A Modest Proposal

In today’s news, the California Supreme court required state judges to dissociate from the Boy Scouts of America on the basis that the BSA discriminates against so-called LGBT adults. Judges have one year to comply. In other words, one cannot be a California state judge and a Boy Scouts associate.

Forget for a moment that this is a gross violation of first amendment freedom of association and mocks justice in California courts. Instead, consider this action one of many by an occupying foreign power to destroy the remnant of a defeated nation (I’m conflating two ideas I read elsewhere: treating Cathedral action as action by a foreign invader and conceiving the Dark Enlightenment a remnant of those loyal to civilization). If we know we have lost a war (of sorts), then our best option is either assimilation (which is a national equivalent to suicide) or covert organization. I think the latter will serve us best.

My proposal is this: henceforth, do not communicate with any party to the California judiciary: not any officer of the court, from judge to any licensed attorney or bailiff. Treat these people as if they do not exist. Do not acknowledge them in conversation, or even if they strike you with a tire-iron. Behave in a manner above reproach, but do not treat such people as equals to you, but as souls worthy your pity and benevolence.

Or perhaps as rabid animals warranting fear.

“But I say unto you which hear, ‘Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.’ For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? For sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? For sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? For sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

We are within an age our fathers cursed us to travail, when men call evil good, and praise women for lies. It does us, the remnant, no good to behave as if we are a part of the communion of sin. Therefore, live your life within the dark truth with a candle lighting your way. Others will see it, and from that faint light floating atop crests of the wine-dark sea, may find hope amid the stormy flashes of light and shadows cast by others standing betwixt you.

If there a sufficient of us with small flames, we may become a firestorm.

I will camp in the Ouachita mountains next week. Wireless telecom coverage may be absent.

Time to Stop Reading Dark Enlightenment

I’ve been examining my work productivity and concluded I can’t maintain my reading habits. Something’s got to give, and since I need money to eat, now and far into my decrepit future, I won’t be reading blogs any longer. That said, I’ve got an idea that I’ll share with you right now, and I’ll keep writing about it here. Your comments are welcome, but you may expect those to be unread unless you comment here.

If we are to change government as much of the Dark Enlightenment proposes, then an alternative government must be developed. There are many ways we might organize, but if we are to be consistent with our advocacy and aspirations, then I think our best option is to develop a feudal hierarchy. Beyond that, I don’t have much because I’ve never tried to organize a face-to-face counter-cultural society.

Here’s my proposal: we begin organizing at the local level, as Phalanx suggests, developing parallel cultural systems. If you’re part of a close-knit church, biker gang, masonic lodge, BDSM club, or some other organization generally capable of non-government-sanctioned hierarchy, you already understand the basic process. There are rules, somebody is in charge, and breaking the rules results in expulsion. In our case, consensus appears to be that quality men should lead, and failing that, quality men should at least advise and guide the leaders. I don’t know that anybody has proposed more that that.

I’ll withhold any further thoughts except for this: it’s long past time we started practicing what we’re preaching. That’s what I’ll endeavor to do in the next few months and report back to you what I’ve learned. In the meantime, you won’t be seeing me at the Darkly Enlightened library.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Marriage Secures the Welfare of Children

[The posts and comments to which this post is a response may be found here.]

Good. I’m glad you recognize Christian scripture. Here’s the punch line.

I’m atheist.

One does not need a reliance upon any religion’s custom, scripture, or received wisdom to reason the social purpose of marriage. Implying rejection of gay marriage requires religious belief is vulgar.

Marriage is about securing the welfare of children. If you believe that so-called gay marriage provides for the welfare of children, then we have far too much to discuss than can be accomplished within this medium. I will, however, address your assertions regarding infidelity.

Infidelity in marriage is not a problem for independent self-supporting adults; any argument contrary requires that the victim of infidelity is either not capable of independence – and thus not capable of competence to contract a marriage nor an equal partner to a marriage – or relies upon the victim’s exposure to risks inherent to intimate body fluid contact such as disease transmission. Infidelity is a problem for children who rely upon the undiluted support of a father and a mother. An infidelity in a sexual partnership exposes the children of that partnership to risks associated with “brother by another mother” arrangements. So-called gay marriage is a union of adults for the welfare of adults. Every court case I’ve read asserts access to tax benefits for the welfare of the surviving spouse – not for the children of the couple – because the same-gender couple cannot conceive children. Child support justly conveys from a parent to a child; alimony from a former spouse to a spouse for breaking an agreement related to child-rearing. Thus you found your argument regarding infidelity upon a false premise: the infidelity of playmate for habitual erotic non-sexual encounters. Marriage is not meant to provide some kind of official sanction to erotic encounters, habitual or singular. Marriage is meant to provide sanction to sexual relationships whose purpose is conception and provision of children. Attempts to provide exceptions for instances of adoption and remarriage specifically address breakdowns within this social system with patches meant to provide the closest facsimile possible for ideal marriage conditions. Thus, adoption of children is meant to ameliorate (it cannot correct) the conditions for orphans in fact or in practice, and remarriage is meant to correct provisioning and custodial challenges faced by a lone unmarried parent. For both these exceptions of adoption and remarriage, infidelity remains a problem for children because adults unable to support themselves are not competent.

The path to effective social systems is narrow, and the gate through which marriage must pass is a lifelong commitment to your partner in conception. Misapplication of the word, “marriage,” to non-sexual co-habitations cannot conceal this social purpose, no matter what examples of bureaucratic discrimination you muster. Such discrimination is wisdom.

A Brief Adapted List of Recommendations for Self-Driving Cars

This list is adapted from “MISUSE OF COMPUTERS BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS -A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Before self-driving cars become the norm on our roadways, drivers must be trained and re-trained as follows.

1. To recognize the extreme dangers of self-driving cars.

2. To understand the basic principles of competent driving.

3. To understand the absolute requirement for drivers to be able to drive without software assistance.

4. To always be skeptical of software, to never ever rely upon the behavior of a self-driving car without extensive behind-the-wheel evaluation of the self-driving software, and to always assume self-driving car decisions are wrong until confirmed by the driver.

5. To intuitively know and execute safe driving techniques and merely use the self-driving car to improve safety.

6. To de-glorify the self-driving car and to glorify the knowledge, experience, and competence required to be thoroughly familiar with all the details of automobile behavior, performance, and lawful operation.

7. To avoid taking educational courses from driving instructors who only provide opportunities to learn with self-driving cars rather than by intensive instruction in the art of driving by highly knowledgeable driving instructors who have extensive real world experience.

8. To avoid becoming a passenger of drivers trained only with self-driving automobiles rather than through intensive training by experienced and knowledgeable drivers.

9. To recognize that less experienced drivers must develop strong driving skills without the aid of self-driving automobiles before using self-driving automobiles as powerful driving safety tools.

10. To recognize that only the most experienced and knowledgeable drivers are qualified to use self-driving automobiles as a tool for improving automobile safety.

11. To recognize that only drivers drive, and that so-called self-driving cars do not.

Commenters’ Thoughts on Fitness Tests and Respect for Women

tteclod:

Thoughts worth pondering.

Originally posted on On the Rock:

In the post Men, some really great comments were made that I wish to highlight regarding Fitness testing and how one man views women (I would really like to hear other men’s thoughts on this).  These were fantastic comments that should not get buried.  (it ended up having a really interesting comment thread that you may wish to read in it’s entirety).

A Northern Observer asks regarding Fitness Testing:

We’re all sinners, and we all – consciously or not – know we’re bound to get ourselves into serious trouble if we’re left to our own devices. I submit fitness testing is a “safe” way to be (re)assured that there’s someone out there who’ll pull back on our reigns and “Whoa Nellie!” when we need it. This in turn means you don’t have to worry about running amuck in other matters and landing yourself in real trouble.

So, would you agree that…

View original 1,464 more words

Paul Elam versus Daryush Valizadeh

This missive is prompted by Paul Elam’s post here. Mr. Elam is answering critics on reddit (yes, that apparently warrants Mr. Elam’s prompt attention) regarding an interview with Daryush Valizadeh (also known as Roosh) by Mumia Ali published at A Voice for Men. Critics of Mr. Valizadeh oppose much of what he advocates, including using the usual psychology of women to manipulate them into sexual encounters. Valizadeh also writes guides for so-called love tourism, visiting other countries to meet women better than what may be easily found in the USA.

The thrust of Mr. Elam’s defense of the Valizadeh interview appears to be as follows.

He is a notable person in the world of modern men, …I figure it only appropriate and fair to let him have this temporary unabridged platform here.

I think it’s useful at this point to provide you a smattering of Valizadeh’s quotes from the interview for reference before proceeding with additional thoughts from Elam. [These quotes are, admittedly, substantially out of context, although I’ve placed them in order.]

I think my background has led to a lack of attachment to America and the ability to view it more objectively than most.

Game haters don’t understand that the alternative of Game can mean no sex… possibly ever.

I think Bang did well because it was practical …I spoke in plain language and approached the problem logically without advising guys to make drastic changes …My approach to Game is not designed just for extroverts.

Game alone as a movement or lifestyle is dead…

Feminists will vehemently criticize any behavior which increases a male’s sexual options while praising a behavior which increases a female’s sexual options.

…a lot of confused men buy into the anti-Game arguments and don’t even give a honest chance to a field of study that would greatly increase their mating success with only moderate levels of use.

I prefer to get my working model of human relationships from what we can see and experience …

Sex positivity is used by women to rationalize their sluttiness or to “discover” their “inner self” and beauty. Game is …used by men …to achieve the very concrete and definable goal of having sex with a woman or entering a relationship with one. [Emphasis mine.]

Game is a functional strategy to achieve sexual relations with women, including family formation, [Emphasis mine.] while sex positivity is a feminist paradigm that aims to masculinize women with the inevitable result of delaying family formation.

The opposition to Game [opposes] ideas that haven’t even been advocated in the 21st century. A lot of Game critics …do this because they need to misinform sexless men that Game is dangerous so that they don’t become future enemies of a narrative [squeezing the] remaining drop of masculinity Western society has left.

…I teach guys to optimize their appearance as much as possible while starting a bodybuilding program. Some men are born butt ugly, unfortunately, but a Game program will at least increase their results than if they did nothing.

I wouldn’t be surprised if [black African American] representation on my sites is greater than the general population.

…I have noticed …the presence of pro-white sentiments that [blacks] see as anti-black or even racist. Many manopshere bloggers …make openly hostile sentiments towards minorities, especially when it comes to inter-racial relationships involving white women.

…my gut instinct is to say that there are so few red pill black men (compared to white men) that there isn’t yet a critical mass for a strong black section of the manosphere.

If I can be blamed for anything, it’s that it is easier for me to see the bad than the good, but that fact doesn’t take away from accurate observations that a large percentage of experienced men agree with.

Feminism is an ideology that wants to remove all accountability and responsibility of women for their actions, no matter how immoral, reprehensible, or damaging to society.

All of this places an undue and unfair burden on men to bend over and please women at a cost of being labeled a misogynist…

The end result of this is that men stop interacting with women.

So, there you have it, in highly abridged form. Game is a way for men to get at women, there are issues within the community, but the enemy is feminism and its adherents. With all that out there, here’s what Mr. Elam has to say about Mr. Valizadeh.

…Roosh has talked a lot of smack about MRAs.

… I find so little merit in the concept of PUA and why I see little benefit in it for most men.

I still think shows, pretending to be something you are not in order boost your “effectiveness” with women is just a hair-brained alternative to the more sensible and simpler path of owning your life and your standards without compromise. No acting required. No gamesmanship. No trying to pass shit tests while pretending you are not selling yourself out. Just a strong rudder on your morality ship, with a skipper that acts like one.

Roosh apparently says he moved overseas to have sex with a better class of women. It seems strange to me, this apparently powerful force to change women called geography. With all respect to Roosh, [by which Mr. Elam means absolutely no respect whatsoever] it is a lot more about what you attract than in where you live.

That is not to say that what people like Roosh have to say is not at all useful. … I have heard …about “Inner Game”… But that is hardly a visible entity in the PUA community so far. …some better efforts to market it would be helpful.

You may compare and contrast. In my opinion, Mr. Elam misrepresents Mr. Valizadeh. You may think differently.

That said, I am eternally fascinated by the opinions of Paul Elam. Unlike the Dark Enlightenment, Mr. Elam has not yet concluded that there are “no enemies to the right.” We men are all much the worse for Mr. Elam’s intransigence and conspicuous intentional blindness regarding the value of a united front against feminism. I think Mr. Elam’s tactic springs from his politics. While he may be overtly anti-feminist, this does not mean he favors men. He’s looking for an egalitarian society. A truce with women, hopefully leading to a long-lasting peace. Like so many men, his loyalty to the progressive doctrine of equality betrays his own civilization’s self-interest.

Feminism seeks to disenfranchise and debase men to the detriment of both men and women. We’ve got a solid 50 years history to back that, plus another 50 years that show the roots of that feminist movement. If you’re coming at feminism thinking you can play the victim, you’ll find yourself some rude realities. Chief among these is that women do not favor victims. Game, despite its faults (and it does have faults), does not coddle men with the blanket of victimhood. The expectation is that women generally behave as women, that the behavior of women is predictable, especially within a sexually charged environment, and that wise men would do well to adopt behaviors when in the company of women (and men) that play to the preferences and predispositions of women. This is not “pretending you are not selling yourself out.” [Gods! The Grammar!] This is adapting to your environment and playing the part appropriate to the milieu. You, a man, want a woman. Women want men. Now, pay attention to what women think is manly and also which men women choose. To be chosen by a woman, you must be a man women choose. That, by the way, is called inner game.

Mr. Elam, in case he hasn’t yet understood: inner game is Game. The difference between what Mr. Elam advocates and what Mr. Valizadeh advocates is merely this: Valizadeh pays close attention to the other side of that restaurant table because he’s already mastered himself as a man. Mr. Elam says:

As far as helping men, it is my experience that men who develop a strong sense of self by drawing lines in the sand about what they will and won’t accept from women, and from themselves, usually don’t need it. They are doing just fine.

The challenge is that until men develop that strong sense of self by overcoming repeated failures and experiencing success, they continue to be unable to achieve the confidence necessary to establish personal boundaries with women. Valizadeh and other PUA’s provide the know-how to achieve that success. Mr. Elam and the MRA’s should help PUA’s, or get out of the way.

A Brief Statement Regarading the State of Men

I’ll just start typing, you can start reading, and we’ll see where this all leads.

For the past four months, I’ve been deep in piles of work. Occasionally, I’ll poke up my head out of the figurative hole in which I do this work, look around, and see if I can find anything useful about which to comment – briefly. More often than not, it is not possible to comment briefly. I’ll give you a for-instance.

I called a client this morning. He’s going toe-to-toe with his local city council over a building of his that partially collapsed. He’d like to get started with a cleaning and partial demolition of the building so that he can start building renovations, but he’s stymied by a city that won’t approve him to begin work. The man’s even bought a crane to reach up to the top of the three-story building. Meanwhile, they blame him for not beginning work, threatening lawsuits, and otherwise impeding progress, none of which is true. Feeling his frustration, I expressed my opinion that, were it my property, I’d probably go out there and start work and dare then to arrest me for trying to correct the situation. He liked that idea. Let’s hope he the other solutions I recommended work better.

I also read a response to a comment I made on Twitter that was a bit intriguing. Seems that confirming liberal stereotypes of Southerners isn’t to be done, especially the stereotypes that we’re a bunch of violent dim wits. Personally, I think that’s nothing but a bunch of bullshit. We ought to confirm the Yankee stereotype of Southerners at every opportunity, and then switch out of the stereotype when it’s profitable. Like when we’re expected to cower in fear of being outed as racists, and instead double-down. Or when we’re supposed to react violently to a provocation, but instead bring the full force of police and trial attorneys to bear against enemies. Or when we’re not expected to comprehend languages other than English, but we’re surprising capable in Spanish. Or Arabic. For example, this is for a man in Olympia, WA.

ابنتك الملاعين مثل كلب

ばか

Se entiende la idea.

Speaking of morons, the Southern crypto-aristocrat discussion got started with a Rod Dreher article. He wrote something about how Southerners are terrible awful people who kept slaves in the USA (then Confederacy) and then terrorized blacks in the (again) USA south, so we ought to remember that when we’re talking about ISIS, we can be evil, too. Since this seems to be a profitable and rewarding line of rhetoric, he continued with an essay titled,
“Lesson of the New Atheist Muslim-Killer,” where his thesis, best I can discern, is that (so-called New) atheists are no more above reproach than the rest of us, and closed with this marvelous tidbit from Christianity.

“If you can’t see yourself in any of these crowds, you are not looking hard enough. Religious or atheist, left-wing or right-wing, gay, straight, American or non-American – you can’t escape it except through grace, and the constant work of standing up to the hater within. Civilization is a thin veneer over barbarism. Beneath our skin lay our skulls. We forget that at our peril. You too, New Atheists. You are no different from those you hate. We are one in the bond of humanity. That is our glory, and that is our shame.”

Now, for an article that glories in the shame of white male guilt-assertion, that’s pretty lacking in self-awareness. But to combine that with the theological concepts upon which Christianity depends, vidalicet, salvation depends upon the grace of a deity upon an unworthy human being, coupled with vigilance against one’s own predilection toward rebellion against that deity. Problem is, he fails to construct some really important concepts within atheist thought, or more precisely, leans upon a woman who also fails to construct these concepts. Here’s a bit he quotes from Elizabeth Stoker.

“Dawkins takes the obviousness of his moral frame for granted; he doesn’t feel the need to offer an earnest denouncement of these murders because he does not honestly believe any person could view them as an outgrowth of a system decent people like him are a part of. But this is a persistent problem with the New Atheist movement: Because it is more critical of religion than introspective about its own moral commitments, it assumes there is broad agreement about what constitutes decency, common sense, and reason. Yet in doing so, New Atheism tends to simply baptize the opinions of young, educated white men as the obviously rational approach to complicated sociopolitical problems. Thus prejudice in its own ranks goes unnoticed.”

Most atheists, though not all, and certainly not I, have constructed a progressive moral identity. It is, pronounced so briefly that perhaps it is caricature, 1) that people are intrinsically good and seek good in others, 2) that although some individuals may, through no personal fault, become anti-social and even violent, this is not a normal human condition, 3) moral systems that assign to acts or persons the quality of moral evil create more problems than they solve. Such a system of beliefs, while so full of errors that the resulting catastrophes summon to mind gory battlefields of dismembered corpses, nonetheless is a belief system of enlightened naiveté that commits crimes of omission, not acts of violence. To blame such people for the deadly outcome of a parking-space dispute is akin to blaming a nun for not breaking her vow of silence so she may scream while being raped.

Still, people attempt these specious arguments often. “You, group of fuckers, don’t agree with my conclusions regarding something-or-other, therefore you are evil bastards who are too ignorant to get a say.” These days, a man from the pinnacle civilization of the world, Western Europe, cannot be relied upon to possess opinions reflecting “the obviously rational approach to complicated socio-political problems” by virtue of inherited wisdom steadily accumulated over 3000 years. Alright, Ms. Stoker, I’ll bite: if not us, then who do you propose?

I am reminded of a story told by my second engineering employer. At the time, he was working at the state highway department here in Arkansas. For those that don’t know, Arkansas is actually very advanced when it comes to several fields of structural engineering. We don’t build much that’s very big, but most of our engineering techniques can’t be found in textbooks. This particular instance, the Federal Highway and Transportation Administration engineer was berating a senior engineer (my boss’s boss at the time) for the placement spacing of steel shear stud on top of the steel I-beam. [The studs act to connect the steel beam to the concrete bridge surface, creating a composite system that incorporates the concrete deck into the steel beam as a flange. Done right, the effective strength of such a system triples or better for gravity load considerations, and reduces bridge vibration, but the placement of the steel studs must be calculated careful for bridge steel so that the so-called shear flow (imagine gluing the pages of a phone book together do the pages don’t fan, and you’ll understand the concept) between the steel and concrete is transferred proportionate to the magnitude of the flow at that point in the span.] After several minutes of vitriol, the senior engineer calmly asked, “Are you asking me to add more studs, or specify fewer?” The Fed was unable to answer the question. For my part, I’ve designed thousands of these beams BY HAND over the course of twenty years. Now I use MathCAD for the work, but that doesn’t spare me the calculations, only the math errors.

This is the world in which we now appear to exist (it sure ain’t living): shrill shrikes protesting the competence of men because the shrike, having the brain of a bird, cannot comprehend the magnitude of wisdom, knowledge, and skill accumulated to accomplish fundamental tasks of civilization, like constructing a combustion engine or an electricity generating water turbine, or an exhaustive contract clause, or an instruction plan for a grade-school class of 20 children. What’s worse, its most horrifying capacity is its ability to degrade the minds of men, like me, who should know better.

Can you imagine any responsible father living in 1880, say, a farmer, sitting idle in front of a television screen – assuming that was his sole modern technology? Or, perhaps more believable, a farmer tapped into a telegraph line, listening intently to every utterance across the wires? [Yes, I’m talking about Twitter.] Yet this is the depths of intellectual depravity to which we have allowed ourselves to descend. What the fuck is wrong with us that the gibberish out of some mangy twat like Anita Sarkeesian warrants more comment than, “I don’t pay attention to the opinions of women.”

Pardon me. I regret not expressing that less coarsely. I do not regret the sentiment. Let’s say I’ve spent too many hours at “this here” desk crunching numbers and drawing other men’s idle fantasies to think clearly.

I see the clock is ticking rapidly toward a time I must tend my fields, literally. Spring is upon s here in Arkansas, so the early vegetables must soon be sown, and that means a trip to the supply store for the special seeds I haven’t saved and my wife wants. Plus a stop at the bank for a little cash, and perhaps some other errands I now forget and hope to recall. So, I’ll end with this.

We live in an age when we should be free to be idle, but others claim our labor. We ought not permit that continue. it is time, i think, that we shift our focus toward those goals Phalanx propounds: improvement of self being foremost.

Only don’t adopt passivism. That’s stupid. That’s what brought us here.