How they see themselves and how everyone else sees them

With a hat tip to this guy:

How cuckservatives see themselves:

Ladies luuuuuuuuv the bowtie!

How the rest of the world sees cuckservatives:

I luuuuuuuuv children!

How Old-School Liberals see themselves:

Using Keynesian equations, supergeniuses like me will achieve total permanent economic stability!

How the rest of the world sees liberals:

Forcing banks to make mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford them seemed like such a good idea! Also, I once again have an octopus stuck to my face, GLAVIN!

How Hillary! sees herself:

I am a supervillain! All the deplorables will fall before me!

How the rest of the world sees her:

“The people were like, ‘We love you, Hillary!’ but then who should intervene but Trump and Comey and Facebook and Russians and the Electoral College and white women who are easily led and let their husbands tell them how to vote…”

How Open border libertarians see themselves:

If I virtue signal hard enough, all these people will remember and be nice to me! Also, look, leftists, look how NOT racist I am! And by the way, I don’t mind this guy’s elbow on my neck at all!

How the rest of the world (including their new “friends”) sees Open border libertarians:


Slather more A-1 sauce on yourself. And be quick about it!

“…and WikiLeaks and racists and misogynists and the Trilateral Commission and a cartoon frog…”

How SJWs see themselves (when they’re telling themselves that they actually believe their own bullshit):

Take that, Nazis!

How the rest of the world sees SJWs:


“…and the Federal Reserve System and the aliens from the Tau Ceti system and Taylor Swift and the Freemasons and Jack Ruby…”

How white Democrats in the Dem Party apparatus see themselves:

We are evil geniuses who will use our clever immigration plan to import an overwhelming flood of leftist voters! We’ll install ourselves in power forever!

How the rest of the world sees them:

You didn’t actually think this through, did you?

“…and the Illuminati and Alex Jones and a vast right-wing conspiracy and the Knights of Malta and the Boy Scouts and…”

How Hillary! sees President Trump:


How President Trump sees President Trump:


How the rest of the world sees President Trump:


Linux Adopts Codes of Conduct

…And Linux creator Linus Torvalds has “taken a leave of absence.”

One of the CoCs is for attendees of Linux Foundation events and the other is for work on the Linux kernel itself, the core of the Linux operating system.

Here’s the CoC for coders who work on the kernel:

The Foundation one is worse; it’s a doozy. Read it here:

It’s a major SJW victory. When I read it I thought, with many others, “What the hell do they have on Torvalds?” It has all the usual, and worst, provisions we’ve come to expect from this type of thing: The widest possible definition of bad behavior, including saying things that (someone claims to feel) are “offensive,” explicit policing of off-site behavior, explicitly including all communications in any electronic form whatsoever, including before or after Linux events, and pre-emptive targeting of individuals whom someone says they fear might harass them in the future.

We begin with:
Harassment will not be tolerated in any form, including, but not limited to, harassment based on gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, age, religion or any other status protected by laws in which the conference or program is being held. Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors.

Of course, anyone can claim that any language is “offensive.” We know how this works. A minority who alleges that a white person said something, anything, they found offensive will be taken at face value. Whitey will be persecuted. A white man who objects to someone saying “All white people are evil” will be ignored at best, and treated as if his complaint is itself “offensive” at worst.

Note too the prohibition on “harassing photography or recording,” which in practice will mean, “We won’t let a man use video/audio evidence to defend himself from a false accusation.” At least one college went after a male student for this very reason a couple of years ago. A woman says you raped her. What, your video proves you didn’t? Well, the very fact that you took video is itself a crime!

How does the Left get away with this shit?

It gets worse, so much worse. This next passage defies commentary; you just have to read it:

Individuals who participate (or plan to participate) in Linux Foundation events should conduct themselves at all times in a manner that comports with both the letter and spirit of this policy prohibiting harassment and abusive behavior, whether before, during or after the event. This includes statements made in social media postings, online publications, text messages, and all other forms of electronic communication.

Then there are “Pre-Event Concerns”:

If you are planning to attend an upcoming event and have concerns regarding another individual who may be present, please contact [XYZ]. Precautions will be taken to ensure your comfort and safety, including, but not limited to: providing an escort, prepping onsite event staff, keeping victim and harasser from attending the same talks/social events.

So you can be kept out of an event by someone pre-emptively saying they’re afraid that you might “harrass” them. Because the complainer is not going to be the one kept out of an event.

Meanwhile, Linus Torvalds is taking a leave of absence “to reflect on his past behavior.” WHAT THE FUCK?! What the hell do they have on him? Torvalds now says that he loves Big Brother:

From now on, or in the very near future, Linux must be regarded as not secure as an operating system.

My advice is to download a copy of the Linux operating system now to CD or other medium. It’s free and you don’t have to do anything with it; just have it lying around. And a total newb can install it, in case you want to. I know because I *was* a total newb. I had never installed an operating system before. Last year I downloaded a copy of the Linux OS and successfully installed it on my computer. Everything worked. They design it so that it can be done by non-experts.

High-tech hardware required? No, I put Linux on my desktop, which I got at WalMart!

The entire process probably only took an hour, altogether. (This ignores the preliminary shredding of my old operating system (Windows) which you just start running and then go to bed; it wipes your hard drive while you sleep.)

So my advice is, download Linux and keep it. In the future, you might be hella glad you have a non-SJW-corrupted version available. And even if you don’t want to muck around at the OS level of your computer, someone else you know might be very glad that you can provide them with a copy.

Reddit deletes 300,000-member Qanon forum

The title is self-explanatory. Obviously this is important enough to be its own post. But there isn’t much to add, which is why it’s a short post.

(I’m a Q skeptic, but that is really not the point.)

Commentary at Vox Popoli:

If you’re on the right and you can, I’d signal boost this. Let’s see if we can Streisand the Orwellian shitbags.

Addenda on Darwinian Lenses

Some nuances etc. on my last post. I wanted to make the basic point before including the complications.

1) The evolutionary effect is not always something dramatic like you getting caught and eaten by a lion, or you or your offspring starving. E.g., peacocks have fancy tails because that attracts peahens, for no awesome reason. This is a runaway sexual selection result that cannot last in the long run – it’s like an asset bubble in Finance, a temporary deviation from a more stable situation. That tail is burdensome. Put a new predator in the peacock’s environment and see what happens. (But don’t do this if you like peacocks.)

2) Another qualification is there are equilibria with a mix of features across individuals. This can happen because some features depend on the prevalence of themselves and other features. So an equilibrium can have, say, 60% of feature A and 40% of feature B. Not all features are like having better eyesight, which is always better.

An example from David Friedman: Suppose, simplistically, that you can be born with a temperament to always fight (“hawk”) or never fight (“dove”). (Don’t sperg out; I said it’s a simplistic example.) The payoff to being a fighter depends on the prevalence of other fighters. If there are lots of such people, then if you’re starting fights constantly you’ll soon encounter another fighter. So you’ll run afoul of the Law of Large Numbers eventually and be outselected (killed or injured to an extent that hampers your reproductive success). So if there are a lot of fighters in the population, the average payoff to being a fighter is negative, so the percent of fighters in the population declines.

On the other hand, if the percent of fighters in the population is small, this doesn’t happen much. So you pick a fight with someone who just killed an antelope, he very probably runs away and you take the antelope. Lots of food at a trivial metabolic cost! So the average payoff to being a fighter is high if the percent of fighters in the population is small. So if there are few fighters the percent of fighters in the population will rise.

So if the percent is low it tends to rise and if it’s high it tends to fall. This, kids, is known as “stable dynamics.” The proportion of fighters in the population will converge to some stable percent such that the mean reproductive success of fighters and non-fighters is the same.

(BTW, I suspect a similar point is true for r/K theory, if that theory is descriptive of homo sapiens. We seem to be in a high-r period now, but that can’t last because a critical mass of rs is a problem that prompts a response from the Ks. Ks are getting PO’d, starting to fight back, electing God-Emperors, etc., while the rs themselves (whether they realize it or not) are starting a civil war that just can’t end well for them. They’re too impulsive and inclined to ignore tactics, strategy, caution, the long-run consequences of current actions, etc.)

3) In the previous post I asked, “why didn’t the subdominant males simply gang up to kill the dominant males and/or their children?”

And in the comments Alf said,

“Because the most dominant subdominant males answered to the dominant male, and in return received their share of the women. That has been the evolutionary deal between the dominant and subdominant males, and is reflected in the evolutionary fact that while all women get wettest for alpha males, they will pair bond with beta males.”

Indeed, alpha males are as capable of strategic alliances as anyone else.

In fact, alphas can be quite pro-social, especially with others of around their status level. Think of the way that guys on the college football team interacted with each other.

And of course, alpha/beta is not a binary thing; it’s a continuum.

4) The complications in the following turn out to explode quickly, so here’s the short version:

There’s a possible version of the human story that’s more pleasant than children of low-dominance males being directly or indirectly killed: Say that if you were an average man you had fine reproductive success, e.g., three (surviving) children, but if you were an alpha you had, say, six. Maybe this is because alpha traits are good for, e.g., hunting, which provides for children. So the most hair-raising version of the story isn’t the only possibility.

But I doubt this kind of effect can explain why all (it seems) women prefer dominant men. That’s because, while alphas and good providers have some overlap, when they’re distinct, women have a clear preference for alphas. A woman settles for a provider. She gets wet for an alpha.

I don’t think optimistic versions can explain women’s strong preference for alphas, because any optimistic argument (I can think of) that predicts an attraction to alpha (dominant) men also predicts an attraction to good providers. So optimistic arguments can’t explain women’s real-world preference for alphas.

What I mean is this: Suppose some men’s children have particularly high survival rates. Call these H men (for high-survival). For the moment it’s not important why these men’s kids have especially high survival rates. It’s easy to show that women who have a hardwired preference to mate with H men will gradually have their female descendants become 100% of females. (I did some arithmetic to check; the result is exactly what you’d expect.)

Now here’s the problem: The validity of the above argument doesn’t depend on the reason that a given man is H. That’s a problem because what’s to be explained is women’s strong preference for alpha males in particular. In light of that fact, the foregoing argument is too broad: It implies women should be indifferent between varieties of H men such as alphas versus providers. But they actually aren’t indifferent.

So it looks like we are back to the original dark view of the matter.

In fact, the failure of the optimistic argument is even worse, because it draws its false conclusion with even more confidence than it seems at first. That’s because it implies that any H man, regardless of why he’s H, should benefit from…

5) … positive feedback: Kinship support groups and conflict. If you get into violent conflict, your siblings are likely to support you. This raises your survival probability. Say H men have on average 6 surviving offspring and non-H men have 3. Then if you’re a non-H’s child you have 2 siblings who might support you in a conflict . If you’re an H’s child you have 5 siblings who might support you. This raises H children’s survival probability even more.

So the argument once again predicts a strong attraction to good providers just as strong as an attraction to socially dominant men. But empirically, that’s not observed.

What we actually observe is that women are most attracted to socially dominant men. This tells us that such men’s offspring had the highest survival probability in the ancestral environment.

In my (rapidly growing) set of notes on this topic, here’s one possibly-important qualification:

Do “all” women really prefer men who are unpleasantly socially dominant? The extent to which this is true should be investigated. E.g., as far as I could tell, most girls in my high school didn’t date thugs or seem to want to date them. Indifferent “bad boys,” yes, absolutely, but the truly fucked up guys, no. That was a small subset of girls. So when we remember, e.g., Charles Manson getting love letters from women, is that just salience bias? Do we just remember the women who prefer thugs because it sticks in our heads as shocking? And why does the average girl not go for the thugs? Does she not want the thug, or does she just not have enough social self-confidence that she can get the thug? This merits empirical follow-up.

Of course, one thing we do know: Even if it’s only a small subset of women who really are attracted to the very worst men, there is no equal-and-opposite set of women who are attracted to the nicest of men. (LOL, as if.) The female preference distribution is not symmetric around “average guy.” The question is exactly how asymmetric it is.

Through Darwinian Lenses

This post makes two points about evolution, a general point and a specific point.

The general point:

Organisms have the features they have because individuals that lacked those features were not reproductively successful. More precisely, over time were not as reproductively successful as individuals that had the feature. Yes, this is the supposedly well-known core of evolutionary theory, but I get the sense that the average person still hasn’t fully absorbed the implications.

For example, some species of eagle can see a small prey animal like a rabbit from two miles away. Consider what this astounding fact implies: Individual eagles who didn’t have such good vision were out-selected. At worst, they starved to death because they couldn’t feed themselves. At best, they had fewer surviving offspring than those with better vision, because good nutrition is required to create healthy eggs and good hunting is needed to feed the hatchlings. So over time their genes became less common until they disappeared in that species.

So when you observe a feature, like astoundingly sharp eyesight, in nature, understand what you are seeing: The imprint of death.

One way or another, individuals who lacked that feature didn’t get their genes into successive generations. This is the same outcome as simple death, evolutionarily speaking. Note, not metaphorically the same outcome, but actually the same outcome.

So, speaking in an evolutionary sense, we can say:

Eagles have good eyesight because eagles without it died.

Bats have good sonar because…

Gazelles can run fast because…

Organisms’ features exist because those features matter. They affect the organisms’ reproductive success.

If you look through Darwinian lenses, you can see the imprint of death all around you, in every organism you observe. Every feature implies the evolutionary death of individuals who lacked that feature.

Once at a zoo I saw a male lion pounce on a large plastic bucket that had been left in his cage. His teeth dug into it and he lifted it into the air. There was something startling and a little scary about seeing 500 pounds of muscle launching a set of teeth at something. But of course I should not have been surprised, because evolution didn’t endow lions with huge sharp teeth and lots of muscle so those features can not be used.

(By the by, why do male lions have armor— manes— around their necks?)

Now, the specific point:

What does human females’ obsessive preference for dominant men say about our species’s evolutionary history?
Just mull that over for a second.
Ponder it…
Let it sink in…

What it says is grim, and alarming. Women have an intense preference for dominant men because women without that preference were less reproductively successful in our species’s evolutionary past. That is, to put it plainly, either those women didn’t reproduce, or their offspring didn’t survive.

But why should that be? The obvious guesses are that such women’s children were killed outright, or starved during periods of scarce food. The children of women who preferred dominant men didn’t starve. (Obviously, since their female descendants are here, all around us.) E.g., because their men could take food from less formidable men. Or, slightly less horrifyingly: “I’m hunting over here in the best hunting grounds; you go hunt over there, where the hunting isn’t as good.” So the implication is unavoidable: The powerful men killed, directly or indirectly, the children of less-powerful men. Again, it might not have been that direct. It might have been a matter of differential reproductive success over time.

Now there are some questions to be answered about this. E.g., if you try to directly take food from Joe’s kids, Joe’s going to fight you, and stands a good chance of doing you significant injury even if you win. So it’s not obvious that it’s worth it to you. E.g., why didn’t the subdominant males simply gang up to kill the dominant males and/or their children? I don’t care how dominant you are; you have to sleep some time. (And alphas are a minority of men, by definition.) So we’re talking about… what? An effect that didn’t kick in until kings, palaces, and palace guards were established? So there are blanks to fill in, but the basic mechanism is not in doubt. It’s not in doubt because we observe its immediate consequences, in the reality of current human female sexual behavior.

Closely related point: Why do men have more muscle mass than women? Not so they can not use it. Men have it because they fight each other and the losers weren’t as reproductively successful. That is, they died, or at “best” were prevented from producing as many (surviving) children.

Human beings, like other animals, are red in tooth and claw. Yes, we are wired for both cooperation and conflict, but in western society we tend to underestimate the conflict because we are particularly good at things like feeding ourselves, so that life-and-death conflict over food doesn’t happen any more. But the hard wiring is still there. Summarizing: Chicks dig jerks with big pecs, and that tells us that plans for world peace are doomed to failure. No, we are not all going to sit around the campfire singing Kumbaya.

Obiter dictum: It’s important to get this perspective into our mindset as our political situation moves from “dress rehearsal” to “it’s showtime!”

Miscellany 9: Get a Bigger Miscellany with this One Weird Trick!

1. Prediction: Bill Clinton is the last white man ever to be the Democratic Party’s Presidential nominee.

I wrote that sentence before I learned this:

Yesterday, September 4, 2018, another minority female beat down an experienced white man in a Democrat primary:

Discussion at Vox Pop:

And at iSteve:

A commenter at the iSteve link provides this quote from someone who worked on the victor’s campaign:

“Memo to potential candidates considering a run someday across America: our only paid television ads for the ENTIRE @ayannapressley campaign were on Telemundo and Univision.”

—Alex Goldstein (@alexjgoldstein) September 5, 2018

2. Leftist psychology:

If we refuse assent to reality: if we rebel against the nature of things and choose to think that what we at the moment want is the centre of the universe to which everything else ought to accommodate itself, the first effect on us will be that the whole universe will seem to be filled with an inexplicable hostility. We shall begin to feel that everything has a down on us, and that, being so badly treated, we have a just grievance against things in general. That is… the fall into illusion. If we cherish and fondle that grievance, and would rather wallow in it and vent our irritation in spite and malice than humbly admit we are in the wrong and try to amend our behaviour so as to get back to reality, that is, while it lasts, the deliberate choice, and a foretaste of the experience of Hell.

—Dorothy L. Sayers, Introductory Papers on Dante


3. So the wackos in England are saying the English were not really white, they were a mix of white and black. Oh… kaaaaaay. Well, great! That means that English imperialism and colonialism, etc., wasn’t a white thing! It was a white AND black thing! Therefore blacks are just as guilty of that as whites. La la la la….

I’m looking forward to blacks offering reparations to the victims of English colonialism in India, the Americas, etc.

4. Barack Obama on John McCain at McCain’s funeral:

“We never doubted we were on the same team.”

Yeah, we knew that, but it’s nice that you finally just gave up and admitted it.

5. Red pill:

In a re-do of the Milgram experiment, half the men AND 100% OF THE WOMEN obeyed an authority telling them to shock a puppy.

The Cabal’s Timetable

I wonder if the Cabal’s timetable was much more advanced than we’d thought before Trump’s election. Consider how much they care that Trump is going to be in the White House for four or eight years. Even the prospect of four years has them absolutely frantic. They’re going after him on blatantly false pretenses to try to get him out of the White House. Now if they hadn’t been planning on moving overtly within the next four years, why would they care so much? They could just bide their time, continuing to burrow in and consolidate their power as they have been doing for decades.

So it makes me wonder if they had a plan that involved going for it all during Hillary Clinton’s anticipated first term. Remember, these people are leftists, i.e., power-mad. They think about a revolution in which they seize power, kill everyone they don’t like, and rule unopposed for the rest of their lives. They’re been thinking about such a “revolution,” i.e. totalitarian coup, their whole adult lives; they fantasized that some day they’d reach the “It’s time to go for it” moment. It’s very far from “unthinkable” for this crowd. They think about it constantly.

But still, why should just waiting another four to eight years bother them so much? (Especially since demographic dynamics, absent big changes on immigration policy, are on their side.) Trump in the White House is freaking their shit so as to be almost unbelievable. Why, why, why?

Here are some possibilities:

(1) They have a timetable which, once started, cannot be frozen for several years and then re-started. I’m hard-pressed to imagine what that might be, though.

(2) Some of the darker possibilities a la PizzaGate and the suspicious deaths of, to name just two, Antonin Scalia and Seth Rich are true. Perhaps if these truths are brought to light some of these people will swing or at least go to prison for a long time.

(3) Hillary Clinton and her crowd really were planning to try to start a nuclear war with Russia— because that would be fun, apparently— and the longer it’s deferred the stronger Russia grows, perhaps to the point that a nuclear war simply wouldn’t be worth it. And how chilling is it to think that we might have had a President who would have thought it to be “worth it”!

(4) Supreme Court appointments. Kennedy, The Leftist Who Occasionally Pretends Not To Be OneTM, is gone, and the utterly vile Ginsberg is starting to look like the star of Weekend at Bernie’s.

(5) The role of financing is more important than some of us had realized, and Trump was expected, correctly, to go after their financing. Anonymous Conservative is one of the people who frequently discusses this aspect of the situation. I’d always thought they were so hooked into the government that funding was simply not a problem, but it may be more complicated than that. If that’s an important aspect, then four or eight years of President Trump could set them back much more than four or eight years. If he really kills a significant percentage of their money sources, then two Trump terms could set them back, say 15 or even 20 years, rather than eight. And that leads to much more unpredictability, as well as delaying the planned final power-grab past the expected lifetime of some of these people. (E.g. George Soros is no spring chicken.)

(6) Speaking of unpredictability: The very fact that traditional European populations are catching on to what the bad guys are attempting must be scary for them. Brexit, political developments on the Continent, and of course Trump’s election must have been a devastating set of shocks for the Left in general and the Cabal in particular. It tells the Cabal they no longer, to a significant extent, have the luxury of operating in secrecy; western populations are on to them. It signaled that identity politics is no longer on the upswing. While it’s not over yet, its end is in the foreseeable future. This doesn’t actually mean identity politics will stop; it means that it has reached the point where it is no longer a net benefit to the Left. White attitudes toward “You’re racist!” have hardened up considerably in the last few years. As white attitudes harden and become more angry with identity politics, they will block vote more, just like all other ethnic/ racial groups. That has to be absolutely terrifying for the Left.

It won’t help them to import tons of minority Dem voters, if white voters are turning Republican, and hardcore Trump-type Republican, just as fast.

We have a generation of white people who haven’t grown up with the nonchalant comfort of being in a firm majority before the rise of identity politics. We are looking at an entire generation that has grown up with “You’re evil because you’re white!” As we learn from observing black America in decades past, hearing “You suck because of your skin color” all the time doesn’t convince you it’s true; it just makes you hate the people who say it. It was one thing when a white comedian trashed white people in the 1980s. Its obvious “Hey, I’m so NOT a racist!” performativeness was annoying, but it wasn’t threatening in a nation that was 85% white, and before real politics of white genocide had appeared. But in a nation that’s only 60-something percent white, and declining noticeably, and in an environment where non-whites are taught that white people are evil and deserve to be exterminated, that sort of thing is very different. It is even less “funny” or “cute” than it used to be; it is now threatening.

It’s stunning— and thank God!— how the left overplayed a very strong hand. They’d infiltrated the media and the educational system, for fuck’s sake! Their optimal strategy was to keep the volume down for another couple of decades. Yet they couldn’t restrain themselves, and they showed no desire to restrain their own most extreme members. So we get a class called “The Depravity of Whiteness” at a U.S. university. In a nation with a majority white population (and the Internet to spread the news of this garbage).

It’s astonishing how good the Left is at battlespace preparation (e.g., taking over the media and the educational system), and yet how bad they are at optimizing the advantage they acquire this way. Again, thank God.

Anyway, the point being: The Left may understand that they missed their window to strike while their advantage from identity politics was maximized. Realizing that they missed their window must have them enraged with regret. And they see the window closing more rapidly as white attitudes harden as fast as minorities flood into the country.

(Another advantage for us, while I’m on the subject, is the sheer stupidity of these people and the Nash trap they created for themselves. For example, black parents might like hearing a politician say, “I’ll get more funding for schools in your district,” but most of them aren’t much more likely to vote for you if you say, “I’ll get more funding for schools in your district, and by the way, white people suck.” Some of them are more likely to, but the politician loses dozens of white voters for every minority voter he gains with that last part. Surely the less retarded of the Left’s politicians know that. And yet they can’t seem to stop themselves because of the nature of the Democrat Party establishment, the primary process, the superdelegates, they fact that they’ll be attacked for not being white-hating enough, etc. (In the contest for Dem Party Chair after the 2016 election, white woman Sally Boynton Brown’s plank was an appeal to minorities in the party: “Vote for me because I can go back to my white community and scold them for being racist.”) No single leftist can start a movement out of this trap because the first people to speak up are attacked and drummed out of the party, and accomplish nothing. To put it another way, they created a leftist holiness spiral in the broader society, but of course by its very nature that spiral affects left-wing organizations faster and more thoroughly than the rest of the society.)

(7) Another possibility is that they understand and are appropriately terrified of the possibility of a preference cascade. The Left has always been very aware of this, if only at a gut level. (One of their core skills is propaganda.) Even after a right-wing victory in a referendum or election, the left instantly starts in with the rhetoric in the nature of, “As we all know and agree, anyone who voted for that person/ ballot measure is totally on the wrong side of popular opinion!” Even though everyone in the country knows that a majority of popular opinion is for the person/ measure, because they just won!

That takes me to our current rapidly intensifying political situation. A crucial aspect of it is a race between a holiness spiral and a preference cascade.

I’ll have more to say about that in a future post.