How many kids does BuiQuang have?

BuiQuang can talk shit about how I don’t know what a marriage is, but how many kids does he have? We know he has at least one baby. But is he going to have more than two? Even if he does, that doesn’t mean his sons won’t be incels and his daughters won’t be sluts. There’s no guarantee that the next generation’s fertility will be above replacement.

After all, look at my own family — both sides of it, Shaddle and Larson. There are childless people on both sides. There are childless women, like my sister, for instance. This is despite the fact that both my mom and dad came from large families. How many of my cousins are childless, and will remain that way?

So yeah, we need patriarchy. Till we get it back, everything else is pointless. And when people point out flaws in the system that allow families to disintegrate, that’s deserving of attention even if it’s also true that the husband fell short in some ways of his masculine role. Even if the husband did fulfill his masculine role, the system would still fail; which in turn diminishes incentives for husbands to even try.

Also, this guy is constantly saying that people should obey the law and not try to play the system, yet he seems to condone Meshelle’s breaking the law, e.g. by making false accusations.

Also, keep in mind the root of all these problems (my not knowing I needed to be the breadwinner; Meshelle’s ability to get the restraining order; etc.) — the blue pill. People are not being all that redpilled around there, so it’s no wonder people get confused and point out the contradictions and don’t follow advice. They don’t see the logic, because there is no consistent logic, given how it’s a mishmash of the blue and red pills. The purple pill sends mixed messages.

I could ask this same question (“How many kids do you have, and what are the prospects of your kids having many kids”) to pretty much all of my critics on VisaJourney and in other places.

Millennials have the prosecutorial mindset

If you’ve been criminally prosecuted before, you know how the typical prosecutorial mindset is. They’re all about punishing people and upholding respect for the law. Judges will sometimes talk more about the need to protect the public (since it’s their ass on the line if you reoffend and people notice the fact that they gave you a light sentence); but prosecutors are focused more on making sure you get your just deserts for what you did.

Prosecutors don’t directly feed any children, or invent any new devices, or anything like that. They just punish the bad people so that the common man doesn’t get the idea that crime pays. Prosecution is intended to keep people from having the audacity to challenge the state’s authority, by letting them know that there will be harsh punishments for violations. The prosecutors don’t necessarily care if they make anyone’s life better by removing the bad man from society; they just want to make sure that the bad man doesn’t get away with anything.

The prosecutor wants the public to view the punishments as just so that he’ll have respect for the law and the state; but of course, what’s “fair” is a matter of opinion, so really he’s just catering to the masses’s sentiments. If the people were to get demoralized, believing the law to be unfair, they might rise up or something. Of course, the people might get demoralized too by believing that the law is too harsh, and want to fight back for that reason; but prosecutors have that Machiavellian mindset that it’s better to be feared than loved, so therefore it’s better to err on the side of being too harsh than not harsh enough.

Modern feminism is influenced by the millennial idea that it doesn’t matter if women are miserable, as long as men aren’t able to feel entitled to women’s bodies. An abstract ideal has been put ahead of practicality and women’s actual well-being (which was supposed to be the point of feminism; feminism was supposed to be a system that worked better than patriarchy).

Feminism supposedly is a system that’s better-suited to our advanced, information-age economy than “archaic” patriarchy, which like negro slavery, is no longer necessary or useful. The difference, though, is that before, negroes were useful for physical labor, while now they’re useful for nothing; while before, women were only useful for sex and raising kids, and now they’re still only useful for that. Yet, feminism has made them useful for even less than what they were useful for during the patriarchal era. They’re not even able to keep their fertility rate above the replacement rate.

Well anyway, here’s James Lucrative’s video about the millennial mentality:

Notice I didn’t have that attitude toward Meshelle

For awhile, after she left, I had that Trumpian attitude of, “She has to go back.” That was one reason I didn’t want to sign off on the divorce. I was going to make it harder for her to remove her immigration conditions, or make it take a longer time, anyway.

But a more powerful motivator was that I simply didn’t want to let go of sexual property that easily. As it turned out, the police worked with her to force me to sign the final decree, under threat of getting prosecuted for rape.

Anyway, my attitude is that it’s usually better to be selfish than vindictive, although there are a few exceptions. If you’re going to be vindictive, you should at least make sure that your cause is worthy.

One of the upsides to having a low fertility rate

is that I won’t have to worry too much about my kids’ growing up in the same shitty environment I had to deal with, because in the long run, I won’t have any kids.

By that I mean, with this type of “wedge family” situation, where everyone only has one kid, eventually entire genetic lines will die out. Even Meshelle may have lost her opportunity to get pregnant, and that would seem to be the case for my sister too. It’s happening all over the place.

Of course, the other benefit is that as we have fewer people, we can devote more resources per capita to this smaller population, theoretically. Not sure if that works out particularly well in practice, though; I think a lot of resources end up being wasted when they’re not devoted to raising up a new generation of kids. Career women, for instance, seem to spend money pretty frivolously.

Jennifer Wexton declines my endorsement

I was reading this Fauquier Times article:

In an Aug. 13 blog post that has since been made private, Larson endorsed Comstock’s Democratic challenger, state Sen. Jennifer Wexton, in the November election. Wexton spokesman Ray Reiling, however, said the senator would not accept Larson’s endorsement and called his views “abhorrent.”

“We do not under any circumstances accept Mr. Larson’s endorsement. His views are abhorrent and we strongly condemn them,” Reiling said in an emailed statement.

(“Abhorrent” is a word that’s always used in a sanctimonious context, I’ve noticed.)

Anyway, she can’t really decline an endorsement. That’s like declining to accept an employee’s resignation. These are unilateral acts, not requiring the permission of the other party.

What I’ve suggested is that libertarian- and conservative-leaning voters pump and dump Jennifer Wexton. Use her in the 2018 general election to get rid of Barbara Comstock, and then discard her in the 2020 general election by voting in Shak Hill or some other Republican — hopefully somebody who’s better than Comstock (making sure of that is why it’s important to vote in the primaries). Or if you’re libertarian, and there’s a libertarian candidate on the ballot in 2020, then of course vote for him.

Anyway, Wexton can’t stop people from voting for her based on my advice. As long as she’s on the ballot (and even if she withdrew, since the voters are entitled to write her in; what is she gonna do, make a Sherman pledge?), people can vote for her as a way of purging out Comstock from the Republican Party, with the intent of voting in another Republican in 2020. Of course, she can try to hang on in 2020, rather than getting voted out.

wexton_pelosi_1000px-681x375But at least at first, Wexton will be in a weaker position than Comstock is, when it comes to pushing feminist policies, because she’ll be a freshman Congresswoman, rather than someone who’s already been there for two terms. Voting against incumbents is also a great way to register your displeasure with the direction in which the government is going. And if you’re a Trump fan, it’s potentially helpful to Donald Trump to have a Democratic majority for the next couple years, since he can use Pelosi as a foil in the 2020 presidential election.

Not that any of this really matters all that much, since we’re not going to be able to stop the acceleration into the feminist singularity. When conservatives get elected people think, “Hooray, we’re gonna make the country great again.” Margaret Thatcher turned back years of socialist “progress” in the U.K., for example. It didn’t change the fact that the U.K. is nothing compared to what it once was. Their civilization is still on the decline; their fertility rate is 1.81, for example. Brexit isn’t going to change the fact that relations between the sexes are as dysfunctional there as anywhere.

Same deal with Germany. Hitler was a heroic guy, who made some progress in bringing Germany’s fertility rate back up. But he wasn’t able to stay in power, and now Germany’s fertility rate is 1.50.

Slight correction to this part of the article, by the way:

0pasftfLarson said he suspects the members of the “Anonymous” hacking group were responsible for the burglary because they left behind a note and a U-lock bicycle lock, which he said is signature symbol of the group.

Maybe I misremember, but I thought what I said on the phone to the reporter was, the note said Anonymous took credit for the burglary, but I suspect Antifa because they’ve used bike locks on people before.

antifa-prof-arrested-7-1024x565Most famously, there was an incident in Berkeley where Antifa member Eric Clanton hit a 20-year-old college student, Sean Stiles, over the head with a U-lock.

Antifa had put out a call to take action against me. It could be that whoever did it belonged to both organizations. Those are both leftist groups.

What a difference 10 years makes: embracing patriarchism and race realism as a libertarian

Back when I was attending GMU, I wrote an essay for economics class in which I theorized that society goes in a cycle of rise and decay, from anarchy to pure capitalism to pure socialism and back to anarchy. One of the main topics we were concerned with in that class was, is there any way to just stay in the capitalistic phase and not progress toward socialism? Could the decay be stopped and reversed, rather than allowed to progress and ultimately cause a societal collapse?

When we considered, say, the problems of places like Latin America, we figured, they had a good Constitution (modeled off of ours) but lacked the ideology, or the moral integrity, or whatever, to live up to it. The deficiencies of the Latino race didn’t enter into our calculation. And when we considered the failures of the Soviet Union, likewise, the deficiencies of the Slavic race didn’t enter into our view about that either; we blamed everything on their command economy and their lack of freedom more generally. And when we considered the Nazi persecution of Jews, we assumed the Nazis were just evil socialists who went around persecuting certain ethnic and religious groups because that’s what socialists do; they’re not like capitalists, who would want to embrace Jews because the Jews’ money is as green as anyone else’s.

There’s some truth to all this, but the value of becoming racially aware is that you realize, we need to preserve the white race if we want to have an innovative and libertarian society. Of course, the view of our professor was that some European societies, like the French, had had egalitarian revolutions that had wreaked a lot of destruction. That’s true, but I don’t think overall, the way the French conducted themselves wasn’t as bad as how, say, the Russians did. France, for example, didn’t try to spread communism around the globe. The French have also been more innovative than the Russians, which is a redeeming quality.

Anyway — back in 2008, I was very pro-immigration. After all, immigrants founded eBay, Intel, Google, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo!, etc. Well, yeah, but these weren’t Latinos or blacks. They were Pierre Omidyar (French), Andrew Grove (Hungarian Jew), Sergey Brin (Russian Jew), Andy Bechtolsheim (German), and Jerry Yang (Taiwanese), respectively.

Once one becomes aware that we can’t just import a bunch of Nigeriens and expect that they’ll be inventing new space telescopes and administering a government that’s going to protect the rule of law, it becomes evident that we’re going to need to breed some more whites. And to do that, we need to get rid of feminism.

The old way of thinking was, “If we become libertarian enough, we can solve all our other problems.” The new way of thinking is, “If we preserve the white race, we can solve all of our other problems, including, hopefully, figuring out that we need to be libertarian.” After all, whites are the most libertarian race (notice which race makes up most of the membership of the Libertarian Party); we have a better chance of keeping society libertarian than any other race does.

Hitler thought along these lines when he put racial considerations first in Mein Kampf. To preserve certain values, you have to preserve the race that can uphold those values, since values don’t exist outside of human beings. He viewed economics as a matter of secondary importance.

It’s really feminism, more than anything, that wrecked the libertarian movement. They just weren’t able to handle the Woman Question in the proper way. If we could increase the number of whites, we’d be fine; but because people believe we can just replace the white population with a non-white population, we have to get into racial issues before we can properly deal with feminism. And Libertarians apparently just did not want to go there, possibly because there are so many Jews among them who don’t want people becoming racially aware, because that might work against Semitic interests.

If we have to get Jews out of the Libertarian movement before we can deal with race and sex issues properly, then we need to get them out. It doesn’t matter what their contributions have been; if they keep us from establishing a society along patriarchist lines, then we lose anyway.