Friday Night Fragments #39

The internet was marketed as being a gateway to a new age of ever more open communication. In some ways, that is true. And yet, it is hard not to notice that in an age in which every tweet is cataloged and almost no place on earth is beyond the reach of a cell phone camera, the vast majority of people are far more guarded about what they say. Censorship, it seems, is facilitated by openness; a dynamic that seems odd at first until you remember how there is not a man alive who does not intentionally reveal his true thoughts equally among all he knows, but rather, saves certain things only for that small group of those he trusts.

Censorship through openness. Conformity through the quest for uniqueness. Silence through the cacophony of everyone speaking at once.

What a world we live in, huh?

Original zinger of the week from the mind of Donovan Greene:

Change for the sake of change is the imbecile creed of those too naive to realize that they will never even understand one thing about how the world works.

Dispense at your leisure.

I met up with a non-zero number of neoreactionary figures last night. I won’t say how many. I won’t divulge identities. What I will say is that Neoreaction is dead. Yep. Totally. Absolutely dead. Dead as a doornail. Seriously. There is as much spark of life and vivaciousness of soul in Neoreaction as there is in Hillary Clinton’s eyes.

Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_cropThere is no reason to expect anything further from Neoreaction. None whatsoever. So don’t even bother. Seriously.

Now that the jokes are rolling off the assembly line, let’s get into some linkage:

First on the menu, we examine the question of whether Honduras will be better off with ZEDEs (Zones for Employment and Economic Development…essentially a breed of special autonomous economic zones). The argument in favor is that these types of zones have a proven track record of success in increasing material well-being and standards of living. The argument against seems to be that these projects provide benefit to people who are of a higher class of skill than the type of “labor” we see sneaking across the Rio Grande, and that we should do everything humanly possible in life to avoid rewarding people who have the genetic defect of actually having redeeming qualities.

I’m all for freedom and liberty and free choice, but I see shit like this and I realize just how damn important it is for the unrepentant shit-stains of the world to be neutralized and oppressed and generally prevented from doing any harm to people who actually have the potential to offer up any sort of value to the world.

Speaking of harm, you would think that being co-operative and working together with people will in all circumstances make you better off. This is true when everyone else wants to work together and do no harm. Were this actually the case, we could all live in a fantastic libertarian paradise with no need for the physical removal of undesirables.

We do no live in such a world. We live in a world in which unflinching co-operation is not the most prudent course of action, but rather, being able to assess who is a good ally and who will turn on you someday.

All that sounds pretty nice, but really, it’s just a poor lead-up into the recommendation of Sprandrell’s post on Trade and Peace. Well worth the read.

Finally (at least in terms of this week’s link round-up), we have Social Pathologist’s perspective on rationality and the reflective mind. It’s a very important read, and it also offers a theory on why the phenomenon that I like to call “the high-IQ idiot” exists:

High IQ is no protection against stupid if your conception of how the world works is wrong, of if you have faulty understandings of cause and effect and are romantic impulsive. Furthermore, the failure to error check and test your theories seems to make one prone to irrationality. Indeed, one of the big factors with seems to be strongly correlated with rationality is thinking styles or personality.  People who are conscientious, deliberative and committed to the truth seem better at thinking rationally than those who are not.  What’s interesting to speculate upon here is the relationship between values culture and intelligence.  High IQ is of little protection when you ditch a commitment to the Truth or embrace ideologies (Marxism) which negatively affect rational thought.

Especially in light of the passage above, I don’t think it should be too difficult to figure out exactly the sort of person I mean to refer to when I say “high-IQ idiot”.

It is said that one ought to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves, but I’m not so sure I see how that is possible. Wisdom is scar tissue of the mind, a memorial to wounds long past and a reminder of the consequences of naivete. It is a mark of suffering that is earned by making painful mistakes that slowly strip one of one’s innocence.

It’s a good thing that “innocent” in this context means pure-hearted and well-meaning. Otherwise, we might have had a serious problem here.

Don’t despair if you find yourself no longer a dove. Even serpents have their role to play.

Friday Night Fragments #38

If you ever find yourself standing in line at airport security, removing your belt and shoes, and mentally undressing the cute blonde to your left, you might find yourself asking a dangerous question: why. Airport security is a most unpleasant hassle, and it doesn’t seem to be particularly effective. So why bother?

(Side note: Who knows how many “random” events were either allowed to happen or were engineered to happen by people who are ostensibly trying to prevent that sort of thing?)

All that said, it’s hard not to see how such rituals are of extreme utility to entities in a position to “see like a state”, as it were. Experiences like this operate subtly, but operate they do, whether we notice it consciously, subconsciously, or maybe even not at all. They condition you to unquestioningly accept the capricious dictates of fools LARPing as authority, they acclimate you to being treated as cattle, and they (perhaps most importantly) provide a source of employment for low-skill, low-IQ philosophical zombies that need to be kept occupied somehow. What’s not to like?

Yes, I did just suggest that the TSA and other similar agencies function as massive public works projects to keep as many people as can be influenced — employees and otherwise — docile and complacent.

There are no doubt people in this world who can be treated like cattle without thinking anything of it or taking offense. It makes my skin crawl to be treated as one of them.

Next up, because mood whiplash is amusing, we have an optimistic view on the future with LOADS OF SCI-FI FUTURE TECH PORN.

Not really, but also kind of. This is a hardcore hit of the sort of thing that the “I Fucking Love Science” crowd would enjoy if they were as intelligent and as technologically-savvy as they have deluded themselves into thinking that they are.

Come to think of it, were I being completely fair, I wouldn’t have called this an “optimistic view on the future”. “Reminder of upcoming developments that have positive potential” would have been far more accurate and far more intellectually honest.

So we’ll go with that instead.


No comment needed, save a brief critique that will also serve as throwing down an exo-semantic gang sign: #AIACC

I mentioned Iran in the last fragments, but this time around, I’ll pass the microphone to Paul Craig Roberts over at Unz. He’s got a good write-up, and he makes a few points that I wasn’t aware of.

But because this is my blog, I feel obligated to bring up some thoughts of my own: Within 10 – 15 years (likely sooner, but I’m playing conservative here), there will be a series of “popular demonstrations” in Iran with spiritual origins in the Green Movement but also with a surprising degree of funding and a strong bent towards progressivism on social issues. These movements will contend the legitimacy of the government and demand change. Things will get messy quickly, but I’ll hold back from offering any predictions on how events will play out.

Or maybe not. Maybe this time a different page from the playbook will be opened. Diplomacy would be an unexpected move at this point. But we’ll see what happens. Old dog, new tricks, and all that sort of thing.

Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How then, do we dare to insist that evildoers do not exist?

A human being hesitates and bobs back and forth between good and evil all his life. He slips, falls back, clambers up, repeats, things begin to darken once again. But just so long as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains, as he himself is within reach of our hope. But when, through the density of evil actions, the result of either their extreme degree or the absoluteness of his powers, he suddenly crosses that threshold, he has left humanity behind, and without, perhaps, the possibility of returning.

-Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

The “must-read” piece of the week is Nick Land’s Hell-Baked. And if you liked this…

London She Guardian Statue…then you’re going to LOVE Land’s piece.

Finally, to end with a bit of levity, a brief reminder that The Onion sometimes manages to hit the nail on the head more often then one might suspect.

Just take a moment and imagine the primary debates: Jeb Bush; Chris Christie; me. Of course, they’ll put me in the middle because I’m ahead in the polls—far ahead at the moment. You already know how I answer even the most basic inquiries, so just picture me staring down the barrel of a question about foreign affairs or agriculture policy or something like that. You think you won’t sit there with bated breath while I try to tackle a question about using military force, or about food stamps, or about how my faith influences my decision-making? I guarantee you that my answers will be worth watching. And we both know you wouldn’t miss them for the world. It’d be the biggest, most-watched primary debate in history, courtesy of all of you.

And if you’re into this sort of thing, you see a brief glimpse of the limitations of the brahmin mind if you look in the right places (Cruz, Christie, Trump is going to be the real trifecta of bloodshed in the republican debates).

Have a laugh or two. It’s the right thing to do.

Friday Night Fragments #37

I came, I saw, Iran.

Or something like that.

On one hand, it’s hard not to feel that we got played as a consequence of having no vision and no idea of what we actually wanted to do. On the other, it does make me wonder whether the intent (“intent” being perhaps not the right word here) was to move things toward an ostensible “detente” by which an American Embassy could be re-opened and NGOs and other “well-meaning” international organizations could gain a foothold.

We all know what happens when the Embassy and the NGOs come to your country, don’t we?

I wonder how long it will be until it is decided that Iran needs feminism and gay rights.

Two pieces this week that are absolutely required reading thing week: NIO’s Public Choice and Nick B. Steves’s The Occult Effects of Democracy. Nothing more need be said. Go read them.

Not really relevant to anything but also relevant:


One of the most common psychological defense mechanisms I’ve encountered is that of “offloading psychic discomfort”. In order to avoid the psychic cost of certain behaviors, a person will offer up an external entity (either person or object) to serve as a “scapegoat” of sorts that can absorb the discomfort in place of the individual.

(Side note: I feel as if this is something that ought to have been discussed before, but none of the numerous types of defense mechanisms listed on wikipedia quite seem to hit on what I am trying to elucidate, though splitting and projection seem to be getting at certain principles at work here).

This seems to be one of the dynamics at work in the strange relationship feminism has with alcohol. Many young feminists seem to feel entitled to alcohol and to casual sex, and yet few things cause them so much uproar as the act of having sex while drunk. There’s a lot going on here (not least of which is a massive amount of social conditioning), but I’ll try to unpack it and show how this dynamic I’ve described is a part of things (though likely not the whole picture).

The act of casual sex causes certain level psychological discomfort (ranging from “none at all” to “irreversibly damaged”, depending on one’s psychological make-up). This occurs even if it is not perceived. This can be due to fear of vulnerability, insufficient override of the disgust reaction, quirks of cognitive dimorphism between the sexes, or any number of other reasons.

I personally suspect that many feminists who trumpet hooking-up and who actually engage in that kind of behavior (as opposed to those who say they support it but who refrain from such indulgence) are not pursuing casual sex for the sake of casual sex, but for the sake of validation, “empowerment” , social conditioning, or as an escape from fears of commitment or any of a whole host of other psychological contusions.

Given the level of psychic discomfort entangled with the act of casual sex, it is necessary to ease the pain by relying on alcohol as a ritual agent to assuage the mind and make it feel that such behavior is appropriate. In a sense, alcohol becomes a vessel by which psychic discomfort can be isolated and kept away from doing harm to the ego. This does not erase the pain, however, and this is where things get interesting.

Since they are engaging in behaviors that they think they enjoy and that they think are good for them, they cannot explain their subconscious anguish, even though they are not wholly unaware of it beneath the surface. What they know is that they are not as happy and content as they were led to believe that they would be. They clearly understand that somewhere in this process there is something causing regret and unpleasantness, but as they think they are entitled to nothing but absolute pleasure and ecstasy from their experience, they wonder what could possibly be ruining their fun.

Since it cannot be alcohol, which is the ritual agent that makes everything okay, it must therefore be men. Creepy men who ply women with alcohol in order to rape them. Those men are the cause of whatever anguish you may feel. They deserve all manner of unpleasantness for violating the happiness to which you are entitled!

Interesting implication of this theory: casual sex can lead to feminism.

Show me your signaling and I will show you who your master is. What’s that? You don’t think you have a master? Ridiculous. Only a man without desire, without belief, without emotion, without instinct, without impulse, and without thought cannot be slave to something.

That batman t-shirt you wear? I see you are slave to entertainment and cookie-cutter forms of identity and association given to you by those who earn your slavery with their illusions.

Ah. You have the rainbow flag outside your house. How touching. I see you are slave to a belief in the latest mind virus devised by your overlords to ensure your submission.

I see you, slave to money. I see you, slave to power. I see you too, slave to God.

And there you stand, you proud fool, scrambling to erect a battlement to save a mirage of something you to which you might once have been enslaved.

Yes, you all think yourself better than the others.

Are you? That is not my place to decide. It might not even be my place to know.

Am I to be slave to such restraints?

What is reaction if not submission?

And yet what would mankind be if we never sought to push the limits?

Friday Night Fragments #36

Tonight’s edition of the fragments is best enjoyed on drugs. Yes, drugs. Really!

Kidding, but not really, but still totally kidding. Maybe.

Artist Bryan Saunders is not only cursed with a name that sounds a hell of a lot like “Bernie Sanders”, but also with a strange desire to check out exactly what happens when he draws a bunch of self-portraits while on drugs. Unsurprisingly, he suffered a certain level of brain damage following the experiment.

Still, the portraits are worth checking out. Very interesting stuff.

Are computers racist? Don’t be stupid. Everything is racist.

Pattern recognition algorithms picking up on patterns in the bone structure of primate skulls? Ridiculous.

Flippant insinuations aside, it’s hard not to see a resemblance to various animals when looking at the faces of certain individuals. Look too closely, and you might see not just gorillas, but also owls and snakes and all other manner of creature. I’ve seen cats and camels and birds and I know a girl with a countenance so similar to a basset hound it’s almost eerie.

Decide for yourself what you want the implications to be.

The infamous Soapjackal wonders what it is about alcohol, feminists, and agency. It’s a good question. Here’s my crack at it.

Alcohol acts to depress our inhibitions. This results in patterns of behavior that are closer in line with how we act without the acts of calculation and conscious override. While drunk, we act in a more “authentic” fashion than usual, which gives us a glimpse into our true selves.

(Side note: If you want to keep some track of how your unconscious behavioral patterns change over time, you should periodically get black-out drunk and have a trusted accomplice record your actions and dialogue.)

If someone is lacking in agency — as understood by a certain capacity of intelligence and executive functions to exercise veto power over instincts and emotional drives — then drinking will not only further dampen their ability to control themselves, but it might also reveal to them their overall inability to exercise free will as a matter of general principle.

In other words, people who claim that alcohol strips agency from them are utilizing rationalization as a defense mechanism to protect their ego from having to admit that they aren’t capable of acting in a manner that they consciously choose. This is not to say that alcohol doesn’t make you less capable of acting with agency, but to point out that it’s a lot easier to blame an external agent like alcohol than it is to admits one’s own internal flaws.

Short version: Projection. Everything is projection. It’s projection all the way down.

Respect is a funny thing. It’s easy to disrespect people if they possess bad traits, and yet bad traits mean nothing to us if we respect them. Yet, we respect people for their traits. Or do we?

This is the will of the noble soul: they desire nothing gratis, least of all life.

He who is of the mob wants to live gratis; we others, however, to whom life has given itself — we are always considering what we can give best in return!

And truly, it is a noble speech that says: “What life has promised us, we shall keep that promise — to life!”

One should not wish to enjoy where one has not given enjoyment. And — one should not wish to enjoy!

For enjoyment and innocence are the modest things: neither want to be looked for. One should have them — but one should look rather for guilt and pain!

Of Old and New Law-Tables: §6, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche

People are generally happier when surrounded by people of their genetic heritage. This correlation is weaker as intelligence goes up. Is this because people who are smarter are more likely to lie about their affinities when taking a survey, or is there actually something going on here?

I lean towards the latter. While I couldn’t dig up the relevant post, I’m fairly certain that I’ve written before about how the more elite someone is, the more they consider “elite” to be their ethnicity and prefer to associate with other elite individuals, with such association being their preferred brand of “ethno-nationalism”, as it were.

I definitely didn’t put it like that before, but certainly am now.

It’s been a while since this blog has made mention of aesthetics.

crouching tiger

Who knows what could have happened had I let that continue?

Friday Night Fragments #35

Despite having dropped Prohibition-themed fragments a few times over the past few weeks, there’s still a few ideas worth typing I’ve still not shoe-horned in yet. For example, it’s fairly well-known that almost all prohibition agents charged with enforcing the law were on the take. I find this to be an example of an interesting phenomenon: that in which private entities find themselves in a position of taking on a task either not being done or being done inefficiently by a public structure. In this case, said private entities completely nullified the effect of the public structure that opposed them: co-opting as many public agents as they could and finding ways to outwit and out-maneuver those they couldn’t.

Is there a deep state lesson here?

I noticed that #WhoisBurningBlackChurches was trending earlier this week. I will be the first to admit that I have no idea who is burning black churches, being neither a member of a black congregation nor an arsonist specializing in places of worship. However, being an individual with a brain that occasionally works, I do have a few possible idea.

1. The feds are doing it as a follow-up to their false flag attack.*

2. These events are a mere coincidence following the Charleston attack and none (or most) of these fires are the result of purposeful action.

3. Blacks are burning down their own churches and for whatever reason some in the media are trying to paint a usual pattern of activity into something unusual.

4. Some who are sympathetic to Dylann Roof’s intentions are trying to follow up and carry out their own acts.

5. Nothing of any importance is going on and people are just being the mindless apes that are every second of every day.

6. Mountains are being made out of molehills and innocuous acts or teenage shenanigans are being made out to be something far more malicious in light of the current context.

What do I believe? None of these. I don’t know what might or might not be going and I see no reason to engage in anything further than mere speculation.

*This option relies on the assumption that the Charleston attack was some kind of false flag event. I won’t deny that this is a possibility, though I categorically refuse to either believe or disbelieve any interpretation of recent events as such without compelling evidence strong enough to sway me to either conviction.

Hey, speaking of surreptitious maneuvers in the realm of the political, who else noticed that the whole Confederate Flag kerfuffle was a great smokescreen to get a bunch of groundwork laid for approval of the TTP and TTIP trade deals?

I’ll admit that I don’t know enough about these agreements to pass any kind of educated judgement on the matter, but the manner in which their implementation consists of just about every red flag possible, which makes me suspicious. If any of my readers have any good reading on the matter, I hope you share it with me.

Spend too long talking with customer service trying to fix your internet and you realize just how much the idea of enslaving proles is based mostly on emotional satisfaction. Then you take two seconds and realize that to the people who get to make the decisions as to who gets a lifeboat and who gets thrown to the impersonal forces of fate, we’re basically all proles. Relative status can be a bitch sometimes, and it makes one really, really hungry for power; not so much to wield it, but to avoid being prey for those on the top of the food chain.

In other words, I’m honestly not so much opposed to the powers that be so much as I’m interested in not being a piece of chattel they can cash in if it’s in their interest.

Isegoria links to an interesting analysis of how conspiracies usually operate. It also covers quite a bit more than that, so I’m loath to characterize this piece as just that, but if that’s not already an effective hook this might not be of great interest to you anyway. There’s quite a bit of good stuff in there about self-interest, bureaucracies, and how easy it is to mis-attribute the reasons behind the behavior of others.

The word “intent” breaks down because we do not have a handy English word to describe subconscious, institutional, or evolutionary intent. Many low-status outsiders observe the institution acting like a vampire, but they do not understand the internal dynamic, so they assume that the selfishness is conscious, when it is not. Their mistaken analysis of the internal dynamic makes them look like cranks, even though the overall observation is correct.

Because intent is so complicated, it hardly makes sense to even analyze it. To judge an institution, watch what it does. Look at the pressure that shapes its decisions.

Insiders generally know the details of how things work, but are often blind to the over-arching pattern of who is winning and who is losing. They are often quite deluded about the divergence between stated intentions and actual results.

The outsiders can see these patterns, but don’t understand the details, so come across as cranks when trying to do analysis. Should the outsiders gain authority, they have no real power, because they do not know how to work the levers to operate the machine. They don’t even know where the levers are. When they try to fix the machine, they get duped, get discredited, and end up out of power again.

Give it a good read. The read it over again to let the major points sink in a bit.

The tendency to anthropomorphize emergent phenomena has been a characteristic of humanity since at least the idea of nature spirits (and almost certainly longer than that). It’s not hard to see how a species with a record of seeing supernatural forces behind volcanoes and the tides might see conscious intent behind the chaotic turbulence of economic and political structures.

Over-estimation of conscious intent and over-estimation of central co-ordination. These are the most common errors made when outsiders attempt to examine the working of “conspiracies”. These were errors that may have been made in my own work on deep states. Expect updates on my previous work shortly.

Friday Night Fragments #34

Tonight’s edition of the Fragments is dedicated to the new “She Guardian” statue that was recently erected in London because HOLY SHIT TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THING TAKE A LOOK AT THIS INSANE FUCKING STATUE

London She Guardian Statue


London She Guardian Statue


London She Guardian Statue




I recently seized on the chance to watch the documentary “Hot Girls Wanted”, an inside look at the world of amateur porn. It’s a quick watch, and it’s rather interesting. Take a look if that sounds up your alley.

I don’t give much heeds to accounts that attest that all worldly affairs are controlled by an Illuminati. However, these accounts all generally contain a common strain that I find, if not believable, ridiculously amusing. I speak of the idea that the “Illuminati” — or the elite or the powers that be or whatever you want to call them — place symbols of great importance to them all over famous landmarks and important buildings and other places that hold a certain meaning for them. Laughably, I find this to be the best case for any kind of Illuminati because it’s exactly the sort of thing that I would do if I had that kind of power.

Perhaps that’s just my sense of humor.

Also, the idea of an Illuminati or a series of hidden conspiracies is wildly entertaining, if a bit poor in the dimension of practicality and believability. This is more a product of the various details and other specificities present in such accounts, however. The general underlying principle really isn’t all that ridiculous.

Each and every person likes being around people who are like them, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest. Each and every person likes feeling like they are a part of a select group, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest. Each and every person likes working with others for a common cause, from the youngest to the oldest and the lowest to the highest.

The idea that similar people of a certain tier might get together — surreptitiously or otherwise — and do things that might advance their interests is hardly an outlandish one. As always, however, the devil is in the details, and even though the general principle is always being played out, any potential manifestation of said principle that may be suggested is highly unlikely to be among that select group of possibilities that have actually played out (and/or are being played out currently).

But of course, I am a bit of a schemer with a penchant for discretion, so I would see those tendencies in everyone else, wouldn’t I?

Having worked my way through some private research on the matter of Prohibition, I am astonished by how jarring the parallels are with our own time. The “drys” were the SJWs of yesteryear (as I have mentioned in a previous Fragments), and they acted in exactly the same way as the feminists and “anti-racists” of our time cavort themselves.

Like the SJWs of today, they mucked everything up, expended all they had on instituting a ridiculous utopian vision, and suffered major egg on their face once everything they worked for fell apart (we’re still hoping on that last one coming about sooner rather than later).

Like the SJWs of today, it shook them to the core how they were ignored and mocked by all those who realized what a joke they were. Like the SJWs of today, they truly believed that they were on the right side of history and that they were truly holy for the faith they placed in their cause.

What set them apart from the SJWs of today was that they did not have the culture. Instead, the culture was against them. Hollywood made films glamorizing drinking. Wealthy East Coast brahmins made a point of offering liquid hospitality to all they could reach. The literature of the time period was awash with drink. The flood of booze could not be stopped.

Prohibition failed because really, really liked alcohol, despite all the desires of the Progressives to rewrite people to be otherwise. It’s hard to rally forces to oppose ideas like “equality” or “fairness” or “human rights”, but it’s very easy to get people to rally against anyone who comes off like the Fun Police.

This is why I believe that #GamerGate has been one of the first true insurrections against the progressive onslaught in recent times, because video games, like drinking, happen to be great fun, and there is a dedicated and reasonably-sized sub-culture of people that really, really enjoy this hobby and are willing to go to war for it.

Those who are against the ideas of the progressives would be wise to fight them not solely on those issues that incite disgust in the “ingroup”, but also on those issues in which the SJWs can be painted as tyrannical and in opposition to fun. Not everyone feels a visceral emotional reaction to various social issues, but everybody (except for left-wing activists and anyone who has a Tumblr) likes fun.

You want to hit them hard? Remind everyone around them of how much they hate fun.

Friday Night Fragments #33

Having reread The Gervais Principle as foundational material for my last post, something seems to have happened to me; namely, that the concepts have sunk in to a degree far beyond when I read the material for the first time. Everywhere I look I literally see the posturetalk and the babytalk that permeates the sound and the noise that spews from the mouths of those around me. I see it as clear as day and it disgusts me. It actually disgusts me, and those people who are exceptions appear to me as paradisaical havens in an ocean of filth.

Having seen so clearly something that I despise in others, I would be remiss if I did not seek to extirpate any such tendencies from myself. I would say that I’ve done a fairly good job of restricting this blog to either straight talk or powertalk, but from now on, I plan on making a conscious effort to do so.

My brother roped me into seeing the latest Jurassic Park movie with him, and despite myself I rather enjoyed it. I found it refreshing to see a film that dispensed with cliches about corrupt, greedy executives as a crutch to have some justification for why dinosaurs were eating people. Also, there seemed to be a strong undercurrent of tongue-in-cheek “red pill” self-awareness, leading to moments like this:

So which one’s the alpha?

You’re looking at him.

 Put there on purpose or am I just reading into it? Well, that doesn’t really matter now, does it?   Sure, the redheaded love interest manages to go through an entire film of schlepping through jungles and running from dinosaurs without ever bothering to take her heels off, but if you interpret that as a way of highlighting this most absurd of girl power tropes, it becomes strikingly less distracting (as well as exponentially more amusing).

It’s entertainment. It’s meant to be an occasional indulgence. Read into it what you like and interpret it how you like in order to enjoy it the most. If you’re going to be wasting time like that, do yourself a favor, don’t take things to seriously, and get as much out of it as you possibly can.

Ever wondered exactly what it takes to turn a man into a woman? Odds are, you just imagined losing a very special part of you. But have you ever considered exactly what it takes to make a male face look female? Isegoria gives us the answer. It turns out, it takes quite a but of work to turn a male-looking face into a female one, as biological sex is generally reflected in every part of the skull, from the chin to the forehead to all the little protrusions and growths around the eye sockets. It is a process that necessitates procedures such as whittling down bone, sawing off unneeded bits, reworking the entire jaw, and moving the hairline.

Regardless of whatever else anyone may believe on the matter, it’s hard to doubt that someone would have to feel a strong emotional compulsion of some sort in order to make them go through with this ordeal. Whether that’s a positive compulsion (I really want to do this) or a negative compulsion (I will feel very uncomfortable if I don’t do this), it’s not difficult to realize that no one with any idea of what happens during such a surgery would willingly undergo it unless they felt a very strong emotional stirring indeed.

Watch the whole documentary if you feel the inclination. Don’t if you don’t. But watch from about 15:00 – 17:00 or so.

Catch the important parts? People who take orders and trust in the command of a superior are your future soldiers. People who display prudence and caution make for your best spies. People who, when presented with high-pressure situations, look for better options that aren’t immediately obvious, are your future commanders.

If you’re like me and you like to reduce things to underlying dynamics and draw associations with disparate ideas, feel free to draw parallels with The Gervais Principle. It has been the intellectual plaything of the week, after all.

Never stop thinking for yourself, and never play a game if you aren’t the one setting the rules. Hold frame and impose your own order and your own structure on the world.

Or don’t. After all, the people running the show always need cannon fodder.

Apparently the French are advising visitors to the United States to watch their words and be exceedingly careful around American women for fear of unpleasant reprisals. Apparently the French fear that we in the US have a rabid hostility to any form of sexual expressions deemed to be outside the boundaries of propitious conduct.

Putting it in perspective, it goes back to a point I’ve made before: the more attractive women find you, the less you have to fear any sort of repercussions for sexual actions. Still, having that qualification enshrined not just into law, but also into our cultural and moral norms is still an indicator that the climate is being quite a bit more hostile for everyone (or at least, every man) involved in the sexual marketplace. Frankly, it’s hard to deny that this sort of thing is happening when citizens of advanced, civilized countries receive travel warnings that tell them to watch out for it.

The US has always had a bit of a reputation as being prudish and uptight when it comes to sex (at least form the lens of the more sexually open European countries), but to have that stereotype formalized by way of travel warning is a sign that even other developed, progressive countries think we’ve gone too far. If anyone here still doubts that the dominant strains of American culture are fundamentally Puritan, this is your kick in the teeth.