Internet & Culture

Just another day on reddit

Reddit, being a neo-Marxist-owned-and-operated site (Condé Nast), continues the admirable Marxist tradition of managing narratives and stamping out dissent. Ban people like it is 1917!

I expect these ideological dinosaurs to be widely recognized for what they are within the next ten years.

(The /r/news forum on Reddit is one of the “default” forums run by the company for the benefit of the benevolent billionaires who own our media and  politicians.)

Male privilege versus female privilege

The above is a comment from reddit. This is a common mistake among the men’s rights movement, that there is something wrong with women dictating what a “real man” is. The truth is that each gender has its own standards for determining whether a person of the oppose sex is “relationship material” or “marriage material”.

Since from a relationship perspective, a man’s worth is as much about things outside of himself (success, charisma) as it is about innate qualities, women’s standards are going to be extremely fluid and seemingly arbitrary, since what women seek in a man is success, and success can come in all kinds of garbs. In an African tribe, a real man is any man who is successful within that specific environment, who is best capable of defending and providing for himself, his women and his children.

In a Western society, a real man is the same; the man who is most capable of defending and providing for himself, his women and his children. But since the environment is different, the requirements are different.

So there is nothing actually arbitrary about a woman’s standards. She cares about success and uses various heuristics to find out a man’s level of success. If she meets a man who is not very wealthy, but who has great charisma, good manners and sensitivity, then she will consider him a real man. If she finds another man who has $50 million dollars in the bank, but who is somewhat rude and selfish, she will consider him too a real man, even though she wouldn’t accept this type of behavior from the previous (less wealthy) man.

Perhaps 3/4 of a man’s worth depends on his capacity to protect and provide. His looks and other innate qualities (manners, kindness) determine the remaining quarter of his worth.

When it comes to judging whether a woman is a “real woman”, which I will interpret as “marriage material”, men too have their own criteria which may seem arbitrary to females. Men do not care about her wealth and success, these are just the icing on the cake, while when it comes to a man’s worth, his wealth and success is most of the cake.

A woman’s quality is judged based on her beauty, youth and loyalty, the qualities necessary for ensuring successful long-term relationships and healthy, high-quality children.

A man’s quality, too, is judged based on his wealth and success for the same reason, to ensure a successful long-term relationship and healthy, high-quality children.

So, in reality, both genders have the privilege of determining which specimens of the other gender are worthy when it comes to marriage and reproduction and which ones are not. This is called sexual selection, and it is essential for the survival of all sexually-reproducing species. There needs to be a mechanism by which a woman can differentiate between multiple male suitors and choose the best one among them and discard the worst ones, and there needs to be a similar mechanism for men.

I explain in further detail men’s preference for  youth and lack of sexual experience in my essays The Most Desirable Women for Marriage are in their Early Twenties and Sexually Inexperienced and Why do traditional societies care so much about a woman’s virginity?


American anti-Chinese propaganda and Hawramani’s Law of IQ and Political Power

As someone who likes to keep track of Chinese news, not a day passes except I see multiple examples of American fear-mongering toward China. Every other day an expert says that the Chinese economy is right on the edge of collapse. And below is just another example of this all-too-American tripe that Americans swallow up by the millions.

“The world” “should” be wary of this fat Chinese man whose portrait for some reason has the color scheme of a wildfire. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Because we want you to.

It makes me wonder how this type of garbage can be considered respectable media by the people. I haven’t clicked a link to the New York Times or most other American media for years after recognizing them for the unprincipled propaganda tools that they are.

I would have liked to say that a person who takes the Economist and the rest of the West’s presstitute media serious deserves to be lied to for feeding this disgusting machine with their wallets and attention. But, sadly, this includes most of the population. Perhaps an IQ of 130 or more is needed to see through these tools, and such people are rare. This leads me to mention something I have had in mind for a while, Hawramani’s Law of IQ and Political Power:

The political power of a demographic group increases by an order of magnitude for every standard deviation increase in IQ.

This means that Ashkenazi Jews, with their average IQ of around 115, have an order of magnitude more per capita political power compared to whites, with their average IQ of around 100. America’s Jewish population of around 7 million actually has the political power of around 70 million whites (at least), and the facts on the ground show this. In the same way, Indonesia’s 7-10 million Chinese, whose IQ is also about a standard deviation above that of the native Indonesians, have the potential to have the political power of 70-100 million Indonesians, although discriminatory measures against them have limited their power in the past decades.

The same law can be used to examine genetically homogeneous populations as well. In every country, the ruling class is always the same as the high-IQ class. It doesn’t matter whether the country is a monarchy or a democracy. In a monarchy, the high IQ population ends up becoming the aristocracy. In a democracy, the high IQ population ends up filling the top positions in media, academia and government, in this way creating its own aristocracy-by-any-other-name.

So what is the solution to this? There isn’t. Always, everywhere, the clever will have the power to deceive, hoodwink, mislead and defraud the less clever. A country in which the elite does not have principles is going to be ruled by a government, media and academia that does not have principles.

It is, therefore, the duty of the elite to have principles. If they did, this will affect the nature of their government, media and academia. If tens of thousands of high-status lawyers, architects and media personalities called out the Economist’s garbage journalism, they would be disgraced into reforming. But they do not, because they see nothing wrong, since if they were running the Economist, they would act the same as its present managers and writers.

Wherever you see a country whose government, media and academia is corrupt through and through, it is because the country’s elite is corrupt through and through. Therefore the solution to America’s troubles is for the present elite to either acquire principles, or for it to die out and be replaced by another elite that does have principles, and this is going to happen.

In 1850, America’s elite used to judge things by ideals and principles. Since 1950, they have found ideals and principles laughably unfashionable. This state of things is not going to last forever. Their fertility rates are already below-replacement, and they will be replaced by another elite that has ideals and principles, perhaps the signs of this trend will start showing around 2050.

Some mistakenly think that if the present system was dismantled, it could be replaced with a better one. In reality, what happens when you have a corrupt elite is that regardless of how many governments you replace, the nature of the country always remains the same. You cannot force the elite to stop being utterly corrupt, greedy and unprincipled. Latin America’s various failed revolutions are a good example of this.

Tumblr weightloss logic and all-you-can-eat diets

It is true that there is such a thing as “energy balance”, but the crucial thing that is left out of the equation is the nature of the person’s diet, which determines what their weight will be once they reach energy balance.

The numbers above are imaginary, they are only there to illustrate the way different “all you can eat” diets lead to different weights.

I have tried various diets throughout the years. A strict keto (ketogenic) diet reduces my motivation to work, even though it is great for blood sugar control. Currently I follow somewhat of a Mediterranean/low-carb diet. I avoid bread, rice, potatoes and all other foods that contain significant amounts of simple carbohydrates, since these foods make blood sugar management impossible regardless of how supposedly healthy some of them are. I also avoid eating more than 50 calories of fruit per day, as I always get neuropathy in my toes and fingertips the next day if I do so.

James Watson’s happy ending

After a large alliance of the betrayers of science and Western civilization (who run the West’s media, academia and research foundations) ruined James Watson’s career for mentioning scientifically-verifiable facts, this happened:

James Watson is the co-discoverer of the 3D structure of DNA. I have read his books The Double Helix and Avoid Boring People.

In similar circumstances, the economist Larry Summers mentioned the scientific fact that there are important genetic differences between men and women, which lead to mass feminist hysteria. Summers quickly backtracked and gave $600 million of Harvard money to the feminist priesthood as his sin offering, having learned the valuable lesson that it does not pay to give priority to scientific truths when there are the far more important concerns of keeping his well-paying careers and high positions. Why be a martyr in the name of science when you can be rich and powerful instead? Steve Sailer has a good article on this particular farce:

MIT biologist Nancy Hopkins won much sympathy from the press for fleeing Summers’ talk like a blushing Victorian maiden hearing some uncouth personage use the word “legs” instead of “limbs.” In leaking Summers’ off-the-record talk to the Boston Globe, Hopkins claimed that she had to leave or, “I would’ve either blacked out or thrown up.”

In reality, Hopkins is a veteran at playing the gender card. Wendy McElroy reported in 2001 on Hopkins’ lucrative conflicts-of-interest:

“The [MIT] Committee was established to investigate complaints of sex discrimination that were leveled by Hopkins herself. Yet she became the Chair, heading an investigation into her own complaints. As a result of her findings, Hopkins received — among other benefits — a 20 percent raise in salary, an endowed chair and increased research funds. Indeed, most of the Committee consisted of women who benefited substantially from the ‘guilty’ verdict. The only evidence of sex discrimination produced was the fact that there are more men than women in the faculty of the School for Science.”

The side of the patriarchy that is heretical for a feminist to examine

Like all neo-Marxist victimhood ideologies, it is a crucial part of feminism to have zero empathy for its designated enemy. The designated enemy is always dehumanized; so Nazi soldiers were not humans (post-WWII Jewish identity), capitalists are not humans (Marxist identity), men are not humans (feminist identity), straight white males are not humans (SJW identity). Therefore it is incredibly annoying when a feminist is forced to have some empathy for males in order to answer an intellectual question. For her it almost feels like rape, and like Anita Sarkeesian would agree, anyone who does such a naughty thing should be cut off from the internet and placed under house arrest for life.

Jordan Peterson: Token Rationalist White Male

From Wikipedia:

Peterson believes that postmodern philosophers and sociologists, while typically claiming to reject Marxism, have merely built upon and extended its core tenets, arguing that they “started to play a sleight of hand, and instead of pitting the proletariat, the working class, against the bourgeois, they started to pit the oppressed against the oppressor. That opened up the avenue to identifying any number of groups as oppressed and oppressor and to continue the same narrative under a different name … The people who hold this doctrine — this radical, postmodern, communitarian doctrine that makes racial identity or sexual identity or gender identity or some kind of group identity paramount — they’ve got control over most low-to-mid level bureaucratic structures, and many governments as well.


Peterson argues that postmodern feminists err by seeking to infantilise society. He stated, “There is an essential feminine pathology, just as there is an essential masculine pathology. And the essential feminine pathology Freud mapped out, it’s the Oedipal mother. And the Oedipal mother is the mother who gets too close to her children, and intermingles herself with them to too great a degree. That in her attempts to protect them undermines them, fatally.”

He continues: “It’s so comical watching the feminist postmodernists in particular rattle on about the absence of gender reality and act out the archetypal devouring mother at exactly the same time. For them the world is divided into predators and infants. And the predators are evil and need to be stopped and the infants need to be cared for. Well, that’s what the mother does, but adults are not infants, and all you do is destroy them when you treat them that way.”


I will never use words I hate, like the trendy and artificially constructed words “zhe” and “zher.” These words are at the vanguard of a post-modern, radical leftist ideology that I detest, and which is, in my professional opinion, frighteningly similar to the Marxist doctrines that killed at least 100 million people in the 20th century.

I have been studying authoritarianism on the right and the left for 35 years. I wrote a book, Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief, on the topic, which explores how ideologies hijack language and belief. As a result of my studies, I have come to believe that Marxism is a murderous ideology. I believe its practitioners in modern universities should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to promote such vicious, untenable and anti-human ideas, and for indoctrinating their students with these beliefs. I am therefore not going to mouth Marxist words. That would make me a puppet of the radical left, and that is not going to happen. Period.

This is amazing, feels like David Stove has come back to life. Most high-status white men are either infantile or cowardly (especially those of them in academia), it is a breath of fresh air to see Peterson stand up for rationalism.

Why do so many major companies get hacked? Because their executives are too ignorant to understand the new security landscape

Before computer networking, a large corporation’s data security concerns were rather straightforward. Don’t let strangers go where they shouldn’t be. Close the most important things in safes. If security is really important, have guards watch over every entrance and exit and do not let anyone leave without being searched.

Now that data is held inside computers that are on networks, that are sometimes connected to the internet or easy to connect to the internet, the security landscape is completely different. It is as if they had their most important data in occasionally-malfunctioning safes placed in the middle of Times Square. And not only that, but some of their safes are placed in dark alleys around New York City where criminals can get working on them without any surveillance or fear of detection.

In such an environment, only an extremely foolish executive would not be very, very worried about data security, or perhaps someone with a degree in music security.

So what should be done? Make the data security department an integral part of your company. You must worry very much about having the right data security department head, and the right people working under them, and the right type of oversight (by a very tech-aware executive, such as someone with a master’s degree or better in computer science or security) that ensures these people are doing their jobs instead watching pretty graphs and browsing reddit all day.

If so far your company has acted like most companies, completely ignorant of new security concerns, you probably need to increase your security staff by a factor of somewhere between two and ten.

If your data gets compromised, you have only yourself to blame.

You can also go with the Russian solution, which is to throw all computers away and work exclusively with paper, since most of your executives aren’t smart enough to understand the importance of documents and data they cannot hold in their hands.

The US Army’s Cultural Support Team

These ladies are tasked with reaching the female population of America’s “host” nations (what a great way to admit the American Empire’s parasitical nature!). I would imagine some conversations would go like this:

Old Middle Eastern Lady: So…my only son, his wife and all of his children died in your airst-

American Military Lady: We didn’t actually mean that, you know.

Old Middle Eastern Lady: And you destroyed my only source of income, that patch of land which is now one charred bomb crater-

American Military Lady: Come on, we only destroyed it a bit. See how nice of a person I am. And here are some USAID cookies for your very own personal use.

Americans and Trump vs. the NFL

Oh yes you will. Most Americans are too morally lazy to give up their entertainment just because it is anti-American. They would rather enjoy their credit cards than avoid paying $200 billion a year to the ruling banker class. They would rather enjoy their degrees than refuse to enrich the unholy alliance of universities, $200-a-textbook publishers, and the rent-seeking banker class that only stands to gain the more debt students are made to carry (since more debt for them always equals more interest payments, therefore they always also seek to involve the country in more wars, because require government bonds, and bonds mean billions of dollars of annual interest earnings for bankers). They would rather enjoy their music than avoid subsidizing the four companies that control most of America’s music industry and the utter scum who work for these companies, who continue fund the production of music that encourages young men to be gangsters, criminals and pimps. Americans would rather enjoy their cushy jobs instead of taking a career hit to avoid working for the parasitical financial sector, for the defense and security apparatus, for the utterly corrupt media and journalism sector.

Americans needs the president to tell them something before they start thinking about, then make a big commotion about it, and perhaps change happens or does not in a tiny part of life, like idiots who on the sinking Titanic argue about the decoration, will go back to their lazy and cowardly lives, letting the banker scum continue ruling this country.

Home Office: Are you a woman? Your man is the problem. Are you a man? You are the problem.

Let’s demonize men. Let’s act as if women are infinitely superior to men. Let’s act as if men are utterly worthless and in relationships always guilty until proven innocent. Then let’s act surprised when men do not want to get married, when they have an extremely cynical attitude toward women and relationships, when they feel worthless and unwanted, when they go to Ukraine to find unbrainwashed women to marry, when men men feel zero allegiance toward their societies and civilizations and think it could all go to hell for all they care, when they feel so hated by women that they start to feel only another man’s love is true, when they feel the only way to make it in life is to have a sex change so that they can escape belonging to the West’s most hated species.

Why Europe’s new feudal lords hate digital piracy even if it doesn’t harm their profits

So the EU finds out that there is no conclusive evidence that piracy is harmful, but wants to bury the results. Since the EU is ruled by an aristocracy of bankers and their friends, its actions naturally reflect the will of the bankers and their friends, the super-rich, or as I call them, the usurer class.

You’d think they would be relieved that piracy isn’t hurting their billions. What’s at issue here is probably the fact that they cannot stand the thought of people enjoying their works without paying them rent. Even if it doesn’t harm their profits, even if these people wouldn’t buy their stuff if they weren’t available for free, to them it is still a crime against rent-seeking that someone should enjoy entertainment and knowledge without going through the systems they gate-keep (Elsevier and others).

It’s probably about power and control. They want control over the intellectual property their corporate entities produce, it is an insult against their sense of rent-seeking justice that someone should enjoy their works without paying them. It is not about profit, it is about how things should be.

You do not sit in the shade of my mansion, even if it doesn’t do me any harm, because I do not like the idea of anyone enjoying anything I have without paying me rent for it.

There is also the issue of the slippery slope. They probably feel that if they were too lax on piracy, services would develop that would make piracy too commonplace, rather than something limited mostly to warez dudes. So perhaps they wanted to bury this study in case it caused an erosion in their pretexts to have the gestapo hound pirates.

By the way, if, for science only, you were interested in knowing how pirates anonymously download movies, games and massive ebook collections from the internet, you may find this 2014 essay of mine interesting: How cyber pirates anonymously torrent movies on the internet

The iPhone X vs the Samsung Galaxy S6

I don’t like Apple, but what Android enthusiasts continuously fail to realize, or fail to admit, is that the iPhone is about the experience, not the features. The features are important, of course, Apple always needs fluff to fill up its two-hour-long announcement events, and it needs its customers to feel that they are getting new and shiny stuff.

But the fact that phones exist with certain better features is largely irrelevant. What matters is the superiority of the total phone experience. You may think your grandma is foolish to prefer an iPhone instead of the far superior available Android devices, but she is actually cleverer than you when it comes to what is good for her.

Phones are like doctors. Your grandma does not want to go to a genius of a doctor who makes her feel uncomfortable, weirds her out and is not widely known or admired. She wants to go to a doctor who is famous for being the best all-round doctor, so that if she tells others that he is her doctor, others think better of her for that, knowing that it is rich and classy people who prefer or can afford that doctor.

So while the iPhone is inferior in various ways, the fact remains that to the larger society, having an iPhone confers a certain status, and the most expensive iPhone confers the most status. You can say that society is stupid for doing this, that the best Android phone should confer the best status. But you are wrong. When it comes to status, what matters is doing what works. If Apple spends billions marketing iPhones as the coolest thing to have, and people believe this, so that someone who buys an iPhone is considered cool, then everything is working as expected.

This is how it works when it comes to ordinary people. As for geeks and nerds, we want more, and we do not like to be told what to think and what to do, therefore just the fact that iPhones are cool and something of a bandwagon is sufficient for us to want to avoid having anything to do with them.

It is the same when it comes to politics. Nerds and geeks want to vote for the politician who has the right track record, shows competence and has the right plans. The average person votes for the politician who makes them “feel” the right way, so that they put the country in the charge of some pretty boy who knows a lot about asbestos litigation, or some lecher who feels no shame in giving lustful descriptions of his daughter’s body. This is infuriating, but this is reality, so get used to it.