The Anomaly


It’s occurred to me that the greatest victory that the Lords of Lies have ever achieved is in successfully convincing the vast majority of rubes that everything is anomalous. To have been able to incapacitate on such a massive scale the collective ability to perceive a threat and come to rational conclusions based upon observable patterns of behavior is quite the achievement. To so effectively have psychically neutered entire populations and generations of individuals that they come to view the augurs of their imminent destruction not with fear, nor even with resignation, but rather with dewy-eyed longing is a feat, no matter how perverse.

These brainwashed masses keep observing the same anomalous events again and again and again. How many times must one observe an anomaly before one comes to the realization that the anomaly is actually the norm? How many innocents must die at the hands of radicalized Muslims shouting Allahu Akbar as they carry out their slaughters before one can safely assume that these are not anomalous outliers and that Islam is not a “religion of peace”? How many times must minority groups agitate against the validity of liberal Western values while maligning whiteness before one realizes that these social justice movements aren’t just one off, unconnected anomalies? Before one realizes that they hate your civilization, they hate you for being heir to that civilization, and long for your annihilation? Before realizing that yes, they are more or less all like that, and that multiculturalism is a cruel and destructive hoax?

The Matrix is quite real. The job of its architects is to keep everyone imprisoned within it while convincing its captives that it doesn’t exist at all. This is done in one of two ways:

(1) Telling everyone that what they’re observing isn’t real.

(2) Telling everyone that what they’re observing is real, but that it doesn’t mean what they think it means.

The Architects’ exclusive responsibility is convincing everyone that the “narrative glitches” being observed are naught but meaningless coincidences. We see this at play in the coverage of the “European Migrant Crisis” and the Paris Terror Attacks. To make the connection between the EU’s suicidal policy of flooding Europe with almost exclusively male, fighting age Muslim “migrants” and the subsequent Islamic terrorist attacks that killed more than 100 people is to be impoli, an intolerant bigot. All of the Matrix’s mouthpieces have been deployed to make certain that few come to this (obvious) badthink conclusion. So, we are told that the bulk of these “migrants” are impoverished Syrian families seeking “a better life” in the West, even while we see images and hear reports of hordes of well-dressed young men bearing iPhone 6es as they stream across various European borders.

Okay, so what if “teh migrants” are predominantly male and seemingly well-off? That doesn’t mean that they’re entering Europe with hostile intentions and visions of jihad dancing in their heads! 

Except. . .they are. Now the Matrix Mouthpieces are deployed to downplay the threat that uncontrolled immigration into Europe is indubitably causing by doubling down on the narrative and expressing concern not about the importation of Islamic fundamentalism to the West and the carnage and mayhem that this will bring, but rather about the potential backlash against the poor, defenseless adherents of The Religion of Peace.

It must be remembered: the only way to show love for the Other is to hate yourself.

Those terrorists weren’t Real Muslims, because Real Muslims would never do such a thing.

They were just anomalies.

Paris Terror Attacks

Paris Attacks

Reports of multiple and seemingly coordinated shootings and explosions erupt across Parisistan Paris.

Further reports of spontaneous “Allahu Akbar-ing” accompanying the attacks; body count now estimated at forty. 100 hostages taken at a Paris music venue.

Is it OK to conclude that opening Europe’s borders to deluges of hostile Muslim hordes was a bad idea now?

The Dissolution of Norms

In an increasingly interconnected and digital world, recognition of and adherence to unified norms of cyber governance are of paramount importance if order and security are to be maintained. Simply put, nations, and to a lesser degree – individuals – must agree to guard the digital commons and to refrain from engaging in nefarious acts of cyber hostility against each other in order to preserve the peace and to ensure the Web’s continued utility. All of this is quite obvious and intuitive, and requires little further exposition.

The problem with the bulk of the theoretical frameworks designed to deal with these concerns is that they have been fashioned upon precedent frameworks, frameworks that are profoundly dated, pre-digital, and predominantly Western. They are anachronisms repurposed for postmodernity. These models presumed that the West would always be ascendant, that warfare would always occur in real-time, and presumed the continuing primacy of the Western rationalist approach to global governance. Specifically, these models presume the universality of rationalism. The presumption is that every nation is largely the same, with largely consonant goals, and have a similar willingness to place economic concerns ahead of various other passion projects.

The assumption was that every nation, particularly the powerful ones would submit to rules of warfare because they collectively understood the dangers of not doing so: mutually assured destruction, increased and unsustainable costs, instability, insecurity, etc. It was taken for granted that the weaker (non-Western) nations would take the lead from the advanced (Western) nations in this regard and that this state of affairs, this world order would be accepted by all as being prima facie beneficial for all.

Man makes plans, and God laughs. 

The West fell. The BRICs rose. Rather than the homogeneity, hegemony, order and unification of norms pledged to the world by the West, we instead have the diversity, multipolarity, chaos, and competing norms proffered by the Rest. And what norms those are: China reneging on accords, China pilfering data, Iran doing…whatever the hell it is that Iran does, Russia maliciously accessing government intelligence, and the list goes on.

The failure of norms. The failure of Western norms as non-Western players come to the fore.

Nothing demonstrates the failure of universalism and to a certain extent, diversity better than this current state of affairs. Though this particular breakdown is occurring on the macro level, there is a clear parallel on the micro level. Fundamentally, the macro problem and the micro problem are the same:

(1) Equality does not exist and different people are incapable of adhering to the same standards. Therefore, differing standards must be adopted for differing peoples, increasing costs for everyone

(2) Differences made to coexist in close proximity eventually lead to destruction.

Digital interconnectivity creates a historically unprecedented  degree of global proximity, but not all nations and peoples are inclined to engage with this Brave New World in a civilized, orderly fashion. The norms set forth to govern this world are seen by many not as norms, but rather as illegitimate, arbitrary rules that may be flouted if and when beneficial to the flouter.

“The norm” is the standard. There can be but one standard, one “right way” of doing things. There may be deviations to the right or to the left, but the standard remains: immutable, the lodestar. The creation of norms arise from common culture, a common understanding of the world, a common value system. The former Western powers had (and still have) much in common. These commonalities provided the basis for their post-1945 conduct towards each other. Trust based societies with respect for the rule of law and for national sovereignty; equals. These characteristics make them predictable, orderly, and highly unlikely to engage in cyber hostilities against each other of their own accord. The operation of internalized norms, one might say.

The problem is that now, culturally alien unequals have a seat at the table. Entities with no respect or use for the rule of law are expected to abide by law and keep lawlessness at bay. Entities with radically divergent interests and objectives and with radically divergent outlooks are expected to converge (or at least set aside differences) for the greater good. This is an impossibility. Order must necessarily break down under this strain, making the world a profoundly less secure place for all. If order is to be maintained, parallel systems of governance must be created to apply to different peoples, at once repudiating equality and destroying the very concept of norms.

There can be no security without norms, and there can be no norms without homogeneity, hegemony, and common culture. Diversity precludes security. You may have one or the other, but never both.

Standardized Tests are Intelligence Tests

The presumptive validity of equality has become an aphorism: everyone is of equal potentiality, any divergence in outcomes is due exclusively to environmental factors. It is an article of faith in the Church of Latter Day Leftist; adherents must mindlessly repeat the mantra when bidden to demonstrate their full internalization of the dogma. Nevertheless, equality doggerel cannot withstand even the most casual scrutiny. Once the data emerges, the entire house of cards collapses upon itself. There is nothing that causes scales to fall from eyes faster than a face to face meeting with standardized test data. The Left, knowing full well that perfect information is the enemy of good progs, has descended upon standardized testing in an effort to discredit them and remove them from use lest they yield results. . . incompatible with the narrative of equality.

Standardized tests are regularly maligned in memelike fashion: “standardized tests don’t accurately gauge subject matter mastery!” “You can’t prove comprehension based on test performance!” Naturally, any mention of viable alternatives is always curiously absent from these discussions. Nonetheless, the one opposing argument that has always managed to garner the most traction is the perennially persuasive “standardized tests aren’t tests of intelligence, and to presume that they are is racist!” line of argumentation. Really just a portmanteau of two far less sophisticated arguments, (1) tests are bad and (2) everything be wacis,’ the synthesis imbues these two bald & brain-dead assertions with a certain gravitas.

Standardized testing is under assault because it demonstrates that there are very real and very appreciable differences between groups as it pertains to educational performance and fundamentally, to intelligence. We are not equal, different groups have differing capabilities, inequality will never be rooted out because it is the fundamental condition of man: widespread acceptance of these obvious truths would present a direct challenge to the prevailing narrative of “we’d all be equal but for da white man.”

It was once understood that standardized tests serve a dual function: there was a character building component and a diagnostic component. Character building, as the looming spectre of these exams encouraged children to apply themselves to a task at hand, to identify gaps in knowledge and to work on filling those gaps until mastery was achieved and thorough understanding was secured, and to occasionally deal with the body blow of failure. Diagnostic, in that these exams provided school administrators with the data necessary to track students and provide them with curricula more tailored to their abilities and needs. Standardized testing demonstrated the importance of – having standards. Nowadays, the mere suggestion of the existence of objective standards for anything rustles jimmies to the moon and back. Standardization is unfaaaaaair because not everyone learns in the same manner! But yet, we are all still equal. It’s fascinating how that works, really.

Historically, it was once a given that those who reached and occasionally exceeded the baseline standards set by these exams were naturally the more intelligent. Those individuals would be rightfully slated for greater challenges and more opportunity, as they would be the only ones in possession of the raw g necessary to capitalize upon them. It was tacitly understood that the native English speaker who struggled to achieve a score of 55% on the state English test was probably not the brightest bulb in the pack, and that the kind and considered approach to his education would be to properly track him and obtain for him the help that he required. The response to test underperformance would not be to scrap the test entirely; it would be to use the data generated to ensure that all students received the most ability appropriate education. In an age of untruths and envy, however, everything must be reduced to the lowest common denominator in order to accommodate the dregs at the expense of the cream.

If we are being completely honest with ourselves, we must admit that standardized tests are crucial because they actually gauge intelligence in subtle ways. I have never been a fan of the “read and regurgitate” model of education that has been adopted by the American public school system, and I am even less of a fan of the federalization of education that occurred as a result of No Child Left Behind. I believe that the law has only served to strip education of its erstwhile local character and instructors of their autonomy. Nevertheless, it is clear that what standardized tests actually test for are such things as pattern recognition, predictive capabilities, the ability to make connections between seemingly discrete things, memorization/recall, extemporaneous problem solving abilities, the ability to reproduce a set of results under test conditions, and general cognition. These capabilities are all functions of intelligence, even if the tests themselves are only designed to probe for subject matter facility. The more intelligent one is, the likelier it becomes that one will excel at standardized tests because they are generally (surreptitiously) g-loaded undertakings. As intelligence is largely hereditary and unevenly distributed across peoples, education is ineffectual in generating intelligence where none exists. This also means that certain groups will by and large never excel at test taking or academic pursuits more generally.

Given these stark realities, the rise of the anti-testing zeitgeist was an inevitability, propelled by individuals willing to do whatever it took to obscure the mental limitations of their pet populations in order to continue to be able to plausibly assert that poor test performance is actually the result of the legacy of slavery, institutional oppression, poverty, culturally biased tests, or [insert flavor of the week buzzword here] to be remedied only by continual gibs transferences. But the answer is really far more simple, and rather elegant in its simplicity: some people just aren’t as smart as others. Intelligence will enable test takers to power through material that they may not completely understand by forging conceptual links that less intelligent test takers with similar handicaps are incapable of forging.

Consider for example the infamous SAT problem presented in Herrnstein & Murray’s 1994 The Bell Curve. The question was from the now-phased out Analogies portion of the exam:

runner: marathon

a. envoy: embassy

b. martyr: massacre 

c. oarsman: regatta

d. referee: tournament

e. horse: stable

The model, as we know is a is to b as c is to d. To answer this question correctly, the successful test taker would first have to accurately characterize the nature of the relationship between runner and marathon and then select the corresponding relationship from the list of options that followed. The answer is obviously c. oarsman: regatta. Anti-testers would (incorrectly, in my view) assert that it would be impossible for an inner city black kid to know what a regatta is and thus would be likelier to come to an incorrect solution. Voila: these tests are culturally biased and thus irrelevant. However, I contend that it is not necessary to know what a regatta is in this instance. The intelligent kid would accurately perceive that the basic relationship between runner and marathon is that a runner competes in a marathon (or does a marathon).

The more intelligent test taker would then methodically disqualify the options that clearly do not mimic the competitor-competition relationship proffered in the example. Thus, even while the test taker may not necessarily know what a regatta is, he knows for certain that an envoy does not compete in an embassy, that a martyr does not compete in a massacre, that a referee does not compete in a tournament and that a horse does not compete in a stable. As it turns out, the inner city tends to have high concentrations of individuals largely incapable of employing such rationalist approaches.

The goal behind the anti-testing movement is not cultural sensitivity, or concern for students. The goal is the complete obliteration of standards and objectivity. Their goal is ultimately the denial of intelligence as a concept.

Men & Leadership

Human nature is nonexistent and expressed human preferences are malleable to the point of irrelevance; these are the fundamental views of the Leftist. As their only collective point of reference is The Current Year, they remain willfully blind to long-established patterns of behavior, doggedly refusing to consider the possibility that all displayed human behaviors are adaptive ones which persist because they facilitate survival. These behaviors have evolved to enable disparate groups, evolving in disparate environs, with disparate survival/reproductive strategies to survive and to thrive. All other strategies (i.e., ones we tend not to observe on display as frequently) are maladaptive ones, and have been accordingly consigned to the dustbin of evolution.

So when one reads a headline inquiring “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?,” one immediately understands that what the author actually means to ask is “why do individuals in the corporate setting prefer leaders demonstrating overtly masculine traits rather than leaders demonstrating overtly feminine ones?” The author begins by floating three possible explanations for the “clear under-representation of women in management.”

There are three popular explanations for the clear under-representation of women in management, namely: (1) they are not capable; (2) they are not interested; (3) they are both interested and capable but unable to break the glass-ceiling: an invisible career barrier, based on prejudiced stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the ranks of power.

The first and second theories accurately capture the current state of affairs in the business world. On average, women are not as capable as men when it comes to navigating the murky waters of the corporate world. On average, women are less interested ascending to the zeniths of management, opting instead to prioritize family over employment and quixotically pursuing that fabled “work-life balance.” Nevertheless, the author finds each of these theories wanting:

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because we (people in general) commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women. 

Several thoughts occurred to me as I read this passage. Firstly: why is it that people tend to associate confidence with competence? Secondly: is it not the case that confidence and competence generally occur together? Thirdly: might there be a subconscious, or perhaps. . .evolutionary rationale for why humans tend to gravitate towards the confident peacockers rather than to the self-deprecating ground doves? The next paragraph provides the reader with some interesting factoids:

This is consistent with the finding that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. 

Several things. This “natural tendency” business. Could it be that the individuals in these groups are utilizing proxies and heuristics to determine the types of characters statistically likeliest to secure optimum group outcomes? Could it be that certain traits advertise a certain unfitness to lead, while certain other traits advertise robustness and fitness to lead? Why is it that when humans are left to their own devices in a setting that (very) loosely approximates an ancestral environment (disorder, lack of hierarchy, etc.) that people tend to organize themselves around individuals possessing the mentioned traits? Furthermore, why is it that the distributions of these traits between men and women are so drastically varied? Could it have anything to do with the fact that both sexes evolved the constellation of traits likeliest to help them achieve their respective reproductive goals? Is it possible that classically male traits are better suited the an aggressive & results oriented business environment than are classically female traits?

Indeed, whether in sports, politics or business, the best leaders are usually humble.

Confidence and humility are not antithetical. One can be confident and still conduct oneself with humility. The question of why people consistently perceive there to be a positive correlation between confidence and competence remains.

But back to my initial point regarding adaptive versus maladaptive traits. Though massive & complex multinational corporations are a relatively new innovation, for as long as humans have engaged in commerce and organized trade, the same traits have proven time and time again to garner the best results; business is nothing if not results oriented. Were it the case that retiring, risk avoidant, and collaborative traits obtained the best results, it is obvious that we would see more of these types of behaviors rather than less of them in the business context. Were they maximally effective, these more passive traits would be privileged over more aggressive traits.

Were it the case that “sensitivity, considerateness, and humility” were the traits that helped close the most deals, then we would, without a doubt observe use of these tactics proliferating across the business world. Were it the case that people were most inspired to follow leaders who were more nurturing and emotionally intelligent, we’d see far fewer people hitching their wagons to the Alexander the Greats of the world and more people signing up to follow Jane the Housewife. What Mr. Chamorro-Premuzic fails to realize is that results speak for themselves. The present order has emerged after millennia, if not millions of years of trial and error – not due to baseless gender bias or mere happenstance. Chatty Cathy tends to secure worse business outcomes than Psycho Steve, hence the overwhelming preference for/attraction to the latter and the enhanced willingness to put up with his caprices and mercurial moods. No amount of shilling for EQ and ovaries over IQ and cojones will change the facts on the ground – especially when there’s something major at stake.

The New York Times Reviews “Submission”

Our good friends at the NYT belatedly offer up a rather lukewarm review of Michel Houellebecq’s “Submission.” Naturally, the book doesn’t go over too well with the newspaper’s resident Cultural Marxists arbiters of taste:

Toward the end of [this] ugly new novel (now available in an English translation), Mr. Houellebecq has his narrator, François, make a barbed observation of another French writer, the 19th-century Decadent novelist J. K. Huysmans. It was “a mistake to give too much importance” to his “glib talk about ‘debauches’ and ‘dissipation,’ ” François thinks — that was just “part of the need to scandalize, to shock the bourgeoisie” and, in the end, “a career move.”

The savaging continues:

The reception of these books has often been as perverse as their contents. Mr. Houellebecq has won not only international visibility, but also the Goncourt Prize, and a startling amount of critical acclaim — for being a “grand, scabrous renunciator,” for being arguably “the most potentially weighty French novelist to emerge since Tournier,” and for hunting “big game while others settle for shooting rabbits,” as though he were another Louis-Ferdinand Céline, endowed not only with Céline’s bigotry and pessimism but also with his talent.

Incapable of grappling with the themes the book explores, refusing to assess the validity of the author’s assertions or to engage with any of the novel’s ideas, and lacking any real substantive criticism, the midwit resorts to name calling:

Mr. Houellebecq’s writing tends to be highly derivative of earlier writers, including Céline and Camus.

And to flippant dismissals of the native French people’s completely valid concerns about their looming demographic replacement:

[Houellebecq’s] novel plays on French fears of terrorism, immigration and changing demographics. It appeals, in many respects, to the same audience that propelled to the best-seller list Éric Zemmour’s “The French Suicide,” which blames the policies of a liberal elite and successive waves of Muslim immigration for the country’s decline and loss of identity.

Upon reading this review, one would be justified in their suspicion that the author hasn’t even read the book – and simply relied upon negative reviews offered up by fellow travelers on other sites. Not that this would be surprising in the least. We all know that abstracts like ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ and ‘objectivity’ will never get in the way of ideological purity.

Book Review: Submission



By: Michel Houellebecq 

Translator: Lorin Stein

 256 pp. Title available for download to Kindle for $11.99

 Rating: 4.5/5

At several of the book’s junctures, I found myself wondering incredulously: “is Houellebecq reading NRx? Or is NRx reading Houellebecq?” Realistically speaking, both Houellebecq and the denizens of the alt-right have undoubtedly arrived independently at similar conclusions about the current age. The catastrophic failures of liberalism are so myriad and so high profile that it is fast becoming apparent to many that the current Western socio-political dispensations are entirely unsustainable. Nonetheless, the themes and motifs explored in this superb novel bear a distinctly reactionary flavor that makes it a refreshing zephyr as compared to the stagnant and excruciatingly derivative offerings in the world of contemporary adult fiction.

It’s 2022, and the protagonist Francois begins by informing the reader that the apogee of his life was the defense of his doctoral thesis on 19th Century French novelist Joris-Karl Huysmans, everything thereafter being a profound disappointment. Through his eyes, the reader sees the pernicious & soul-killing effects of Western cultural dildofication: we watch as Francois tepidly attends to his career as a professor of literature at the Sorbonne, as he eats insipid TV dinners night after night, and as he avoids emotional entanglements opting instead to engage in anhedonic sodomitic acts with an assortment of liberated sluts year after year – because that’s simply what one does in the (future) current year. However, things have been changing in his native France for the better part of 10 years, changes which culminate in the election of an openly Islamic political party assuming power in the country with the explicit goal of reconstituting and consolidating the Roman & Ottoman Empires and the complete Islamification of the new realm.

While many readers clearly regard the novel as a horrifying presage of things to come, this book’s strength lies primarily in its brutal indictment of the current cultural climate of the West. It is descriptive rather than predictive. The book takes place in a future state, but every observation made in its pages describes the degeneracy of the current state of affairs. Submission calls into question the very validity of the West’s entire liberal, atheistic project, dating back to the Revolution of 1789. Houellebecq contemptuously describes Western decadence & civilizational decline, that having replaced faith in God with adherence to the Cult of Self now flails about sans direction, seeking to find meaning in the most meaningless of pursuits. Francois is, above all, a man of his time and he suffers from every posdmodern malady that all men of his time suffer from: hollowness, nihilism, aimlessness, and despair. He goes from existential crisis to existential crisis, utterly incapable of introspection, lacking the tools to critically assess the culture.

But Francois realizes, at least subconsciously, that something is dreadfully amiss with the current state of affairs. He frequently makes one-off comments lampooning the religion of Gender Equality, noting how destructive it has been to intersexual relationships and to family stability. He opines on the ridiculousness of serial monogamy. He notes that the academy is self-serving and exists to perpetuate itself at the expense of its students. He comments on the futility of equality. He understands that the feckless French political parties are basically two sides of the same coin and would be willing to sell their own people out in order to ensure their own survival. His obsession with Huysmans can be easily interpreted as his longing for the halcyon days of France, when true beauty and art flourished and intellectual rigor reigned supreme.

An especially interesting theme is the irrelevance of the left-right political dichotomy that in many ways channels the philosophy of Aleksander Dugin. Houellebecq, through Francois observes that leftism, which was a godless death cult from inception has spectacularly and bloodily failed; nationalism (or fascism or nativism, whichever you choose), now decoupled from traditional mores and a robust belief in God is also a failure, as it now lacks the authority to provide a divine justification for the existence of the nation-state. Houellebecq’s greatest achievement in the book is that he forces the reader to ask himself: “what makes a civilization worthy of survival? What makes this life worth living?” When the new Islamic regime takes over France, it is clear that the changes made are beneficial to everyone. By contrast, the preceding zeitgeist and its promotion of an empty existence of work, booze, and casual sex seems downright dreary. What’s remarkable is that Islam doesn’t sound bad at all by comparison. The new regime manages to turn back 226 years of history practically overnight by restoring a natural order, expelling women from the workplace, scaling back the welfare state and placing the family ahead of the individual, encouraging reproduction, restoring the centrality of faith and God, and embracing masculinity. There is a lesson here: if the West is not willing to disavow hollow materialism and liberalism, if France is not willing to reexamine the premises of the Revolution in order to save itself – both deserve to be cannibalized by the only remaining non-degenerate ideology that still possesses the vitality necessary to impose its will upon the world and the will to do so – Islam.

It is important to note that Houellebecq is no friend of Islam. Nevertheless, he recognizes the signs of the decline and understands that in the face of an enervated, valueless culture that is unmoored from everything that has traditionally infused human life with meaning, other value systems will rise to fill the void. The Ottoman Empire 2.0 may very well be the West’s successor if it does not rediscover its vigor.

Stylistically, the novel is a fun read. The translator has done an impeccable job, and the book’s humor and acerbic wit comes across perfectly in English. The one criticism that I have of the book is that the action speeds up improbably after the Islamic Party’s election. For example, the book describes women dressing far more modestly a mere 3 weeks after the election and other near instantaneous changes that would be improbable unless the reader is to assume that the Islamic Party and its coalition was circumventing the legislature.

The book is a fun and fairly quick read that gives the reader much food for thought.