Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Reblag II: Revenge of The Reblag

At some undisclosed point in the future, this blog will have all content removed and replace with a 72 font banner that just tells you to go read Foseti, instead.

You know, it's common for Americans to think that Soviet citizens lived in perpetual fear of their government, constantly worried about whether their briefest word, their subtlest misstep, could cost them their freedom or even their lives.

I'm beginning to become convinced that this was not in fact the case, except for a few, who subsequently defected to the US and told us all about it. After all, I don't live in constant fear that I'll say something to a gay student and face ten years imprisonment for it.

Soviet citizens were probably just as, or nearly as content as Americans, they probably had similar levels of pride and pessimism in their country, and they probably, by and large, saw their government as maybe a bit clumsy or incompetent, but overall doing the best job that could be reasonably expected of it. Because, frankly, the US government does the same shit.

Right, and what's worse is that they're not even using the free labor to do anything meaningful!

The reason monogamy is socially and legally enforced in the modern world is Christianity, because that religion is stupid.

In the paper the authors note that laws against polygamy came to Japan in 1880,
Oh, gee, what happened around about that same time? Afterward, the Japanese did so desperately want to emulate the Puritan Americans, with their fancy uniforms and brass cannons.

One might as well say:

"In the paper the authors note that laws against fascism came to Germany in 1945"

I always find it somewhat puzzling that reactionary bloggers lament the sociomarital system of the 1960s and past, but then seek to reinstate the system from the '50s? Why not, say, copy the system of the Mongol Empire, or something?

If a woman proposes to you, refuse.

There's a lot wrong with this. I like deconstructing things by line-item. Let's go:

-If you think, as an acolyte of the Dark Side, that you're a conservative, ur doin it wrong. Conservatives are a joke for a reason. Just because you reject the current system, does not mean you should associate yourself with those clowns politically.

-Why do we care what conservatives think of us? We care what liberals think because they hold power. Conservatives do not. If you're not going to go about reaction pragmatically, then what are you doing here?

-Yes, liberals hate you, that's the point (well, besides being right). But just because they hate you doesn't mean you can't make them secretly want to bed you. All hominids are attracted to power. Become a local source of power, and they may resent you, but they will secretly want you to plow their asshole.

-Be humble? You ain't gonna get any ass that way, buddy. Listen, just because you know you don't know everything doesn't mean you have to cut your dick off.

-Pretty sure I can tell that bonald is a Christian just by the way he talks. Why would you be a Christian these days? If you want to ally yourself with a powerful tribe, just become a liberal. This "I know nothing" claptrap was horseshit when it was popular, and it sure as hell hasn't aged gracefully. Buddy, your God ain't gonna judge you for using the faculties you're given. You can know some things. It's OK, go ahead.

-Honestly, since becoming a reactionary, I haven't ever had the problem of feeling insulted or shamed for my beliefs. I have nothing at stake in the Great Sham. I care not how politics shakes out, who gets elected, what horseshit law gets passed. My faction, if I can be said to have a faction, is apolitical, so that means that we care insofar as it affects us directly, and nothing more. Let the temple burn to the ground, I don't live there! If you can't read the prole rags without getting emotionally hurt, I would suggest to you a different line of work than being a Sith.

-Hahahah. "The atheist Left". You know, the Protestants loved to claim that the Catholics were heathens, too.

Was going to eventually do a post on this, but Detox beat me to it.

Saves me some work.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Reblag: The Technological Nadir

The most viscerally compelling argument for this that I know of in recent memory is the SR-71. You can go see one in the flesh here or there.

As the core applied sciences weaken and evaporate, everything else will stagnate. Modern CNC machines are indeed very impressive, but have you ever wondered why, to make things, we're still fundamentally shaving away metal?

If any given area of technology has advanced in the past 50 years, it's because it's become highly computerized, not because of breakthroughs in hardly any other area. Soon the reservoir of solid-state electronics will dry up, and we'll stagnate completely.

Once progress is halted entirely, things will start going backwards. Young people will look fondly upon the ruins of the once great civilization, and imagine the exciting hubbub of a society still breathing. Priuses will rust in great boneyards, stripped of ever simpler components. For a fanciful look at how society will appear then, try this or that. At least it will be more entertaining than the reality of what's to come.

Ah! The great march forward!

Sunday, February 26, 2012

A Pulsar of Wrong

A new heavenly body is discovered.

Hey look! I can do it, too:

"Popular economics is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Protestant) Keynesians who broke from the Roman Catholic Church in Boston in the 1770s, forming little autocratic circles of twenty to forty billion people with their preachers in each other’s Ivy League colleges."

Monday, February 20, 2012

Soyuuuuuuuuz nyerushimyyyyyyyy...

...Respublik svobodnykh, blah, blah, blah.

Also, Putin's keeping it real... Soviet.

Phffffffbbbbbtttt! Here comes the airplane!

Open wide!

Why are you subscribed to me and not Foseti? Silly person.

"Neoreactionary" is a dumb term. This must sound insulting, AUK, but my goal isn't to antagonize you, just to shoot down your term before it spreads like smallpox.

Are we all reactionaries, even? What does that term mean for us?

Why do we care to associate ourselves with such silliness as "neoliberals", "neoconservatives", etc? I get that you might find playing off those terms funny, but do you want to describe yourself with a joke?

Are we even "us?"*

I describe myself as an "autocratist." This kind of mechanical-sounding term works for me for several reasons:

-It has a useful sound and feel to it. It's not quite sing-songy, but I don't find it clunky-sounding, either.

-It very accurately and concisely describes my belief system. Government should be by an autocrat. I think that disclosure is one of the most desirable aspects of reaction/monarchist/royalism/autocratism. Does "neoreactionary" tell you anything?

-It's broad. Emperor? King? Czar? Dictator? All fall into the purview of "autocrat".

I'll still describe myself as a "monarchist" or a "reactionary" if the situation calls for it. But why invent a new term that fails to accomplish anything more than the old, familiar ones? Bah!

*Perhaps there will be more on this later.

HalfSigma, no they don't.

Part of what Foseti and co are trying to impress upon their readership is that the doublethink related to HBD denial is exceptionally strong. Progressives will never, ever admit that they don't actually believe HBD is false. But that doesn't change the fact that they act as if it is true. Why do they do this? Because their tribe demands allegiance, in the form of submission of will. Humans have evolved to be fiercely loyal to their tribe, as long as it holds power. And oh, does it hold power!

Thus, you can shove bamboo under their fingernails, you can pierce their skin with hooks, you can stretch them on the rack, and never, ever, ever, will they admit that they don't believe HBD is false. To do so is to commit social suicide, which, to a human, might be worse than the standard kind.

In support of his argument, HS has this to say:
This is like saying that religious people are secret atheists.
HS, that's exactly what we're saying.

What we need to do is start changing the system so it becomes less rather than more democratic.
No! You're doing it wrong! Look, when you say "what we need to do is..." you're speaking democratically. This is why reactionary bloggers won't ever change the world. As a whole, our internal language is so hopelessly mutilated that we can't even begin to think correctly.

I remember watching Pat Buchanan with my father on Sundays as a kid fondly. The modus operandi of the modern state is to use its peripheral agents to murder the careers and reputations of its enemies. The USSR was much less secure, so its methods were much less subdued. Does that make the organisms fundamentally different, though?

This immediately brought to mind images of a young Brezhnev-era Soviet lying stomach-down on his bed with his hands clasped under his chin looking fondly at the image of Alexey Stakhanov.

I am utterly convinced that East Asians are the master race, at least until the Persians get their act together.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Movies for Reactionaries, Part II

Rather, anime for reactionaries.

While most anime that possess the theme of tsuyoku naritai are campy adventures for young boys, often involving giant robots, this gives us a realistic, compelling example for an adult audience.

Tsuyoku naritai is the keystone concept behind my brand of reaction (possibly more properly described as autocratism), and Planetes does a great job giving us that Japanese concept of self-improvement and victory in a serious, adult package.

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Gee, Brain, Whaddya Wanna Do Tonight?

The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to take over the world.

I sometimes read through Foseti's archives, in my never-ending search for younglings with high midichlorian counts and general proclivities towards the Dark Side. In doing so, I found this entry, which I'd read previously.

From the post:

I think lack of cohesion is the problem, as I said above. There isn’t too much consensus since no one really knows how to slow or stop Progressivism. Progressivism has been winning and brutally destroying all its enemies for so long, that’s hard to imagine what non-progressive ideas even sound like. As I’ve said before, it’s hard for us to even discuss ideas without using Progressive language.
 Stop Progressivism, you say? Why, that just so happens to be my speciality.

How does one do this? Brain knows. You must take over the world. If you think that sounds hard, well, I never promised it would be easy.

Taking over the world is an excellent starting point, because it's something that's been done before. We already know how to take over the world.

Step one is to find someone worth owning the world. This must be one person, someone strong and young and prone to wisdom. That's a tall order, but so was inconel.

Step two is to build his religion. He must be the center of the religion: If his followers don't wear his emblem around their necks, you're doing it wrong. Progressivism has historically been good at crushing its opposition, but it hasn't had a serious opponent since 1918. I do not think it will be ready, especially not if the religion spends its most vulnerable period as far away from the center of Progressive power as possible.

Step three is to grow until the final conflict between Progressivism and the religion comes to a head. This will look a lot like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, except if Saddam were Alexander of Macedon. The 30-year old air superiority fighters fly in to drop their precision munitions on strategic targets... And are annihilated by the very secret, very advanced air defense network that Alexander had spent the past 15 years building. We know this can be done, because China is currently doing it, though China is not a reactionary party.

With Progressivism's heart cut out, the ceiling on your growth is shattered. Proceed with the takeover.

If this sounds impossible, it's because you're not serious about it. No reactionary bloggers are, certainly not me. None of us really want to take over the world, because the organ that impels us to ambition was surgically removed years ago.

However, there are those who never went under the knife. They're rarer now, but they still exist. If you truly want to defeat Progressivism, you must find one of them who is suitable for the task and reveal to them their destiny. Once they have accepted the mantle, I promise that humans will be more inclined to follow them than we've been lead to believe. After all, if people weren't generally inclined toward an authoritarian society, Progressivism would work as advertised.

UE is a Terminology Mint

When someone espouses the virtues of a perfectly free society, and then tells you to take your different opinion elsewhere, we call that person a Roflibertarian.

It's pronounced rah-FLIB-er-TARE-ee-UHN.


What a world it's become, when good parenting is 'sociopathy'?

Friday, February 10, 2012


Sorry, Roissy, but you're wrong.

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because all prosperous societies have collapsed, does not mean that prosperity induces collapse. Do impoverished societies collapse? Uh, yeah. Thank you, Mario, but our princess is in another castle.

Unless, of course, he is using prosperity to mean something else. In which case he needs to get his head out of his ass, because that's not what that word means.

Mind-Controlling Brain Slugs FROM SPACE

Who wants to be president?

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Tsk, tsk


Those foolish monarchs, always spending their people's wealth on frivolous things like robes, and jewels, and castles.

Thank Wilson we've come to our senses and adopted a democratic form of government, which never spends but for the most dire necessity, allowing the people to prosper independently.

Oh, shit.


I find it highly amusing that this entry is not, in fact, anti-democracy, but rather pro-democracy and "anti-system", whatever that means.

So comprehensive is the doublethink that when one complains about how poor a system democracy is, they don't actually mean democracy.


I wonder if this explains that.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012


If your attention span is especially short, or if you just like having that little authoritarian organ in the back of your brain tickled, then this is the reactionary website for you.

I feel like there should be a low-budget action movie made with these quotes incorporated as wise aphorisms.

U mad, State Department?

U mad?

Monday, February 6, 2012

The Evil That (Wo)men Do

I am rarely taken aback.

Kids, I'm afraid the fantasies you were told as a child are all lies. I am so sorry.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

Prolific Math

Can you prove without direct empirical data that men are polygynous? Let's take a look, shall we?

Let's assume that a hypothetical monogamous couple procreates as often as is physically possible. How many children can they produce?
A human female hits puberty at about age 10-14. They hit menopause in their 50s, in modernity, but a high-stress lifestyle, like the ancestral environment, drives this age much earlier. For convenience, we'll use age fifty. That gives the woman a solid forty years as a baby factory.
The average human woman produces about 400 fertile eggs during her lifetime. However, a human baby takes 9 months to gestate, limiting the actual number of children which she can have. Doing the math, this works out to 50 children a woman can potentially have in her lifetime, plus some change.

Men produce over 500 billion sperm in their lifetime.
One ejaculation contains roughly 40 million sperm, though this varies wildly.
That's approx 12,500 full ejaculations that a man can do in his lifetime.
For a promiscuous man, we'll call each ejaculation a potential child.
So a man can sire perhaps 10,000 children in his lifetime, if he takes maximum advantage of his output.
(The actual number here would be much higher, since if you're active enough, each ejaculate would contain less sperm, but your incidence of pregnancy would be relatively unaffected. Ghengis Khan, for instance, kept a harem of several thousand women and probably exceeded this quota of offspring.)

Further, this type of reproduction is a weakly zero-sum game.
A man who sleeps with multiple females has the opportunity to sleep with the mates of the hypothetical monogamous males. These nighttime fornications can and will produce children. Often, the children will be assumed to be the offspring of the monogamous male partner, even though this is not the case. For every child that is raised in this way, the monogamous male is denied an offspring.

Not only do promiscuous males have the potential to produce multiple orders of magnitude more children than monogamous males, but a significant portion of those children are actually denying the monogamous males a chance to reproduce. This effect is so strong, that, genetic anomalies notwithstanding, the last human ancestor that was genetically predisposed to monogamy probably died out millions of years ago.

Of course, this advantage is not so strong that men will risk their lives or status for it. If polygyny comes with a high enough social penalty, as it does today, many men may indeed chose to live mostly monogamous lives, purely to save their own skins. Left to their own devices, however, men fool around. All of them.

Cheating on the Test of Time

Not everything old is wonderful. Smallpox, high infant mortality, and non-air-conditioned homes are but a few examples.

I just finished watching this, or, rather, most of it. I think it's another good example that one cannot count on something being good simply because it's old or has remained popular for a while. The film simply was not very good.

That is not to say it had no redeeming qualities. The stop-motion animation was some of the smoothest I've seen, and there is some extremely clever editing used to incorporate it into the rest of the film seamlessly. However, the propsmaster of the film should have been fired, as everything looks cheap and toylike. Even the stop-motion models are flaw-ridden and poorly crafted.

That's without even looking at the plot. While I understand that the film is essentially tropic: it tells a story we've already heard many times, it uses this as an excuse to basically deus ex machina away any potential tension or thrills. Perhaps they could get away with this in 1963, when the film simply being in color was novel enough to wow audiences for over 100 minutes, but today it's a bore.

Even the score is mediocre, ranging from simply boring to annoying and bizarre.

I may pick it up again and finish it properly later. Who knows? Maybe I'm just grouchy tonight.

Of course, there are old films which; I would classify as very good, and in many cases world-class. Jason and the Argonauts simply isn't one of them. I chalk its continuing popularity down to the Baby-Boomer Phenomenon.