Malthus was half-right

Steve Sailer’s been going hard on the Africaust which is coming later this century, which will herald the largest mass extinction in the known history of our species.

Over at, a demographer points out that all my scary graphs lately have been based on the U.N. Population Division’s optimistic-sounding “medium fertility variant” in which total fertility rates magically converge toward 1.85 babies per woman by the end of the century.

But what if Africans just go on doing what comes natural? The correspondent points out that 10 billion is within reach under the assumption of constant fertility and mortality rates. Indeed, the UN offers a “constant fertility” table with, I believe, declining mortality due to technological advances in health care in which Sub-Saharan Africa’s population in 2100 is 15,175,708,000.

Fifteen billion Sub-Saharans is really not likely to happen, but my main point is: I’m not making these numbers up. These all come from the United Nations, not me.

Steve Sailer
Will Sub-Saharan Africa’s Population Hit 10 Billion? 15 Billion?

I figure that’s as good of a reason as any to talk about Malthus and the food supply (good introduction here). There’s obviously something to the whole population bomb thing, particularly if we’re willing to admit there’s a difference between 800 million Europeans and 800 million Nigerians (approximate UN numbers for 2100). Critics of Malthus claim that his theory did not account for human innovation staving off the scarcity ITZ—this is true, we have more food now than ever at the same time as we have more people than ever. But critics then didn’t know what we know now: innovation is almost exclusively a stale, pale, white male thing, and whites don’t reproduce in population-dense, walkable cities. Furthermore, the ability of a group to exploit arable real estate is dependent on both population and median racial ability. Give a Japanese man an acre and he’ll have a self-sufficient farm, give 100 Japanese men an acre and they’ll build a six-story hydroponics multiplex with a support industry and extra food to export.

So rather than throwing Malthus’ model out entirely, we should improve it with some race realism and common sense.

If you’re a squishy liberal and you think this will magically work out because Diversity and Progress and Innovation, try extrapolating that black line on the graph another one hundred years. It’s a law of nature that phenomena following an exponential growth law always run into a boundary condition.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Women and shoes

Back in the day I thought it was really insightful to notice that clothes are how people signal their group affiliations, like wearing a patchwork uniform. “See, I’m part of the great workers’ revolution because I have ripped jeans, but I’m high-class because they’re expensive. Salt mines for thee, not for me.” I was like leetle baby back then. But for all that childish insight I couldn’t figure out the nigh sexual fascination women, blacks, and social competitors have with shoes. I’ve known a couple of smarter black guys who could list all of the shoes their coworkers had, and which days of the week they usually wore them. A very smart, socially competitive man once advised me to spend 80% of my clothes budget on shoes if I want to be taken seriously by other competitors.

A slew of eye-tracking heatmaps reveal some very interesting sex differences in subconscious desire, (as well as revealing optimum product positioning, which come to think of it is related to the former).

Women aren’t blind to other women’s beauty. Or their shoes. (Men, as per cultural stereotype, don’t give a shit about a hot babe’s choice of footwear.)

Chateau Heartiste
Eye Gaze Experiments Demonstrate Holistic Female Attraction Triggers

Turns out the answer is in the question. Shoes are the most signally article of clothing there is, on account of esotericism. When you meet a person for the first time, you process their appearance from top to bottom: the first thing you see is the overall profile, then the face and shirt, then maybe the belt and pants, and the shoes last (if at all). The clothing/style choices that come first in this profile (face, shirt) are more obvious (exoteric), and those that come last are more hidden (esoteric). The more people are interested in signalling (e.g. women, blacks, social competitors, etc.), the more they will care about the more hidden, more “genuine” signals. It kinda makes sense too. The way somebody dresses on their first day of work doesn’t tell you as much about them as the way they dress on casual Friday two years later—same logic for shoes.

Richard Spencer gets a ton of flack for being a “Nazi” despite the fact that his views are pretty moderate. Why? It’s the hair. People see the way he styles himself and know immediately that he is unapologetically interested in power. He isn’t just a white man playing identity politics, he is openly advocating for the interests of white people, and thus antifragile to shaming and ostracism. This is a scary thought for people who grew up on imperialist patriarchy fairy tales and want straight huwhite men to go gently into the night, and never saw any real pushback before. All of this can be inferred from the aesthetics of his immediate appearance, and appearances are the only thing that matters in propaganda—therefore Nazi hair is the nail that sticks up and must be hammered down.

It’s a great deal less obvious what it means when a man wears a brand new pair of brown Oxfords with his tweed jacket, but it’s not impossible to interpret. And if you say anything, he has the all-important element of plausible deniability on his side. This is extremely important when you’re dealing with people who like to know secrets, navigate esoteric social systems for profit, and are transactional gossips (i.e. intratribal competitors). These people love love LOVE plausible deniability because they can argue shamelessly in favor of their interests without the risk of formal censure from rules and laws set up to protect the commons by punishing self-interested behavior.

This esoteric signalling interacts with a number of factors related to social status, but these are descriptive of every other item of clothing too:

1. Job identification: You are your job, and your shoes signal how you spend your time.
2. Functionality: The cleaner, less useful, and newer your shoes are, the higher your class must be.
3. Sensualism: People who have nuanced sensual tastes are more observant of social phenomena. (E.g. Natural materials are high-class, synthetics are low-class.) Shoes are more sensual than shirts, probably because feet are right next to the genitals on the somatosensory cortex.
4. Anti-taste: The top and the bottom of society prefer garish, discordant visual displays, although the necessary attitude is difficult to pull off unless you were born into it. (This could be peacocking but I suspect it’s just degeneracy.)
5. Fashion: Keeping up with the latest trends in footwear signals attentiveness, dedication to social competition, leisure time, and money to spend frivolously.
6. Cost: More expensive clothes mean you’re a WINNAR and I should give you things to curry your favor.
7. Race, genetics, and culture: Your tastes tell people a lot about who and what you are. You can predict a person’s political opinions and voting patterns from their music tastes.

But again, what sets shoes apart is that, like accessories, they are one of the last things you notice when you scan a person’s appearance.

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments

Possible crash coming in the US auto industry

In Vox’s most recent Brainstorm with Steve Keen, “Can we avoid another financial crisis?” I asked the following off-topic question:

In the US auto industry we are seeing an extraordinary ramp up in production demand and manufacturing capital investment at the same time as a huge drop in price and demand. What is probably happening?

This question was inspired by a recent conversation with glosoli, who knows a thing or two about financial market patterns. Contra the usual pattern, I was the optimistic capitalist and he was raising the latter point: American consumers simply aren’t buying cars right now. This is alarming because two of Steve Keen’s major points in the Brainstorm were:

1) Credit acceleration cannot continue, therefore it won’t, and
2) “If you had your own bank, and you could go into debt and then buy your own loans with your bank’s currency (and other banks accept this situation) would you worry about your debt? Governments that run banks are in this position.” (paraphrase)

Vox’s response was very grounded and commonsensical: the most likely situation is that corporate interests can get loans right now and consumers can’t. Speaking a bit less off-the-cuff, we can say for certain that corporations are taking out loans and consumers aren’t, for whatever reason.

So putting all these thoughts together, I think what we’re looking at here is a planned crash-and-bailout strategy in the style of The Creature from Jekyll Island. You have to figure that the people making purchasing decisions at Ford, GM, and Chrysler are aware of the low consumer demand, and unless they are egregiously stupid they have learned a couple of lessons from 2008—namely, that economists aren’t as clever as their SATs suggest they should be.

Therefore, I think the executives of these companies know that supply will not drive demand to the extent that it must to justify these capital investments, and we’re looking at an intentional crash. Due to the typical length of car projects (~1 year), I’d presume this situation will become an emergency in about two years when costs drastically fail to recoup.

Anyway, we’ll see, this is not based on intuition (so not my strong suit) and I’m dabbling in fields where I’m not comfortable. Genius has its perks but there are limits too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why women want to have sex with fabulous gay men

It took me a while to figure this one out. But consider:

1) Homosexuals are sexual defectors from the tribal male alliance to do violence for the protection of the tribe’s women and children. (What would they have to gain?)
2) Women desire the winners of male competition, often at the expense of civilization.
3) If a society is reasonably safe then social, intra-tribal competition is more salient than violent, inter-tribal competition. (Ref: CSR theory as applied to human phenotypes.)
4) If one man honors an alliance and another does not (straight and gay, respectively), that makes the former man a cuck and the latter a winner.
5) Therefore, gays men are the pinnacle of male WINNING (at the expense of the greater tribe) in safe, prosperous societies where the group is strong enough to sustain big, fat parasites.
6) Therefore…women in safe, prosperous societies want to have sex with gay men.

This is why we have the instinct to call weak, cowardly men “fags” and vice versa. Our hindbrains are smart, and they know that being a gay man is the deepest form of sexual parasitism.

The conventional wisdom would have us believe that girls are just more comfortable around gay guys, because they implicitly trust each other and have many of the same interests (fashion trends, social conflict, and being as visually attractive as possible). But…as the Alt-Right kids are saying, no girl ever fantasized about being tied up and raped by a nice liberal guy. Women can’t be relaxed and aroused at the same time because their sex drive is triggered by submitting fearfully to a powerful man (don’t the African, hate Africa). So there has to be power imbalance, and this is supplied by the implicit social competitive edge that comes from being part of a tribe of men who only care about each other’s opinions, and couldn’t care less what women think of them.

Finally, straight women love gay men because they are emotionally attracted to the fearlessness and lack of self-consciousness in gay men.

Posted in Uncategorized | 31 Comments

Army moral demographics, and Skype office hours

Post copy/pasted from a Skype friend who has first-hand knowledge of this.

Guest poster: “I’ve met some incredibly good people here. I’m grateful for them. Like a gay guy who hates gays. I think his master plan would be to kill all the gays and then save the last bullet for himself. He used to be degenerate but he fixed himself a few years ago…Eastern Orthodox. Now he wants to be celibate.

[The ratio of incredibly good to others is] maybe 97 to 1. I’ll pretend that there are 3 classes here, just for the sake of simplicity. Class 1 – Someone who re-enlists after 4 years. Class 2 – Normie who gets out. Class 3 – Red Pill/Black Pill/Bog Pill (you get the point).

Class 1 – 95% shitty people who were in debt so they stayed in, terrible at their jobs, hurt other people purposefully, 5% salty motherfuckers who love killing and are good people, they just don’t fit in with society so they stay in to kill sand people.

Class 2 – 70% Good Dudes who are sick of the bullshit, 30% shitty “people” who were so shitty they cant re-enlist, I use “people” loosely with them.

Class 3 – 100% pure bavarian phenotype. 1% or less of gen pop. Ranges from 1488 to Optimists to Nuke the World/Blackpill.

This is only people who I interact with. So only infantry. This is the best of what we have to offer. The POGs (Personnel Other than Grunt – auxiliaries) are fucking cucks, about 99% of them. Meanwhile us hurr durr ground pounders are eating crayons and shooting gunz.”

Aeoli talking again: Now that my life is getting settled, I’m going to start doing Skype office hours in the evenings from 8-9 PM Eastern time. My username is aeoli dot pera, hit me up if you want to chat about something. I can only talk to one or two people at once, so preference goes to people who make arrangements ahead of time, then old friends, then syssitia, then TTs, then altrugenics people in general, then others. Don’t be shy- if I don’t feel like talking, I’ll say so and maybe set a later date. If I’m not going to log in, I’ll try to remember to say so in my profile (but no promises, I’m not very responsible). For example, right now it says I’ll be around Saturday night but not tomorrow or Sunday.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Game = Framing + Value + Kino

This is a slight variation from MM’s formulation. Esoteric Alt-Right podcast version is here, complete with a black pill segment and ridiculously long tangents. Very dank, the ladies will love your delicious penis.

The following is muh boil down of Heartiste (Roissy?) into a semi-manageable format. VERY dank.


The shortcut to game is value+ style + frame control

Marshall Mead

I agree with pretty much everything he says, except that kino (escalation of physical intimacy) doesn’t get emphasized enough, and I’d lump style under value. Style is just sales re: yourself, and all sales is navigating status/virtue signals, and sales is a high-value skill. Kino is the all-important essence that separates Game from teasing your sisters.

12. Dont Forget to touch the girl:

This one is huge. Probably the number one alpha trait is comfort with touching other people. A guy totally gives away his betatude if he is uncomfortable touching girls. Touching should start immediately, literally within two seconds of the approach. During your introduction, lightly touch your target and the potential cockblock on the elbows simutaneously. Start inoffensively, like on the forearms or shoulders, then gradually move to touching more erogenous zones, like the upper back, upper arm, or thigh. Avoid accidentally touching the bra strap, the hair, or the face too soon, as these spots will fire off an instant recoil reaction in a girl who isn’t yet attracted to you. When you talk in her ear take advantage of the moment to graze her cheek with yours. The small of the lower back is a highly charged zone, so move your hand down her back as the pickup progresses. Wrap your arms around her waist when you want to move her to another location in the bar. Anytime you say something funny, anchor it with your touch. When I have a good pickup my hands RARELY break contact with my target.

I’ll add here: eye-fucking may fall under semi-intimate kino, maybe somewhere between touching the upper arm and lower back. For some reason yesterday, I was getting very horny while talking shop with a gal, and practically raped her face with my eyes. I’ve never seen anyone toss their hair around so much in the context of a boring work conversation- it just goes to show that women really do get turned on by inspiring strong lust in men. Amateur tip: if you’re doing the eye-rapey thing, chill out a little before moving in to escalate the touching or you’ll freak her out. You want her fantasizing about rape, not considering whether it’s a thing that’s actually about to happen.

Everything else you need to know is in the Chateau Heartiste archives (art), Mystery Method (science), and The Rational Male (the “why” of Game for nerds who can’t do things that don’t make sense). If you’re a Christian, you might read to read Dalrock to break out of some of the subversive feminist programming.

Anyway, don’t go reading my archives just because I’m not posting anything lately, you’ll find it’s pretty terrible. Go read MM’s shit instead, he’s doing the Lord’s work over there.

Posted in Uncategorized | 30 Comments

On creativity

The creative drive is the feeling that something ought to exist, and doesn’t yet. Contrary to popular misconception, creativity is not self-expression except insofar as it is an expression of the creative drive. The contemporary form of “art” that seeks to communicate ephemeral feelings is the artistic equivalent of camgirls masturbating for attention, and can be blamed on the moral paucity of secularists who disdain the proper meaning of the word “ought” in the definition above. Creativity has an external focus—the creative drive is an emotional reaction to the perception of a disappointing reality. Similarly, creativity is not just anything people make that’s not practical. To be called creative according to the definition I’ve given, the created thing must be appealing to somebody. Practical objects like DIN rails and grommets are therefore creative inventions, whereas the activities we group under “arts and crafts” are generally not creative unless they are practiced by someone with a creative drive.

All creativity begins with negative criticism. The natural way to respond to a reality that isn’t ideal is to say “this isn’t quite right”. The hard part is to recognize that filling the hole requires a lot of talent, skill, and work, so most of the time we don’t bother. I might decide the house I bought is ugly, but fixing it up is a lot of work and there’s a very real chance that I might botch the job and end up with something more hateful than what I started with. In order to see a project through, I have to feel like the vision is important enough that actualizing it produces less anxiety than merely sensing its absence. The story behind Vox Day’s epic fantasy series “Arts of Dark And Light” is a great example: he was so disappointed with the wasted potential of George R.R. Martin’s “Song of Fire and Ice” series that he decided to show fantasy readers how such a thing ought to be done. Suppressing most of these impulses is rational and normal; the inability to prioritize emotional reactions is the executive-dysfunctional mark of a neurotic.

Creativity comes in two primary flavors, typological and allegorical, that respectively correspond to the inductive and deductive thinking styles. Aristotle was a genius of the former kind because his focus was on getting the parts right. Plato was a genius of the latter kind because his focus was on getting the whole right.

Typological creativity is purely intuitionistic in nature, where the operating principle of a part is conceived by observation and pattern recognition. This is the sort of creativity we associate with dilettante inventors who have many unrelated parts lying around their workshops and no bigger plans for any of them (there is no greater “whole” in mind for any of the parts). Depending on the perfectionism of the inventor, it is often iterative in nature, especially if the vision is a particularly big and important one. An artist of this sort with a perfectionism streak will often have sketchbooks full of pictures that are each an attempt to perfectly capture the same theme. HP Lovecraft’s collection of cosmic horror-inspiring short stories is a great example of this sort of creativity.

The strength of typological creations is that all such inventions are inspired and usually appeal to any demographic that shares the emotionality of the creator (they sense the same “hole” in reality that the creator is trying to fill). It’s a mistake to assume that such seemingly disconnected creations are incoherent, because they can often be interpreted using dream logic. Lovecraft’s work is best understood as a reaction to the horrifying resurrection of the Babylonian death cult (as secular, utilitarian consumerism) and man’s place in it. The weakness of typological creators is that they often fail to build anything abstract or bigger than can be created in a single hyperfocus session, and they may even be opposed to the idea of doing so because this would interrupt the flow state that makes the creative act so enjoyable.

Allegorical creativity is purely functional in nature, where the larger whole is conceived first and hacked together from spare parts. Tolkien’s famous hatred of allegory in all its forms can be blamed on the stereotypically ugly, piecemeal construction and the uninspired, patronizing attitude it represents (no, alt-retards, Tolkien’s dwarves don’t represent Jews). He would not have gotten along with John C. Wright at all (they would probably come to blows), even though they have everything else in common. An allegorical construction like Aesop’s fables or word-painting in music begins with the message, manipulates it through a simple words -> picture cipher, and ends with the expression. Because humans are bad at crafting holistic systems that are also realistic the system will usually be riddled with implicit contradictions of emotional dream logic. Such creations leave a bad taste in the mouth for reasons that aren’t easily explained, because there is a strong temptation to “fill in” many places with uninspired drivel in order to finish the minimum viable product and ship it. However, I believe there is a place for allegory: a masterful artist of the typological sort who has invented a lot of spare parts can often piece them together without coming off as pedantic. The best example I know of is the city of Midgar from Final Fantasy 7.

This is an excellent example of allegory done right. The strings sound like the labored breathing of a sick and dying planet, while the player is surrounded by a shitty world full of shitty people. The bells give just a touch of hope in the overwhelmingly oppressive atmosphere, like finding a flower in the slums.

Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments