September 3, 2013

– The dark enlightenment’s best commenter is now blogging. His first post is here. (Follow-up here).

Scharlach: “There will always be sovereignty. There will always be someone to serve, someone or some group who has some element of control over certain elements of other peoples’ lives. This is a necessary condition for civilization.” (More here).

Nydwracu: “The single most important error of liberalism is that it either has forgotten or actively desires to avoid knowing that there are prerequisites to civilization, and that these prerequisites, like most traits, are most likely about 50% genetic.”

– Economists have now discovered that increasing supply can increase the clearing price and that increasing competition drives prices up. No word yet on whether or not they’ve finally discovered that economics is just a series of just-so stories that “prove” the a priori view of “economists,” but this finding surely can’t be far behind.

In related news, someone actually had to explain the following to an economist: “There is no society of Einsteins.” In other words, we’re not all many standard deviations above average. God save us from economists.

– Detroit figured out a way to solve its murder problem.

– Some worthwhile thoughts from Frost.


America deserves collapse.

Related, from Nick Land:

This is the phase of historical progression in which neoreaction necessarily emerges, its diagnoses dramatized by everything that now occurs, undisguised.

Also related.

The zombie apocalypse already happened. The social collapse which beckons will only be a symptom. You’re already a survivor. We cannot save the system, it is gone. There is hope, however, in rebuilding.

– Again, women are not moral agents.

Das racis. Detect a pattern?

No true Scotsman

September 2, 2013

At The Orthosphere, there’s a post purporting to argue that the Cathedral was not constructed by Christians. Presumably the title was changed by someone other than the author of the text of the post, because the post ably demonstrates that Christians did in fact build the Cathedral. Indeed, the post is recommended.

Here’s the gist:

What you should do is remember that a Great Schism rent American Protestantism in the early nineteenth century, with the sundering fissure tearing through denominations, and even congregations. Protestants on one side of the fissure called themselves “liberals,” those on the other side called themselves “orthodox.” . . .

Liberal Protestantism is a new, post-Christian religion that in its early stages opportunistically spoke in a Christian idiom, but nevertheless preached a new gospel. . . .

We live today under the watch and care of officious Puritans. As of old, they believe that they are better than other people, and they have got hold of a “great ‘moral’ idea” to get themselves into power. This regime has no official name, but its detractors use terms such as “totalitarian humanism,” “political correctness” and “the Cathedral.” I suspect that most conservative Christians feel intuitive distrust of this regime, and sense that it is at heart an alien ideology. But they will at the same time read writers on the left and right who claim that it grew out of Christianity, and more especially out of Calvinist New England. These writers, many of whom are exceedingly capable and interesting, may cause some conservative Christians to wonder whether it is, indeed, possible to be both conservative and Christian. This post attempts to answer that question. It is a sort of paternity test on the Humanist Heresy; and what it has shown is that the Humanist Heresy is not our baby. There is no reason on earth why we should pay child support.

I plan to pick a few nits, but – again – the post good and well worth your time.

The first nit is the timeline. American progressivism is not a force that sprung from minds of few in the early 1800s. It’s a force that is older than the republic itself. Of course, on this subject, I can do no better than defer to Nick B. Steves:

But the Puritan Hypothesis isn’t about the slate of doctrine, but the evolving memetic culture. If you extract any Protestant memetic DNA from amber that solidified prior to about 1940 (certainly prior to 1910), sure it all looks pretty non-progressive by today’s standards. But once you compare that sample with others taken each decade, it is quite clear that you’re 1940 sample was an ancestor of today’s NYT editor.

And it also becomes quite clear that the 1940 sample itself was descended from the Puritan DNA that landed in New England three centuries earlier, who “progressed” from demanding Charles’ head, to fomenting a colonial rebellion, to bringing slavery to a violent end, to giving women the right to vote, to banning alcohol, to “No-Fault” Divorce Laws, to “Gay Marriage”, to bombing Syria just for the helluvit. With a lot of twists and turns along the way to be sure, but all in an unmistakable direction: The Zeitgeist—the Arc of History.

The second and third nits are with the concluding thoughts. If progressive Christianity is really the bastard spawn of Christianity, don’t the Orthodox at least need to call out their enemy? Yet when I – is there any other non-religious commenter on the interwebz more pro-religion that me? – criticize progressive Christianity, my Orthodox readers jump to the defense of their supposed enemy. If you don’t owe it child support, why do you all seem to pay it anyway? How obvious does it have to get?

Finally, and most importantly, the issue at hand is not whether it is “possible to be both conservative and Christian.” In that, all sides agree that it is possible. The issue is whether or not (orthodox) Christianity is a vehicle capable of combatting (progressive) Christianity. The track record would suggest that the answer is no. We can question whom the true Scotsman is all day long, but if one of our potential Scotsmen always wins, he’ll eventually inherit Scotland in all the ways that matter.

Review of “What Do Women Want?” by Daniel Bergner

September 2, 2013

There are facts that were once known, sometimes generally known, that are now known to but a few.

Greg Cochran

We embraced science that soothed us, the science we wanted to hear.

The presumption that while male lust belongs to the animal realm, female sexuality tends naturally toward the civilized; the belief that in women’s brains the more advanced regions, the domains of forethought and self-control, are built by heredity to ably quiet the libido; the premise that emotional bonding is, for women, a potent and ancestrally prepared aphrodisiac; the idea that female eros makes women the preordained if imperfect guardians of monogamy—what nascent truths will come into view, floating forward if these faiths continue to be cut apart?

– Daniel Bergner

We live in an era plagued by pretty lies. One of the most beautiful and the least true is the lie of female sexuality. Under this lie, females carefully guard their reproductive facilities from men, who wish to spread their seed as widely as possible. What if things work the other way around? What if everything we’re taught about female sexuality is wrong? What if by totally freeing female sexuality from any moral constraints, we’ve opened up Pandora’s Box (pun intended)?

The manosphere, pick-up artists, or whatever you want to the burgeoning online group, owes its existence not to men’s desires to get laid, the increasing femininity of our culture or anything else that’s been popularly suggested. This movement owes its existence to the fact that the mainstream theory of female sexuality is a lie.

As long as people are taught that females are not promiscuous, that they love being romanced, that they should be treated with kindness if you want to impress them, they’ll be a market for the wisdom of this particular red pill.

Daniel Bergner rounds up some of the scientific research on this topic. Pretty lies perished. Feminists wept. A select few bloggers and readers nodded and took another drink.

The book is short, at times the writing is distinctly mediocre, but the science is fascinating (though it may not be surprising, if you’ve been paying attention). And, for a guy that’s been married 8+ years, the entire subject is rather depressing.

In sum, the scientific research indicates:

that one of our most comforting assumptions, soothing perhaps above all to men but clung to by both sexes, that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairy tale.

The picture that emerges is one that shows that, the female libido – “the female libido looked omnivorous” – appears to crave novelty. This point was brought home by studies on monkeys’ sexual behave in a particularly illuminating manner – female monkeys will move from partner to partner almost immediately upon finishing the act itself.

All this research falls:

within an area of science that is fiercely debated, mostly because of its signs that there are certain differences in intelligence between women and men due not to culture but to genes.

Uh oh. We appear to have actual believers in evolution here. Sound the PC alarms.

Once you move a ways down this unacceptable road, the pretty lies fall quickly. Some of the findings might as well have been scripted by PUA sites. For example, here’s a woman talking about her husband: “I’m not even thirty-five,’ she said to me. ‘That tingling—I don’t get to feel that anymore?'”

Consistently, studies find that women’s self-reported levels of arousal differ wildly from their actually measured levels (the latter are measured by blood flow to the relevant areas). More specifically,

Genital blood throbbed when the tapes described X-rated episodes with female friends—but the throbbing for female strangers was twice as powerful [this test was done on straight women, btw]. The broad-chested male friends were deadening; with them, vaginal pulse almost flatlined. The male strangers stirred eight times more blood.

The “friend zone” is indeed a scientific fact. You’re better being a female stranger than a male friend if you want to get some. Behold, female sexuality.

Other inconvenient findings include:

Women who thought they were being polygraphed not only reported more partners than the rest of the female subjects, they also—unlike their female counterparts—gave numbers [of sexual partners] a good deal higher than the men.

The bottomline is that:

To be desired was at the heart of women’s desiring. Narcissism, she [i.e. the researcher] stressed—and she used the word not in damning judgment but in description—was at the core of women’s sexual psyches. . . . The wish to be the object of primal need.

And perhaps the deathblow:

She warned against the expectation or even the hope of reaching popular romantic dreams: of “merging” with a partner, of being able to say “you complete me.” This was the wrong standard for love. This kind of bond, or just the striving for it, could suffocate [female] eros. Melding left no separation to span, no distance for a lover’s drive to cross, no end point where the full force of that drive could be felt. . . .

Not only did monogamy not enhance female sexuality, but it was likely worse for women than men.

There is an interesting section on rape fantasies, which are “really fantasies of submission:”

Depending on the study, between around 30 and 60 percent of women acknowledged that they took pleasure in this kind of imagining. The true numbers, the authors argue, were probably higher.

A few of the researchers were delightfully blunt:

“One lesson,” he said, “is that you don’t want a woman to form her first impression of you when she’s in the wrong menstrual phase. You’ll never recover.

Again this is hardly surprising to anyone not fully propagandized by feminism:

Amassing evidence that, all over the globe, male randiness and female modesty are celebrated. The widespread, in his view, proves the predetermined, the genetically encoded.

Before ending, it’s worth reflecting on how terrible the modern state of affairs is for people that actually love each other. It’s appears, after a while, that female lust dies out. The mainstream “solutions” for this problem are the root cause of the problem in the first place. At a certain point, it’s just depressing to read more stories about about a woman who loves her husband, but just doesn’t get excited by him. Or a husband who can’t figure out why his wife doesn’t get excited for him.

Anyway, this is the essence of the force that feminism has unleashed. We don’t understand it (we did, but we don’t any longer, although it’s really not that difficult to understand). We should fear it. We unleashed it because, reasoning from the wrong premises, it made perfect sense to do so, despite the wisdom we’d inherited from our ancestors. Hold your asses, while we reap what we’ve sown.

I was wrong

September 2, 2013

I generally supported – if half-heartedly – letting two gay dudes have some sort of legal relationship if they wanted one.

My ideological background is libertarian. My nature is to live and let live. If they wanted to pay higher tax rates and get sucked into a system that’s on the decline, why should I really care?

It appears that I should have cared because when fascism comes to America it will be in the guise of one dude buggering another one while you’re forced to let him watch your kids and he makes you take pictures of it.

I should have seen it coming. But who could have guessed this would happen so fast? Some slopes are slippery indeed.

Perhaps it’s obvious when you stop and think about the “right” that has been created. As best I can tell, it’s the right to: have a legal relationship with one other person (which either of you can break off at any time), as long as both of you are above a certain age, not too closely related to each other, and not actually in the same legal arrangement with another person (you can be diddling other people and having kids with them, just don’t marry them – that would cross the line, obviously). That’s a weird right.

Once rights get that weird, I guess it’s not too big jump to requiring people to do all sorts of shit.

This situation is topped off by the sudden realization that Russia doesn’t like gay people very much. Apparently a lot of people suddenly decided to care a lot about this at the same exact time while simultaneously all ignoring the treatment of gays in African and Middle Eastern countries. That sort of collective decision making is always rather suspicious.