esr, your advice to the Democrats is crap. The winning strategy for democrats is double down on hating white males, starting with fining you four hundred thousand dollars because all your patches come from white males.

White males own just about everything because white males create just about everything. So in a democracy the winning strategy, assuming you are successful in smashing families and preventing family formation in the first place, is to promise to take stuff from white males and give white male stuff to everyone else.

They need to mobilize their base. The best way to do that is to find more witches and confiscate the stuff belonging to witches.

Elections are a way of not having civil wars. Ideally the election result should be indicative of who would win a civil war, so you can get to the outcome a civil war would produce without all the killing and destruction. If you allow women and blacks and people without property etc to vote, then the election result is likely to fail to reflect the likely outcome of a civil war. If women and people without property get too grabby, a civil war then is incentivized, in that white men of property would be substantially better off with the civil war outcome than the election outcome

If one faction or the other then burns the Reichstaag, providing a schelling point on which a civil war can be started, the incentivized civil war becomes likely.

> The smart ones would not. I am sure it would fairly easy to recruit million(s) of colored mercenaries if the prize was the “lebensraum” called the red states.

History tells us that white people usually defeat nonwhite people. Eg the black regiments in the civil war were hilariously useless. Which is one more reason why it is a poor idea to give equal votes to nonwhites.

By and large, history is white people fighting over nonwhite people, rather than with nonwhite people. Nonwhite victories are a result of white backing, typically state department proxies defeating pentagon proxies. This is true even of wars with the high IQ east Asians, though they are considerably tougher than the others.

> Rich people get fewer kids. EVERYWHERE in the world. It just means we are rich.

No. People with emancipated women get fewer kids. We have more children than very poor people with equally emancipated women.

Similarly, Spartans failed to replace themselves, Romans failed to replace themselves, as did civilized people near the end of the Bronze age.

In our society, rich men have more children than poor men, but highly educated women have fewer children than less educated women. If you control for education, smart men and smart women have more children than equally educated stupid men and stupid women, and similarly rich men and rich women. The problem is that educating women is disastrously dysgenic and extremely bad for fertility. Because we educate our smart women, they are failing to reproduce, which results in a major reduction of IQ every generation.

Women should not be educated past puberty, and before puberty should be taught about being wives and mothers. They should be under the authority of their fathers until they are under the authority of the husbands.

>The 332nd Fighter Group and the 442nd Infantry Regiment might beg to differ.

There are sporadic exceptions, but the racist upthread has a point. Except it isn’t one about race but about culture; “white” cultures do not in general get beaten by “nonwhite” cultures, and since the Industrial Revolution it hasn’t even been close.

This isn’t biology as destiny, it’s the operation of a particular cultural package that combines citizen soldiers with technology-intensive warfare. Which is why the 332nd Fighter Group and the 442nd Infantry Regiment could win despite not being biologically white; both organizations are culturally white.

Victor Davis Hansen has argued persuasively in “The Western Way of War” that this culture package originated in early Classical Greece.

>“Whites” are cultural followers

A lot of the time we’re leaders, too. Ain’t no Arab that birthed the Industrial Revolution, even if we used their numerals to do the math. That was a genuinely new thing in the world.

I’ve been thinking recently that one of the single most important and unappreciated facts in human history is the strange IQ dispersion of European males. It’s so much wider in comparison with other human populations that we generate more geniuses per capita than the Chinese, even with an average IQ significantly lower. Put that together with the intrastate competition fostered by Europe’s geography and the appropriationist “white” cultural package and *boom* world domination. Not clear any one or even two of those factors would have done it.

(I learned to think this way from Jared Diamond. He wouldn’t be happy about my judgment that population genetics is a factor, though.)

Esr knows, because he has written elsewhere, that blacks have lower IQ than whites, but he does not believe that this has any bearing on blacks’ ability to be fighter pilots. If blacks had aptitude at being fighter pilots, they would also have aptitude at being racing car drivers, at being engineers, at being mathematicians, and he would collaborate with lots of blacks on his open source projects.

Esr knows, because he has written elsewhere, that blacks commit much more crime than whites, because of lower future orientation and sociability, but he does not believe that this has any bearing on blacks’ ability to stand in a line of battle, endure fire while marching, and then return disciplined volleys. If blacks were suited for 19th century warfare, they would also be suited for 20th century urban society.

Esr is not stupid. Very much not. He knows the implications of what he believes about racial differences. The question is what he thinks he is gaining by deliberately playing dumb. This is how Progressipedia describes jim:

“From the darker bits of the Dark Enlightenment: James A. Donald (JAD, http://blog.jim.com/ ), the guy so racist even Eric S. Raymond calls him a racist and such an asshole even Slate Star Codex regularly bans him from commenting. He comes out with such gems as “National socialism kills people not because it is nationalist, but because it is socialist” and calls white nationalism “moderate leftism”. And he has important information on the Jews. And he’s an anarcho-capitalist. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-asshole word from him, though I will credit him with enough sense to realise Bitcoin was unscalable from day one.”

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Most_upvoted_to_do_entries

Jim is so racist that even noted racist esr says he is a racist. The left cannot distinguish esr’s position from jim’s position, and gives esr no credit for the distinction, while jim’s position has the benefit of being defensible and true.

The liberty of the slaves

The Dark Enlightenment and neoreaction recommend reading old books, and taking them seriously as the works of civilizations whose knowledge we have lost and whose institutions and social order we no longer understand, reading them to find out what evils Chesterton’s fences once held back.

Thermidor has noticed a great gem in Seneca: That the modern conception of liberty is the liberty that the Romans allowed to slaves and small children, but not, however, to free adult male Roman citizens:

This needs to be added to the Canon:

And here is a good example of self imposed ignorance, willful stupidity, and self imposed isolation from outside thought.


Obviously I disagree strongly with all of those things.