I have nothing interesting to say about the Paris attacks. Given that they understandably took attention out from my last post, as a blogger my duty is to try to explain the Paris attacks and their likely consequences in terms of Status Point theory. Yes I'm starting to sound like a broken radio, but at least I'm not just rambling about it's all the fault of the Jews. So listen up.
France will do nothing about these attacks. Nothing will change. The Front National won't win the elections. Immigration won't be stopped, nor French Muslims will be incentivized to leave. 120 murdered is a lot of people; but people only care as much as the media reports about it, and the media only reports about it as much as the Cathedral wants to. The Cathedral doesn't want to report about it, so in 2 weeks people will have forgotten the same they did about Charlie Hebdo. They will remember their Facebook filters and Twitter tags much more clearly than the 120 murdered. They didn't actually know any of the killed, but they of course have clear memories of how good it felt to signal virtue on social media.
If anything can happen is that the US uses the chance to bomb some more of Assad, and France joins up to signal toughness against terrorism or something; then some neocon arranges for a Russian convoy to get bombed, and Putin responds in kind. That'd be... interesting.
Why will nothing happen? Why will France not bother to defend its own people? In the capital, under the very nose of the President? Because it doesn't raise the SP of the people taking the decisions. Hence by definition it cannot happen.
Every country has a class system in some form or another. Well a lot of people write about the "British class system", it's nothing particular to Britain, except that the British were actually aware of it, and it was part of their cultural consciousness. But even in places where there's no cultural awareness of class, class is still there. There's this thing called HBD, which is often used to explain differences between population, but that's not the whole point. Humans are different by birth. Genetic differences explain all sorts of behaviour and ability. Some people are stronger, others are smarter, some can draw, some can write, some can sing. Some are extroverted, some are introverted, some are ambitious sociopaths, other are sensitive wimps.
As seen in last post, people seek advantage in everything in order to gain status for being on top, so it's natural that people will want to focus on their natural comparative advantage. Men are physically stronger than women; strength is a very useful trait, especially at controlling others. Groups of random men naturally tend to compete in who is the strongest. Strength in the real world isn't just potential muscle strength, perhaps the most important part is the impulsiveness to actually use it without hesitation. We've all seen how that works in a school setting. Men get together and soon a hierarchy is born where the strongest are on top.
The less strong, or the (for whatever reason) less impulsive will have very low SP under these circumstances. It follows they'll try to leave this group and form their own, where they could potentially rise in SP. So they go and do that, form a new group where SP depend on something other than physical strength. An easy example is nerds forming hierarchies of perceived intelligence or skill with computers or whatever. After a long enough time being in the same group, SP dynamics make all people inside the group develop a very similar personality. Liking the same things, dressing the same way, speaking the same way, having the same opinions. Of course everybody retains some small individual quirks, but it's amazing just how completely homogeneous people in groups can be when there's enough pressure.
Social class is the same thing in society as a whole. The guys who were strong, brash and manly end up being proles, while the smart and conscientious end up in the middle class. Now of course the distribution isn't perfect; some people are strong and also smart, so they can choose according to the ultimate SP payoff. And of course family pressure has a lot of influence on who you're allowed to hang out with, no matter your individual qualities. But in most of the world the division works the same way; social classes specialize in different things: proles focus on hands-on labor, the middle class focus on mental labor; the upper class are the lucky fucks who made big, of course most of the time from middle class backgrounds.
Each social class allots Status Points according to different yardsticks; but an obvious one is typicality. Or in other words how different you are from the other side. Being prole-ish is the easiest way to lose points in a middle class group. And being a soft-spoken bookish person is the easiest way to get beaten up in a low class group. SP yardsticks of course always tend to produce signaling spirals, so middle class people are obsessed with showing themselves to be as unprole-ish as possible, and the other way around; but there's less proles around, so signaling competition isn't as bad among proles.
Politics in both sides of the Atlantic work the same way; the lower class is xenophobic, the middle class is committed to filling their countries with all the filth of the Third World. The lower class dislike of foreigners is obvious: as manual labor they depress their wages. And lower class males are organised among natural masculinity; that's the band of brothers, in-group is sacred aesthetic. That doesn't make them xenophobic per se; as long as the foreigner is in the group, they're very happy to admit any strong man. Look how many Africans are in sport teams across the West, those are very accepted. But the millions of Muslims in Europe aren't joining the white proles' team; they live in their own societies and do every effort to show themselves as the outgroup. The proles can't possibly like that.
If the proles don't like that; the middle class must like it. Even if it's insane; signaling unprole-ness is the game in town. Now of course filling your own country with every low IQ peasant on earth is a very, very insane proposition. But that's why we have 16 years of full time education, complete conformity on TV and all popular media. You want to signal your non-prole values; well the Cathedral is providing you with all kinds of arguments to help you with that. Once you have used those arguments, say about how poverty drives radicalism, or how Islam is a religion of peace, or whatever bullshit you've heard on TV and parroted without really thinking about it; once you've parroted those enough times you're now committed to them. You can't go back; doing so will signal unseriousness, and will suspiciously look like prole arguments. And you don't want to sound like a prole. So better hurry to the train station to welcome the next batch of Somalis holding the hand of your 12 year old daughter.
The political class is in the same bind. They can't possibly admit the errors of bringing all that scum into Europe. It doesn't matter how much people are killed; media reports can be toned down and stopped after a few days. But admitting that the proles, in France's case the Front National was right, completely undermines your authority. If Le Pen is right, then what are you doing here? Get the crap out and let her govern. The mainstream political class have been making loud claims about how Muslims are awesome and we need more of them. Backtracking even a single inch means you've been lying to all of us for decades for no good reason. The next step after electing Le Pen is putting them all in jail and bringing back the Guillotine.
Hell, even if an individual middle class person were to admit that; he'll get sandwiched between a rock and a hard place; the proles will shout at him for being wrong and evil, while the rest of their middle class friends will move even further left to avoid being dragged down to the Guillotine by collective responsibility.
So the French and European will double down, and down, and down, as long as they can control the narrative enough to get elected. It doesn't matter that 100 Parisians are gunned down under their noses. Did 3 fucking thousand killed, the Twin Towers completely destroyed, change anything? Of course not. The only vague hope is that somebody in the shadows of the Deep State starts doing what needs to be done without having it made public, thus avoiding the public signaling racket. But we don't really have a deep state, and to the extent there is a secret security apparatus, it's not cohesive enough to avoid somebody signaling virtue by outing the whole thing to the media.
Houellebecq's Submission is a utopian novel. It's a best case scenario. It's gonna be much worse than that. It's going to suck very badly.