An Excerpt from My Novel “Sanity”

Awhile back someone on Twitter asked who was going to be the Tom Wolfe of the Dark Enlightenment/Red Pill (I’ll find it and give credit in due time). I decided it might as well be me, and I’ve been working on it for some weeks now. It will probably be mid-summer before it’s published, but while we wait for the fruits here’s a sample (yeah, my fictional style is different, and yeah, it’s present tense and no, it’s not the final edit):

Continue reading

Civil War 2.0 Will Be Livestreamed

My latest for The Mitrailleuse:

The events of this summer are a taste of what’s to come in the fall, and even more so, November 9, 2016.

Someone is going to win the Presidential election, and regardless of whether it’s Trump or Clinton, the loser’s supporters are going to feel existential angst about America, and their place in it, far beyond the usual.


Thousand-Year War

Nine hundred might be more accurate, but who’s counting?

Outside in points us toward PopeHat‘s GamerGate epic, but my eye was quickly caught by Clark’s immediately preceding Strange Seeds on Distant Shores. For those who have read important parts of the Moldbuggian Canon, there’s nothing startling here, but the last few paragraphs did cause my thoughts to take a slight detour:

Having an accurate view of the world is rewarding in its own right, but it’s especially nice when the alternative is being blindfolded and punched in the face.

If you think that the today’s headlines are primarily, or even largely, about today, you’re mistaken: they’re just reports from the latest skirmishes in a war started a thousand years ago because of climate change and technological progress.

If you think that because you’re on the winning side of the culture wars the footnotes are boring or irrelevant, I suggest that you’re wrong. I think that over the next decade or two the Roundheads (read Harvard Yankees) are going to take a major fall. Like dwarves delving too deep or Hitler pushing too far into the East, the irrational exuberance (not to say hubris) of roaming the culture war battlefield and humiliating your downed opponents before brutally executing them can have detrimental effects.

Now this may just be wishful thinking; I’m not sure what this “major fall” would look like in “real life.” Will reactionaries be able to spout their views in New York Times editorials and keep their positions as CEOs of major corporations? Will trannies go back in the closet? Will immigration laws be enforced? Will Nigel Farage become PM (damn, wouldn’t THAT be fun to watch?)?

I’ll say it straight out, I’m on the “Red Team” for partly aesthetic reasons. Any man or woman worth their weight in salt would recoil in disgust at the average “SJW” getting in their face. Of course, the average SJW doesn’t get in anybody’s face; SHe posts fake death threats against herself on web forums, then arranges for the evidence to be forwarded to a prog site with connection to the MSM. I’ve been saying for quite a few years that people will only take so much, that when they are really, truly up against the wall they’ll fight (and more cynical members of the reactosphere have called me hopelessly optimistic). One of the few examples where the progs have been stymied is their program of “gun control” in the US. Now, except for the government, Red Team has most of the guns. I always figured that as the last final argument that would prevent the Jacobin Terror, USA.

Maybe #GamerGate will be a spark. Maybe trannies are a bridge too far. Or maybe, and more likely to my mind, Hitler has only just crossed into the Soviet Union, and there will be a whole lot more shit, and casualties, to come, before the pendulum swings back to any significant degree.

Maybe We Don’t Need to Win, Just Have Our Own Vine and Fig Tree

A few days ago I made some future references, quick comments and excerpts on others’ posts and ideas that needed fleshing out. The problem is that in the meantime more ideas and posts come down the pike from the many fine bloggers and commenters around the NRx. It’s like drinking from a fire hose, eating an elephant, among other tired cliches.

Then one swallow/bite at a time. Free Northerner gave us a Winning Conservative Strategy and as a former “political professional” I very much enjoyed his ideas, and especially visualizing what they would look like in practice. The picture of a bunch of sign-waving agitators in front of some Prog CEO’s home, yelling at him every time he takes out the garbage, is rather delicious, indeed. A certain portion of the ideas in Free Northerner’s piece were put into practice by the late St. Breitbart, though sadly none of his heirs seem to have stirred up near the trouble for the Left that he did, personally.

The incisive Henry Dampier then did his own spin on what he calls FN’s “laudable goals.” Bottom line: It would probably cost a lot more than a mere $142 million to merely make the effort as outlined, and:

  • Facing an enemy with far greater material resources, it is necessary instead to use unorthodox methods rather than direct confrontation to disrupt and destroy the systempunkts within their economic machinery.
  • Direct confrontation can be easily contained by the left: it is like a frontal assault on a fixed position with a predictable result.
  • The left can trivially contain any direct attack, because it is politically well-fortified against such attacks. It is like trying to attack Rommel’s tank divisions with a bunch of drunk amateurs driving golf carts. They will break at the first sight of the Panzers, and it is not responsible to tell them that they have a chance to win against him.

Agreed. To restate it in a slightly different direction, I don’t believe it’s possible to change society (including the whole of “The West” within that) through some kind of educational, political or propaganda action, given current conditions. As long as Real Housewives, NFL football and internet porn are available for the masses, as long as the grocery stores have some reasonable levels of foodstuffs, as long as the stations have gasoline, and, especially, as long as the welfare, food stamp and unemployment EBT cards still work, there will not be the levels of general desperation in the big democracies for the kind of mass scale upheaval that would result in regime change and a reorganization on nationwide levels to some kind of fiscally conservative, soundly moral society.

Having gotten this aired, it’s actually the earlier part of Free Northerner’s post that I’d like to talk about here:

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.


Controlling the highest level of violence in American politics means that Conservative can control the tempo of lower-violence political conflicts (voting, law-making, regulation enforcement, etc.) and control the escalation of political violence (ie: voting to voter fraud; debate to ideological firings) through the implied threat of further escalation (you witch hunt me and take my job, I witch hunt you and take your job and reputation; you escalate to assault, I escalate to shooting).

I repeat: I am not advocating shooting liberals or doing anything illegal. My strategy does not include physical violence or criminality. I am simply explaining a concept that will under-gird the strategy.

While I haven’t read the book To Win a Nuclear War that he references, Game Theory is something that I do understand, and either the authors or FN have gone wrong, somewhere. Deterrence of this type works on the principle that the stronger side is actually prepared to use its weapons, even were it to result in the destruction of both sides. So all of Free Northerner’s caveats at the end of the quote essentially invalidate the beginning. The strategy only works if you are actually ready to shoot someone, as many someones as it takes to get your point across and cow the opposition into submission. Thus, his conservative’s campaign to cow the left is built on quicksand.

I don’t want to shoot anybody either. I mean I really, really don’t want it to come to that. Exit, partition, groups of like-minded people going their own way; that’s what I’m hoping for and expecting in the coming years, rather than some actual civil war. However, the basics of deterrence and of “escalation dominance” are already in place, at least in the U.S. and to a lesser extent, Canada.

Isn’t it intriguing that gun laws are practically the only thing that hasn’t been subject to the leftward “ratchet” over the 20 years? Outside of the sinkholes of New York, California and a few other crowded East Coast states, legal concealed carry has come to most of the U.S. On the federal level, after reaching its high water mark in 1993 with the ban on scary “assault weapon” pistol grips and large-capacity mags, so-called gun control is essentially a dead issue. Obama and his minions had their chances, and they didn’t even make a real effort outside of speechifying.

Why not? Escalation dominance.

The United States is in a unique position in world history in that it has a massively armed general population (yeah, Switzerland, big deal). The reason that there has never been a real confiscation effort, no matter how much Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama want one, is that there is near-certainty that too many people would shoot back. In addition, no one knows how many police would actually carry out the orders. In Connecticut this year, tens of thousands of firearms owners apparently refused to comply with new laws, and the State Police were forced to reassure everyone that there would be no door-to-door gun confiscations.

The Left is pretty confident that they can drain the productive economy, reward their allies in business, finance and entertainment, heap scorn on Christians and decency, and get away with it. But they piss their pants at actually going out and prying real firearms out of real people’s hands.

I believe this is why there really will be a fairly amicable parting of the ways between the Left and the Reaction. American leftoids mostly don’t have the balls to shoot and/or imprison enough people who want to separate and live in a different way. They can keep their pesthole big cities and most of the tax-consuming population. Hell, they can keep everything but a few productive, healthy city-states.

Because mostly, from the President on down, they’re keyboard warriors who can’t hit what they’re aiming at.

Future References

It’s a bit disconcerting, but also enjoyable and encouraging, when I have a post idea in mind and before I find the time to execute it…someone else does it, or something similar.


I haven’t seen a lot of material in the NRx blogs about guns, and how they’re going to be the difference-maker down the road, when the (hopefully Velvet) Great Divorce happens, in the U.S. The disarmed states, like the U.K., will have to work out their problems a different way. But in America, hundreds of millions of private firearms are a backstop, as it were. There’s a point where even the most modest middle-of-the-roader who owns a rifle will say, “This far, and no farther.” Unfortunately, when it’s rather late and the smoke from the burning cities is wafting over his suburban roof; but still.

Free Northerner gets into this in the first part of his A Winning Conservative Strategy. It’s a fun ride, considering how the Republican Party could “hit back just as hard.” The question is, do they actually want to “win”? Echo answers hollowly…but for now we focus on this:

The most interesting fact about American politics is how the Republicans totally dominate all levels of violence, yet are always in a perpetual state of losing. The military is primarily Republican, the police are more split but, at least in terms of front-line workers, are generally Republican, and the NRA, while officially non-partisan, is primarily composed of Republicans. The vast majority of people who own and can use a gun are conservative, yet, in the long run, conservatives always lose to their weaker, unarmed brethren.

It is baffling until you realize it is because conservatives refuse to play by the rules the progressives have set. Democrats can steal bags of votes, implement gang-run politicsdestroy crimethinker’s careers, and stage shit-ins (among many other things) with impunity and the Republicans refuse to respond with anything worse than requiring ID to vote (and then getting called evil when doing so).


First, some theory. In “To Win a Nuclear War” Michio Kaku outlined the concept of ‘escalation dominance’.

Escalation dominance essentially means the actor controlling the highest level of violence (in the book’s case, nuclear weapons) can control all lower levels of violence by threatening to escalate the conflict to a higher level of violence. By controlling the tempo and threat of escalation, this actor can steer a conflict in such ways as to win lower level conflicts even in areas where he may be weaker.

As I stated above, the military, the police, and the NRA are conservative institutions. Conservatives, and thereby the Republican party, control the highest level of violence in American political disputes.

Using this, the Republicans should be able to control the escalation and tempo of lower-violence political conflicts.

This topic is worth exploring further, and will be explored here in future.


Speaking of the future, I’ve had in mind a post on my predictions for the future for a few days, but before I actually began hitting the keys, here’s Outside in on Expected Unknowns. While he doesn’t make predictions, thus does not completely usurp my contemplated scrabblings, he does say something well worth remembering:

The most reliable heuristic: plan for the unknown as such. (More on that to come.)

Good; from me, also.


This guy: Wimminz – celebrating skank whores everywhere is the official title – adopts a persona as a 50-something mildly ex-con misogynist U.K. truck driver (and he may well be just that!). Then, when you least expect it, deep no-bullshit pure clarity gobsmacking intelligent sanity leaps out, and you realize you’re dealing with someone:

“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

Sadly we have also come to a place where the person in place W can all in their defence the fact that none of the decisions A1 to V1 inclusive, when taken individually, which is they way they took them, were perfectly rational and normal and legal and it’s really not my fault so help me out here.

And in truth, it’s hard not to have some sympathy for that argument, or the person who finds themselves in place W, but there is a difference between feeling sympathy, and excusing.

You and you alone must carry the responsibility for being in place W, and all those decisions A1 to V1 inclusive.


If “place W” is the cell you spend your last night in before heading out to see madam guillotine in the morning, that text in purple will be applied to you.

If “place W” is a senior position in government or finance or service industry, it won’t.

I have long maintained that if you are hit by a bullet, it makes not the slightest difference to you, or the wound, or anything else practical, if it was a deliberate enemy act or an accidental blue on blue chance in a million.

But there comes a point when it comes to mitigating risk a, so Nukinnd consequences  where you go from “I guess it is *possible* that could happen” to “It’s only a question of time“, and that fact is if you make decisions in succession as described above, A1 to V1 inclusive, then it is only a question of time.

It only becomes I guess it is possible if each subsequent decisions factors in ALL the previous positions and places, and the additional overall command choice is made, is this going to move me nearer to A or to z, if things go wrong?

We are essentially describing the difference between men, and wimminz and niggerz, I’ve talked before about decision trees.

Even if you have NO other information, simply choosing the option that maximises the future possible choices is always the best option, so nuking Milford Haven in September is better than nuking it tomorrow, something may arise in June that makes me want to go there, I can’t imagine what right now, but that’s the whole fucking point innit.

The options in case of course have to be real, not illusory, so giving me the option of passing up on a fuck with the local village bike, and passing up on a fuck with some gorgeous billionairess Ukrainian sex bomb are not the same thing.

Similarly the offer of a fuck now, and a fuck tomorrow, are not the same thing.

Invariably, when hindsight says that, for example, decision H1 was a bad choice, what it really means is that neither were all the options actually considered, nor were all of the options that were considered unweighted, and considered only on their own merits, and not on a perceived end goal.

Ummm-just read the guy’s archives, there is too much half-crazy gold there to summarize.


Finally, for now, Septivium begins.

Sebastian Pritchard lays down a program. I imagine that if we can individually hit it at the 50 percent level we’ll be ready to take on The Troubles Ahead, as best we can. I haven’t written much about self-improvement here, but one more Future Reference for the road. (Hat tip Jack Donovan for the link to Pritchard.)