Huh, so I lived in a bigger city for five years and realized that they were all right, that girls start out tying sex to love, and after the trauma of losing their first love or two, they numb themselves to potential hurt in the future by permanently divorcing the two.  Sex turns into a resource they can use in a completely detached manner to advance their own self-interest, and status isn’t an inborn quality they are attracted to in a man, but rather arousal is a natural reaction to any situation in which they can use sex to form a temporary bond with anyone who can benefit them.

Men are equipped by nature with all the tools they need to survive and thrive.  For the hottest girls, the easiest path to success is fairly obvious, which is to use sex to survive and thrive.  This Machiavellian promiscuity is not just mating strategy – it’s the raison d’etre for any woman who fits in the venn diagram of not wanting to work but being hot enough to find a way out of it.

This is the evolutionary basis of the distinctly female expression of high intelligence.

Fast Forward

How in God’s name is this blog getting triple digit page views in a day?  It feels like I stopped writing a lifetime ago; I guess I did.  I left the manosphere for the same reason I bothered writing this thing in the first place, which is:  Women are taking over society because American men have no concept of positive authority.  They certainly have a concept of negative authority, and I left the manosphere because that was the only framework they had within which to develop a system of gender relations.  I left before Roosh started openly advocating serial rape and Roissy devolved into a troublingly sincere white supremacist, and before hearing any of the discussion, if there was any, of whether anyone was surprised by either.  And I left to pursue a relationship and put the shit I’ve been talking about into practice.  I just fucked my girl and said “You’re a good mate and I give you an A+” before walking out of the room to type this, struggling to remember a time when the word “neg hit” had any application to the world I live in.

This is where ex-Manosphere writers go:  they get into relationships where the girl cooks, cleans, pays her half of the tab, asks to be tied up and spanked each week, and says they can sleep with other girls if they want, she “just wants them to be happy.”  This community, in its heyday, taught me my values in life, and I probably owe my life to it.  I really think it’s a shame that everything I got out of it seems to be dead and all that remains is the bitter husk of a defeated sex, obstinately bitching about how things “ought” to be in complete contradiction of reality.

Touching Base

Long time no see. I don’t find much of this stuff interesting anymore, but I logged on and saw a sizable number of people still come to this blog searching for red pill or r/K material. Re: the red pill, I find it difficult to imagine a bigger waste of intellectual energy at this point; I’ve been in a bdsm relationship with a 21 year old for about a year and find myself asking…if you want a traditional power dynamic, why not just find a girl with similar interests and spare the rest of us the diatribes? Just a thought.

Re: r/K, actual scientists have continued to humiliate the HBD neckbeards, and I’ve largely moved on from reading about epigenetic moderators of IQ to mechanisms by which the stress response system influences life history-relevant physiological traits in response to early life instability (read:low SES). Here is a good launching point for anyone interested in traveling the rabbit hole: https://marcodgdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delgiudice_etal_2011_acm_stress-responsivity_nbr.pdf

Or just reread heritability studies like it’s 1993. Fine with me.

Strictly For The Hardcore Aspergoids

Most events are best understood as being particular and specific as opposed to being abstract. Does this make sense? Probably not, because these terms are unfamiliar. When I say abstract, I mean that the world responds to certain items or people in a way that is predictable from the intrinsic qualities of the item. You are at a bar and you open a girl with a friendly line, and she responds invitingly or with rejection. What is the explanation for this? The abstract explanation is that she responded negatively because of a fundamental flaw she could see in the item — you. The particularistic explanation is that women are tightly attuned to the world around them, and the event (her response) was in fact evoked by other events that preceded and influenced it. Before you approached, had you made eye contact? Did you smile? Was she comfortable with your presence? Was she having a good night? Were her friends occupied? These are occasions which occur *in real life* that account for the occasion we are focusing on, and my supposition is that, in fact, *all events are precipitated and caused primarily by preceding events, rather than occurring spontaneously as an expression of abstract reality.” Make what you can of this, it is more than game, it’s an authentic experience of reality.


I lay out a few of my thoughts in Nick Land’s comments section, 3 comments down.  As per Ellul, I believe increasingly centralized organization is mandatory; as per Hobbes, that abuse is a foregone conclusion, and as per common sense, that this is mildly terrifying.

A lot of neoreactionary thought touches on the reading I did in college, when I called myself a Christian anarchist and a radical anti-modernist.  I believed very deeply that the progression of complex civilization subverted human morality, and I still do.  My political opinions changed when I encountered Durkheim and his brilliant analysis of organic and mechanical solidarity — the different systems for maintaining social cohesion in tribal and complex societies.  I understood that total moral cohesion could exist only in the extreme of a 50 person society, but unlike the anarchists, understood that we clawed our way out of the wild for a reason.  Maybe human alienation was worth it to fend off the excesses of precivilizational savagery.  Now, I can foresee the reforms which will inevitably accompany the opposite extreme — total civilization, total economic integration, total efficiency of ordering.  And I can’t quite tell which seems worse.

Problems with the dominant reaction

Will I start blogging here again?  Tough call.  I’ve been flirting with the Dark Enlightenment for the past 5 months, along with everyone else.  From the beginning, this blog was always a meditation on the overlap between game and political power in the immediate and interpersonal sense, and I may find a way to merge this with the political concepts explored by the neoreactionaries.  If so, I’ll continue.

For the time being, however, too many objections to the basic preoccupations of the movement seem self-evident, and too few of the participants seem to be genuinely engaging the works of its true luminaries.  There are an enormous amount of contradictions implicit in the neoreactionary program that nobody seems remotely interested in addressing, and most of the fanatics seem interested in its more middle-brow elements.

A few points of contention:

– Clearly, democracy has, by its nature, subverted the seminal American value of equality of opportunity in favor of legislating equality of outcome through affirmative action programs.  I’m opposed to the latter, but I feel most reactionaries are fairly hasty in accepting the dissolution of equal opportunity.  Most of those writing probably come from middle class backgrounds, and that middle class didn’t exist in the 19th Century — which everyone agrees was the closest America ever came to true, unfettered capitalism.  My family was around in the 19th Century.  Half of them were wealthy Mexican landowners, half started the Yale legacy 4 generations back.  Most were dutiful, self-sacrificing professionals; some were extremely wealthy.  No disrespect intended, but when you start extolling the virtues of a radically inequitable distribution of resources, do take into consideration the overwhelming likelihood that you would be on the losing end — and how ridiculous you sound to those of us who wouldn’t be.  Does this sound arrogant to you?  Get used to it — humility isn’t a virtue in rigid class hierarchies.

-It does little good to point out that science supports the concept of population level evolutionary adaptation, and that this results in stratification of groups along a number of metrics relevant to success in contemporary society.  The question of how to handle the inequality that proceeds from innate differences between citizens is still a subjective decision, and it bears questioning which values should inform it.  The progressives advocate “social justice” as a guiding principle in making these decisions; the conservative objection is typically that this results in policies which disadvantage citizens of greater ability, and that this is unjust in its own right.  The neoreactionaries, however, take the argument one step farther and commonly argue that we should “acknowledge reality” by discarding all mitigating EEO policy.  It’s refreshing to hear anyone tell the truth about the world we live in, but this hardly helps when it comes to producing actual policies to pursue.  Looking to “Gnon” (i.e. nature) as an ideal to be accepted and restored is a slippery slope. Look at the issue from a different perspective: in a state of nature, women use collective bargaining to negotiate for power and resources, and create networks in which nepotism, not ability, determines success.  In other words, there’s a strong argument behind the feminist mafia being a completely natural phenomenon and any assortative hiring systems being artificial and unnatural.  In other words, this is nature.  Your imaginary world where only the best and brightest achieve positions of power and influence is not.

-As far as I can tell, Moldbug may be the only human being to ever address the issue of declining human usefulness in the face of growing technological efficiency with any real seriousness.    He also touches, at times, on Marx’s central contention that unmitigated markets naturally distribute resources with such unfathomable inequality that the future of industrial capitalism, from any vantage point, makes the medieval feudal system look like a socialist utopia.  Marxism is responsible for a good portion of the suffering undertaken by history’s human population over the past 200 years, but I can’t overlook that it was obviously a response to legitimate observations about the social structure intrinsically produced by industrial capitalism.  Most seem to view the reaction as categorically opposed to redistribution, but I think Moldbug leaves the possibility open of a non-democratic corporate state in which citizens collect dividends from the state’s product.  I’d be interested to hear more about this in the future.  My primary objection to redistributive economic policy comes from Angelo Codevilla‘s emphasis on the inevitability of highjacking when forces of economic might are capable of influencing the policies to which they are subjected — i.e. in any democracy.  Moldbug has found a way around this in his non-representative neocameral system.  Seems to me that most other reactionaries oppose redistribution altogether out of their own unfounded sense of  “nature” or “justice”.  Not that a reactionary would ever do that.

-Most political fringe movements share one thing in common, and it’s always the element I take greatest issue with.  That common element is a belief that this is not the natural world, that the current order is an aberration from reality, and things would be fine if people just followed the rules. Anarchists believe the state is an aberration.  Socialists believe capitalism is an aberration.  Reactionaries believe the Cathedral is an aberration.  I regret to inform you that it is not.  In fact, we are in a state of nature right now, and human beings have very naturally created this unnatural order.  There’s a great deal of emphasis on who ascends to a position of power in our society and the means by which they do it.   I said earlier that half my family are Yankees, and I can personally verify that Moldbug has identified the latter day puritan culture with greater accuracy and insight than anyone before him.   I feel strongly that Massachusetts came to rule the world – much as the jews did – because there is an ethic within their culture that predisposes them to success.  This ethic is likely indivisible from the unitarianism, from the puritanism, from the very values of the cathedral that so many take as an aberration.  Similarly, the historically underprivileged classes of society who benefit so greatly from appealing to the guilt which produced Puritan wealth have very naturally negotiated for positions of privilege in today’s society.  That’s what humans do.  It’s not an aberration.  So I’m all for being pragmatic about how to put capable people in positions of power, but we may have to take into account that we’ll be counterbalancing a very natural assertion of self-interest by other people, and that it’s somewhat pointless to write this off as a massive conspiracy theory.

Frankly, I’ve been consistently amused by the percentage of neoreactionary rhetoric that revolves around some notion of justice or right order in the world.  The natural order is savage, the comfortable order is corrupt, and I’m only really interested in addressing these issues because they are clearly detracting from the West’s capacity to function.  Whether or not it’s functioning fairly is, to me, a preposterous question to even be asking.