Tag: society

Rediscovering Van Creveld

But there is more to social justice and social justice convergence than simple feminization:

Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

he Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place.

The author is entirely correct to be concerned about the consequences for every industry in which women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. A feminist society, if left unchecked to its own devices, will look very similar to the average African society before European contact. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

But the author is confusing the symptom for the disease. Women are more akin to the vector of the disease than the disease itself, as can be observed from the way in which men who are social justice warriors are every bit as incompetent and even more insane than the women are. The disease is ultimately spiritual and eventually ends in either societal collapse, pyramids dedicated to child sacrifice, or both.

The good news is that a) converged societies will inevitably fail, b) women’s commitment to feminism and social justice will vanish as soon as the government funding fails, and c) men stop supporting female influence over them.

This is a unique moment of history, and it is already observably coming to an end.

The lesson, as always, is this: women ruin everything.
—Bill Simmons

DISCUSS ON SG

What a Difference 10 Years Makes

When people ask “how can you believe that women shouldn’t have the right to vote,” I don’t equivocate, retreat, or attempt to qualify my position on the subject. I simply ask them how it is possible for them to believe, with more than 100 years of evidence available, that extending the franchise to women has improved any society in any way anywhere on the planet.

In a reasonable and rational world, men and women would agree that some fundamental assumptions were incorrect, some very serious mistakes were made, and men would protect women by not permitting them any direct involvement in macro-level societal decisions. But this is not that world. We live in an irrational, unreasonable, and stupid one.

So, most women will have to protect themselves from the inevitable consequences of their personal decisions and political preferences. That should prove to be an interesting challenge. One certainly wonders what point they’ll have reached in another ten years.

DISCUSS ON SG

When Society Fears its Veterans

It is a society that no one will defend and is not long for this world. A veteran of the Iraqi War explains that he’s not merely a “right-winger” but a man who was betrayed by his government.

Everyone thinks I’m a right winger but they are wrong. That’s way too simple of an explanation. I’m a product. I’m a result. I’m what happens when society kicks the can of betrayal down the road for too long. I am unfortunately necessary. I will never negotiate with evil. I cannot be bought. I do not care about power. I do not care about money. I do not care about success. My dog in this fight isn’t any of these earthly trinkets everyone is grasping at. I am here for justice. I am here to make amends for the sins I’ve committed. I am here to witness the evil so it can be judged. I am here to be the voice for the weak, helpless, and silent. So help me God.

Meanwhile, the Russians are doing the precise opposite, by putting a plan in place to groom military veterans for political and business leadership, and ensuring they find an honored place in Russian society.

The program “Time of Heroes”, aimed at the development of participants and veterans of the SVO, starts today, its goal is to prepare managers to work in government, Dmitry Peskov said. Requirements for participants of the “Time of Heroes” program: citizenship of the Russian Federation, higher education, experience in managing people, participation in SVO and no criminal record. The program will be mentored by the heads of the presidential administration, governors, members of the government, mayors, heads of leading companies.

This is what is possible when a nation is not ruled by a foreign elite that fears its replacement by a nationalist elite.

DISCUSS ON SG

Post-Boomer Post-Feminism

Divorce rates have been in decline since 1986 and have returned to pre-feminism levels:

Divorce rates have plummeted to their lowest level in more than five decades – thanks to men being more ‘committed’ to their marriages, a study claims. The chance of a marriage breaking down is now 35 per cent, down from a high of 44 per cent in 1986, and a rate not seen since 1970.

Researchers found the decline is almost entirely down to a fall in the number of wives filing for separation. They argue that this is because men’s increased commitment means women are far happier in their marriages. By contrast, the number of divorces initiated by husbands has barely changed in decades.

Granted, the researchers are being ridiculous in their customary attempt to avoid all female responsibility and culpability. It’s literally not the male behavior that has changed, nor has the female behavior changed due to any changes in male behavior. This increase in marital success is due to a) Boomers aging out and b) younger women having seen the results of feminism.

It’s true that the reduced level of marriage probably plays a role here, as some of those who would never stay married aren’t getting married in the first place. But it’s good news that a higher percentage of married couples are staying together now, and these statistics should be kept in mind whenever some bitter MGTOW starts spouting off about how marital failure is inevitable when it’s actually only one chance in three.

UPDATE: A MGTOW responds:

In your newest post, you said that, with the divorce rate having decreased to one in three, that should shut up MGTOWs. I’ll simply ask you one question: would YOU jump out of an airplane if your parachute had a one in three chance of failure? NO! Because divorce wrecks mens’ lives, marriage is still too risky for men.

To which I responded in the kind and sensitive manner for which I am well-known:

You’re literally retarded. And a genetic dead-end. If you weren’t retarded, you’d realize that your analogy is both stupid and irrelevant. Don’t be such a coward. It’s no way to live.

DISCUSS ON SG

Ignore the Boomer Ghosts

The Kurgan responds to Karl Denninger’s Boomer blackpilling:

In the big scheme of things, those who do not reproduce sufficiently die out. Nature is pretty brutal about it and tends to operate on the principles of large numbers. And exceptions to that rule because of different large numbers.

It may just be humanity’s lot that we go the way of mouse utopia aka Universe 25. In which case, we’re all doomed and so are all our children. And if so, why worry about it. Worrying about it would be a total waste of time. Besides which you do NOT know this for certain, so assuming it off the bat is an error. So, as a function of reason and logic, this specific idea must be ignored.

Treating it as valid or true can only lead you to depression and misery in a situation where your irrational belief in a “certainty” you cannot possibly know is a certainty, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. This point alone, the Universe 25 possibility, should make it obvious that similar thoughts that lead down similar (if less total) outcomes are also to be ignored.

So for example, the idea that “all white people will soon be extinct” or “high IQ people do not breed together because there is not enough of them” or the more common “marriage and children is a loser’s game because all women are whores and will divorce-rape you” and all the various variants of that kind, are in essence self-fulfilling, loser’s bets on life. The fact that your specific marriage may turn into a hellscape, or your specific life becomes a dead end is not relevant to the entire sub-species you represent.

Yes nature does not care about you specifically, but you specifically can and do affect nature. Make 15 children and chances are most of them survive. If they all too make 15 children from age 20 on, like you did, guess what the landscape of your tribe looks like 100 years from now if you just start out with you and your wife as Adam and Eve? On that basis, starting with you and your wife having had 15 children by the time you are both say 40, if all your children and theirs and so on do the same, meaning that every 40 years they all have a batch of 15 children each, if you lived to be 140, you would have over 17 thousand descendants. 17,275 to be exact. And if the average age of death was say 80, then almost all of them would still be alive, since the first iteration (at year 20) is only 135 people. And that’s only ONE family. Imagine if you have ten such families in the same area. You now have a small nation after one century. Which in the scheme of things is not so much time. And if the genetic serums actually sterilise and wipe out most of humanity, you will not only be a small nation, you will be the majority within it. And it might not be such a small geographical area after all. Now imagine them all of the same religion that takes no crap from depopulationist satanists like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and their pedophile friends.

“But people don’t make 15 children each, and how do you feed them all, and send them to college?!?”

Patience grasshopper. People who bought the lies and live in clown world no longer make 15 children. But people did do that for centuries in Catholic countries. And that was before the internet, and Amazon deliveries, and often before indoor plumbing and central heating, and certainly before electricity and tractors and industrial fertilisers and automated harvesting machines… so let that sink in a little and park it in your brain somewhere while we continue to look at reality and possibilities instead of the ghosts boomers put in your head.

This is one of the many reasons why it is good to hate the Boomer, or at the very least, to reject the Boomer and all his pomps and all his philosophies. Hope is not only a virtue, it is one of the three primary Christian virtues, along with Faith and Love.

Don’t worry about college. It’s a net-negative artifact of the 1960s-1990s anyhow. If you’re going to walk the path of the materialistic hedonist, you shouldn’t be getting married and having children anyhow, just plug into the pharma-sexual matrix and extinguish yourself over time in an overdose of Clown World oxytoxin.

DISCUSS ON SG

They Call it “Luck”

But it really doesn’t have much to do with chance or anything random. A team of Italian scientists tests the connection between the distribution of various attributes and the distribution of wealth.

What factors, then, determine how individuals become wealthy? Could it be that chance plays a bigger role than anybody expected? And how can these factors, whatever they are, be exploited to make the world a better and fairer place?

Today we get an answer thanks to the work of Alessandro Pluchino at the University of Catania in Italy and a couple of colleagues. These guys have created a computer model of human talent and the way people use it to exploit opportunities in life. The model allows the team to study the role of chance in this process.

The results are something of an eye-opener. Their simulations accurately reproduce the wealth distribution in the real world. But the wealthiest individuals are not the most talented (although they must have a certain level of talent). They are the luckiest. And this has significant implications for the way societies can optimize the returns they get for investments in everything from business to science.

Pluchino and co’s model is straightforward. It consists of N people, each with a certain level of talent (skill, intelligence, ability, and so on). This talent is distributed normally around some average level, with some standard deviation. So some people are more talented than average and some are less so, but nobody is orders of magnitude more talented than anybody else.

This is the same kind of distribution seen for various human skills, or even characteristics like height or weight. Some people are taller or smaller than average, but nobody is the size of an ant or a skyscraper. Indeed, we are all quite similar.

The computer model charts each individual through a working life of 40 years. During this time, the individuals experience lucky events that they can exploit to increase their wealth if they are talented enough. However, they also experience unlucky events that reduce their wealth. These events occur at random.

At the end of the 40 years, Pluchino and co rank the individuals by wealth and study the characteristics of the most successful. They also calculate the wealth distribution. They then repeat the simulation many times to check the robustness of the outcome.

When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.

That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers.

So if not talent, what other factor causes this skewed wealth distribution? “Our simulation clearly shows that such a factor is just pure luck,” say Pluchino and co.

First of all, this science, such as it is, should suffice to end, once and for all, the absurd insistence by American Jews that their statistically inordinate amount of wealth and power amassed in a matter of decades has anything to do with their imaginary average 115 IQ.

However, “just pure luck” is not a variable. While this method is sufficient to demonstrate the lack of correlation between talent, IQ, hard work, and other specific variables with wealth, to simply assign the causation to random chance is incorrect. The much more reasonable answer is that the team failed to test the variable that is most strongly correlated with wealth, which is positive connection to the central societal distributors of wealth.

There is no way such a model could account for ticket-taking, and yet we repeatedly observe that mediocre ticket-takers succeed while much more talented independents “experience unlucky events”. Is there one single person in the world who believes that Ben Shapiro is better behind the microphone than Milo Yiannopoulos or Owen Benjamin, and that he is also a more talented writer than Bruce Bethke, Chuck Dixon, and me?

Color me dubious.

Is there anyone who genuinely believes CNN can’t do better than hire a CEO and Chairman who was fired as the Director-General of the BBC for covering up the Jimmy Saville scandal?

I am of the color dubious.

It will be interesting to see what happens when these researchers discover that what they call “serendipity” fails to produce the results they are expecting, and when “serendipity” suddenly begins to cause them to experience unlucky events.

A useful term, that “serendipity”.

DISCUSS ON SG

One Ticket to the Ride

Mike Cernovich advocates men seeking to have children younger than the current societal norm.

If you’ve lived right, and done enough stuff, you won’t resent your kids or see them as having “held you back.” (That is almost always DELUSIONAL. It’s really hilarious how many people think they would have done something truly epic if only they hadn’t had kids. Kids often inspire you to become more.)

While men don’t have a biological clock the way women do, you still don’t want to die on your kids. Imagine being 70, having a kid, and dying when he’s 10. Hello? That’s creating cycles of trauma, and the number one rule of parenting is that your job is to close off cycles of trauma.

Anyway, that’s how you want to think about this subject.

Cold hard math and a little bit of biology.

You don’t have “all the time in the world.”

You get one ticket to the ride, and today is the youngest you’ll ever be.

It’s rather fascinating to see how many men, even men that one would not necessarily describe as having been particularly good men all along, are finding their way back to the Christian verities via a variety of paths.

He’s correct. Today is the youngest you will ever be, so make your game plan and act accordingly. The goal for a young man should be having his first child before the age of 30, and preferably as young as 25.

DISCUSS ON SG

Triggering the Irrelevant

All the cowards and incels on Gab were triggered by this.

The future belongs to those who show up for it. Stop whining. Start fighting by getting married, having children, and planting the acorns of the trees in whose shade your grandchildren will play. Yes, there are risks. You might get your heart broken. You might lose half your toys. So what? Action requires risk and risk is inherent to life.

There is no point in whining, blackpilling, or worrying about things you can’t possibly control. If you’re not willing to take risks to build the future, if you’re not willing to live, if you’re not willing to set your face against the entropy of the universe, then you are irrelevant and your inferior genetic line will end with you, due to your cowardly narcissism.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Canadian Tea Party

The Canadian Truckers’ Convoy ended up pretty much as I anticipated, effecting zero change despite the media theater as it was easily dismantled by the authorities. So much for the Internet’s armchair logistics experts:

Some mistakes were merely operational. There was no vetting. I gave one person my pseudonym and an invented autobiography, and within hours I was in a boardroom with all the organizers, going through maps, talking about internal weak points, looking at charts, and inputting every important phone number into my contact list. The lack of operational security was astounding.

The grass-roots organizations also meant that no one—yet everyone—was in charge. It was a classic case of “too many chiefs, not enough Indians,” but worse, as if the chiefs had all been drinking mouthwash. So much time was wasted between defective people competing for status and control, including podcasters and lawyers who thought of themselves as serious leaders, that it felt like the Special Olympics of political resistance. Resultantly, there was no distinction between strategy and tactics. Some organizers became so committed to certain small tasks, they could not understand that a bigger picture existed, while at the same time, it was rare for anyone to discuss what success would look like.

Another problem was the lack of quality men: we had some who were brave and others who were sharp, but few who were both. Most damaging of all was that nearly every organizer saw the occupation and their battle with the regime through the lens of a feminine morality, with undue concern about how we would be perceived. There was no understanding of conflict. The organizers couldn’t even fathom the regime extending its power through the judiciary or the financial system, and every time the government used the tools within their control, the organizers would become histrionic, and take comfort in videos of commentary and ranting by political celebrities who supported the convoy.

Somehow, most organizers and demonstrators held two incompatible premises at the same time. They took for granted that the Canadian government had been acting illegally over the past two years, even harming its citizenry for their own gain; and also believed guilelessly that the government would not lie, seize donations, freeze personal finances, use brutal force, or commit any other illegal action regarding the convoy. Every time the government demonstrated its willingness not to “play fair,” there was widespread emotional breakdown among the organizers. Some left fearful for their lives, while others became meritoriously cavalier and tried to get themselves arrested, even if their skillset was irreplaceable. There was an indulgent narcissism in the desire to be arrested for “counselling to commit mischief” and other misdemeanors. Since most organizers were released without charge, there was a sense that you could achieve martyrdom without real sacrifice.

So, as usual, it accomplished nothing except to wake up more regular citizens to the fact that they are not going to be able to vote, protest, posture, or threaten their way out of the neo-liberal world order’s chains. Which is why nothing is likely to change before its eventual, and inevitable, collapse under the weight of its own inversions and internal contradictions.

As a general rule, very few people are moved to act unless they are made sufficiently uncomfortable first. And the societies of the WereWest are literally too fat, well-fed, overstimulated, and drug-addled to be even remotely uncomfortable. But they are fragile and increasingly unstable societies, and their collapse is clearly coming.

DISCUSS ON SG