makes on women, as is evidenced by the 5-7 years shorter life expectancy for men. Men will accept this high price since the patriarchal system is the only way that the legitimacy of their children can be guaranteed. Far from being unfair to women, the advantages to women of sacrificing careers and promiscuity are many and include a guarantee of male attention and provisioning into old age.

Moreover, making motherhood the primary devotion of women’s lives does not mean the only devotion. Modern technology created by men greatly decreases the necessary housekeeping efforts required to maintain a home and advances in robotics will likely continue this trend. As such, Women will be afforded much opportunity and freedom to pursue virtually any interest once the necessary child rearing duties are performed. Some care will need to be taken by neopatriarchs to guarantee that there is ample opportunity for women to find meaning and purpose in their lives once their motherly responsibilities are complete. For the most part this is likely a spiritual question, however aesthetics and culture also seem like especially likely candidates for pursuit. What can’t be neglected or forgotten is that the environment that gave birth to modern dysgenic feminism was a large population of idle housewives and their relatively weak husbands. Women have an innate tendency to organize and then collectively nag and otherwise agitate for various ill-conceived reforms when they have nothing better to do. Feminism is only the most destructive consequence of this tendency. The temperance movement is another example. More productive outlets for this energy will have to be found.

And of course, the least appreciated advantage to women as a population is the partial protection of intelligence traits which prevents run-away increases in sexual dimorphism and further depression of female cognitive ability.