Author Archives: Free Northerner

Competing with Porn

No woman they could meet at the coffee shop or on the church camping trip could possibly compete with these perfectly toned, perfectly undemanding models.

That quote comes from a First Things article (H/T: CC) about men who game instead of work and get married. This claim that women are competing with porn comes up a lot from feminists, women, and conservative commentators. I know this particular commentor is male, but I’ve seen it many times before from females as well.

This claim always stuck me as odd. Why would real women, living beings of flesh and blood divinely molded to be beuatiful, think they’re competing with digital masturbation aids? Even odder, why do so many women think this is a difficult competition and that they are losing to a collection of moving pixels?

Let’s unpack it.

The first thing this claim presupposes is that the only method of competition for men women have is sex. Porn provides sexual release and little else; by making the claim women are competing and losing to porn, one is making the claim that women have nothing to offer but sex. Supposing (falsely) for a moment porn provided a far superior sexual experience to actual sex, there are still many areas a real woman could compete where a video and a fleshlight, or even a full-fledged futuristic sexdoll, couldn’t.

This gets back to what I’ve mentioned before. A real women can offer many things beyond sex that no porn could hope to match: kindness, sympathy, comfort, joyfulness, beauty, encouragement, submissiveness, softness, feeling like a man, a warm home, a good meal, a family, etc. These all require inner beauty, which feminism is actively trying to destroy. With feminine virtues being all but destroyed, sexiness is all that’s left. The tough, independent, argumentative, “intelligent”, high moxie, career-oriented failed-man-with-tits has nothing to offer a man but sexiness.

I can see feminists fearing competition from sexbots, but conservatives and Christians should know better, and teach their young women feminine virtues that will attract a man.

This claim presupposes is that porn is competitive with real sex with a real woman. While I’ve mentioned before the incentives against marriage and that masturbating into future sexbots may be superior to normal masturbation, no sex, or sex with unattractive fatties, all things being equal sex is better than masturbation by a very wide margin. There might be a couple addicts out there who prefer porn, but the vast majority of men would rather have sex.

Porn is an inferior substitute good for sex. If porn is competing with women over providing sexual release to men, something is definitely wrong. The most likely explanation is that there is no competition, because the man’s sexual needs aren’t being provided for in this because he can not obtain a wife or girlfriend (or in marriage, because his wife is not providing). Relatedly, he might have been burned in this area by women (or his wife) in the past and have given up on trying to obtain sex. The next most likely is obesity, men many might choose porn over sex with someone fat if fatties were all he could get or if his wife was fat. After that, it’s that the man is a perverted porn addict.

In neither of the first three cases are women competing with porn: they’re either not competing or they’re competing with their own poor habits. I think the last case is likely rare; I know of few men who would choose porn over even an average young girl for sex, 3DPD jokes aside.

Next, the claim of “perfectly-toned” girls, is missing the mark. From what I am given to understand (I can’t remember where I read it, possibly 28 Sherman), the porn business model has been moving away from toned, big-breasted, blonde bimbos for a while now. Porn is trending towards “amateur” girls-next-door and the personal cam-girl business model. Even the higher-end prostitution model is moving away from simple paid sex to the girlfriend experience.

Men’s fantasies are orienting less towards hot sex with unattainable bombshells and more towards intimacy with a normally pretty, seemingly attainable girl. The competition, if it exists, is not over just the penis, but over the heart as well. Which brings us back to the point made on the first assumption. Women can compete on a lot more than just being hot, and if not being “perfectly-toned” disqualifies them, then they are lacking feminine virtue that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Finally, while no women can be “perfectly undemanding”, their demands can be reasonable and in line with what they bring to the table. Porn demands nothing, but it also gives very little: temporary, unfulfilling sexual release. As partially listed above, there is a voluminous list of things a woman can bring to the table that porn simply can not do. With the amount extra they can provide a man, they can easily demand a reasonable amount. If they disincentivize themselves out of the marriage market by being too demanding (or more accurately, too demanding in the wrong areas) to such an extent that porn, with the primary virtue of being “undemanding”, can compete and win against them, they are, again, lacking the feminine virtues which would make them marriageable.

All this too say, porn is degenerate and a blight on modern society, but the thought that real women are in competition with it bears little resemblence to reality. If women are losing to porn, it is not porn that is beating them, but themselves. The only way the vast majority of real woman can possibly lose to porn to the vast majority of men (ie. those who are not the small portion who are porn addicts), is because they have abandoned the feminine virtues that would make men desire them more than hollow masturbation and pictures on a screen.

Porn is a vastly inferior substitute good for sex. Women have a strong advantage in attracting men unless they price themselves out of the market or abandon the virtues that would make them marriageable in the first place.

Lightning Round -2016/08/11

Church, mannerbund, militia.

Spain’s cautionary tale.
Related: Towards civil war.

Going for the throat.

Natural and artificial.
Related: Social constructs.

A nation’s future in one number.

Trump has intrinsic geopolitical value.
Related: Trump, Hillary, and who we are.
Related: Commentary on Trump.
Related: Yes we Khan… send them back.

How small-scale, but intense action works.

Americanism is expanded Anglo-Saxonism.
Related: Lovecraft’s prophecy.

Why the alt-right isn’t wrong.
Related: The alt-right as an antidote to neocon warmongering.

Ideological inertia in institutions.

Social media is a state tool.

The horror of rising wages in Hungary.

Japan shifting right.

End of Jewish rule.

Quick student loan forgiveness program.

There is no such thing as moderate Islam.

New Jersey enjoys the fruits of tolerance.

NRx and the orthosphere.

The West should consider Christ’s victory.

The pope is not the pope.

Let them go their wicked ways.

Today’s women are yesterday’s prostitutes.

The smart girl penalty.

Before patriarchal fire and writing.

Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative on men’s gender roles.

The stock market is too small for boomers to retire.

The bait-and-switch confusopoly economy.

The philosophy of failure.

The value extractors.

Is martial law coming?

The Trump media narrative.
Related: Listening to Trump voters.
Related: Journalists have dispensed with objectivity.

Gadsden flag declared racist.

Obscure deep-stater tapped to stump Trump.

Hillary’s handler.
Related: Hillary’s condition.
Related: Media cover.

The privilege of Bret Stevens and Fareed Zakaria.
Related: The lies of Bret Stevens.

Murdered DNC staffer may have been a whistleblower.
Related: More mysterious deaths around Clinton.

Lewis on reading old books.

H/T: Land

 

Moral and Natural Consequences

One common response I’ve seen from the Black Lives Matter on the shooting of Korryn Gaines was that she didn’t deserve to be executed for a traffic violation. Leaving aside the accuracy of that description, I’ve noticed that refrain from Black Lives Matter before, “he didn’t deserve death for [minor crime].” This is not limited to BLM, I’ve seen it many times before from many different people of differing ideologies describing different situations. People will often say, some person didn’t deserve a relatively harsh punishment for a relatively minor crime.

To deserve is to be worthy of something, either a reward or punishment, but measure of worthiness is left open. So in conversation people have to derive a measure from context. In the case of those arguing that Gaines didn’t deserve to die, they assume the measure of worthiness is some form of cosmic justice.

But moral worthiness is not the issue in many of these cases, but rather natural worthiness. Waving a realistic toy gun at or charging a cop may not be deserving of death in some cosmic moral sense, but it is the natural consequence, and they deserve it in that they created conditions that would likely result in the resutlting negative consequence.

There are two types of deserved negative consequences: moral/judicial consequences, where someone is punished because they have committed evil, and natural consequences, where someone is punished because that is the natural result of their actions.

Moral consequences are justice and justice is meted out by God and man. Justice needs an agent to be carried out and does not necessarily occur in nature. The rare times when nature hands out justice, we always refer to it differently, such as with phrases like poetic justice or karma, because we know that it is not real justice, simply natural consequence or blind coincidence.

On the other hand natural consequences are carried out by nature, of which man is a part. There is no moral dimension to natural consequences, simply the cold, hard law of cause and effect judging man with neither mercy nor pity.

A lot of people like to try to confuse these two forms of consequences, these two meanings of deserve, often for ideological purposes, occasionally because they are incapable of clear thinking. Often, those who see the reality of natural consequences and refuse to confuse the two, are called cold, mean, and/or evil by those who do not.

To help make this distinction clear, I’ll list some examples:

Does a child who runs into the road, morally deserve to be hit by a car? No, but they naturally deserve it because that is the natural consequence.

Does a man calling another man a ‘cock-sucking faggot’ or some other very offensive epithat morally deserving of being punched in the face? No, but he’ll get punched anyway and deserve it.

Does a women getting drunk and going to a strange man’s home means she morally deserves to be raped? No, but being raped is a likely foreseeable outcome and she naturally deserves it.

Does having promiscuous sex mean someone morally deserves to suffer and STD? Maybe not, but it is naturally deserved.

Does threatening, resisting, or being stupid around cops means someone morally deserves to be shot? Maybe not, but it is the most likely outcome and being shot is deserved.

Do French people morally deserve to be gunned down for voting in favour of immigration? No, but the naturally deserve the consequences of their choices.

So yes, Korryn Gaines deserved to die for her parking ticket. Maybe not in some cosmic moral sense, but she took took actions which would naturally result in her being shot, and the laws of nature enacted their punishment.

In all cases, the question is not of whether some impartial moral arbiter would condemn the person to a punishment in light of cosmic justice, rather it is a question of whether the person brought natural consequences upon themselves by committing causes that would result in certain effects.

Do not confuse the two. God and man care about your moral worthiness, your soul rests upon it, and justice is enacted by it. Nature does not care in the least about your moral worthiness, only your natural worthiness. Contravene nature’s laws and suffer, that is natural.

Lightning Round – 2016/08/03

They want you to give up.
Related: The dead end of MGTOW.

Terrorism creates jobs.
Related: The French Republic is finished.
Related: A beautiful disaster.

Why Trump is Hitler.
Related: Why Trump?

High-low at the DNC.

Stop fearing crime, fear guns.

The pillaging of Russia.

More Americans dead from Muslim-American soldiers than died the latter.

BLM and 401k’s.

Cathedral round-up: the rise of mommy law.

Paid trolls.

Catholicism will survive the pope.
Related: Time for a new Catholic schism.

The mysterious male marriage premium.

Most campus rape accusation are false.

Fertility and corporal punishment.

Horny geeks love Ghostbusters.

The content censors.

Showing off.

Post-partisanship is hyper-partisanship.

Lightning Round – 2016/07/27

Don’t give your word unless you mean to keep it.
Related: Dealing with failure.

Western civilization.

Toxic Arab masculinity.
Related: Ban assault trucks.
Related: Ideological statistics.

Meaning, globalism, and death.
Related: The demon of universal culture.

SWPL’s, Amerikaners, and the Alt-Right.
Related: Culturally tone deaf.

Progressive-approved colonialism.
Related: A HUD nightmare.

At the RNC.
Related: Alt-right at the RNC.

An analysis of Trump’s speech.
Related: On Trump’s nomination.
Related: Trump explains crony capitalism.
Related: The Trumpslide cometh.
Related: 5 reason Trump will win.
Related: Trump’s loyalty.

Conservatism in ruins.

DNC leaks and corruption.
Related: DNC Leaks: Bernie, Hispanics, and appointments.

Big sister and weaponized nerds.

Liberalism’s flying genetics monster.

Twilight of the Turkish secular deep state.
Related: Is Turkey now the fourth sovereign nation?
Related: Why Turkey’s coup failed.
Related: Why popular opinion can’t predict a coup.

The arc of Russia.

The necessity of the Butlerian Jihad.

Free trade is not conservative.

Power, sex, and suicide.

Complementarianism and the Duluth model. More.
Related: The evolving position on spiritual headship.
Related: Kierkegaard on Christian scholarship.

Getting off the reservation of the female imperative.

Data and sexual attraction.

Gamma is real.

Let the gold timers starve.

Science is downstream of politics.
Related: The crisis in science.

On Ashkenazi ancestry.

Some great newspeak from the NYT.

The Rabid Puppies ballot.

Waterstones: a bookstore that is thriving.

Waiting gets you killed.

The 6 civilizations.
Related: Quick notes on the big 6. Egypt.

Tor compromised.

 

Lightning Round – 2016/07/20

The final piece on Grant and Canadian tradition.

Conservative zugzwang.
Related: Stephen Douglas conservatives.
Related: The submission of Ross Douthat.

The future is arriving.

Hitlers in the Austrian judiciary.

National(ist) security.
Related: Nydwracu bows out.

The failure of separation of church and state.

It won’t be fun but you must endure.
Related: Advice for interesting times.
Related: Entropy and the pumps.

4GW in Dallas and a cop’s perspective.
Related: Fear & loathing in Dallas.
Related: Waiting for the singularity.
Related: America unravelling.

Politics: high, low, red, and blue.

The fall of anarch-topia.

Anti-Dem short takes.

The terrible legacy of Matt Drudge.

The dire problem.

America’s attempt at restarting the Spanish Civil War.

A tribal Catholic’s last straw.

Male sexuality through apes and dinosaurs.
Related: Boogie Nights.

Not like in the movies.

Study: No anti-women bias in tech interviews.

Problematic soccer fans.

The banks rigging the stock market.

Confessions of a neocon assassin.

Our dumb world.

Trump on the path to victory.

The white faces of BLM.

On Wheaton’s Mensa speech.

Is transgenderism related to autism?

Tanks for sale.

The wikipedian war targets Auerbach.

 

3 Thought on the Hillary Case

You’ve probably already heard that Hillary was let off scot-free for what would have gotten almost anybody else a few years in rape-me-in-the-ass prison. This is not what I say, by-the-by, it is explicit in the FBI statement:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

I’m not going to rant on how this is an injustice, because that is obvious. Instead, I’m going to comment on the commentors, particularly the conservative ones.

****

First, a lot of conservatives have been going on about how rule of law is dead, Mr. Wright is the example I’ll use. No offence to Mr. Wright, I do like and respect him, but this is old news, the rule of law has been dead for at least a century, probably more.

We’ve had rule by judge since, at least, 1905 (Ted Colt points to 1886), when the Supreme Court decided to redefine the words ‘insterstate commerce’ to functionally mean ‘all commerce, including intrastate commerce, when the federal government wants to regulate it’. That rule of law is dead has been quite blatant since at least 1937, when Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court so that judges would rule in his favour, that the judges ruled, not the law. Rule by judge is not rule of law however much confusion our system spreads around this issue.

Clinton being let off under prosecutorial discretion is just one highlight in this long-time reality.

****

One a somewhat similar note, some conservatives, Matt Walsh being the example I’ll use, have wondered that if they have denounced Trump for his failings will the left reciprocate on Hillary.

The answer is, of course, no they won’t. The left aren’t as foolish and self-defeating as the conservatives. The left likes winning, while professional conservatives like preening about integrity. The leftists would happily rape their country to attain power, conservatives gladly watch their country be raped as long as they can pretend moral superiority.

“Sure, my wife may wake up crying each night but at least I didn’t stoop to dirtying my hands with her rapist’s blood, else I would have been just as bad as him.”

The left have their own principles and they don’t give a shit about yours. Just because you follow their principles does not mean they’ll follow yours.

That some conservatives will actually point out that liberals fail to live up to conservative standards like they are making a incisive and deadly criticism only shows their own foolishness and weakness. Catering to the enemy is not integrity, it is failure; turning on your own is not principled, it is disloyalty.

Remember, no enemies to the right.

****

A lot of cuckservatives have also been commenting on how the news cycle moved from Hillary to Trump when Trump said something blatantly true about Saddam, that he was bad but he kept terrorists in check and the Iraq War destabilized the region.

Now, Trump’s being saying this exact same thing since last year. The media only jumped on it now to move attention away from Hillary’s corruption. Instead of pointing out the media’s blatantly opportunistic and biased pivot, the cuckservatives have instead followed the media’s lead in attacking Trump for keeping on his isolationist message

Somehow, the cuckservative’s know the reason for the pivot, but instead of attacking the pivot and those behind it are running with it and doing the left’s job for them. At this point, it’s getting hard to tell if the cuck’s are just gloriously incompetent or if they are actively agents of the left.

Lightning Round – 2016/07/06

Finding your mission.

Why the world is rebelling against experts.
Related: We don’t care about experts any more.

On hate.

On neocameralism.

Francis on McCarthy.

America is dead.

Give education to the RCC.

Brazilification.

She hates to say it.

Magical thinking doomed the Eurogeist.
Related: The spectre of nationalism.
Related: Elite in-fighting.
Related: Free trade as a bait and switch.
Related: Brexit explained.
Related:How to give effect to Brexit.
Related: The mask comes off.

Austrian election nulled after anti-nationalist electoral irregularities.

When State tried to end Vietnam in ’63.

Acquiring immunity to magic.
Related: Pygmy’s and cannibalism.
Related: Progress and demons.

The collapse of the Israeli left.

US options in the Ukraine.

What the 6-point star insanity is about.

Liberal club.

Right-wing Gramscism.

Despair in pastel.

Teaching boys to be beta.

In defence of all-male spaces.

Are young women sincere about wanting to be married?

Dalrock and Wilson on marriage counseling.

Eat, Pray, Love women divorces man she abandoned family for.

New book argues Europeans settled the America’s first.

MRI’s create too many false positives, rending thousands of papers wrong.

How to handle entryism.

On anti-GG wiki-editor Gamaliel.

On Yvette Felarca and BAMN.

Possible SJW convergence at Baen?

On Game of Thrones demographics.

Trump’s job plan speech.

H/T: SDA, VD

Lightning Round – 2016/06/29

The official NRx subreddit.

Owned government.

Brexit wins the referendum.
Related: The complications of Brexit.
Related: Mexit or Brexit: Vote leave.
Related: Cracks in Babel.
Related: All slopes are slippery.
Related: Immigrants for Remain.
Related: Soros on Brexit.
Related: Quotes on Brexit.

Mass shootings make sense in a democracy.
Related: 64% of the last 25 mass shooters were diverse.

Byzantium and the alt-right.

The Canadian tradition.

Restoring Brazil’s monarchy.

I’ve been listed in the nazi detector. Have you?

How many millions of Americans were internal refugees from crime?

Reflecting on a dead body.

The decline of entrepreneurship in America.

The death of white identitarian politics.
Counterpoint: The rise of nationalism.

Our evil elites.
Related: Elite disloyalty.

A short, illustrative tale.

The Ford Foundation New Voices Fellowship.

Literal cucks are mad.

Trump on Americanism and America First.
Related: Fact-checking Trump.

Xi’s purges.

On Garrison Keillor.

The Orthodox resist modernization.

The feminized police force and army.

The source of women’s discontent with housework.

A trainwreck of a marriage.

The problem of peer review.

AI’s “white guy problem”.

More on the pygmies.

SC blocks Obama’s amnesty plan.

Buzzfeed: Democrats literally crazier than Republicans.

Disney’s anti-father contempt.

USAF vet forcibly removed for mentioning God at flag-folding ceremony.

No Enemies to the Right

I’ve seen No Enemies to the Right (NEttR) come under scrutiny over the last while, most recently and prominently by Land. I’m going to clarify the issue a bit.

As I’ve written before, we on the right should point our guns at our true enemies, the left, and, occassionally, the traitorous moderates. We should avoid turning on each other. We should avoid attacking allies, even if they are overzealous, degenerate, wrong on certain base principles, or if they have tactics we disagree with.

When first formulated, NEttR had a slightly different formulation though than simply not attacking fellow rightests. When originally used a few years back (can’t find the links), it meant no attacking people from the left. You could not criticize people for being more right then you, ie. you never criticize from the left, always from the right. For example, you don’t criticize a anarcho-capitalist for insufficent economic justice, that would be criticizing from the left. It instead you criticize him for the problems created by a lack of legitimate authority, ie. from the right. Criticizing a 14/88er for being racist is from the left and is verboten; criticizing a 14/88er for being a nationalist rather than a thedist is fine as it is from the right.

I agree with both the old formulation and the new formulation. In that there’s a difference between attack and criticize. You don’t attack someone else on the right, but you can criticize, as long as your criticism is that they are insufficiently rightward. You never attack or criticize someone for being insufficiently left. (Remember, right is order, left is chaos. Any criticism should be that the person is not sufficiently promoting order).

We should always be signalling right. But we should not become stupid about it to the point where we devour our own or promote stupidity. Ideological purity is nice, but don’t be concerned to the point where it becomes counter-productive. Attacking everyone for some minor ideological deviation will only alienate people. Instead, try to encourage and convince them towards your point of view with reason and argumentation. As well, continually trying to one-up others in a “righter than thou” holiness competition is to be avoided. This is not a status game.

NEttR does not mean that we can’t criticize, it means we can’t criticize people for being more right than us. In Land’s case, we should not critize the assassin for excessive rightward zeal or for being an extremist. We can criticize him for promoting chaos (ie: promoting leftism), for promoting evil, or for his actions being strategically or tactically unsound. The attitude to others within the right should be “I admire his passion for the cause, but he went too far by committing this counter-productive evil.”

Criticism of other rightests should always be internal. We should never criticize other rightests to leftists. Never virtue signal to the left. Our public attitude towards our extremists to the the centre and left should be the Mutt and Jeff routine. When talking about rightests we don’t agree with to the left, our general stance should be “While I don’t agree with him and he went too far, you have to agree that he has some valid points. Maybe we could appease people like him by adopting [something moderately right].” One of the major reasons leftists win is because rightests denounce their extremists (ex: abortion-clinic bombers), while leftists play Mutt and Jeff with theirs (ex: communist and Islamic terrorists).

Similarly, some allies are ideologically impure, degenerate, or otherwise distasteful in ways other extremism. Milo, Roosh, and Spencer (Edit: Looks like I was confused. My apologies to Mr. Spencer) are some of the bigger examples. In these cases, the old Bedouin proverb comes in handy: “I against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, and my cousin and I against the stranger”. We are not biological family, but we are ideological family. Just as in a real family, we may not like or agree with some people, we may find their choices distasteful or wrong, but they are still ours. We have concentric ideological circles, and at each circle, we should always rally facing outwards. When someone in one those circles outside us gets attacked from the left, we should support them for what right thing they have. Allies are useful and we have few of them. Extremists and distasteful allies should be used not rejected. Once the restoration has succeeded, then we can sort out our internal differences.

Finally, loyalty is a two-way street. There is no need to help traitors. Those on the right who are constantly attacking other rightests, especially if they’re doing so from the left, or who betray their allies deserve nothing. Disloyalty is chaotic and disordered, it is leftist and these rules don’t apply to them; feel free to attack (but always from the right). If they repent, let off and allow them to prove themselves.

So here’s the basic rules of No Enemies to the Right we should all follow:

1) Never attack or denounce a fellow rightest. Entryists, traitorous “moderates” and R(ightests)INO are fair game.

2) Never attack or alienate an ally. If you dislike them, ignore them.

3) Rational critique is not an attack.

4) Rational critique is not personal. Keep personal drama private.

5) Criticism of rightests should always have the audience of other rightests. Never criticize rightests to leftists.

6) All criticism should be from the right. Never criticize from the left.

7) Always signal right.

8) This is not a holiness competition. Don’t don’t be stupidly excessive when signalling right.

9) Don’t denounce extremists. Remember, Mutt and Jeff.

10) Zeal is good and should be commended, stupidity is not and should be criticized.

11) Always rally facing outwards at our concentric ideological circles.

12) Support those attacked from the left, even if the person is more left than you.

13) None of this applies to the disloyal or traitorous.