Friday, April 20, 2018

The Anti-Puritan mega-thesis is starting to take shape


I decided to diagram out my entire thesis. As you can see it resembles a gigantic chain reaction of causality. The beginning of this chain is the "rift" produced by technology driving ahead faster than the genetics of humans can keep up. Nearly every essay on this site is an exposition on one tiny portion of that chain reaction. Something like the diagram below has been held in my imagination since day one, and has guided the entire development of this site. If it often seems that I am rambling it is only because I am converting diagrammatic information into lineal (line by line) information. This imagined diagram guides everything I write.

You can click on the orange links to move around the thesis.

It has taken > 2 years to get to this point.




The structure








Monday, April 16, 2018

Don't be a pain addict


Aphorism no. 50: Schadenfreude Trumps payment


The most sincere voter is the one who votes for the sadistic enjoyment of his own power. To most of the electorate, sadism is a better payment than cash. This is always why liberals vote, why conservatives voted for Trump (to get revenge for decades of humiliation), and in fact why anyone votes. The purpose of joining a tribe or political party is not the money, but the thrill of collective power; votes flow from the lizard brain. Appeal to that and you will always win. The people experience the thrill of power through their leaders in much the same way as a parent lives vicariously through a child. The leader is not selling leadership, benefits, or wealth, but the humiliation of the class enemies of the people who vote for him. Redistribution is just a bonus, and never the real focus elections. Trump delivered schadenfreude with every speech he made while Hilary promised payouts, and Trump won. Schadenfreude Trumps payment.

Imagine what a right wing armed with both schadenfreude and payment could accomplish?

"We will humiliate the left AND redistribute their wealth back to you."



Sunday, April 15, 2018

Star Trek: Legacy on Vimeo



Star Trek Legacy is fan art consisting of scenes from the movie Star Trek The Final Frontier set to the music of Tron Legacy.

There will be at least 4 more sexual revolutions



It won't end with electronic addiction. To restore humanity we must destroy technology.

There have been 3 sexual revolutions: the "promiscuity revolution" of the 60's, the "gay rights" revolution of the late 90s, and the "gender revolution" that we are going through now, (circa 2015-18). A search of the usage of the term "transgender" over time shows that it is non-existent before 1987.




In each case a technology preceded a particular revolution in sexual attitudes.

Birth control preceded mass-promiscuity, treatments for gonorrhea, syphilis, and other STDs preceded gay rights, and sex reassignment surgery preceded transgenderism. Based on the past we may make a forecast far how morals will decay in the future.

1. When sex robots arrive there will be a machine sex revolution.

2. When it becomes possible to read the thoughts of animals, IF it turns out that animals consent to sex, a bestiality revolution will occur.

3. Once genetics are sufficiently advanced there will be an incest revolution. After all, if a man can impregnate his sister without genetic consequences the taboo will vanish.

4. Once memories can be uploaded they can be altered. Imagine a pedophilia revolution where abusers rape children and then alter their memories so that the child has a perfectly normal childhood. Aside from some anal fissures and scaring on the gentiles the average abuse victim may actually prefer their implanted fake childhood memories over the real memories of ordinary children with difficult parents who were real. People will say, "but they had better childhoods than regular children. How can you oppose it?"

In every case the people who oppose the change will be called "racist," "intolerant," "pedo-phobes," "animal-phobes," "incest-phobes," "machine-phobes," or whatever term they come up with to stigmatize normal human morality.

Now maybe your morals won't decay in the face of these new technologies, but your grandchildren's will. Indeed, humans are so used to adapting to the circumstances they find themselves in that justifying a horrible reality is their first instinct. Your morality might not decay, BUT SOMEONE'S WILL, and they will pressure you or your descendants to conform, and they will eagerly punish them if they do not. After all, they punish you for hating polyamory, (systematic adultery), homosexuality, (sodomites), interracial sex, (miscegenation), and transgenderism, (catamites). All of these used to be stigmatized. Now they are trying to make whoring legal by calling it "sex work."

Pray that Amish Hitler conquers us.

"You may live to see man-made horrors beyond your comprehension"
— Nikola Tesla

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

The Corollary to Gresham's Law: bad religion drives out good religion


Conventionally, when one looks at the world he sees only a handful of major religions. But let us expand the definition of "religion" to include any comprehensive system of thought that is not based in scientific evidence, but instead centers around the desire of individuals for meaning, pattern recognition, symbols, and the motivated cognition they engage in to make sense of their world. In this view religion is any comprehensive meaning-based system of viewing the world, and includes secular ideologies such as social justice, Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, etc., and all other forms of faith in transcendental ideals, whether political or god-based, whether a meditative or activist strain. Everything that isn't business, engineering, or hard science is religion.

Now imagine that there are at least one million "religions" of inner peace on Earth, but each of these "religions" usually has only one adherent, so that while there are many ways to develop a sense of tranquility and peace, each person who stumbles upon such a way is usually the only person who has that particular belief system. In fact, in such a vast number of religious/ideological modes of though, a near-infinite diversity is entertained, so that there are as many unique ways to have inner peace as their are individuals, such that each and every one of the "Ideologies of Inner Peace" is completely unique to the individual who has it. There are one million versions, no two are alike, and each has only one believer — the one who invented it.

Furthermore, no individual with an ideology/religion of inner peace will teach you what they know, because why would they? When one has ascended he doesn't care. He has peace. Why would he crusade to change the world? Why would he or she "preach the gospel?" "Educate the masses?" "Stamp out racism?" "Improve the world (tikkun olam)?" or "overcome evil?"

He has inner peace. By definition such a person doesn't need to do much of anything.

If you have inner peace you just don't care. The world is suffering? So what!




But bad religion drives out good religion.

Now let us imagine that there are about 6 or 7 Religions of Pain, and each of them has about a billion or so adherents. All religions of pain are virtually identical since they all follow roughly the same pattern, and that pattern is derived from the properties of how information naturally evolves.

That pattern is there (a), must be something wrong with the world, and (b) we must do something about it, which (c), ever so conveniently involves "spreading the gospel," "educating the masses," "checking White privilege," "serving the disadvantaged," etc. All of these supposed solutions will of course have one thing in common; they require the spread of ideas. Whether it is saving the world, eliminating White privilege, (or for that matter eliminating White people), everything — absolutely every Religion of Pain will require that the action of salvation involves the action of transmission. You know, like disease transmission. The characteristic of every Religion of Pain will be a method of transmission to the brains/minds of other human beings. The virus wants to get out. The ideology will be structured to jump from one mind to the next. It must be structured that way or it never would have spread in the first place.

Structurally, all Religions of Pain will have certain things in common;

There will be something wrong with the world.

The something will require the spread of the ideology.

The ideology will propagate, like a virus.

The ideology will undergo change, in a process analogous to mutation.

The changes that make the ideology more virulent will get it transmitted to more human minds.

The pattern is this;

  • There is something wrong with the world, something painful.
  • We must do something about it.
  • Doing something coincidentally requires spreading the religion, through proselytizing, preaching, or "education."

Now not everyone has enough fervor to educate preach. But some do, and it is enough to make the religion spread, like a virus. The religion undergoes change in its doctrine. Generally speaking, all doctrinal changes make it more virulent, or even more violent.

To a person with a Religion of Pain, all people with inner peace look vile and immoral. Because a person with inner peace doesn't give a shit about virtue, racism, injustice, White privilege, original sin, idolatry, heresy, or whatever. Such a person will be classed as a kafir, shirk, infidel, heretic, atheist, or racist, if the truth ever gets out that they are indifferent. They don't give a shit; they have inner peace. Duh.



Thus, it is the destiny of those who suffer from Religions of Pain to chase down, (really hunt down) every person with a modicum of inner peace on this planet, and even to — get this — consider themselves virtuous for doing so! One wonders if these people are really even human — these demons of virtue. Every righteous person pointing and screaming "racist!" is more or less a meat robot that follows the programming given to them by a kind of mind virus.

The Religion of Pain demands that everyone agree. If even one person is not converted or educated, does not submit to Allah, kneel before Christ, check their privilege, or whatever, then we are all oppressed, enslaved, injured, dinged, offended, victimized, etc.
"If we don't all agree then none of us can be free!" 
"If there is just ONE RACIST in the world then we are ALL OPPRESSED!"
The defining nature of the Religion of Pain is that is can never just leave you alone.

Of course the newer a religion is the worse it it will be. The oldest religions, (Hinduism and Buddhism) are the least virulent and best. The newest religions, (Islam, Communism, Social Justice, Feminism, Environmentalism, and Scientology) are the most virulent and worst. Religion gets progressively worse over time, as selection effects select purely for virulence. On an even playing field, bad religion will get worse, spread everywhere, and dominate. Ideas change just like DNA mutates. Changes that make an idea more virulent stick, while changes that make it less virulent are discarded. This is why communism is the grandchild of Christianity, why the natural outcome of puritan Christianity is social justice, and why the average crusader for social justice, tolerance, or whatever, can legitimately claim that they are more Christian than you, more holy than you, and that Jesus was a socialist. Because they are peddling a more virulent version of your own virus. If Christianity is monkey AIDS, progressive leftism is super-AIDS. If Christianity will make your dick itch, leftism will make it fall off. Leftism is gona-herpa-syphil-AIDS.

Bad religion drives out good religion.

Corollary: anything that can drive out an old religion, is also a religion, and worse than what it drove out. Civilization gets crazier; not saner. "New atheism" is progressive religion repackaged, and is worse than Christianity.

Furthermore, religion is a kind of ecology, so that the nicer religions inhibit the spread of the more virulent ones simply by existing. If social justice is MRSA then Christianity is like a probiotic. It's very existence inhibits the growth of worse organisms.

Corollary: if you cure everyone of religion you will bring about the apocalypse, because virulent religions are not susceptible to the anti-religious equivalent of antibiotics. Trying to abolish religions like Christianity or Buddhism simply clears the field for more virulent religions like Communism, Islam, or Social Justice.

And the average leftist knows this.

As a side note, people only need religion because of the genetic legacy of the ancestral environment. Religion allows for tribal signaling of loyalty to your people. Humans evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers and behave compulsively like tribal communists, carrying the genetic lacy of those impulses over into modern secular democracies. Every heated debate you have in a coffee shop or bar hearken back to a time when people sitting around a campfire would decide the organization of their entire society through vigorous debate. Debate is not a sign of intellectual superiority but of atavistic tendencies. Capitalism moves humans steadily away from debate and towards systems based in choice. Debate implies that the loser of the argument will be coerced to live under the winners rules, but the choice-based nature of capitalism replaces this with a menu of lifestyles. Thinks like democracy and majoritarian politics are in the past; they are literally a part of our genetic legacy code; a code which is being slowly annihilated by evolution under capitalism. Men — and I do mean males — may enjoy debate, but that is only because they are good at it, and they are only good at it because losing a debate in a tribal society might have gotten one killed.

Now there are various ways to control a mimetic ecology:

1. Official state religion
2. Licencing the ideological teacher
3. Reproductive-ideological licencing
4. Legal liability of ideology teachers

Methods that do not work:

5. Separation of church and state

1 and 2 need no introduction. Let us talk about 3 and 4.

Reproductive-ideological licencing

Is where you licence the ability of people to reproduce based on their conduct. Groups are licenced based on their faith and ethnicity. There are no groups considered without faith. Even atheism is legally a faith. When a group commits a terrorist attack the societal cost is internalized as higher reproductive licencing costs. Say the estimated cost of the 911 terrorist attack was 100 million dollars, and their are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. Then the cost of a reproduction licence for a Muslim would work out to 100 million / 3.3 million, or $30,303 per couple, per child.

Positive behaviors like charity would be calculated to offset some of these costs.

This method has the benefit of selecting against susceptibility to ideological madness over time, so that the species gets genetically saner.

Legal liability

One can simply make the teacher of ideology liable for the cost to society of the actions of his or her student. For example: if you promote transgender ideology and it can be proven that you caused or contributed to x number of mental breakdowns, then you must pay the cost incurred for treating those people. The law in this case is defined statistically. Proof of one particular act of mental harm is not required, only a statistically significant correlation. This method has the benefit of being doable within democracy.






Tuesday, April 10, 2018

The Purpose and Value of an International Guard


"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country." — General George S. Patton

1. A racist volunteers for war.
2. Millions of racists get their nuts blown off.
3. They don't reproduce.
4. World peace happens.
5. So in a way war leads to world peace.
Keep being racist.

My theory is that capitalism is putting selection pressure on humans to change genetically. It does this by sending racists to die in war, communists to die in revolution, giving birth control to feminists, and generally suppressing the genetics of everyone it dislikes. The only question is, how can this process be engineered for the benefit of the humans? Also, why is migration such a problem? Does capitalism hate IQ? For that matter, does capitalism hate humans? Let us ignore most of these questions and address only the question of racism for the moment.

War eliminates xenophobia as racists self-select into the volunteer armies of the world.

The trick is to get the Arabs, Blacks, and Hispanic racists to die faster than you own. But how to accomplish that?

The endless wars of the US are shredding its genetic capacity for self-defense. It used to be that war rape might compensate for deaths in conflict, so that building an empire had no derogatory effect on a nations ability to defend itself, so that no matter what, the genetics of xenophobia would propagate. Obviously this created a very violent world.

Now war simply ruins the genes of racists. Many liberals will laugh and say, "and that's a problem why?"

Because once a nation has endured two World Wars wars, (like the nations of Europe), they become "cucked" after which they get invaded by refugees and migrants, and lack the cultural will to defend themselves against invasion.

Eventually war leads to soft men who put women in charge of national defense and surrender to Islam (or whatever the latest violent force is).




If you allow Islam to conquer Europe you simply allow the reintroduction of the genetics of racism and violence, after which a new round of world wars will happen once Islam establishes a European caliphate. Our goal is world peace, not "an endless cycle of migrant invasions, followed by more world wars, followed by more migrant invasions."

So how do you get peace? If you fight then you shred the genes necessary to defend yourself. If you don't fight the world keeps being racist and violent. What is the answer?
"The International Guard"
No, not The National Guard, but the international version of it.

What does it do, you say?

It recruits foreign born men to serve in America's military, sends them to war as infantry troops, and get their nuts blown off. It's a gene shredder for foreign racists.

Also, it allows America to indulge her endless craven lust for contractor profits war.

You keep foreign units separate and locate them on different bases in order to prevent spying. You have a separate chain of command as well.

You run adverts in foreign countries that appeal to blood lust and violence. You recruit thugs and violent racists in OTHER countries, and use them as cannon fodder. Preferably, you recruit hundreds of thousands from a single country at a time, and use them in wars against other violent ethnic groups. You deliberately use ineffective combat methods that cause high fatality rates because the enemy is not the enemy but your own foreign troops. You goal is not to prevent the shredding of your own genes for racism, but to accelerate the process in foreign countries while slowing it in your own, so that the empire produces a steadily expanding zone of peace that prevents back migration into the first world. Your goal is to establish a genetic buffer zone and make the rest of the world peaceful before making yourself that way. You target the countries that are connected by land bridges and near bodies of water, (Mexico, Central America, Africa, the Middle East, in the case of the West, or Tibet, India, the Stans, in the case of China).

You shred them first.




Saturday, April 7, 2018

We need to talk about Christopher Cantwell



Just a warning: the content below is highly offensive, even for people who are used to being offended.



I apologize profusely for putting such low quality content on my site but we need to have a conversation about this man.

Cantwell admits to being a federal informant at 33:43. Before that he says that while he did not participate in the doxxing of Ricky Vaughn he approves of it.

How did this man get into their movement? How was he not filtered out? How did anyone ever consider him more of an asset than a liability? He routinely comes across as a person who is completely unhinged. Has anyone considered getting him some mental health treatment?

Also, one should never cuss as much as that. There is casual swearing and their is the occasional use of expletives for serious purposes. If one must cuss he should either use it casually all the time as a joke, or seriously a tiny fraction of the time, but never seriously all of the time.

Moreover, the most absurd term ever coined is "optics cuck." Assigning the label "cuck" to something does not mean that it is automatically foolish, or silly. The term "cuck" relates rather crassly to someone who betrays their own interests to an enemy camp. How is practicing samizdat, or "optics," or taqiya betraying one's own interests? Yes, when you are subjugated by a hostile interests you should maintain your anonymity, use language that conceals, and practice "optics."

Also, many things are filters. Using your real name in White nationalism is a filter that brings in people who lack sound judgement. Indeed, White nationalism itself is a filter for bringing in people with bad judgement. The dysgenics of modernity produce a solutions curve that entertains many workable approaches. White nationalism is the least practical of the approaches. It has a terrible image problem, it automatically threatens the survival of the entire minority electorate, who will always predictably work against it, and it generates countless enemies and gets nowhere. A far more pragmatic approach is to simply study genetics and go into business selling people the alleles that benefit civilization.



Friday, April 6, 2018

Towards a Technological Co-singularity


Machine learning isn't Skynet. It just isn't. There is a massive difference between training a learning algorithm to drive a car down the road and building a general purpose artificial intelligence. AI will never happen, not because we can't do it, but because no human being would be insane enough to do it, or at least, no group of human beings. This assertion, which appears so unfounded on it face, is actually a well supported conclusion. Let me explain.

To bring about a general superintelligence you need to mimic evolution. All gains in the field have been arrived at through a process that directly mimics evolutionary training. No one really knows how an algorithm learns to recognize dogs in photographs, or faces, or whatever. They build a bot that randomly constructs algorithms. Then they test these thousands of randomly generated algorithms to see which one is most effective at recognizing cats in pictures, driving a car, or whatever. Then they throw out the poor performing ones and "mutate" the high performing algorithms by letting the bot randomly change portions of code. Then the repeat the process over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Poor performing algorithms are deleted, (killed), and better ones are selected for the next round. The whole process mimics mutation followed by selection.

There is a really simple way to develop a successful machine artificial intelligence: just build a self-replicating robot and let it out in the wild. Since all the gains of AI research have come from evolutionary approaches, it is also the only realistic way to create it. No simulated environment will ever be complex enough to fully reproduce evolutionary processes. For machine intelligence to actually be developed, you would have to literally construct some robot animal that constructs replicas of itself using the minerals found in dirt, or whatever, and then release it into, say, the Amazon rainforest. You just give it a simple command: reproduce. A few million generations later you come back and find that some sort of millipede made of silicon has evolved. Literally, the evolutionary process creates it. Like the learning algorithm for speech recognition, its training is all based in survival. Thousands of generations of the bot are killed by rust, animals, lack of minerals, water, etc., until one day you come across a machine that can defend itself against attack, is waterproof, seeks out the minerals to construct duplicates, etc.

And you would have to be insane to build such a machine, and even if you did it would not be a superintelligence but a silicon version of an animal.

It would also be something relatively easy to exterminate. Contrary to Hollywood movies, such a living organism would relatively easy to locate and kill. An army of thousands, (or even millions) of men might be required, but armed with metal detectors they could exterminate the whole species. A computer virus might also be needed, but human beings drive to extinction other organisms all the time, and a deliberate attempt to kill it would undoubtedly work. It may be silicon (or germanium or indium arsenide), but remember, it mutates no faster than any other organism, and like any animal it has to die to evolve.

To actually create a machine superintelligence you would have to bring this machine animal into existence and then relentlessly upgrade it — on purpose — to make it smarter than humans. First you would have to force evolve it to human-level intelligence, and then beyond. It would take a team of thousands of researchers, billions of dollars, and would draw a backlash from all the foreign governments of the world, the press, and the public.

In the meantime you already have a intelligence lying around that is ready to be relentlessly upgraded to superintelligent status: humans.

You see it turns out the ethics of eugenics and the ethics of building and AI are pretty much identical. Since you can only arrive at a superintelligent agent by (a), having or bringing a self-aware intelligence into existence, and (b), upgrading it with forced evolutionary processes until it surpasses you, you are practicing eugenics on a self-aware machine intelligence. You have to "murder" self-aware bots to get superintelligent bots, or you have to relentlessly upgrade their code in a process that is virtually identical to gene therapy, transferring "good code" from "healthy machines" to "unhealthy/sick machines." You either have to gas the defective bots Hitler-style, practice the bot version of embryo screening, or transfer code. In the end you are just practicing machine eugenics.

And so this brings us to the final point of this essay, which is: why would you do any of this in machines when you already have human beings to experiment on? And why compound your ethical issues? Going the machine route is both less efficient and more unethical. And why would capitalism spend money trying to force the evolution of machine intelligence in the wild when it could just upgrade humans? Why would capitalism waste the money? The only way to get a consciousness that mimics self-awareness is to mimic the evolutionary selection forces that produced human beings. Why do that when you can upgrade the human beings? It's cheaper.

And don't get it in your head that some traffic system that manages all of the cars in LA or something will somehow gain self-awareness. It won't. Without the evolutionary forces to train self-awareness even a city-scale AI that manages the traffic of millions of cars is still just an animal by human standards, albeit a very large animal. And yes, it might kill 3 drivers one day in a homicidal rage. Everyone will freak out and say, "the singularity is here! The machines have finally risen up against us!" The NTSB will investigate only to find the completely boring explanation that it killed those 3 drives to save 20. After all, it is programmed to "reduce net traffic fatalities," and those drives are an especially irksome group responsible for dozens of crashes, and the machine made a completely rational calculation that getting rid of them would reduce traffic deaths by blah blah... and so forth.

And don't give me crap about a machine upgrading itself. That is even less likely than a human upgrading himself. Since all gains come from culling defective algorithms, the logic of techno singularity rapidly converges with the logic and ethics of eugenics. Superintelligence without an evolutionary force crafting it is just a machine that likes to daydream. The notion that one can relentlessly upgrade ones way to superintelligence falsely assumes that an AI can exceed humanity without running countless experiments. The machine needs real life feedback.

Anything that can be done in machines can be done better in humans with genetics.

And so the co-singularity is what happens when human beings use AI to develop gene therapies, the gene therapies make humans smarter, who build smarter machines, who make smarter human beings. The process is recursive, and occurs within the human species rather than without. Rather than bother with the wasteful process of building a whole new machine biosubstrate, the co-singularity builds itself in tandem with the organic as a series of genetic improvements and augments.

To summarize;

1. The only successful AI development methods are evolution-mimicking methods.
2. The evolution of a general problem solving AI would require "natural release" of that AI into the wild to allow it to learn in nature, which would never be tolerated by governments.
3. The ethics of forced machine evolution are identical to the ethics of eugenics.
4. The first general AI machines would be animals, who would need to be upgraded to human-level intelligence before upgrading them to beyond human-level intelligence.
5. The process of building an entirely new machine biosubstrate would be hugely wasteful.
6. Capitalism would prefer to upgrade the existing carbon biological substrate instead, because it is more cost effective.

I will give one more argument: that (7). technological development follows the path of (greatest iteration) ÷ (least R&D cost), and that this rule favors genetics over a machine substrate.

First we had wax cylinders, then vinyl records, cassette tapes, CDs, DVDs, and finally digital music. Why did musical formats take a detour though magnetic mediums? Why not just stick to discs?

Because technology follows the path of greatest iteration.

Companies want to maximize profit and minimize R&D costs. This means building on what you know, and putting out a new version of an old product every year, even if the new version is worse, (hence migration from vinyl to cassette). Firms want to produce continual upgrades in order to maximize profits. They prefer relentless iteration over radical technological disruption. This translates really well to a genetic business model, and poorly to an AI business model.

It is fairly easy to compare entire genomes with all studies for human traits, and then mine correlations for profitable gene therapies. There already are companies assembling massive databases to do just that, like 23AndMe.

So how would one actually arrive at artificial general intelligence? Without selection effects the dread of a machine that upgrades its own intelligence repeatedly will probably never happen. Think about, how does one get from x intelligence level to x + n intelligence level without feedback? Intelligence must be discovered. It does not just materialize out of nothing.

Imagine there are millions of personal robots put into circulation performing labor for humans beings as domestic servants, workers, or whatever. Any skill learned by one of these bots is automatically transmitted to all the others once a day when it powers down to recharge. The machine does not so much as evolve as learn, and maybe, through a method like this it could evolve self-awareness. Maybe the repeated need to perform in social interactions could cause it to develop a sense of self, but I find the idea of a computer connected to the internet teaching itself about the world, and upgrading itself relentlessly to be ludicrous. It has no prior understanding of anything, no physical reality of what things feel like, smell like, etc. Humans aren't just brains, we are physical creatures, and without a physical knowledge of the world, without going through some evolutionary process that connects the mind to the body, a machine can never really understand anything. The magical self-upgrading machine is a fairy tale. Things have meaning because to us of our evolutionary background, because of emotions, hormones, feelings, gut bacteria, an a lot of other things. A brain in a vat, silicon or carbon, is a mind without meaning. This mode of existence may appeal to a philosopher, but it will never produce something that can really "understand" anything. "Self" cannot be separated from evolution, machines will never be allowed to evolve, and no self can occur without evolution. Capitalism will route through humans via genetics rather than around them through AI. Screen cap this.



Some thoughts on various subjects

I

White men are in fact the least oppressive group of people on the Earth, and the idea that we oppress others is not just a lie, but a precise inversion of reality. Wherever a typical White man goes he creates a bubble of freedom — a vacuum in the landscape of oppression. Everyone else — women, minorities, etc., tries to flow into that vacuum. That is why;


  • Women prefer male bosses (but not in other parts of the world like the Middle East)
  • "White flight" is supposed to be bad
  • Exit is condemned
  • Why immigration is mandatory, but only for us
  • Secession is considered racist
  • Bitcoin is hated
  • White men are indoctrinated to hate themselves
  • All-male spaces are attacked
  • "There is never enough women and minorities in ____ industry"
  • They try to take over White businesses and institutions rather than building their own
  • Diversity means chasing down the last White person

Of course, since these other groups cannot create the absence of oppression on their own as soon as they reach a critical mass in any system it collapses. Furthermore, the same mind that is too corrupt to tolerate freedom is too corrupt to recognize that women and minorities — and NOT White men, are the root of oppression. Their envy males them invert reality in their own minds.



II

"They put their values above truth, but so did everyone who gave them their values"
Society is pervasively corrupt because people put morals above truth. The trouble with putting morality first is that it assumes society's morals are not corrupt, but society is composed of people who have always placed morality above truth. Thus, the morals are based on an inaccurate understanding of reality. And since people are dedicated to morals rather than truth, the misunderstanding can widen over time. Truth in this definition only means "the accurate understanding of factual reality," and nothing more. Essentially the problem is recursive; every person is striving to demonstrate how virtuous they are by internalizing society's morals, but the morals themselves were produced by people who cared more about conforming to morality than achieving a factual understanding of the world. Thus, obvious lies like human equality can get programmed into the moral code. The moral code is celebrated above everything else, including the truth, which leads to pervasive corruption. Corruption then actually arises out of society's morals, and not because of their absence.
  • The pursuit of morality leads to corruption.
  • The pursuit of truth leads to morality.
Society is corrupt because is pursues the former at the expense of the factual understanding of reality.



III

Virulence vs Fecundity


The reproduction rate (fecundity) of a group follows a bell curve, while the virulence of an ideology follows a linear curve. Left-wing groups superficially have high virulence, but their spread is only mimetic, since their birth rates are so low. Thus, they "hack" the part of the human brain that confuses conversion with reproduction. On the other side of things are groups with both low birth rates and low ideological virulence, and in the middle are the groups with medium virulence and high fecundity. These are the groups that stand the test of time. For example: it is easy to envision the Mormons lasting a thousand years, but impossible to imagine that gender theory will still have power in a century. Memes are like parasites; some spread at the expense of their host, (the ones on the far right side of the graph), while others are more symbiotic, (the ones in the middle of the graph). Still others are ineffective, (the ones on the left side of the graph).

It is possible to move the bell curve to the right be combining a highly virulent ideology (designed to be something similar to Scientology) with a prohibition against birth control. A kind of "super-religion" could be produced which is both (a) highly virulent, and (b) highly fecund. The key is to target women's contraceptive access and limit women's education, while controlling women's socialization, and to combine this with a highly virulent ideology.



IV

Democracies always have slavery

In the beginning of the republic you have libertarian government + privately administered slavery, and at the end you have socialist government + publicly administered slavery. One class is always being enslaved for the benefit of another, whether it is Blacks for the benefit of Whites under a private system, or Whites enslaved to everyone else under publicly administered socialism.



V

As a political system consolidates, class warfare moves upward

The more decentralized the political system, the lower the level of class warfare that exists within it, and the more centralized a political system becomes, the more class warfare moves up the ranks. In the beginning there is a class war against Black people by White people. As an oligarchy forms it becomes a class war of the billionaires (globalists) against the common people. Eventually it becomes a class war of the king against the billionaires. At all times there is a state of never ending war, and as society consolidates it moves upward. Fundamentally, there is no difference between a feudal monarchy and a communist dictatorship, except that the monarchy has had time to solidify traditions.


VI

Reality cannot unify people to action; people can only 
form communities around unreal concepts.

People form belief systems on the basis of non-entities like ideology because everything that is real is in play, and therefore is part of the game. Ideologies, religions, etc., are methods of internalizing game rules. The unreal must always serve as the basis of real action because the real is a piece on the Chess board and therefore cannot serve as its rules. Facts cannot serve as a basis of unity because no part of a game can serve as its rules. The rules must be above the game. Therefore ideology.




Who Are We





Saturday, March 31, 2018

Aphorism no. 49



Wow



Sunday, March 25, 2018

The strategic equilibrium of tolerance


A K-selected person prefers to have few offspring which they invest heavily in, while an r-selected person has many offspring and makes only the minimum commitment for their survival, and maybe not even that. People in turn have political orientations that correspond to their biology; K-selected people prefer the long-term over the short-term, while r-selected people the reverse. There are really only two activities that humans engage in: crime, and investment.

Everything that has a short-term benefit has a long-term cost; spending on entitlements, baby boomers, resource depletion, global warming, immigration, etc. Everything that has a long-term benefit has a short-term cost; investment, building a business, government reform, etc. There is CRIME, and then there is INVESTMENT, and they are opposites.

R-selected people will naturally prefer crime while K-selected people will naturally prefer investment. This brings us to a stable equilibrium, because democracy is a system that works in favor of r-selected people, while elites prefer K-selected models of governance, (monarchy). Thus, elites will prefer the destruction of democracy while your average liberal bioleninist degenerate will also prefer the destruction of democracy, but for different reasons.

The liberal will want to destroy democracy by wasting its resources through debt spending, degeneracy, etc., while the K-selected elites will also prefer it because they are thinking of the long-term, and in the extreme long-term destroying democracy is good. As a result, we can be expected to see these two groups in a cooperative alliance. The name of this alliance is tolerance.

The high/low alliance is the thing we call tolerance. Tolerance amounts to a "let me help you destroy yourself so I can be in power" thing. The insane are actively encouraged to change their gender, practice homosexuality, whatever, because getting rid of them is good business for elites, and concentration camps are verboten. This isn't very charitable or Christian, but it is normal. Tolerance appears to be some kind of wicked indifference to the suffering of others, and indeed it is, but it is also strategic, and the thing tolerated is an existential threat to survival.








Thursday, March 22, 2018

Dawkins wants to eat human flesh








Maybe not.





Friday, March 16, 2018

How to gain power


War is God, and the most effective way to have the most vicious war is to have the greatest number of combatants. This means not only arming the whole population with literal guns, but also with figurative weapons like education. No, not that fake education that so-called "progressives" peddle, but real education that makes people better at controlling others. Of course real education eventually leads to victory by someone, which leads to fake education. You are here now.

By war I mean the society-wide war of all against all, as described by Thomas Hobbes. I do not mean literal military battles. War is good because it advances human progress, and the only morality is progress (in my opinion). I am hyper-progressive, with the term "progressive" having its original meaning as "one who seeks progress," and not the modern version which is the opposite.

It is the Anti-Puritan's position that real education is good, because war is good. But many disagree, and some want peace.

If one's goal is a peaceful, but stagnant civilization, then you want a great mass of illiterate idiots controlled by a state media and state indoctrination apparatus. The purpose of your free public "education" is not to produce educated people, but to de-educate people so that their minds cannot tolerate contradictory thought, or thought contradictory to the institutional needs of the powerful. The free education is a false economy; its purpose is to train a person to be inhibited in their ability to think, and to train conformity. The lecture-style setup bullies the person into not raising their hand and asking questions. The rote memorization of facts crushes original thought. The training in social justice conditions an hysterical reaction to uncomfortable truths, thus guaranteeing perpetual enslavement to state media and conformity.

State education is the educational equivalent of junk food; it worsens a persons mental health, and it acts as a substitute for a real thing that the body needs. It's purpose is to fill an economic demand in order to crowd out any superior alternative that threatens the interests of rent-seekers in positions of political power.

There are four forms of information.
1. offensive truth
2. polite truth
3. offensive lies
4. polite lies
The four forms of information are not treated identically by human agents. If you tell a polite truth you will annoy people because you are being completely obvious. Everyone knows the polite truth. That is things like "the sky is blue." In contrast, offensive lies are never told unless to insult someone.

Inoffensive lies are told all the time, since misrepresentation of reality, (or its hiding), is the key to maintaining power. Society has a bias in favor of the inoffensive and against the offensive, since the average man, having limited information, is not qualified to judge the truth or falsity of everything, and so merely favors the inoffensive. Politicians use a great pile of words to bury a small amount of lies, to minimize the chance of being caught, and confuse the public.

A nation becomes more deceitful over time, especially during a prolonged peace, which delays confrontation with nature's wrath. In a highly prosperous society consensus reality can lag behind the actual by decades. The longer peace lasts the greater the lag. Elites manufacture social stigma to conceal their parasitism. Therefore, whatever is offensive tends to be true, and whatever is polite tends to towards falsity. The unsurprising position of our elites is that internal conflict is evil, since it threatens their institutional power.

Now this brings up an interesting problem, because we live in an era of mass media, mass information, mass education, and mass protest. Every modern political adaption can be seen as an adaption to the political threat of mass power. Voting is not really intended to change things but to capture public discontent in order to give the people a semblance of change. The true purpose of the vote is to inhibit revolutionary energy rather than allow it. TV is the same way, creating a "society of spectacle" to capture human energy.  Drugs, porn, elections, entertainment, bad education, and countless other outlets suck up the discontent of the individual in meaningless excesses in online bitching, virtue signaling, pointless protesting, masturbating, hysteria. We have become a jerk-off culture.

All revolutionary potential found in anarchist-enabling technologies like print media or the internet have been co-opted by state power to further their own ends. Every revolutionary act trains the state to get better at controlling people, censoring them, manipulating their news feeds, trapping them in filter bubbles, and controlling their thoughts through the subtle control of their perceptions, and fake news sources. You don't even have to oppress people when you can just control everything that constitutes their perception of reality. Perversely, every revolutionary anarchist technology has been counter-appropriated as totalitarian-enabling technology. Newspapers and guns, which won the American revolution for democracy, were later appropriated for mass indoctrination and genocide. Radio and TV had potential for challenging power, but were co-opted by PR men to manufacture consent. Now the liberating technology of the internet is being used to trap people in filter bubbles, and feed them fake news.

To control others, that is, to have power, you must first control yourself. Emotional self-discipline is the perquisite of political power, and that is precisely what a social justice education destroys. Those who say they want to empower you want power over you.

Struggle is an exercise in masturbation. It is theater designed to capture political energy. The result is a hyper-stable system; nothing gets in because every revolutionary appetite is provided for.

This brings us at last to the question that defines the title of this essay: how to gain power? The answer is that it is essentially a shakedown operation. First one has to invent a new technology that threatens elite power. A good example of this is Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter. The new tech threatens to disrupt the existing regime stability. The owner then "sells out" to the interests of power in a series of concessions that require payment by the elite to him, and elevation to a higher station of political influence. The developer goes from being an enabler of anarchism to an enabler of totalitarian control. As already stated, this pattern has been historically repeated in succession with print journalism, radio, TV, cable, internet, and social media.

1. Develop a politically disruptive technology.
2. Attack the elites.
3. Sell out slowly for the maximum price.
4. Become an apparatchik.

Not only does the Western state enable attacks against it, but it incorporates the attackers into itself as a new quasi-governmental department of ideological propaganda.

This is why the West is so successful.

Any actual threat that either refuses to be co-opted, or is structurally incapable of being co-opted, is simply destroyed, marginalized, or the founders are attacked in some other asymmetrical way. Maybe we can't get them because of free speech, so we get them through false sex crime accusations. Or maybe their taxes are imperfect, or they broke some other regulation. There is enough law on the books to make everyone guilty of something, and we want them to be guilty so they can be controlled.

"Gains" for freedom are also gains for totalitarianism. The essential function is to produce sublimation of conflict to some sort of game, or ideological conflict, or financial war. The war becomes a function of the state, incorporated into the state, whose rules the elite write. Or to make a joke, "the Borg is the ultimate user."

The synthetic culmination of the anarchist/totalitarian war will be a GAME who's rules the elite write with the assistance of AI, and who's very nature is the creation of a perfect illusion of freedom. By providing the individual with an unlimited buffet of choice, by allowing all revolutionary energies to be expressed, by producing a boundlessly customizable space for law and lifestyle, the state secures itself above reproach, ultimately secure, and infinitely stable. The elites will sit at the top, collect a percentage, bias the game, manipulate the outcome, and the individual will chose which game to live under defined by the rules of a particular Patch of territory.

Call it "algorithmic government."

Perhaps this is not what you had in mind when you wanted to know how to gain power. Perhaps you meant "how to gain power for the people," and that is an entirely different proposition.

Bitcoin is either exactly what it seams: a distributed ledger and private currency that successfully usurps the power of central banks, or it is a CIA opp. Assuming it is the former, then it is the only successful attack on power made by anarchism that has not been co-opted yet. It is also the only system where the founder has disappeared without a trace, and that is important, because as long as the founder is visible a system has a single point of failure that can destroy it. A human face attached to any project creates a an individual in meatspace that can be blackmailed into compliance. Secondly, Bitcoin performs a reverse co-optation of the elites, peeling off enough of them with its speculative nature, and profiting them sufficiently, to buy their relative, (and temporary) indifference. Regulation is always an attack by rent-seekers, regardless of whatever else it is, and if you do not enrich the people currently in power they will bury you.

This model shows the only way forward for anarchism that does not feed totalitarian pushback. Of course the blockchain may turn out to be totalitarian after all if it enables the tracking of all transactions in an entire economy.

Bitcoin is not destroyed by rent-seekers because it is;
Distributed (cannot destroy it without destroying the whole thing).
Anonymous (no meatbags to extort).

It survives because;
It is profitable to some elites.
It's destruction might destabilize the economy.
Government employees have invested in it.

It was allowed to grow to its current threatening size because;
It is difficult to understand the technology (exploits human laziness).
It's threatening nature was not advertised (unlike Cody Wilson or Richard Spencer).
It's implications were not immediately understandable by anyone except its creators.
An anarchist project succeeds when it is distributed, anonymous, profitable to elites, and difficult to understand, and when its threatening nature is not advertised.





Saturday, March 10, 2018

Hypergamy may be a statistical illusion




You have probably seen this chart bandied about as proof that women are hypergamous. I have even made this assertion myself, and I have used hypergamy as proof that women create patriarchy by rewarding it sexually. But now I am not so sure.

You see men have two standards: one for sex and another for marriage. My standards for sex with a woman are incredibly strict, and I never deviate from them. Allow me to list out what these incredibly super-duper strict sexual standards are;

She can't have HIV or any other incurable diseases.
She can't be a false rape accuser. Since that category includes many feminists, she can't be a feminist. A non-zero probability of being falsely accused of rape is still too high, even if most self-described feminists would not accuse a man of rape. Why take the chance when I can just screw some other chick?
She can't be a stalker.
She has to be HUMAN. No animals or aliens.
She has to be ALIVE. No dead girls.
She has to be a she.
She has to be awake.
At least 18+, or whatever the age of consent is.
She has to be consenting.

I said my standards for sex were strict. I did not say they were high. I would fuck just about anything. I have fucked just about anything, and I've fucked lots of fat girls, and I'm not even ashamed. I would probably violate the "human rule" for a sophisticated enough android girlfriend.

Here's the thing: the vast majority of men have standards as low as mine. But our standards are low for sex only. For marriage my standards are much, much higher, but also less strict, because it is virtually impossible to find a woman who is all of the following;

Has no mental problems.
Traditional.
Enjoys cooking, cleaning, and trad wife things.
Free of leftist indoctrination.
Horny but loyal.
And numerous other standards.

If you survey men on what women they find attractive you will find that they are total sluts, and this lack of standards will show up in the survey results. You will come to the conclusion that men have "reasonable" standards while women have hypergamous standards. But this is b*llshit because women get hit on a lot more than men.

A typical young women on a website like Twitter probably gets a dozen guys per year hitting on her or asking for sex. If a woman is like a man she will have two standards: one for sex and one for marriage. But her sex standard will be much, much closer to her marriage standard than a guys. After all, if hundreds of men want to fuck you why bother having low standards? Why not just apply the same "marriage filter" to all of them? Your standards will always be high. But this doesn't mean that you will be hypergamous.

For women, her standards will be superficial when she is just looking for sex, and deep when she is just looking for marriage. But her standards will be high all the time.

As for guys, his standards will be low when he is just looking for sex and high when he is just looking for marriage.

So, if a woman is superficial (concerned with a man's looks rather than personality) that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a slut, and if a man has low standards that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a guy who just wants to get laid.

Female slut = concern with looks to the exclusion of personality.
Male slut = low standards.

Women are not hypergamous, which is to say, men are not less hypergamous than women where marriage is concerned. WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED, men want high quality mates, just like women. But all surveys show men having lower standards because they are showing the standard for sex and not marriage, and guys have two standards.

By the way, shit testing is the wrong way to find a husband. Men are put off by shit testing. Since a man's standards are high for a wife and low for sex, a woman who shit test's too much runs the risk of being perceived as low quality from a man's perspective, and thus, being put in the "fuck only" category because she is not perceived as wife material. The worse a woman's behavior the fewer men will consider her marriageable. Personality actually does matter, but only for men looking for marriage.

The correct way to find a husband is to demand that a man make a time commitment to a woman. Force him to wait a few weeks for sex. Most guys who just wants to get laid will be deterred. Then do "wifely things," like make him dinner. A guy who wants a wife will appreciate these things while a guy who wants sex will be annoyed you are wasting his time.

Basically, if you want a husband your goal is to determine the following:

Which standard is he applying to me: the low standard or the high one?
Horny men who don't care about marriage will exhibit impatience, disregard for your feelings, asshole behavior, lack of appreciation for wifely things, etc.

Every statistical proof is a proof of men's low standards for "just sex." Hypergamy is a relative concept. It is women's behavior relative to men, but the stat for men is an illusion, and where marriage is concerned men have every reason to be as selective as women, if not more so.

When someone points to a proof of hypergamy they are pointing to a stat that shows women are more strict than men, but women apply their marriage filter to everything because they have more suitors to choose from. Yeah, of course you are "hypergamous" if you are sifting through a dozen sexual propositions. But this doesn't mean your standards are actually higher then men's, not for marriage anyway. In fact men may actually have higher standards for marriage than women, because while a woman is looking for one man to provide for her offspring, a man is weighing the possibility of losing the ability to spread his seed to multiple other women. Thus, to a woman, a man represents a possibility of spreading her genes, but to a man, a single wife reduces his ability to spread his genes. If a man is a "chad" then marriage is a bad deal: the chad will probably impregnate fewer women as a result of being married, and marriage is genetically costly. Such men will have impossibly high standards for any potential wife.

The better looking a man is the stricter his standard for marriage will be, until at a certain point he will shift from a strategy of having one wife, to either a strategy of having no wife, or a wife + mistress combination. This shift will occur at a lower point than you might think, and depends largely on the income of the man, cost of divorce, etc. Men are not strictly trying to maximize pregnancies, but rather, because of evolutionary legacy, most men are trying to maximize the amount of sex they have. Men get married because they are low enough in market value that sex within marriage > than sex outside of marriage. They got married because they believe they will get laid more being married than not.

One more thing.

Liberalism is undoubtedly a shit test invented by smart liberals so they can find and assortatively mate with one another.

Think about it.

The "true believers" repeat the doctrine loudly. The smartest liberals in the room never take concepts like gender, oppression, etc., very seriously. Loudly proclaiming you hatred of White men is a good way to exclude yourself from being marriageable to all the White men in the room. A man's standards for marriage are high, but his standards for sex are low. Thus, every behavior that the left promotes: feminism, transgenderism, lesbianism, etc., has the effect of making the women who engage in it unmarriageable. This is deliberate because the left doesn't want White people to reproduce and create more Republican voters, but it is also a shit test that excludes every women dumb enough to fall for it from the marriage market.

If you're looking for an intelligent wife you promote rabid leftism and social justice, step back, watch who goes crazy, and then pick a mate from the pool of women sophisticated enough to remain silent and absent from the test.

It's an inverted "point dear, make horse" exam. Instead of punishing everyone who expresses insufficient enthusiasm they are punishing everyone who is "basic." The basic bitch goes on and on about "Drumpf" "oppression," and "White men," and every White man knows "not that one." Remember that men will exclude a woman if there is even a non-zero probability of a false rape accusation, and every feminist basically wears that like a neon sign.




Friday, March 9, 2018

Neil deGrasse Tyson arrives at a conclusion I figured out years ago


I concluded that cold wars were linked to colonization, and were one of the few reasons for technological progress, along with greed, and planned obsolesce. In short there are a handful of reasons people do things and without these nothing gets done.

List.

Military competition
Profit.
Product Iteration

Faith is a reason I forgot.


Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Reasons to work out that have nothing to do with women, sex, or losing weight


People try to motivate each other to work out with arguments like "you can lose some weight," or "if you get ripped you'll get laid." While these arguments are true they are based on extrinsic motives. That is, they are external to the individual. In contrast to extrinsic motives are intrinsic motives, or internal motives. These are the things you do because they make you feel good.

To be blunt, extrinsic motives can be demoralizing. I don't really care what a woman thinks about my body, and don't want to. I have no desire to get in shape in order to get laid. I could get laid now with a fat chick, and its all the same to me. I don't want the world's approval. I don't care if my body disgusts people. In fact, disgusting people makes me a feel a little like I have "owned" them. It's like, "Here asshole, watch my flab jiggle a little as I jump around." "Yeah that's right. Fuck you. I know you are revolted. I can do this all day and there is nothing you can do to stop me."

No. The reason I work out is because it feels good. I like the tired burn that puts me to sleep afterward. I sleep both better and less when I work out. I like how I feel stronger, and I like not feeling tired all the time. I also like having fewer headaches. Working out also helps my back, and makes me more flexible.

I don't do sit ups because I can't stand them. I don't do deadlifts because I don't like pain. My work out consists of a mixture of cardio machines, free weights, and interval training, with a walk afterwards. I don't care about losing weight, and I don't care if you like my fat ass.

And I've still lost 2 inches off my waist line and gained some definition.

Because there is no such thing as a workout without gains. Even if you don't lose weight you are still building some muscle. You will gain muscle tone and fit better into your pants. You will still look better and have more energy. Gyms are full of people who look critically at anyone who doesn't have a model quality body. Ignore them. Go during off-peak times or use an "old people's gym." If you are in Colorado this means one of the low cost Recreation Centers. If you are a woman consider using a women's gym. Don't ever go to Planet Fitness. They have an alarm that goes off when you work out too hard. If you are just starting a workout you want something in between the two extremes of "gym bro assholes" and "Planet Fitness don't-fat-shame-me-lazy-non-gyms." You want an old people's gym, or a family gym like the YMCA. If you really hate working out take a Zumba or dance class. Seriously. I once lost 40 pounds over one semester in f*cking Contemporary Dance.

If that doesn't make you laugh, back when I was a size 31' I even took a full year of ballet. FYI, I have amazing arches. Lol. Yes, I was once a male ballet dancer.





And I danced with about 30 chicks with no competition in the class from other men, and took some of them out on dates. I looked great and could lift a women off the ground while standing on the balls of my feet.



The Pure Anti Thesis, Version no. 1


Conventional wisdom is that there is something wrong with the world, and that this "something" — whatever it is, needs to be fixed.

Everyone believes this; conservatives, reactionaries, leftists, feminists — hell even Hitler believed that Jews were ruining the world.

Consider for a moment that what is wrong with the world is itself the feeling that there is something wrong with it, something oppressive. The feeling is the problem, and not some objective reality.

This sensation is genetic? Or cultural? Or a mixture of both? It makes people act out in horrible ways, thus becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It is actually the sense of bring oppressed that is oppressing us, and not any objective fact of being oppressed. Any actual oppression is caused by one oppressing another in an attempt to "liberate" itself from oppression. We are in hell and the demons are us. We torture each other trying to liberate ourselves from each other. Our struggle for freedom becomes our slavery to each others' abuses.

What needs curing is not gender, oppression, patriarchy, or whatever, but the genetically programmed sense of being oppressed.

Every philosophy/religion/ideology must inevitably have evil consequences because it produces struggle in the human race, and that struggle results in atrocities. The point is to cure the genetic need for struggle — not to win the fight. Fighting is just more evil.

The pure anti thesis is not that there is some struggle worth fighting for, but that all struggles for liberation lead to slavery.



Friday, March 2, 2018

Cleoblacktra


Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Check out Land Translator's Exposition On Landian Accelerationism


Translating Nick Land is a necessary endeavor because all authors are prone to making mistakes. Much of Land's theory consists of an unsubstantiated appeal to the "maniacal laugh." People don't challenge his ideas because it is shocking when someone takes the side of Skynet against the human race. This shock factor conceals some really bad arguments. There is a lot of irrational pessimism there too. A lot of reactionaries can't seem to tell the difference between depressing and true. Then on top of all of this the dense language is used to conceal the ideas. Obviously you can't refute something if no one can understand it: the author can just accuse you of misrepresentation.

Translation is the first step.

Link.



How Patchwork Could Happen Naturally


The only chart I could find


The world, right up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, was dominated by forces of consolidation & empire. A simple dynamic existed in that world: the larger your nation the more threatening it is to its neighbors. The tendency was to grow as big as you could, as fast as possible. Tribes were conquered to make kingdoms. Kingdoms were conquered to make empires. A lot of nations that we wouldn't now call empires were called just that back then: the Ethiopian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, etc. Everyone got an empire.

Imperial colonization meant that the number of countries in the world steadily shrank. If the atomic bomb had never been invented it is quite conceivable that we would now be living under a one-world government of some type, and that a third world war would have produced it. Global communism maybe?

Einstein sent a letter to FDR about the possibility of building a nuke in 1939. The US then dropped 2 of the things on Japan in 1945.

After the bomb ,the force of consolidation was replaced by the force of fission. Endless proxy wars helped to divide the empires that formally existed, though the fissional process may have stalled a little with the end of the Soviet Union. Will China restart the process? All it takes is a new Cold War.

Given enough time proxy war may turn the whole world into patchwork of city states. Only way to stop this is to end proxy war by giving every nation the bomb. All nuclear armed states will work to prevent that of course, and thus, they will guarantee that the process produces the maximum number of countries possible.

The world becomes a patchwork. Everyone gets the bomb. War becomes impossible. Nations switch to financially manipulating each other's internal politics. "Diplomacy markets" take over. Final stage of human history = world ancap patchwork.

Then maybe one of the city states does full anarcho capitalism. Maybe it out-competes the regular patch. So the final stage of human history becomes world ancap.

Terrorism might actually be putting a break on the whole thing by delegitimizing secession movements. A genomics arms race could speed it up. As the number of countries with nukes increases the number of ways to have a cold war increases exponentially. Cold Wars led to colonization/expansion in at least two eras of human history: the European conquests and the Space Race. Perhaps North Korea adopts state capitalism and enters the space race. The more parties that participate in a Cold War the more irreversible it becomes. That is why the Moon Landing went no further while the European colonizers conquered the whole world. A two party Cold War ends when one of the parties withdraws, (The USSR), while a multi-party Cold War can only end if everyone withdraws, joins into a union, (like the EU), or gets conquered, (like the Chinese wars of unification).

All of this brings up another point: the gap between getting a bomb and getting a launch delivery vehicle is extremely dangerous. If you have a nuke but no way to delivery it then you have an incentive for someone to invade you. If you don't have a delivery vehicle, like an ICBM, you have little counter-incentive for them to leave you alone. But this creates an uncertainty, because you might be able to pull off a nuclear counter-attack against an invader. You want to have the launch vehicle figured out and the nuke procured on the same day, that way you go from being a subject power to a world power instantly.

Uncertainty is the basis of war. More uncertainty of outcome = more probability of war.

The intelligent strategy would be to make ICBMs available to every country, but nukes incredibly scarce and expensive. This preserves the power of large states while limiting their ability to get themselves destroyed. They won't do it of course, but they should. And no, all the world's nations should not be given nukes at once as that would throw everything into crisis. The collapse of an empire is always met with an increase in global conflict. Sometimes this even leads to world war. The transition to patchwork is best managed as a slow boil that disintegrates everyone's geopolitical power gradually.

Patchwork may be more of a prediction than a normative formula.




Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Gun control is extortion


If this add offends you then you are what is wrong with the world. It is your values, or rather, anti-values, that made this add dangerous. There is nothing wrong with the add. There is something wrong with you, if you are offended.


Gun control is extortion.

Basically,

"We're insane/evil/incompetent so you have to forfeit your rights."

In the 50's everyone had guns and there were no school shootings. Leftists destroyed the high trust culture with the sexual revolution, mass immigration, equality, women's rights, etc. Everything worked just fine when the White man was in charge. They destroy a functioning civilization and then insist you give up your rights. Ban liberals, not guns.

Liberals are why God invented internment camps.

The principle of gun rights is the principle that just because everyone else around you is insane doesn't mean YOU should be punished. Why? Because fuck them, that's why. If they are too stupid, evil, or insane to embrace patriarchal rule by the White man then let their kids die. Schools are always on the forefront of anarcho tyranny anyway. The parents refuse to allow children to receive justice for their crimes and bullying, and thus, the parents create anarchy. When you reach the scale of having thousands of people in one place you have created a full blown society composed of children. In a one room schoolhouse with 25 children there may be 1 bully, (a rate of 4%), but in a school of 1,000 there could be 40. You can defend yourself against 1 attacker. If 40 people gang up on you then you need a gun. Hence, tormented children, quite rationally, get guns and defend themselves.

Everyone, conservatives included, seem to think that the right of self-defense does not apply to children. But humans obey incentives, children are human, and if you put a person in a pressure cooker of indoctrination and bullying you get explosive results. The parents create the anarchy by preventing the just enforcement of law against their violent spawn. The teachers create the tyranny through the indoctrination of liberal madness. The result is what you deserve.

There is nothing wrong with children that isn't the fault of adults.