Why the Alternative Right Is a Vector for Sheepleitis

The Human Cosmos
| The Essence of Civilization | Owned by the Story | Creepy Time and Guilt Trips

The past is history, the future is a mystery, and the present is a gift.
—A banally popular aphorism.

The Human Cosmos

If you look at starlight, you are looking into the past. So it is with women and with men by race demographic, generally speaking. The lower in systemic potential the socio-ecological gravity of the demographic, the more anachronistic, and as the überJudaic money priests know, the less capable of rival sovereignty. Victim groups are the bottom of the barrel, and the bottom tells us a lot about all of us. Just remember to believe what the uncivilized status whores do over what they say.

When I see female nature, I see as far back into the human social past as I can. Women are cold clumps of protostellar gas with collectivist instincts. Together, they are the terrestrial protogalaxy of humanity, what’s left of it. The men evolved beyond that condition, some more than others, but we can guess what the feral progenitorial men of protocultural times were like. Modern red-pill seduction does guess with practical accuracy based on falsifiable testing made possible by women’s liberation. What stars da wymnz are.

Actually, stars emit light during the creation of cosmic wealth, higher elements from the raw material of the Big Bang. Cold gas clouds are seen because of light from other sources. Women do not make wealth. Sure, there are isolated anomalous cases in a man’s world, but if women are liberated, they destroy wealth and wealth creation like locusts destroy crops.

What I deduce from my PUA field work and explanatory understanding of evolutionary psychology vis-a-vis what women reliably and people generally do in my experience or have done according to history and the greater anthropological record with an interpretive bias against coexisting antithetical tenets is that feral people roamed in morphing packs like wax circulates in morphing clumps in a lava lamp. We can deduce a fundamental packism duality from the anachronistic sex as both no-holds-barred individualist competitors in the sexual marketplace and collectivists in the proto-political arena.

Women are all about individual status. If you want a woman pleasantly wrapped around your dick, she must believe doing so maximizes her status. Basically, the amusement park called woman functions properly if and only if she ideates about your sperm the way Stephen Colbert pontificates about his. Women are relativists not absolutists, which explains their general incompetence in wealth management and politics. I suspect, given the right social opportunity, every woman would lower the living standards of everyone on earth including herself to a fraction of what they were, even down to death’s zero for many, so long as it relatively ‘raised’ her individual living standard to the hands-down #1 position.

The corruption of the relativist horde was what I was getting at in this scene from “The Seven Lorem Ipsums of Goog,” chapter 5:

Shrieking issued from the shining city on the hill, always the same solitary note in monotonously monotone chorus. As the shrieking grew louder and louder, the hill supporting the city subsided lower and lower. And the women rode the backs of the men, except the elite men. And the elite men of the new and hidden patriarchy anointed themselves ‘006’. And they set about to perfect their order, and to build a tower faster than the hill could sink, and it was in their power to become neo-‘007’-dom later if they could deal fairly among themselves, for nature is amoral.

Women are bitches. They can’t help themselves, which is why they want a man who can help himself and her. Women are emotionally needy like men are sexually needy. That is the trade the red-pill seducer facilitates. If you really get the red pill, you realize women are far and away more competitive than men. What man would spend an hour on his hair? Not one worth a fuck. Women are pieces of meat, and they know it even as they otherwise are sincere devotees of grrrl power. But why the collectivism?

Simple. Women are market makers. In the primordial packism, humans were the wealth. A bigger pack, a more cohesive pack was a stronger pack. A professional athlete needs a fan base. An insatiable social relativist needs more fodder; hence, primordial collectivism. However, it is a mistake to think of women as modern collectivists. Collectivism is supported by feminism because collectivism is the closest modern approximation to the cohesive aspect of packism available.

Thus, packism has two key functional aspects: (1) market-making cohesion, and (2) status competition. Women are manipulators, and being manipulated by a woman for sperm is one of the best experiences a man can have. Women are amoral opportunists. They can manipulate constructively or destructively, and they do based solely on the moment. In the wild, time was not her friend. Women acquire when the acquiring is good simply because. Women reproduce when the reproducing is good simply because.

You will notice that civil rights to a woman are cohesion rights. Cohesion is achieved by a pack narrative, progenitorial and likely more limited to vague feelings for lack of plot elements than the modern narrative. Vibe used by PUAs gives women a narrative impression feed to the rationalization hamster for revision of our star’s life story. Narrative is subject to marketplace evolution, naturally, but not to whim. You will notice that sheeple act like white blood cells when around anyone who exemplifies inconsistency with the collectivist narrative. It appears to me that feelings empathized from instinctive communication (called subcommunication by PUAs) is regarded more by women than explicit professions for or against her vapidly adopted narrative as part of her role-playing, status-seeking identity. Protecting the sanctity of the cohesive narrative must have kept the primitive pack of feral times strong and healthy, and the language of cohesion must have been vibe.

Back then, status privileges did not lead to wealth accumulation. You might get to eat first, and omegas might not get to eat at all, but no one could horde food. It was physically impossible. Status was about differentiation in social comfort impacting survival and reproduction, but corruption in the sense of a free ride at the expense of producers was not possible. Packism humans are not producers, period. Resources just are or are not by the magic and caprice of nature.

Cosmologically next, moving closer to modern social reality from the most evolutionarily distal observable fringe, we have blacks. Very tribal. Prone to gang banging. The oppressed Irish gang banged as transplants to America in the 1800s, but they moved past it completely in several generations. Al Sharpton is still Al Sharpton. Malcolm X was assassinated the moment he became a better version of himself. Black America rejected Bill Cosby for challenging them to master the rudiments of the rudiments of civilization. Victim status of Black America has been a dream come true. Though I’m no expert on blacks in Africa, I do know that ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and were Caucasian, and I know the iconic noble savage is a bunch of shit. Here in the United States (still the real one, amigo), black American culture is all about status.

“Yo, don’t be disrespectin’ me.”

Women and black men share a preoccupation with status, relatively reckoned. Again, the wealth management suffers. Nevertheless, black culture is culture. Men of all races are cultural, virtually every one. Culture comes from men, not women. Men broker social relationships that form economies. Before whites colonized Africa, blacks there were quite capable of exporting slaves at least, so don’t go there. I expect foreign aid has done for black Africa what domestic aid has done for Black America but to a lesser extent since they had less distance to fall. Blacks never made a civilization following their own ideas, and the most affluent blacks in history live in the West. I’m not expecting a thank you from blacks oppressed by relative luxury any more than from the women. Continuing with my point about the fundamental nature and importance of culture, culture was born more or less with agriculture, in evolutionary degrees of course. There is no niche reward in producing a food surplus if you don’t have the law and order to keep a living from it.

As an aside to this post but not the subject addressed, I note that AsymmetricalWarfare has introduced what I suspect is the germ of a seminal red-pill contribution, though he was framing it more along the lines of the Alternative Right and religious order, perhaps Monarchism. In his video “White Guilt”, dated 18 March 2014, he posits an insightful characterization of archetypal race personalities or race cultures by primary motivating emotion (or emotive ideal). For blacks it’s status, for yellows it’s shame, for whites it’s guilt. Yes, these ideas are nothing new. Guilt culture and shame culture have been detailed before. It’s the connected application by Western men in opposition to the status quo that will be different. AsymmetricalWarfare emphasizes religion throughout and makes a reference to Anonymous Conservative’s deconstruction of leftists’ mentality at the 3 minute mark, but we can and must adapt religious-centric race theory of the mind into agnostic red-pill philosophy. The continuity is undeniable.

AsymmetricalWarfare expounds upon the comparative essences of religion and culture by race with “More on Primary Religious Emotions,” dated 28 March 2014. The archetypal guilt of white people, he posits, can NOT be eliminated. In my personal experience, I believe it can be. In the Manosphere, we call it inner game. Seriously, to not feel guilt or shame for not buying a chick a drink, that alone is priceless. Banging a chick without an iota of mental deference to government divorce-rape commitment, even better.

Aurini presented his adaptation of primary feeling modeling by demographic to his knowledge of history, &tc but humanity in his video “Primary Religious Emotions and Race,” dated 17 May 2014. With “The Satanic Religion of Modernism,” dated 8 June 2014, Aurini used the emotion-centric framework to explicate cultural-political machinations of the Nu Wurld Oder. For Jews I’d say the animating emotive ideal is lordliness, a refined conceptualization of status. Are they not tribal? Could lordliness be exploited like guilt, shame, and primeval status?

Expanding red-pill knowledge to a general facility of deconstructing demographic perspective should be useful for understanding and interacting with people even better, both at the personal scale and the societal scale. All you international players, put that field experience to good work. Kudos to Aurini for recognizing the potential advances to red-pill empowerment. You may already see an evolutionary path for the analysis paradigm from faith-based Neoreaction to empirical Red Pill. I hope this is not a dead end.

I became aware of the aforesaid genericized emotion-centric analysis from Aurini’s videos not long after they were available online. For the record, I already had the idea of Packism, Tribalism, Barbarism, and Civilizationalism. Maybe a few of you have read this from 2PH2KG, 2.3 “The Synthetic Record of Life”:

The world’s leading civilizations have only been white or yellow. Red and black peoples have never created civilization. The advanced red societies were the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas. Name the greatest black society ever, if you can. Civilization is advanced and advancing society with intellectual and material innovation. Humans evolved from pack relativism to societal institutionalism. The distinction between packs and societies is the presence of a behavioral code, and government. Social formulations evolved—progressing, stagnating, regressing, expiring—from primordial pack instincts to tribal, barbaric (tribally imperial), and civilized cultures. The correlation of genetically different races with distinct levels of societal achievement over the past thousands of years suggests the capacity for meme evolution is unevenly distributed. Meme sophistication certainly is unevenly distributed.

We can move by degrees to red people, mostly tribal and without written language before Columbus. Similarly, black people were entirely tribal and without written language before contact with Muslim Arabs and then Christian Europeans. The advanced imperial red people were the Mayans (pre-Columbian), the Aztecs, and the Incas. You could really get a head if you were one of those elite red people. In those empires, elite men generally cornered the market on pussy and reproduction, and yah, people were tasty in the New World too.

We see Hispanic America (in the Americas south of the Rio Grande) with sparks of civilized potential. They build themselves up and then tear themselves down. Their relative results fit their relative genetic composition: Iberian white + red + black. Hispanic American societies are hierarchically graduated with whiter people at the top and blacker people at the bottom, or so I’ve heard. Those Iberian whites were off to such a strong start too. They were very Catholic, very resolute about centralized control, and New Spain, probably the second biggest land empire in history, was never really under their aegis or control. The lesson has obviously been learned by our dear globalist elites.

My understanding of yellow culture is primarily based on my knowledge of imperial Chinese history. Chinese value order and family to a fault. Individuality and innovation is not something yellows do well. We see Japan imploding culturally, perhaps shrugging off Westernism generally even as it gorges on feminism. Team work made Imperial China the superlative civilization on earth, but the plodding filial deference that put the Industrial Revolution within their reach first is what keeps them from mastering modernity. That’s my impression.

Finally, we have whites. When I see all the disparagement of capitalism and democracy in toto by reactionary white men, I think wtf. Is it failure to have loved and lost, dear mortal? You know you are going to die one day. Does that make success impossible? Shall we condemn what allows failure to fall from great heights? The Seven Bridges of Königsberg can be simply analyzed. Either all the nodes in the graph are connected to an even number of edges or they aren’t. The problem with modeling is that some details are lost to make other details clear. Choosing the correct set of details to model for a usefully accurate causal analysis is art and science, and not easy.

Evolution works because of failure. Success without risk of failure is not success. What success can an omnipotent God have in the creation of humanity? The idea of property rights, of common law, of a free press, hell, the ideas of the Enlightenment that permitted science at the expense of religious narrative, these are all excellent things, especially in historical context. They were uplifting innovations that we enjoy. When Galileo publicly put the earth around the sun to make the math elegant, that was a big fucking deal. His (more?) rational personal values were astronomically elevated above the cohesive character of packism, a system of dogma so low that considering it could very well cause a bone-through-nose witch-doctor chieftain to blush. Galileo was not a great man because he was motivated by guilt but because he culturally overcame the great unwashed surrounding him who were. Culling the right things leads to success, in mind and body.

The Essence of Civilization

If you were hired as CEO of a company and the profits had been increasing annually by 5% for the last ten years, what profit results would indicate your successful leadership? Context is much of the truth, but if we suppose the business environment stayed roughly the same, success would not be indicated by mere profit at all. It would be in raising the profit trajectory above the baseline trend 5% annually. Technology does not just facilitate exponential growth: it demands it. Life is competitive.

For the mathematicians, yes, x% annual grow is (already) exponential growth, but it was just an example. Furthermore, profits are a matter of accounting, and 5% is not always 5%. Presidents of non-profits make six-figures as members of the Western administrative elite. What money was reinvested into the company and what wasn’t is not clear with accounting bottom lines. Jews as stereotyped seem to be drawn to accounting, but what opportunities in moving bean counts around could attract the world’s most intellectual people? What is clear is that people and sheeple have individual agency, even if they choose collectivism. A civilization requires that its members be held accountable to themselves individually. The metric of accountability is critical to how social relations are interpreted and chosen.

Civilization has a bottom line, and that bottom line is the standards of living for its individual members. We can aggregate this into a grand total or better yet into per capita terms, but how the wealth is distributed matters too. We have Gini coefficients and standard deviations. Still, we would have an incomplete view of the bottom line for our philosophical deficiency. The tacit linchpin assumption of Keynesian economics is that everyone is willing and able to supply eminently useful labor. Utterly false.

Wealth is not just material wealth. There is ‘social capital’. There is lifestyle. Convenience is used by the uncivilized to be less and by the civilized to be more. Productivity and affluence are inversely related for those who have affluence in surplus to their characters. The notion of immoral character presumes some minimum of affluence may be taken for granted. A silly presumption that is. The raison d’être of civilized men is to domestically cultivate affluence AND the character to handle it. Riches of both types are societal wealth. Technology properly understood applies to individual character of mind no less than physical materials.

That’s the challenge this post identifies: the inevasible patriarchal character requirement of civilization vis-a-vis our overdeveloped technical prowess as judged by the court of natural law.

We can look at the living cosmological record of humanity and the progression of socio-ecological gravities and see an evolution of character. Civil rights are rights of cohesion for the status-minded packists and tribalists. At the other extreme, thus far, we have property rights as civil rights. The difference in character and the difference in affluence are the progresses of two aspects of the same systemic human essence: societal technology. Societal technology studied at the scale of individuals is character. Character does not matter for women. Packism lacks societal social technology because it lacks societal relationships. Hence, my hand is more satisfying than nearly all of the SMP offerings. We can call it the Hand Alternative Threshold Exceeded (HATE) test. Women are inert if they fail the boner-HATE test battery minimum. Admittedly, I lack hand beyond my hand, but that’s what must mostly happen in a moribund society addicted to credit stimulus of its economic circulatory system.

From the cohesive social norms of packism to the cohesive cultures of today, the masses are motivated by narrative. Not just any old kind of narrative. The cohesive narrative is an a priori narrative. The ending is known. The good guys and the bad guys are known. Everything that happens is fitted as it happens to its predictive power. Thereby lies the germ of destruction as hallowed embryonic code within the seeds of creation.

We have a catch-22 because we are still foolishly working with lousy base material. Civilization is for the civilized. The a priori narrative I will refer to plainly as narrative. It is up to you to realize that the a priori qualification applies. I don’t write for those who do not reconstruct the logic I am representing here because I do not write this for the emotive flesh automaton, though I may speak that way when vagina is in play.

The problem with narrative cohesion is the lack of immediate failure. Well, actually it is the lack of localized failure and localized accountability. You may think of localized to the individual, but it could be localized to a family or to certain genes depending on the context. Abstraction is powerful because it is adaptable without compromise of veracity. I say localized for that reason.

With narrative we have the group disabling individual agency with group agency. Getting humanity off the ground fit for animals was great and all, but now narrative agency is a mill stone. Life is a race condition, and lost opportunities can be expensive. There are two types of failure in life: (1) absolute, and (2) relative.

Absolute failure defies the laws of nature directly. When women want to have their cake and eat it too, that is absolutely impossible, but it does give them the best relative deal they can get without wealth management and investment in constructive activities. When a woman owns your mind with some sort of false moral principle planted as a neurosis, she is making an investment in a progenitorial sense that is not civilized. Evolution works by degrees if we just look.

Relative failure is relative to the competition. The competition is playing by the same rules, the same laws of nature that is. Any other rules are agreements between individual competitors. The utility of an agreement depends on the context. If absolute failure is a violation of court procedure and a loss of legal standing, relative failure is a verdict awarding scarce value to another claimant. Existence of what is must meet the two-prong test of absolute possibility and relative superiority. Things happen for reasons that chain by causality through spacetime. Reasons are judged for absolute and relative fitness of execution.

Healthy things are growing. When society is not growing, it is not healthy. I am making a profound distinction between civilizedness and civilization. The former is the cause and the latter is the effect. Civilized people make civilization. Living in civilization is easy for the uncivilized if they are given quarter, a free ride. Even if someone is a net economic asset, someone who is a political detriment is a net loss and is not civilized.

Progressive evolution happens for causal reasons that have an upward polarity. We are the apex species on earth. We compete for niche against our own. It is natural, so natural that in your formative years your parents took advantage of you as they helped you, at least some did. I expect it is pretty common in a feminist social environment.

Fuck the idea of balance. You do not honor the idea of evolution and so yourself with the idea of balance. Progress is based on imbalance in a biased direction that leads to even greater bias if you are doing it right. The byproduct of virtuous bias is prosperity and happiness. Balance is a narrative element lilliputians are taught to be happy where they are, and where they are going. Nowhere.

Civilized people men seek righteous polarity.

Polarity is upheaval. Evolution counts on it. The free market generates prosperity because it functionally behaves as a man-made ecology. Growth through upward polarity weeds out relatively lesser behaviors to make room for greater behaviors that are greater only because those lesser behaviors had a beneficial side effect to permit them. Corruption is opposition to the beneficial side effect that keeps the societal system healthy and growing. The status quo has virtue only for a time. A status quo is an incubator of human relationships growing better character and material technology to replace itself, or it is oppressive.

What allows healthy growth in a state of civilizedness is a curious mix of collectivism and individualism, curious until you stop trying to force your lexicon on life. In a state of packism, feral sheeple in the wilds of their autonomy are market-makers and market-takers. As I said earlier in this essay, women use a narrative of cohesive rights and orthodoxy to gather human fodder into a status hierarchy matrix that can be exploited in a contest of individuals that are for or against each other expediently in the moment. In a state of civilization, the market is segmented with a substrate of fundamental property rights and a shiny veneer of property. Sheeple are like raccoons that see shiny with tunnel vision. Could the implementation of the mental processes for both types of organisms share developmentally related machinery?

The idea of status is not exactly dropped from the social state of civilizedness. Status is based on scarcity of behavioral privileges that often but not always depend on having wealth or scarce property privileges. Game is based on the wild side of status value, basically the ‘office’ of feral alpha. Rank has privileges. I am modeling, but that does not mean primitive details necessarily go away. With civilized polarity, we judiciously eliminate some primitive elements and harness others.

When contrast frameworks such as capitalism vs. communism or monarchy vs. democracy are employed to describe civilization and the ‘morality’ is requires, we have already failed to do better. We as men have failed to be intellectually superior. In a healthy state of civilizedness, the son outshines the father because he had more advantages and his character drives him to be more not less because of it. The court of the laws of nature has its own terminology. The more we understand its language of proceedings, the more we can achieve.

As any regular readers of mine know, I favor evolution as the frame of societal analysis. The Manosphere has yet to fully embrace societal analysis in the evolutionary frame. The tangential portion of the Blogosphere fundamentally concerned with political analysis certain hasn’t, and moreover would rather not. To explain what’s wrong with the current framing of politics in the Alternative Right (and I am using that term generally as a rubric), I am going to use the familiar terms carte blanche with respect to ideas.

Culture is collectivism to a degree or in some sense. Market-making requires conformity of agreement in a naturally functional way. The question is: What is the proper realm of ‘collectivism’? Since there is equally the the realm of not the proper realm of collectivism, and because collectivism is no special reference point, we equally have the question: What is the proper realm of individualism? or democracy? or however you like to think about it. These questions are equal is a vague sense because they all suffer from loss in translation from natural terms to the terms by which we are taught to think (or ideate for all you women and manginas out there).

Here is the groundwork underpinning what I think is precisely what matters. With any transaction proposed or complete, either all parties to the transaction believe they are better off or they don’t. Because accounting permits misrepresentation, it is better to have individual (localized) accountability. Therefore, the issue of whether or not a party to a transaction is correct or not in rating the personal desirability of the transaction is a mute point. Mother nature will cull grossly extreme or grossly persistent inaccuracies of personal transaction evaluation. As a quick aside, though correlation is not causality, it can be enough to work in the court of nature. Evolution counts on getting lucky. That has implications to cohesion by narrative that I will address shortly.

What matters for civilization is a domestic bias for win-win transactions and against win-lose transactions.

The above rule can work on many levels or scales: family, community, a community of nations, but the smaller scale is fundamental to the larger. Social activities have boundaries. The boundaries of conflict and cooperation should be chosen carefully because they will be scrutinized by nature stridently. We can model civilizedness with absolutely distinct borders and call it civilization, but that is narrow-minded. What matters for civilizedness is a native bias for win-win transactions and against win-lose transactions. I am hinting at a free market, even of government authority, since the laws of nature are what ultimately prevail, not that I’d recommend you waist your non-renewal time waiting for a market correction. I’m just saying that if you think about the fundamental nature of civilization, it is what I pithily declared. There is plenty of daylight these days between American institutions and American heritage. Civilization is not for everybody.

Democracy with universal suffrage suffers from uncivilized excesses, but that is not a failing of democracy itself any more than painting with feces is a fundamental flaw of painting itself. Civilization is not for everybody. Without reciprocity, human rules were made to be challenged and perhaps broken. The above rule of civilizedness is correct whether it works for or against a particular institutional order claiming civilized authority because nature is the ultimate judge. The nature or constitution of all logistically connected parties will be weighed, and the claims will be pruned according the rules of absolute and relative failure to decide the one course life takes, at least in our flavor of the multiverse. Failure itself is not intrinsically good or bad for civilization, but the absence of failure localized to its source is so bad it’s terminal. Credit backed by government authority is terminal.

Conquest is an ongoing necessity of life. There are no rights that are not standard-issue privileges of conquest for the in-group coalition. Men who are not manly are failures. Democracy of action triumphs where democracy of opinions fails. The former is masculine; the latter, feminine.

Owned by the Story

Narrative provides orthodox interpretation. It may seem that the sun god is angry for lack of human sacrifice, but if a supply of dense protein is not otherwise available, it makes sense to cull people without nutritional wastefulness. The priesthood’s spiritual claim on the victim’s heart is not really why human sacrifice might be an advantageous or even necessary social adaptation to an unforgiving environment. Islam came from Bedouins, and enough said.

The framework of interpretation comes with absolutes of what can and cannot be perceived by it. A narrative need not be logically correct as a vehicle of truth for its adherents. Per the court of nature, a narrative must be logically correct for existence. To its adherents, narrative has explanatory power, but what are the odds it is correct? Science is incrementally improved to be more correct. Allowance for mental corrections is a competitive advantage between social systems, and it is the fairer sex that is evolved for that purpose. Evolution takes no vacations. As men go, so goes society. Women are the property of sovereignty. That is the natural order of things.

You would think that men who are the strongest producers would prevail against other men, and that may be true on time scales at least an order of magnitude greater than a human lifetime, to wit a scale measured in millennial or greater increments, but evolution is not smooth or steady because it has no ultimate goal. All progress has been proofed by evolution in the moment, even the germs of destruction. Any ultimate outcome of results is not the jurisdiction of evolution.

Narrative is antithetical to evolution and existential correctness because narrative is wedded to outputs rather than process. Philosophers care about existential correctness, or they are actually sophists. Narrative is no blind justice. As a result, narrative will preclude win-win transactions that would maximize societal potency and include win-lose transactions that would not. Gradually, the narrative prunes the source of its power to increase its rate of energy consumption and claime space, to live large and grow, defecating toxins all the while. The systemic effect is gradual degeneracy. The gradual nature of the degeneracy makes it palatable in comparison to the cost of bearing the political burden of stopping it. Others who don’t take on the political burden, those who do not constructively take the law into their own hands, those who least maintain civilizedness as personal overhead economically outperform those who do. You get what you subsidize.

Civilized men should never subsidize weakness per se.

Not every child is a viable model. Institutional charity does more harm than good. I am so sick of the bankers’ Right’s sacrosanct protection of the unborn and the bankers’ Left’s sacrosanct protection of the born. Those narratives are fundamentally corrupt, and compelling political circus.

It is the oppressive, inflexible, hardening nature of narrative that makes it terminal, or rather the oppressive and inflexible nature of humans organized into its matrix home that would rather keep the hardening status quo than support general prosperity. So long as civilization congeals around narrative, it is doomed. That is not all bad. Evolution works only in degrees, and I expect a careful look at world history would show a retreat of narrative demands associated with a progress of living standards and socio-ecological gravities. The Romans were generous with accepting the gods of the conquered, and there was the uncanny timing of the Reformation with the birth of modernity. Rome had its promise to plebs in the stone or metal of The Twelve Tables. The United States had its declaration that all men are created equal. Perhaps bullshit, that language of subjugation, becomes less and less effective with every use, and perhaps bullshit is a stepping stone to enlightenment in a concrete societal form.

My political recommendation to those seeking alternatives is to drop the cohesive narrative entirely and fully stand on principles. Caveat emptor! Who you stand with is as important as what you stand for. Principles, unlike natural laws, are context sensitive. It is naturally wrong by the standard of civilizedness to expect no personal benefit to standing on principles just as it is naturally wrong by the same standard to expect additional personal benefits by win-lose transactions with your ally producers. The win-lose transaction is functionally wrong from both sides, if you are civilized. The idea that it is better to give than to receive…are you fucking kidding me?

There is a need for balance as far as it serves upward polarity. If society is modeled as a table with three or more foundational legs, then it would make sense that the foundational legs must grow together. If not, then they are not all foundational, are they? Circulation also requires a trade balance. The garden variety denizen of the Manosphere is focused on the personal and immediate, as getting laid requires. The Alternative Right denizen is focused on the societal and enduring, as legacy requires. How might the two concerns relate?

When I was younger, I made the mistake of thinking societally in my personal interactions. I believed from the dint of rhetoric from all sides that all people were equal. Since I was thinking win-win and looking to maximize my results by maximizing our results with synergy throughout society, I was fucked and fucked badly. I was applying people skills to sheeple. Red-pill seduction is sheeple skills. I was plain inappropriate more than out of balance. I just kept trying to make it work thinking the fault had to be with me in terms of execution, never conception. No, I was wrong in the most fundamental way. I was philosophically wrong. I was existentially incorrect.

I was thinking and behaving in a societally constructive fashion, and every fucking thing I did was torn down by sheeple thinking and behaving with win-lose personal interest at a very low character level. I was out of balance with others for the lack of reciprocity, but I was not out of balance with myself. I am built to operate with societal greatness in mind. I still do, I’m just adamantly selfish about it in that healthy way only objective thinkers can understand. My Keirsey Temperament is Architect. I’m just not mentally invested in what currently has institutional form. I’m looking out for #1 guilt free, finally.

The Manosphere is pragmatic, but men of civilized capacity need to exercise it just a surely as women need to exercise their status-climbing skills to the limits of their abilities. Women seek out drama because they instinctively know they have not realized their full potential without forcing drama and invoking the sturdy reprimand of an adoptive authority figure worthy of her vagina. If only government had a penis, feminism still wouldn’t work in the long run, but it would allow women with propitious timing in history to have their cake and eat it too. Think Edward Kennedy in a skirt. The point is that men of civilized bent with excellent sheeple skills and even excellent people skills but atrophied social engineering skills are out of balance. Game is a female-centric workaround to the degree it is a substitute for a good, old-fashioned bitch slap.

It seems to me that the Manosphere is stunted from the lack of male popular sovereignty. The personal development of Game has pretty much reached its apolitical limits, and even if its practitioners will not cross into the political, the cannibalistic nature of the overripe bureaucracy guarantees political scope will cross into the agency of male sexual choice not yet neutralized by social toxins, material poverty, or physical force. Though Manospherians are well informed of what is societally wrong, they don’t grasp well what is societally proper. That is commendable to the extent bullshit is not currency for us. However, opposition to a competing system means little without a system of our own, or more precisely a system for making the societal system we would like. Evolution is so. Can you get there from here in small steps?

What the Alternative Right can’t do, perhaps the Manosphere can. I have my doubts, but necessity is the mother of invention. If the Manosphere must grow upward in sophistication to ‘live’, so to speak in Richard Dawkins terms, and if societal being is a fundamental aspect of Western masculinity or at least of some sizable minority like I think it is, then just maybe.

What I think we ought to stand for is the civil rights of property rights and the privileges of production as opposed to the civil rights of cohesive rights and the privileges of status, a status based on popular interpretation of narrative. However, when seducing bitches, the game is played in cohesive rights and status privileges. Seduction is sheeple skills, per and simple. Give them what they want!

As we band together and attempt to build anew, we naturally form tribes. These cliques will operate on ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’. It is necessary in the beginning, but it is the germ of destruction. The great alternative political voices in the Blogosphere—salient to me are Chateau Heartiste and Nick Land—are able to predict endogenous destruction from root causes stepwise through stages and symptoms unto the inevitable collapse. The most accurate prognosticators are loath to give timetables. I bring your attention to the fact that the wisest and most reputable of political pundits do not predict what overarching societal constructs will form in the future, and make no sweeping generalizations on what politics and culture will prevail. If evolution doesn’t know, how could human pundits? Even if we have a future fixed by determinism, it is an opaque chaotic determinism. If God made a batch job universe, ‘que sera, sera’, but you still must apply yourself or suffer the consequences. That is the paradox.

The seers of societal constructs future are quack extrapolators of narrative. The appeal of the narrative is the future certainty, sham though it is. It takes an intellectual mind grounded in philosophy to appreciate life’s regular application of abstract principles in a multitude of concrete styles that look completely dissimilar to the emotive mind. What the sheeple want is the absolute guarantee. What they get is the pleb-producers-fail-first guarantee. Since they are clueless about wealth management, it looks like the same thing. Wanting the fail-safe guarantee of no individual failure without systemic failure is the natural sin. Most men are not brave enough to truly measure their worth by absolutely trying; and women, well, they have vaginas, and then it’s downhill from there the compliments I can honestly give.

The natural sin of wanting the institutional guarantee fulfilled turns popular sovereigns (free men in political brotherhood) into subjects. The narrative-based authority takes your life out of your hands. At that point the orthodox narrative owns you. It even owns the bureaucrats because the sheeple horde have their mob mentality and their political utility. It can be argued that masters of human slaves are themselves slaves by codependency, certainly after enough plantation or dynasty generations have pushed practical fundamentals beyond living memory. The narrative becomes everything. Da childrenzzz! Da blacksss! Da poor! Da feeeliinnggzzzzz!

The bankers’ Left in America says the US Constitution is a living, organic document. They claim it is a narrative tool of, by, and for the sheeple for stroking feeeeeliinggzzz. The bankers’ Right says the US Constitution is a sacrosanct document of literal meaning inspired by Gaaawwwwwddduh. So was the previous one that it abrogates. What all the bankers’ bureaucrats say is that the current US Constitution is the ultimate legitimization of (their master’s) American sovereignty. By the laws of nature, that power is with the constitution of the people. Nature delegates power based on the constitution of the ecology. You have your constitution, and I have mine. You have your business, and I have mine. You have your political power to exercise by your hands, and I have mine. And that is why a democracy of action is viable: that is what an ecosystem has always been. Our natures are a tiny but relevant part of nature itself.

If we don’t let evolution cull individuals per narrative, it will cull coarsely by the society, and the resulting human life making the cut will be less glorious, less free, and less happy than what would have been. The social principles in effect matter. Stop focusing on the outcome, and start focusing on the working principles of your societal agency like PUAs do with their personal agencies. Come on, Manosphere!

Creepy Time and Guilt Trips

Neoreaction, Monarchism, White Nationalism, &tc,—let’s call it all the Alternative Right (AR): these backlash movements and ideologies will fail even if they succeed. Perhaps that is good for us. The laws of nature the AR adherents would tame forever will first provide just desserts to the überJudaic money priests who have successfully fitted the laws of human nature with a usury bridle. Whether the bridle holds or not, the demise of the current elite will be unsatisfactory consolation the way humanity is now. We have yet to be better as societal alternative. Stop it with the fucking narrative and the fucking producer-rape guarantee.

White Nationalism (WN) gives me the creeps. Pondering why is what inspired this post. You will note this post dovetails nicely with my previous post “Why Stupid Is Outsmarting You.” After reflection, I have discovered it’s the narrative that creeps me out. If you need narrative, you are emotive, you are blue-pill (in no small measure, even as you may also be red pill), and you are a coward. I say that with love.

The smooth talking spokesmen of WN make lots of great points. Human biodiversity (HBD) is no doubt real, though the exact details are not known. We don’t understand most of what the human genome means as a design specification. We don’t understand the native language of the human mind. What creeps me out about WNs is their sacrosanct validation admixed to lots of ideas and values I hold dear. Theists have the same narrative nonsense, but I can intellectually distance myself from them with ease, now that I am older.

For all sheeple, the guiltless guarantee is the main attraction. To accept a moral guarantee is to accept credit is to become a debt slave. Now with any modern cohesive narrative, you have everlasting hero-victim types and everlasting villain-perpetrator types. For example, feminism makes women out to be both oppressed by and yet superior to men: damn patriarchy that’s inferior but winning!

I ask you, does the narrative work without a villain? Does it work without an outside group to revile? No, it doesn’t. Validation by group identity requires an antagonist. Sheeple cohesion requires fear. Fear in competition with rational analysis is cowardice. Emotive fear is antiquated.

The scary antagonist of modern narrative could be Satan, or whites, or blacks, or goyem. Now I ask you, what would the Jews be without goyem to revile and exploit as inferiors? What would angry black Americans have to be angry about if the whole fucking world looked like sub-Saharan Africa, and black man’s bleed ran a world in need? They’d be angry at the lack of gazelles to hunt or the plague sent by some demonic spirit for lack of child sacrifices. Where would the hellfire religions be without eligible sinners and omnipresent sin? Where would WNs be if all the world were European white?

Are you anybody and anything absolutely? for what you yourself are?

There is the combative adage attributed to the men of the Middle East:

I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my brother and my cousin against the world.

Is that your grand plan, my white brothers? What is the morally pure white?

You can’t spell HBD without ‘Diversity’, and evolution experiments with different individuals more than it experiments with different races. The reproductive unit, according to Dawkins, is definitive at a small, fundamental scale and fades away with increasing size: Genes < Individuals < Races.

White nationalism (generically speaking) suffers from or is believable by inexact definition of narrative protagonist white. If you go back far enough with any of our ancestries, you will find miscegenation. The whole concept of HBD requires mixing and blending, since basically forever. Black Americans are part white because white slave owners were more sexist than racist about getting their rocks off. I believe what racist whites do given the chance more than what they say not given the chance. The DNA of white people suggests admixture with Neanderthals, so white has been evolving. No one can define exactly where acceptable white begins and ends any more than where rock 'n' roll begins and ends. What central authority and what narrative should have stopped the miscegenation of Neanderthals with homo sapiens? I tell you that is one of the most scandalous events of all human time!

There is no way to know what is good or bad in humankind's outcome without hindsight, and what hindsight is one human lifetime? Furthermore, we can't actually unfold alternative time lines and pick the best one or ones. The popular parable of the Taoist farmer succinctly yet thoroughly illustrates the point well. To paraphrase, a farmer loses his wayward horse, his only horse, and it appears to be bad luck; his sojourning horse returns accompanied by two strong and healthy wild horses, and it appears to be good luck; his son breaks his leg from being thrown from one of the wild horses, and it appears to be bad fortune; every able young man in the farmer’s community is conscripted to fight a war and gets killed, but his son could not go and fight, and it appears to be good fortune. One day the son meets a beautiful woman of pure heart…lmfao.

If you want to ground your beliefs, you must methodically look for absolutes. In practice, some absolutes are better than others because time will tell or times will change. Laws and their closely related principles are what solid theories have as foundation.

White nationalism prevents individuals from choosing their associations. Unacceptable. Whites that need guidance like that don’t have the right stuff. Will associations be good or bad? Time will tell correctly every time. And you?

I have had the thought that women have not had enough upward-polarity natural selection to be better than they are. Women and whatever childrenzzz they make are not necessarily precious. The way to handle the poor is to do nothing. The poor of character are going to bred faster, and that is fine if they die equally fast. It takes godlike hubris to become a natural sinner. If a white person has sex with a black person, let nature decide what works. Let free markets judge with nature at the helm. Freedom is always the answer. Not term limits, but good, old-fashioned culling by just desserts in sweet time.

It may be that monogamy can be bested by a more civilized system. It would seem reasonable that better fathers should have more breeding success, and that better breeding success would favor better fathers. The only reason polygamy has been such a fail with prosperity is the power of the state choosing the winning dicks. If you take that away, if you take away government-backed credit and let even government institutions fail, do the people themselves fail or succeed? Depends on the kind, by socio-ecological gravity. If a man takes on too many wives and fails, and the children die young, great. Posterity will be better off with a more prudent patriarchy and disposition. What is right and wrong will take care of itself. As Aurini likes to say, virtue is on a razor’s edge. If playing it safe were actually safe, women would be political geniuses. We men must live on the razor’s edge. We are designed for it, the antecedent being competition with our individual selfs, with others, and with raw environmental nature.

I see a big difference between military troops and militiamen. And btw, fuck Abe Lincoln. If we had a democracy of action, if we had patriarchy, if we had militiamen wherever we had men, then militaristic foreign policy would be constrained to vested interests of the soldiers patriarchs and their loved ones. The people would fight to protect their homes. They would not proudly fight in bankers’ war to cover their cowardice of personal moral agency. They would take the law and politics of their natures into their hands if no institution gathered up natural rights into a juggernaut bundle.

If militiamen had to find common cause instead of taking common orders from a central authority, the only other type of military action would be total acquisition war for total victory. Is it really harder to govern than to conquer? I think not. Profiteering war is waged at the direction of überJudaic money priests with a different order in mind. If men did fight to take land rather than defend it—and what’s the difference—they would kill enough of the adult men and the recalcitrant to convince the women to side their vaginas and their hamsters with the conquerors. The impressionable children would have no choice but to follow along in the proud traditions of the victors.

Is that cruel? Yes, but interminable conflicts that disguise every million USD in graft with a billion USD in waste and however many barrels of blood are much, much worse. Peace requires prosperity. Resources are better used by those who can take them. That is nature’s way. We can move the competition into the business world or whatever, but the struggle is still life and death, prosperity vs. poverty, progress vs. stagnation. Conquest and slavery and the ugly nature of life is not wrong per se, but such methods are wrong if there are better alternatives. Evolution says prove it. It sucks to be wrong. There is a season for cooperation and a season for competition. If whites have abused blacks more than blacks have abused whites, it’s only because whites have better character not worse. How could perennial winners have worse character? The greatest perennial victim types are scraping the bottom of the character barrel.

Suppose that white guilt is like water looking for the path of least resistance, basically what AsymmetricalWarfare suggested. White people have all this guilt conditioning over enslavement of blacks, over winning at life relative to blacks, dubbed white man’s burden. Isn’t that convenient for all the social engineering by the credit priest order directing military and financial intervention around the world. The guilt game is played by narrative frame control. All competing parties in the guilt-trip contest are locked into a win-lose sociality. They all want a subdued buffer class to fail first for their profit and ease. Not only that, but these sick types who live by exploitation with guilt want their cruelty and malice to be regarded as virtue and moral purity. I think WNs are playing the blame game, and that means WNs feel guilt that they want to redirect. Obviously, with the constant barrage of blame, white people are going to feel a hostile guilt and want to win rather than lose. This does not need to be a humanly conscious effort from anyone. Evolution has an ‘intelligence’ that comes out of what works and gets rewarded with more resources.

The objective truth is that blacks are better off surrounded by whites than surrounded by blacks. Black America is the richest and freest black community of societal numbers in the whole world by a huge amount. Blacks in the West are well ahead of blacks elsewhere else. Where’s the thanks? I feel zero guilt, but then my personal identity trumps any group identity in my mind. Being a man requires being your own man as well as being able to selectively relate to other men. We of the Red Pill know that AWALT because all women are out for #1. They are hardwired that way. Promoting individual interests is a requirement of evolution. It is not a sin. Going about it in an obsolete way, that’s a sin. Who wants to be the fucking best?!

Now I’m not suggesting that black people are generally more civilized or generally better associates than whites in the cause of prosperity and freedom. I have made it clear that I know for a fact the opposite is true.


If you take away the narrative, if you take away institutional selection of winners and losers, cream will generally and overwhelmingly rise to the top. It’s a fact. You pussies need a guarantee of what you are that others don’t want? Are you really better off in natural sin? Do you know a priori what society we should create in terms of concrete style or concrete structure?

Do you know why white men are the most civilized people on earth, closest to it anyway, and women are the least? White men had the best culling, and it was cruel. Culling the right way will find value better than you can. Culling can’t be stopped, only redirected in time and space. The more failure is delayed and deferred, the more society moves from receiving surgery to receiving butchery. Yesterday’s surgery should be today’s butchery, or you ain’t competitive.

For you programmer types, I mention the power of using pointer variables or object references rather than hardcoding to architecture specifics because that would be stupid, which is why programmers and software don’t work like that. Likewise, it’s dumb to use primitive constants as flag rather than variable names for all but the most simplistic code. Outcome independence means the focus is on process. Athletes call it being in the zone. If multiculturalism is wrong, you need not kill it. You only need to kill its supply lines.

Feminism too. What women can eat on their own merits as producers and entrepreneurs? Independent women are an illusion of government regulation and redistribution from capable male producers. The math (law of conservation) means the economy is terminal. Numerous bitches are already openly selling themselves in plain language, hustling privately because the government support is not enough, as if her petty and plump presence at least doubles the value of a dining experience. The government can’t run out of money, but it can run out of other people’s wealth. The credit distended alpha fux-beta bux dichotomy will collapse with the system. No woman doesn’t want to be in a man’s world of wealth management as far as the fruits go.

“My eager pussy for a bowl of gruel, my good lord?”

The process of civilized wealth management, that is the masculine mystique. Most men with said masculine mystique are white, but most white men don’t have it. It’s the upright abstract principles of process, stupid. Nature enforces correctness, and your nature is a drop in the ecological bucket. Everybody gets a drop on the same order of magnitude or two. Pick your political missions and battles wisely.

If a white woman is given the choice of:


…who the fuck are you to decide for her? for us who must live with the consequences?

If I am given the choice of:


…you’d better fucking believe I’m fucking the black chick.

I say ‘fucking’ because regulated male commitment in America is divorce-rape roulette. That is a major handicap only the most submissive and most youthful virgins might overcome with a man not a fool, which is to say white birth rates are noticeably down. If you see the white trash in the Deep South pumping them out like I do, you might conclude that birth rates for non-trash whites are very suppressed. The only woman I trust for a committed relationship is Rosey Palm, the forever loyal virgin bride who never complains or demands or lies.

Get real, all my brothers in patriarchy. When you know well the facts of your ignorance, you are a fucking genius. You knowing your ignorance for what it is of itself is like a great musician playing the rests like the notes. Your nature is but a drop in the bucket of any system gracious enough to include you. Mind your business, mind your principles. Always. Be. Closing. Ignorance is sometimes a hint that you are where you shouldn’t be. Other times it is a hint that you are not what you should be.

PUA is the way. Unplug. Side step. Ride. Rebuild. Evolution is the frame.

Cherchez la femme,

—‘Reality’ Doug, 28 June 2014


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Philosophy, Political Opinion and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s